Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Event Orientated Adnominals and Compositionality Yoad Winter Joost Zwarts Workshop Syntax and Semantics of the Nominal Domain February 4-5, 2016 Frankfurt University Types of Arguments Semantic Arguments Referential Syntactic Arguments Thematic Expletive John surprised us dog: <e,t> It rained Hypothesis: no other types of arguments. ate (it) Fido is a dog John the dog Orientation of Intersective Modifiers Generalization: intersective modifiers are orientated to the referential argument. [[blue door]] = λx.x is a door & x is blue [[short giraffe]] = λx.x is a giraffe & x is short (relative to giraffes) [[sang loudly]] = λe.e is a singing event & e is loud (relative to singing) Witness: This is a blue door This door is blue This is a short giraffe This giraffe is short John sang loudly John's singing was loud The Puzzle of -er Nominals Bolinger 1967, Larson 1998: John is a heavy smoker John is heavy John smokes heavily Hebrew: ha-potrim nexona the-solver-PL correctly-ADV hem potrim nexona they solve correctly Hebrew’s so-called Beynoni (“participle”) form for verbs is ambiguous between a verb and a noun. Our approach: Hebrew and English are more similar than what overt morpho-syntax reveals, due to the special morpho-syntactic properties of -er nominals. Note on Coercion Bolinger 1967, Larson 1998: John is a heavy smoker John is heavy John smokes heavily Pustejovsky 1995: This Ferrari is a fast car (i.e. it moves fast) This Ferrari is fast This waltz is a fast dance This waltz is fast (i.e. it has a fast tempo) Coercion is a lexical phenomenon, independent of the -er puzzle. Modifier Orientation: Preliminaries (1) Why do adjuncts modify the RA, and not any thematic argument? John surprised us enormously The verb surprise has 2 thematic arguments and a referential argument (RA) – the event argument. What orientates the modifier to the RA? x.y.e.surprise(e,y,x) + z.enormous(z) = x.y.e.surprise(e,y,x)enormous(e) ≠ x.y.e.surprise(e,y,x)enormous(x) ≠ x.y.e.surprise(e,y,x)enormous(y) Modifier Orientation: Preliminaries (2) John’s polite friend The relational noun friend has one thematic argument (the possessor) and one RA (the friend). What orientates the modifier to the RA? x.y.friend(x,y) + z.polite(z) = x.y. friend(x,y) polite(x) ≠ x.y. friend(x,y) polite(y) Modifier Orientation: Preliminaries (3) Why do adjuncts modify the RA, and not any thematic argument? Standard answer: Syntax does. Somehow – the syntax singles out the event argument for adverbial modifiers, the possesed argument for adnominal modifiers in posessives, etc. How precisely? W&Z 2011: The new formal theory of Abstract Categorial Grammar (De Groote 2001, Muskens 2003). Event Orientated Adnominals Adjectives: (Bolinger 1967, Larson 1998, Coppock 2009, Alexeyenko 2011) beautiful dancer heavy smoker hard worker violent campaigner smooth operator clean fighter shallow breather PPs: (possibly new) destroyer of the city in 1735 killer of JFK in 1963 founder of Apple in a Silicon Valley garage defeater of the Armada in 1588 Restrictions: (Levin/Rappaport 1988,1992, McIntyre 2010) inducer of protein growth (*with a new technique) Hebrew Participles (Beynoni) (ha)potrim nexona (the)solve-PL correctly maxrivey ha-ir bishnat 1735 (the) destroy-PL (of the) city in-year 1735 rokdim yafe dance-PL beautifully rocxo shel kenedi be-1963 kill-he of Kenndy in-1963 me'aSnim bixvedut Smoke-PL heavily meyasda shel epel be-musax found-she of Apple in-garage ovdim kashe work-PL hard mevisey ha-armada be-1588 defeat-PL the-Armada in-1588 mesaxkim bealimut play-PL violently nilxamim behaginut Fight-PL decently mesoxaxim biydidutiyut speak-PL amicably Larson’s Proposal Nominals, including -er nominals, may have a Davidsonian event argument. [[dancer]] = λx.λe.x is the agent of dancing event e [[beautiful dancer]] λx.λe.x is the beautiful agent of dancing event e λx.λe.x is the agent of beautiful dancing event e Questions for Larson´s proposal 1. What specifies the agent as the RA in beautiful dancer? Thus, why can´t it mean ``a beautiful dancing event´´? 2. What blocks ambiguity in dance beautifully? Thus, why can’t it mean “person who dances beautifully”? These possible problems would appear if nonreferential arguments (e.g. events with dancer) can be freely modified as in Larson’s proposal. Revising Larson’s Account Maintaining the tripartite typology of arguments Semantic Arguments Referential Syntactic Arguments Thematic Expletive -ER NOMINALS (cf. Williams 2003, Egg 2004): 1- have verbal projection within NP, 2- which is low within the NP, 3- and whose referential arg. is the event 1- Verbal Projection beautifully dance 1- Verbal Projection nexona potrim 2- Low within NP (Hebrew) ha ha-nexonim nexona potrim 2- Low within NP (English) the beautiful beautiful dance er 3- RA is the event (Hebrew) ha ha-nexonim nexona potrim 3- RA is the event (English) the beautiful beautiful dance er Improvements over Larson’s proposal (1) Questions for Larson: 1. What specifies the agent as the RA? 2. What blocks ambiguity in dance beautifully? Answers: 1. Only one covert argument at each level – the RA. 2. Syntax does, as usual with modification and thematic arguments. Improvements over Larson’s proposal (2) No event modification with non-er nominals: beautiful dancer ?beautiful ballerina hard worker ?hard employee light traveler ?light passenger just king, stray bullet, fast horse, daily newspaper – probably coercion or more complex modification than predication over events Ordering of modifiers Larson and Takahashi 2007 Olga is a blonde beautiful dancer. Olga is blonde and beautiful Olga is blonde and she dances beautifully Olga is a beautiful blonde dancer. Olga is blonde and beautiful blonde beautiful [NP [NPer [ dancer ]]] blonde [NP beautiful [NPer [ dancer ]]] beautiful blonde [NP [NPer [ dancer ]]] ?beautiful [NP blonde [NPer [ dancer ]]] Relational Nouns champion in 1981 new president mayor till 2014 Speculation: Relational nouns always come with an eventuality. Summary -ER nominals have a verbal layer. Within this layer, event orientated adnominals act as adverbial modifiers, (only) sometimes disguised under adjectival morphology. Multiple verbal + nominal layers allow us to maintain the RA hypothesis, without complicating compositional processes. Event-orientated modification of relational, non-deverbal, nominals, requires further study.