Situations and Syntactic Structures

Author(s):  
Gillian Ramchand

Syntax has shown that there is a hierarchical ordering of projections within the verb phrase, although researchers differ with respect to how fine grained they assume the hierarchy to be). This book explores the hierarchy of the verb phrase from a semantic perspective, attempting to derive it from semantically sorted zones in the compositional semantics. The empirical ground is the auxiliary ordering found in the grammar of English. A new theory of semantic zones is proposed and formalized, and explicit semantic and morphological analyses are presented of all the auxiliary constructions of English that derive their rigid order of composition without recourse to lexical item specific ordering statements.

Author(s):  
Nicholas Asher

Anaphora describes a dependence of the interpretation of one natural language expression on the interpretation of another natural language expression. For example, the pronoun ‘her’ in (1) below is anaphorically dependent for its interpretation on the interpretation of the noun phrase ‘Sally’ because ‘her’ refers to the same person ‘Sally’ refers to. - (1) Sally likes her car. As (2) below illustrates, anaphoric dependencies also occur across sentences, making anaphora a ‘discourse phenomenon’: - (2) A farmer owned a donkey. He beat it. The analysis of anaphoric dependence has been the focus of a great deal of study in linguistics and philosophy. Anaphoric dependencies are difficult to accommodate within the traditional conception of compositional semantics of Tarski and Montague precisely because the meaning of anaphoric elements is dependent on other elements of the discourse. Many expressions can be used anaphorically. For instance, anaphoric dependencies hold between the expression ‘one’ and the indefinite noun phrase ‘a labrador’ in (3) below; between the verb phrase ‘loves his mother’ and a ‘null’ anaphor (or verbal auxiliary) in (4); between the prepositional phrase ‘to Paris’ and the lexical item ‘there’ in (5); and between a segment of text and the pronoun ‘it’ in (6). - (3) Susan has a labrador. I want one too. - (4) John loves his mother. Fred does too. - (5) I didn’t go to Paris last year. I don’t go there very often. - (6) One plaintiff was passed over for promotion. Another didn’t get a pay increase for five years. A third received a lower wage than men doing the same work. But the jury didn’t believe any of it. Some philosophers and linguists have also argued that verb tenses generate anaphoric dependencies.


1991 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Teresa Espinal

The aim of this paper is to identify which syntactic structures allow the interpretation of meaningless or expletive negation and under what conditions formal negation appears in the syntax of natural languages, with especial reference to Central Catalan. I shall describe two syntactic environments: (a) the negation which occurs at the subordinate clause of a comparative structure of inequality, and (b) the negation which occurs at the subordinate clause in the subjunctive tense-mood of certain predicates. In both structures I shall assume that there is a lexical item at the main clause which subcategorizes, among other possible complements, for a que (than, that) clause. At D-structure there is, furthermore, a NegP which is the complement of this conjunction. At the level of LF no expletive is specified, because the logical specifications of the lexical items which subcategorize for these subordinate clauses absorb the value of the negative operator.


2015 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna-Maria De Cesare ◽  
Davide Garassino

AbstractThe goal of the paper is to shed new light on the semantics and pragmatics of cleft sentences by discussing the exhaustive interpretation typically associated with these complex syntactic structures. Based on a fine-grained analysis of the contexts in which “exhaustiveness” can be cancelled as well as reinforced by English


2013 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 287-297
Author(s):  
Paul Isambert

The French manner adverb autrement, as indicated by its morphology, derives a representation of manner from another (autre = other) representation ; the latter may be retrieved either in a subordinate clause following the adverb (autrement que P) or in the context preceding autrement. In the latter case, studied here, an anaphor is performed, and this paper, based on a corpus study, shows how identifying the antecedent is guided by clues, ranging from the verb phrase where autrement occurs to the environing discourse structure. In some cases, those clues are so frequent that one can talk about ‘discourse strategies’ or even collocations. It is thus shown that the adverb’s interpretation obtains not so much from compositional semantics (even helped by context) than from the properties of the constructions where it occurs.


Author(s):  
Lori Coulter

This paper provides a background on the role of world knowledge in disambiguating modals and proposes treating the disambiguation of counterfactuals as a slightly more tractable sub-case of the general problem. Using a model theoretic possible worlds approach, counterfactuals are disambiguated with respect to a world of evaluation resembling classic Formal Semantic treatments (e.g., Kratzer 1977, 1981, 1989; Lewis 1973; Veltman 2005). The world, which provides a context of evaluation, is located through the interaction of the antecedent and consequent propositions with world knowledge axioms. This approach to modal disambiguation provides a connection between a grammar and the type of inferences typically handled in Knowledge Representation Systems (e.g., Hobbs et al. 1990) in a limited domain. The model theoretic semantics are linked with typed feature structures in an HPSG syntax (Pollard and Sag 1994). This grammar is implemented in TRALE, Penn's (2004) Prolog-based framework for typed feature structure grammar development. The compositional semantics in TRALE is specified in Penn and Richters' (2004, 2005) Constraint Language for Lexical Resource Semantics (CLLRS). This semantic component provides a semantic parse in which heads and arguments are combined systematically and the scope of negation or quantification can be accurately reflected. In the case of counterfactuals, the CLLRS semantic parse is passed to a model-theoretic interpreter. The mapping between the CLLRS semantic parse and the well-formed formulas of the model is defined by checking the parseability of the formula in the compositional semantics. Sets of possible worlds interact with constraints on world knowledge and constraints defining counterfactual validity. The truth value for a counterfactual is returned to the grammar relative to a context of evaluation. The results of counterfactual evaluation are returned in a form consistent with the grammar's internal compositional semantics. By the method described above, the interpreter provides a grammar-external component in which inferences involving world knowledge have the potential to be more efficiently evaluated. Through the development of model-checking techniques, for instance, it could be shown whether or not well-formed formulas and constraints hold in larger models and move towards capturing more fine-grained modal inferences in a larger domain.


2011 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-107 ◽  
Author(s):  
HIROSHI KANAYAMA ◽  
TETSUYA NASUKAWA

AbstractThis article proposes clause-level evaluation detection, which is a fine-grained type of opinion mining, and describes an unsupervised lexicon building method for capturing domain-specific knowledge by leveraging the similar polarities of sentiments between adjacent clauses. The lexical entries to be acquired are called polar atoms, the minimum human-understandable syntactic structures that specify the polarity of clauses. As a hint to obtain candidate polar atoms, we use context coherency, the tendency for the same polarity to appear successively in a context. Using the overall density and precision of coherency in the corpus, the statistical estimation picks up appropriate polar atoms from among the candidates, without any manual tuning of the threshold values. The experimental results show that the precision of polarity assignment with the automatically acquired lexicon was 83 per cent on average, and our method is robust for corpora in diverse domains and for the size of the initial lexicon.


Author(s):  
Sebastian Bücking

Modification is a combinatorial semantic operation between a modifier and a modifiee. Take, for example, vegetarian soup: the attributive adjective vegetarian modifies the nominal modifiee soup and thus constrains the range of potential referents of the complex expression to soups that are vegetarian. Similarly, in Ben is preparing a soup in the camper, the adverbial in the camper modifies the preparation by locating it. Notably, modifiers can have fairly drastic effects; in fake stove, the attribute fake induces that the complex expression singles out objects that seem to be stoves, but are not. Intuitively, modifiers contribute additional information that is not explicitly called for by the target the modifier relates to. Speaking in terms of logic, this roughly says that modification is an endotypical operation; that is, it does not change the arity, or logical type, of the modified target constituent. Speaking in terms of syntax, this predicts that modifiers are typically adjuncts and thus do not change the syntactic distribution of their respective target; therefore, modifiers can be easily iterated (see, for instance, spicy vegetarian soup or Ben prepared a soup in the camper yesterday). This initial characterization sets modification apart from other combinatorial operations such as argument satisfaction and quantification: combining a soup with prepare satisfies an argument slot of the verbal head and thus reduces its arity (see, for instance, *prepare a soup a quiche). Quantification as, for example, in the combination of the quantifier every with the noun soup, maps a nominal property onto a quantifying expression with a different distribution (see, for instance, *a every soup). Their comparatively loose connection to their hosts renders modifiers a flexible, though certainly not random, means within combinatorial meaning constitution. The foundational question is how to work their being endotypical into a full-fledged compositional analysis. On the one hand, modifiers can be considered endotypical functors by virtue of their lexical endowment; for instance, vegetarian would be born a higher-ordered function from predicates to predicates. On the other hand, modification can be considered a rule-based operation; for instance, vegetarian would denote a simple predicate from entities to truth-values that receives its modifying endotypical function only by virtue of a separate modification rule. In order to assess this and related controversies empirically, research on modification pays particular attention to interface questions such as the following: how do structural conditions and the modifying function conspire in establishing complex interpretations? What roles do ontological information and fine-grained conceptual knowledge play in the course of concept combination?


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-23
Author(s):  
EMAN AL KHALAF

A long-standing assumption in the syntactic literature is that coordination can only target constituents. This assumption has been a subject of much debate, with many authors questioning its validity. This article enters this debate by reconsidering a constraint on left-sharing in coordination which Osborne & Gross (2017) have recently introduced, namely left node blocking. To account for this constraint, Osborne & Gross propose the Principle of Full Clusivity which states that coordination cannot cut into a constituent. They couch their analysis in a Dependency Grammar, assuming that coordination does not have to conjoin constituents and that syntactic structures should be construed as flat. Given that the empirical ground on which the LNB is based is not firm, I seek to experimentally investigate it by conducting a large-scale experiment. The results of the investigation reveal that LNB is wrong; left-sharing is as permissive as right-sharing. The results of the investigation have the immediate consequence that the assumptions on which LNB is based are wrong as well, namely that syntactic structures should be construed as flat. I spell out an analysis couched in terms of left-to-right syntax to account for major cases of left-sharing in coordination.


2018 ◽  
Vol 28 ◽  
pp. 512
Author(s):  
Timothée Bernard ◽  
Lucas Champollion

Negative events have been used in analyses of various natural language phenomena such as negative perception reports and negative causation, but their conceptual and logical foundations remain ill-understood. We propose that linguistic negation denotes a function Neg, which sends any set of events P to a set Neg(P) that contains all events which preclude every event in P from being actual. An axiom ensures that any event in Neg(P) is actual if and only if no event in P is. This allows us to construe the events in Neg(P) as negative, "anti-P", events. We present a syntax-semantics interface that uses continuations to resolve scope mismatches between subject and verb phrase negation, and a fragment of English that accounts for the interaction of negation, the perception verb see, finite and nonfinite perception reports, and quantified subjects, as well as negative causation.


Nordlyd ◽  
10.7557/12.16 ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mai Tungseth

This paper discusses two types of constructions in Norwegian where a combination of a verb of motion and a prepositional phrase are ambiguous between a reading of directed motion and a reading of located motion. Based on the differences in the syntactic behaviour of the two types of constructions with respect to a variety of tests (viz. VP constituency tests, adverbial placement, accent placement and the binding of anaphora), I argue that the two different readings have different argument structures and syntactic structures. On the directed motion reading, the PP appears low down in the verb phrase as complement to a functional head Path0, where it is interpreted as endpoint. Locative PPs, however, appear higher up in the structure as a verb phrase adjunct.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document