Structure of the talk. The semantics of event nominalisation. Event nominalisations and verbal arguments 2

Transcription

1 Structure of the talk Sebastian Bücking 1 and Markus Egg 2 1 Universität Tübingen [email protected] 2 Rijksuniversiteit Groningen [email protected] 12 December 2008 two challenges for a semantic description of nominalisations argument linking anti-iconic readings the framework of analysis: underspecified semantic representation the analysis semantic construction Event nominalisations and verbal arguments 1 Event nominalisations and verbal arguments 2 derivational affixes turn verbs into nouns denoting events or one of their participants (1) die Verarbeitung der Daten the processing of the data (2) beautiful dancer arguments of the verb can become optional during nominalisation others are explicitly bound in the nominalisation process this binding refers to thematic roles of arguments agent for the agentive suffix -er theme for the genitive complement of -ung-nominalisations to handle reference to thematic roles and argument linking, we use a Neo-Davidsonian approach (Parsons 1990) verbs and their arguments are linked in terms of explicit thematic relations (3) λyλxλe.eat (x,y)(e) (4) λyλxλe.eat (e) AGENT(e,x) THEME(e,y) no need to bind off syntactically unrealised arguments of the verb stem in the semantics (5) λxλe. y.eat (x,y)(e) (6) λxλe.eat (e) AGENT(e,x)

2 Event nominalisations and verbal arguments 3 Anti-iconic readings of event nominalisations 1 nominalisation affixes are semantic functions and their stems are arguments the affixes introduce the relevant thematic relations the agentive -er: (7) λpλx e.p(e) AGENT(e, x) the affix -ung (preliminary): (8) λpλxλe.p(e) THEME(e, x) semantic construction for (1) semantics of Verarbeitung processing : λxλe.process (e) THEME(e,x) semantics of Verarbeitung der Daten processing of the data : λe!x.[data (x)] process (e) THEME(e,x) modified agentive nouns exhibit ambiguity due to several possible ways of integrating the modifier semantics (9) beautiful dancer a beautiful person who dances a person who dances beautifully the second reading can be analysed as an anti-iconic, in that the modifier can pertain to the stem only (Egg 2006) (10) λpλx e.p(e) AGENT(e, x) (λpλx.beautiful (x) P(x) (dance )) = λx e.beautiful (e) dance (e) AGENT(e,x) Anti-iconic readings of event nominalisations 2 Underspecified representation of anti-iconic cases 1 but this approach does not work for the simplistic semantics for -ung in (11) (11) [=(8)] λpλxλe.p(e) THEME(e, x) (12) die schnelle Verarbeitung der Daten processing is over soon (external reading) throughput of the data is high (internal reading) in both readings, schnell fast characterises the speed of an event internal and external reading (Maienborn 2003) are not distinguished syntactically (11) characterises the semantics of -ung as intersective no scope ambiguity for the two readings is possible there is only one event for the modifier to predicate over underspecified representation ( constraint ) for the meaning of (9) (13) [[NP]] : [[NP S ]]: λx e. (e) AGENT(e,x) dance λy. (y) beautiful (y) sets of semantic representations (here, λ-terms) are described on a meta-level ingredients: fragments of λ-terms, holes, and relations between them

3 Underspecified representation of anti-iconic cases 2 s 1 the described semantic representations ( solutions ) are derived by identifying fragments and holes formally, a bijective mapping (the plugging of Bos 2004) the solutions of (13) (14) λx e.dance (e) AGENT(e,x) beautiful (x) (15) λx e.dance (e) AGENT(e,x) beautiful (e) possible relations between the meanings of verbal predicates and their nominalizations verb nominalisations have the same meaning as their verb stem (Parsons 1990; Cocchiarella 1996) verb nominalisations introduce concrete events that are characterised (relation ) by abstract event concepts in terms of verb stem meanings (Cocchiarella 1996) we follow position 2 and distinguish types for concrete events and for event concepts (cp. Asher 1993) variables for concrete events are abbreviated as e variables for event concepts are abbreviated as E s 2 s 3 the more elaborate semantics of the affix -ung is split into a main and a secondary fragment (16) main fragment: λpλe.e λe.p(e) (17) secondary fragment: λpλxλe.theme(e, x) P(e) the main fragment introduces a bipartite event structure -ung does not bind the event argument of the verbal stem it introduces a new event argument, i.e. the concrete event e, that is related to the verbally given event concept argument E via the secondary fragment introduces the theme argument the modifier can pertain to two different entities the underlying verbal E (resulting in the internal reading) the nominal e (resulting in the external reading) the verbal theme argument is made available for binding by a subsequent genitive DP argument semantic representation of Verarbeitung processing (18) [[N]] : λe.e λe. (E) [[N S ]] : λxλe.theme(e,x) process (e)

4 Underspecified representation of event nominalisations 1 Underspecified representation of event nominalisations 2 semantic representation of Verarbeitung der Daten processing of the data (19) λe!x.[data (x)] (e) [[NP]] : [[NP S ]] : λe.theme(e,x) process (e) λe.e λe. (E) constraints like (19) have one solution only unwanted scope ambiguities between top fragment of nominalisations and DP argument fragment are blocked this is due to the typing of event (concept) variables the DP semantics introduces concrete events e the inner event variable in nominalisations is an event type E verb (and adverbial) semantics introduce a general event type e T (e T = e E) the only solution for (19): (20) λe!x.[data (x)] e λe.theme(e,x) process (E) in the following, reference to these types is mostly dropped Underspecified representation of event nominalisations 3 Underspecified representation of event nominalisations 4 representation for schnelle Verarbeitung der Daten fast processing of the data (21) [[NP]] : solutions by starting (22)... from the left: the internal reading λe!x.[data (x)] e λe.theme(e,x) process (E) fast (E) λe!x.[data (x)] (e) λe.e λe. (E) [[NP S ]] : λy. λe.theme(e,x) process (e) (y) fast (y) (23)... from the right: the external reading λe!x.[data (x)] e λe.theme(e,x) process (E) fast (e)

5 Locatives 1 Locatives 2 locatives are another instance of external vs. internal reading (24) die Zubereitung des Huhns in der Pfeffersauce the preparation the chicken GEN in a pepper-sauce (25) *die Zubereitung in der Pfeffersauce des Huhns the preparation in the pepper-sause the chicken GEN (26) die Zubereitung des Huhns in der Küche the preparation the chicken GEN in the kitchen diamond for Zubereitung des Huhns in der Pfeffersauce preparation of the chicken in the pepper sauce ; simplified w.r.t. the DP argument semantics (27) λe.e λe. (E) λy. (y) in (y,p) λe.theme(e,ιx.chicken (x)) prepare (e) Locatives 3 Locatives 4 solutions of (27) (28) (a) internal reading λe.e λe.in (E,P) THEME(E,ιx.chicken (x)) prepare (E) (b) external reading λe.in (e,p) e λe.theme(e,ιx.chicken (x)) prepare (E) the second reading is ruled out pragmatically: the preparation event as a whole is localised in the pepper-sauce the first reading raises the question of what it means to localise the lexical base E, i.e., how does this apply to the chicken? Maienborn s (2003) proposal for adverbial locatives (29) MOD*: λqλpλx[p(x)&r(x, v)&q(v)] Condition: if MOD* applies to categorial type X, R = part-of, otherwise (in an XP-environment) R is identity. (30) [ VP [ PP in der Küche] [ VP das Huhn zubereiten]] [ VP [ PP in the kitchen] [ VP the chicken prepare]] (31) [ VP das Huhn [ V [ PP in einer Pfeffersauce] [ V zubereiten]]] [ VP the chicken [ V [ PP in a pepper-sauce] [ V prepare]]] (32) external: λe... prepare (e) in (e,k)... (33) internal: λe... prepare (e) part-of (e,v) in (v,p)... in the internal case, the free variable v is conceptually specified

6 Locatives 5 of anti-iconic cases 1 transfer to internal locatives in ung-nominalizations? here the choice between part-of and identity cannot be conditioned structurally i.e., MOD* can vary freely w.r.t. the two assignments for R external vs. internal locative revisited: (34) λe.in (e,p) e λe.theme(e,ιx.chicken (x)) prepare (E) (35) (a) λe.e λe.prepare (E) part-of (E,v) in (v,p) THEME(E,ιx.chicken (x)) (b) λe.e λe.prepare (E) in (ιx.chicken (x),p) THEME(E,ιx.chicken (x)) somewhere the gap between syntactic and semantic structure must be bridged several possibilities have been suggested syntactic preprocessing (Generative Grammar) involved syntactic construction (L-TAG, Kallmeyer and Romero 2008; LFG, Çetinoǧlu and Oflazer 2006) powerful syntax-semantics interface (Egg 2006) semantic representations are constraints a main and a secondary fragment are distinguished interface rules refer to these fragments and determine them for emerging constituents 2 3 rule for affixation (36) [ X Bs Aff] (morph) [[X]] : [[Aff]]() [[X S ]] : [[Aff S ]]([[Bs]]) semantics of Verarbeitung processing (38) [[N]] : λpλe.e λe.p(e)() affixes like -er that do not influence the secondary fragment of the emerging word have the identity mapping as secondary fragment semantics of -ung (37) [[Aff]]: λpλe.e λe.p(e) [[Aff S ]]: λpλyλe.p(e) THEME(e,y) [[N S ]] : [λpλyλe.p(e) THEME(e,y)](process ) after β-reduction (39) [[N]] : λe.e λe. (E) [[N S ]] : λyλe.process (e) THEME(e,y)

7 4 5 rule for DP arguments (40) [ X X DP] (SSI) [[ X]]: [[DP]]; [[ X S ]]: [[X S ]]([[DP S ]]) rule for projection to XP (42) [ XP X] (SSI) [[XP]] : [[XP S ]]:[[ X]] [[ X S ]] after the integration of the DP-argument der Daten of the data (41) λe.e λe.(e) [[ N]] : λe!x.[data (x)] (e) [[ N S ]]:λe.process (e) THEME(e,x) Verarbeitung der Daten processing of the data as NP: (43) [[NP]] : λe.e λe. (E) [[NP S ]] : λe!x.[data (x)] λe.process (e) THEME(e,x) (e) Asher, N. (1993). Reference to abstract objects in discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Bos, J. (2004). Computational semantics in discourse: Underspecification, resolution, and inference. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 13, Çetinoǧlu, Ö. and K. Oflazer (2006). Morphology-syntax interface for Turkish LFG. In Proceedings of the 21st COLING and the 44th ACL, Cocchiarella, N. (1996). Conceptual realism as a formal ontology. In R. Poli and P. Simons (eds), Formal Ontology, Dordrecht: Kluwer. Egg, M. (2006). Anti-Ikonizität an der Syntax-Semantik-Schnittstelle. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 25, Kallmeyer, L. and M. Romero (2008). Scope and situation binding in LTAG using semantic unification. Research on language and computation 6, Maienborn, C. (2003). Event-internal modifiers: Semantic underspecification and contextual interpretation. In E. Lang, C. Maienborn, and C. Fabricius-Hansen (eds), Modifying adjuncts, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Parsons, T. (1990). Events in the semantics of English. Cambridge: MIT Press.