28.10.2014 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Abstract<strong>in</strong>g away from the particulars of the various algebraic logics that Qu<strong>in</strong>e proposes as<br />

possible substitutes for a more traditional first-order predicate logic, three critical aspects of how<br />

complex formulas are built are relevant for our purposes: (i) conjunction of atomic formulas,<br />

(ii) identification of variables with<strong>in</strong> conjuncts <strong>and</strong> across conjuncts, <strong>and</strong> (iii) selection of a<br />

variable for ‘outside composition,’ that is, selection of a variable with<strong>in</strong> a formula which will<br />

be targeted by an operator that outscopes that formula. As we now show, all three features<br />

of Qu<strong>in</strong>e’s reanalysis play an essential role <strong>in</strong> our model of the syntax/semantics <strong>in</strong>terface of<br />

Oneida. We focus <strong>in</strong> this paper on three of the five major constructions we have identified <strong>in</strong><br />

Oneida. For considerations of space, the description is <strong>in</strong>formal or semi-formal, <strong>and</strong> we focus<br />

on the semantic effect of the syntactic comb<strong>in</strong>ation, <strong>in</strong> particular on the conjunctive mode of<br />

semantic composition (see Koenig <strong>and</strong> Michelson 2012 for details on the syntactic component<br />

of these constructions).<br />

4.1. How a conjunctive mode of semantic composition works<br />

We discuss the most frequent construction first, the comb<strong>in</strong>ation of a verb <strong>and</strong> an external<br />

NP. The semantic content of words <strong>and</strong> phrases is represented through the values of two<br />

attributes, INDEX <strong>and</strong> CONTENT. The value of the INDEX attribute st<strong>and</strong>s for the (discourse)<br />

referent of an expression; the value of the CONTENT attribute for the semantic content of a word<br />

or phrase. We assume that values of the INDEX attribute are sorted so as to dist<strong>in</strong>guish between<br />

nom<strong>in</strong>al <strong>and</strong> situational <strong>in</strong>dices. We illustrate our use of these attributes on the first of the three<br />

constructions we discuss, namely, the construction responsible for comb<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g a verb <strong>and</strong> an NP,<br />

<strong>in</strong>formally described <strong>in</strong> (27a). As is traditional <strong>in</strong> HPSG, identically numbered tags represent<br />

shared <strong>in</strong>formation. Thus, the presence of the two tags 1 ensures that the mean<strong>in</strong>gs of the two<br />

daughters share a variable.<br />

(27) a. A phrase with a nom<strong>in</strong>al <strong>in</strong>dex i <strong>and</strong> a phrase with a situational <strong>in</strong>dex j, one of<br />

whose participants is i, can form a phrase with <strong>in</strong>dex j.<br />

[ ]<br />

b. nom<strong>in</strong>al-dislocation ⇒<br />

INDEX 1 esit<br />

CONTENT∃x( 4 Q( 1 e, 3 x) ∧ 2 P( 3 x))<br />

[ ] [ ]<br />

INDEX 1 esit<br />

INDEX 3 xnom<br />

CONTENT 4 Q( 1 e, 3 x) CONTENT 2 P( 1 x)<br />

In (27), the left daughter corresponds to the verb, <strong>and</strong> the right daughter to the NP. For<br />

ease of exposition, we describe the construction as the local comb<strong>in</strong>ation of a verb (a situationdenot<strong>in</strong>g<br />

phrase) with an NP. As mentioned before, <strong>in</strong> reality the dependency between the NP<br />

<strong>and</strong> the verb can be unbounded. Note also that the order of the two daughters is not a matter of<br />

grammar. The nom<strong>in</strong>al dislocation construction says that the content of the comb<strong>in</strong>ation of an<br />

NP <strong>and</strong> a verb will <strong>in</strong>clude the conjunction of the content of the NP together with that of the<br />

verb (or sentence) it is adjo<strong>in</strong>ed to. 7 Aside from existential closure, the construction says that the<br />

content of the mother node is the conjunction of the contents of the daughters (with identically<br />

numbered tags 2 <strong>and</strong> 4 <strong>in</strong>dicat<strong>in</strong>g, as usual, shared <strong>in</strong>formation).<br />

7 Our <strong>in</strong>formal statement of the construction is loosely based on Lexical Resource <strong>Semantics</strong>, see Richter <strong>and</strong><br />

Sailer 2004. We simplify the representation <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>clude existential closure of co-<strong>in</strong>dexed variables so as to make<br />

our semantic contents look more familiar to readers. We treat semantic arguments of verbs as def<strong>in</strong>ite by default<br />

(represented here, <strong>in</strong>formally, as pronouns). We also omit issues hav<strong>in</strong>g to do with the underspecification of semantic<br />

scope, as they are not relevant to the ma<strong>in</strong> purpose of this paper.<br />

196

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!