Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 9 (EISS 9 ... - CSSP - CNRS

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Crabbé, Benoit. 2005. Grammatical development with XMG. Proceedings of LACL 2005, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 3492, 84–100. Springer. Crabbé, Benoit, and Denys Duchier. 2005. Metagrammar redux. Constraint solving and language processing, ed. by Henning Christiansen, Peter Rossen Skadhauge, and Jørgen Villadsen, LNCS 3438, 32–47. Springer. Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. Frame semantics. Linguistics in the morning calm, ed. by The Linguistic Society of Korea, 111–137. Hanshin Publishing Co. Fillmore, Charles J., Christopher R. Johnson, and Miriam R. L. Petruck. 2003. Background to FrameNet. International Journal of Lexicography 16.235–250. Frank, Robert. 2002. Phrase structure composition and syntactic dependencies. MIT Press. Gardent, Claire, and Laura Kallmeyer. 2003. Semantic Construction in FTAG. Proceedings of EACL 2003, 123–130. Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press. Joshi, Aravind K., and Yves Schabes. 1997. Tree-Adjoning Grammars. Handbook of formal languages vol. 3. beyond words, ed. by Grzegorz Rozenberg and Arto Saloma, 69–123. Springer. Kallmeyer, Laura, and Aravind K. Joshi. 2003. Factoring Predicate Argument and Scope Semantics: Underspecified Semantics with LTAG. Research on Language and Computation 1.3–58. Kallmeyer, Laura, and Rainer Osswald. 2012. An Analysis of Directed Motion Expressions with Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammars and Frame Semantics. Proceedings of WoLLIC 2012, ed. by Luke Ong and Ruy de Queiroz, LNCS 7456, 34–55. Springer. Kallmeyer, Laura, and Maribel Romero. 2008. Scope and situation binding in LTAG using semantic unification. Research on Language and Computation 6.3–52. Koenig, Jean-Pierre, and Anthony R. Davis. 2001. Sublexical modality and the structure of lexical semantic representations. Linguistics and Philosophy 24.71–124. Koenig, Jean-Pierre, and Anthony R. Davis. 2006. The KEY to lexical semantic representation. Journal of Linguistics 42.71–108. Krifka, Manfred. 2004. Semantic and pragmatic conditions for the dative alternation. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 4.1–32. Kroch, Anthony. 1989. Asymmetries in long-distance extraction in a Tree Adjoining Grammar. Alternative conceptions of phrase structure, ed. by Mark R. Baltin und Anthony S. Kroch. University of Chicago Press. Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 2005. Argument realization. Cambridge University Press. Müller, Stefan. 2006. Phrasal or lexical constructions. Language 82.850–883. Rappaport Hovav, Malka, and Beth Levin. 1998. Building verb meanings. The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors, ed. by Miriam Butt and Wilhelm Geuder, 97–134. CSLI Publications. Rappaport Hovav, Malka, and Beth Levin. 2008. The English dative alternation: A case for verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics 44.129–167. Sag, Ivan. 2012. Sign-Based Construction Grammar: An informal synopsis. Sign-based construction grammar, ed. by H. Boas and I. Sag. CSLI Publications. Van Valin, Robert D., and Randy J. LaPolla. 1997. Syntax. Cambridge University Press. Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. 2005. Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge University Press. Vijay-Shanker, K., and Aravind K. Joshi. 1988. Feature structures based tree adjoining grammar. Proceedings of COLING, 714–719. Xia, Fei. 2001. Automatic grammar generation from two different perspectives. University of Pennsylvania dissertation. Xia, Fei, Martha Palmer, and K. Vijay-Shanker. 2010. Developing tree-adjoining grammars with lexical descriptions. Supertagging: Using complex lexical descriptions in natural language processing, ed. by Srinivas Bangalore and Aravind K. Joshi, 73–110. MIT Press. XTAG Research Group. 2001. A Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammar for English. Tech. rep., Institute for Research in Cognitive Science, University of Pennsylvania. 184
The (non)universality of syntactic selection and functional application Jean-Pierre Koenig and Karin Michelson ∗ University at Buffalo, The State University of New York Nothing beats diversity for finding out what is truly universal about natural languages. But the importance of diversity goes beyond the obvious fact that universality can be recognized only in the face of diversity. Coming to grips with languages that differ in important ways from more familiar languages forces us to recognize implicit analytical assumptions. Rather than assuming a requisite ‘traditional’ way of analyzing certain data, we must instead acknowledge the assumptions our analysis depends upon, assumptions that demand justification. Confronting an ‘exotic’ language (where exotic means distinct from what we know) forces us to ask what the empirical basis is for an analysis; it can also drive us to conceive of a new and different organization of the grammatical systems of the languages we already know much about. In short, it can wake us up from a dogmatic slumber. For some, the idea that languages are quite diverse in their grammatical systems is a given (e.g. Evans and Levinson 2009), so drawing attention to the value of diversity is not new. We pose a further question in this paper: What takes the place of features that are often thought to be universal but that we show are only very frequent? To put it another way, we engage in a kind of reconstruction of our analytical tools using the rather ‘exotic’ language Oneida, a Northern Iroquoian language. We will make two bold claims about Oneida that make the description of Oneida look different from most (if not all) descriptions of other languages and that provide the incentive for our reassessment of how to think about possible grammatical systems. 1 Claim 1. There is no syntactic selection of phrases by verbs (or nouns) in Oneida. ∗ We gratefully acknowledge the Oneida speakers from the Oneida Nation of the Thames in Ontario, Canada, who, since 1979, have so willingly and enthusiastically shared their knowledge of the Oneida language and culture with Karin Michelson. Especially valuable as evidence for the claims of this paper are excerpts from recorded “stories’ (life histories, ghost stories, hilarious events, conversations about family, etc.); these are identified by speaker, a title, and the year recorded. Unattributed examples are from Norma Jamieson or from Michelson and Doxtator 2002. We thank Rui Chaves, Jeff Good and Hanni Woodbury for comments on a previous version of this paper. We also thank the reviewers, and especially Christopher Piñón, for their comments. 1 Throughout this paper, we will abstract away from important differences among syntacticians and semanticists on how to best account for the generalizations which Oneida challenges, or the importance of these generalizations. But, we believe that something roughly equivalent to syntactic selection and functional application is part and parcel of the model of (most) natural languages in all extant frameworks. For instance, although the constructionist approach presented in Goldberg 1995 does not discuss the relation between verbs and subjects or objects in terms of syntactic selection, her notion of profiling of participant roles embodies the bulk of what we mean by syntactic selection. Similarly, although Langacker (1987) points out the limits of compositionality and does not adopt lambda-calculus and the concept of functional application to model the compositional aspects of semantic combinatorics, his notions of elaboration and elaboration sites embody the critical aspects of both for our purposes. © 2012 Jean-Pierre Koenig and Karin Michelson Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 9, ed. Christopher Piñón, pp. 185–205 EISS 9 http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss9/
Page 1 and 2:
EISS 9 Empirical Issues in Syntax a
Page 3 and 4:
Contents Preface v Valentina Bianch
Page 5:
Preface The ninth volume of the ser
Page 8 and 9:
contexts; we provide experimental e
Page 10 and 11:
which we included random intercepts
Page 12 and 13:
• Locality condition: The proposi
Page 14 and 15:
[[(1B′)]] f = {invite(john, x) |
Page 16 and 17:
focus projection, and require that
Page 18 and 19:
The term ‘root clause’ was intr
Page 20 and 21:
pared the degree of metrical promin
Page 22 and 23:
Focus in situ + negative tag Focus
Page 24 and 25:
Horvath, Julia. 2010. “Discourse-
Page 26 and 27:
languages: Hungarian (H) and Romani
Page 28 and 29:
attach-wh usually licenses a single
Page 30 and 31:
on’ requires an overt preposition
Page 32 and 33:
of syntactic priming: the stricter
Page 34 and 35:
(43) Nu văd cum și, mai important
Page 36 and 37:
for certain values to be identical
Page 38 and 39:
ing the CNJ-LST proposed for coordi
Page 40 and 41:
oth of these cases, as well as the
Page 42 and 43:
References Abeillé, Anne. 2005. Le
Page 44 and 45:
the addressee by virtue of linguist
Page 46 and 47:
dressee is enticed by the imperativ
Page 48 and 49:
some way. She notes that it is not
Page 50 and 51:
. A: Give me an aspirin! B: # I don
Page 52 and 53:
Effective preference structures can
Page 54 and 55:
the content gets realized (i.e. he
Page 56 and 57:
to the principle in (39), which aim
Page 58 and 59:
Kaufmann follows the second strateg
Page 60 and 61:
5. Portner 2005, 2007: a dedicated
Page 62 and 63:
to realize the imperative once he a
Page 64 and 65:
epresentation and defeasible reason
Page 66 and 67:
equative reading can be paraphrased
Page 68 and 69:
‘the greatest French soldier’ t
Page 70 and 71:
2.4. Plurals 2.4.1. Plural definite
Page 72 and 73:
group of people constituting the on
Page 74 and 75:
3. A(n) sole/*only The solution to
Page 76 and 77:
ichest i : richest ii :: only : sol
Page 78 and 79:
In the case of a singular definite
Page 80 and 81:
The lexical entries we have given f
Page 82 and 83:
Strawson, P. F. 1950. On referring.
Page 84 and 85:
In this paper, I show that a dialec
Page 86 and 87:
(3) […] argretter, qu’dins ch
Page 88 and 89:
2.3. Are there any restrictions on
Page 90 and 91:
stand to the right of que2, which,
Page 92 and 93:
heads FinP (Bovetto 2002, López 20
Page 94 and 95:
(24) a. j’prétinds qu’à l’h
Page 96 and 97:
. *T’as raison Colas, faut tacher
Page 98 and 99:
6. Conclusion This paper shows that
Page 100 and 101:
Appendix Frequency of DCC for embed
Page 102 and 103:
In this paper, I provide empirical
Page 104 and 105:
subjects are realized in a cleft to
Page 106 and 107:
problem with the examples in (11),
Page 108 and 109:
continuations chosen after exclusiv
Page 110 and 111:
The questions were of two forms: ei
Page 112 and 113:
quantified lexical subject any elem
Page 114 and 115:
QUD:Qui a corrigé les copies? SF S
Page 116 and 117:
Finally, the ranking proposed, with
Page 118 and 119:
Onea, Edgar, and David Beaver. 2011
Page 120 and 121:
semantics of these constructions ha
Page 122 and 123:
filter. A quantifier like two sailo
Page 124 and 125:
are not principal filters, can be c
Page 126 and 127:
(22) monotone increasing NPs like a
Page 128 and 129:
the equation of the formulas in (27
Page 130 and 131:
presuppose the non-emptiness of the
Page 132 and 133:
tune with the well-known observatio
Page 134 and 135:
Keenan, Edward. 1996. The semantics
Page 136 and 137:
(2) Paul veut que nous {soyons SUBJ
Page 138 and 139:
(8) Le professeur subodore que les
Page 140 and 141: • verbs describing a course of ac
Page 142 and 143: The semantico-pragmatic condition h
Page 144 and 145: force is stronger than that of the
Page 146 and 147: dire (‘say’) or suggérer (‘s
Page 148 and 149: However, it must be stressed that t
Page 150 and 151: If it is the case that those moves
Page 152 and 153: certain environments. Again, the re
Page 154 and 155: Gross, Maurice. 1978. Correspondanc
Page 156 and 157: Semantically, the difference betwee
Page 158 and 159: (14) a. Descriptive meaning of (13)
Page 160 and 161: What is crucial here is that the en
Page 162 and 163: (30) a. Heute steigt sau die coole
Page 164 and 165: In the following, we will give a te
Page 166 and 167: These contrasts in their syntactic
Page 168 and 169: (50) [ QP je- [ DP der [ NP Student
Page 170 and 171: degree expression out of a seemingl
Page 172 and 173: 969264437.pdf. Koopman, Hilda, and
Page 174 and 175: semantic representation and computa
Page 176 and 177: NP [AGR=[PERS=3,NUM=sing]] John S N
Page 178 and 179: Class CanSubj S Class DirObj VP Cla
Page 180 and 181: a. ⎡ ⎤ causation [ ] activity C
Page 182 and 183: lexical meaning PO pattern DO patte
Page 184 and 185: ⎡ ⎤ a. S causation [ ] NP [I= 1
Page 186 and 187: Class VSpine syntactic dimension VP
Page 188 and 189: sends ⎡ ⎤ causation EFFECTOR 8
Page 192 and 193: Claim 2. Semantic composition of ve
Page 194 and 195: (7) yo-k2nol-ú 3Z/N.SG.PAT-rain-ST
Page 196 and 197: inanimate are not selected by verba
Page 198 and 199: in (25), or from transitive to intr
Page 200 and 201: (26) a. ⎡ ⎤ English-transitive-
Page 202 and 203: Abstracting away from the particula
Page 204 and 205: As shown by the statement of the no
Page 206 and 207: (36) Áhs2 ni-ka-nláht-a-ke 2-té-
Page 208 and 209: coincident and dualic prefixes, mea
Page 210 and 211: aises, of course, the question of w
Page 213 and 214: A finer look at predicate decomposi
Page 215 and 216: kill is compatible with wide variet
Page 217 and 218: Do these relations correspond to di
Page 219 and 220: paper. The wider claim is that sube
Page 221 and 222: More significantly, all involve dir
Page 223 and 224: assume a syntactic view of event st
Page 225 and 226: other heads. Secondly, spell-out pa
Page 227 and 228: Finally, (53) shows the inchoative
Page 229 and 230: ⏟ AA ⏟ (61) [ v P … v TR [ Ak
Page 231 and 232: Negation-resistant polarity items A
Page 233 and 234: To summarize, these indefinites can
Page 235 and 236: covert alternative-sensitive operat
Page 237 and 238: (17) a. any book = ∃x∈D. x is a
Page 239 and 240: tion, negative quantifiers and with
Page 241 and 242:
Since PPIs are endowed with the [+D
Page 243 and 244:
4.5. Extra-clausal negation A cruci
Page 245 and 246:
What this data shows us is that PPI
Page 247 and 248:
Prima facie it appears to be the ca
show all

Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 9 (EISS 9 ... - CSSP - CNRS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?