Introduction to Human Language
Roberto Zamparelli1
1
Facoltà di Lettere, Dipartimento di Scienze della Cognizione e della Formazione
Università di Trento; [email protected]
HLTI
Course Schedule
Time & Room
I
Mon 12.00-14.00, Room 12 (ground floor), Palazzo Verdi, Piazza
Venezia, Trento.
I
Tue 11.40-13.10, Room 105 (first floor), Palazzo Verdi, Piazza Venezia,
Trento
Teacher:
I
Roberto Zamparelli (Unitn, coordinator)
Course General Overview [subject to revision]
Nov. 8: Course Introduction, Morphology (1/2).
Nov. 9: Morphology (2/2)
Nov. 8: Syntax (1/2).
Nov. 9: Syntax (2/2)
Nov. 8: Sentential semantics (1/2).
Nov. 9: Sentencial semantics (2/2)
Bibliography
I
An Introduction to Language (8th Edition) (2008) Rodman, Hyams,
Fromkin.
I
(can be purchesed from an on-line sellers, e.g. Amazon UK (NOT
Amazon USA, where you would pay hefty import taxes).
I
Editions before the 8th are also acceptable (and much cheaper).
What is theoretical linguistics?
A discipline which tries to answer questions such as:
I
What is human language?
I
How does language work?
I
What do all languages have in common, and where they are different,
how different can they be?
I
How does a child learn to speak?
I
How and why do languages change?
I
How is language processed in the brain?
Why do we need linguistics?
I
Because we speak or hear up to 100.000 words a day
(... and we study paleontology without having ever seen an actual
dinosaur!)
I
Because language is perhaps the main feature that distinguishes us
from other animals (cf. chimps, despite our 96% of DNA in common).
I
Because despite the incredible complexity of linguistic structures,
children can learn them perfectly without any formal teaching. We would
like to know how they accomplish that.
I
Because it can help us teaching a second language
(many mistakes one makes in learning a second language depend on
the structures of the first one)
I
Because some people have language-specific impairments, and
understanding how language works could help design better therapies.
I
Because it can help us build computers which can understand and
produce human language as well as humans.
I
Because reflecting about language can help us to understand better
what people say or write.
(for a lawyer, understanding whether a sentence is ambiguous can be
crucial)
Some important distinctions:
I
A linguist is not (necessarily) a polyglot. Just like a person who studies
theory of music is not supposed to be capable of playing any instrument
(though s/he better know something about any of them...)
I
Linguistics is different from traditional (prescriptive) grammar.
Linguistics never says how people should speak.
The most obscure dialectal variation is as interesting to a linguist as its
standard counterpart, for what it can tell about the structure of human
language in general – provided of course it is produced naturally!
Focus: “Imposing grammaticality” vs. “Explaining ungrammaticality”
Corollary: linguists are typically more interested in spoken than in
written language (more spontaneous)
Traditional divisions of linguistics
(the arrows indicate large interaction between different components)
I
The historical prospective brings a temporal dimension to these
subdomains. (cf. the study of Syncrony vs. Diacrony made by Ferdinand
de Saussure), but adds the question of why languages change.
I
Psycholinguistics is not a separate domain, but rather a way to work on
them with the empirical methods typical of experimental psychology (lab
testing)
Phonetics
I
The study of the sounds produced by the human vocal apparatus, of
their articolatory and acustic properties, of the way they are affected by
being pronounces next to each other (coarticulation).
I
Phonetics has also defined a writing system for sounds (IPA,
International Phonetic Alphabet)
Phonology
The study of sound systems. Not all sounds that the human mouth con
produce are actually used to convey linguistic meanings in all languages.
I
Some sounds or sound features are very often used (e.g. vowels, the
opposition between voiced and voiceless consonants: /p/ vs. /b/, /k/ vs.
/g/))
I
Some sounds are rarely used (e.g. clicks)
I
Some sounds, e.g. whistles, though potentially useful are never used
(there are, however, communication systems which only use whistles,
and there are sign languages, used by deaf people)
Phonology studies the properties of actual and possible sound systems, and
deals with notions such as phonemes, syllables, accents, tones, etc.
Competence of English phonology is what tells an English speaker that
words like (1-a), though actually non existent, could be words of the English
language, while those in (1-b) could not.
(1)
a. clisp, baught
b. *ngisp, *buapth
(we place an asterisk “*” in front of ‘impossible’ linguistic forms)
Morphology
The study of the internal composition of words: how they can be broken up in
smaller utils (morphemes), how these can combine.
E.g. how we can break up:
I
Antidisestablishmentarianism
I
Anti-dis-establish-ment-arian-ism
I
[[Anti-[dis-[[establish-ment]-arian]]]-ism]
“opposition to the withdrawal of state support from an established
church, esp. the Anglican Church in 19th-century England.”
Or in Italian:
I
ridargliene
I
ri-[dar-[gli-e-ne]]]
“to give again some of something to someone”
Morphology also looks at the interpretation of compounds like those in (2)
and (3): the range of semantic roles that the elements of a compound can
receive, the way compound components are connected.
(2)
a.
b.
Man-eater
Man-made
(3)
a.
b.
Piano bench.
a bench on which a PERSON who PLAYS the piano usually SITS.
(4)
a.
Water meter cover adjustment screw
([[[water meter] cover]
[adjustment screw]])
A screw that is USED to PERFORM adjustments on the cover of
a MACHINE that meters water
b.
‘patient’ interpretation: “an X that eats men”
‘agent’ interpretation: “an X that men make”
(but other interpretations are possible, depending on world knowledge and
the choice of structure for the compound)
The study of compounds involves understanding how much of their meaning
stored in memory, how much is built by inserting the necessary “fillers” (e.g.
those UPPERCASED above) and how they are provided.
Syntax
The study of how words are put together to form phrases and sentences that
are acceptable in a given language, regardless of what they mean.
I
I
Syntax is what tells us that the natural subunits of the sentence in (5) are
those bracketed in (6-a) and perhaps less trivially, (b).
(5)
The president ate a hot sandwich.
(6)
a.
b.
[the president] ate [a hot sendwich]
[the president] [ate [a hot sendwich]]
Syntactic competence is what tells us that there is something wrong with
(7-b) and (8-a), despite the very similar meanings they try to express.
(7)
a. I consider John to be a nice fellow.
b. *It seems John to be a nice fellow.
(8)
a. *John considers to be a nice fellow.
b. John seems to be a nice fellow.
Semantics
The study of what words mean, and how the meaning of simple words
arranged in a certain structure can be composed to derive the meaning of
sentences or discourses.
I
Knowing the meaning of the words in the alphabetic list in (9-a), how do
we understand the meaning of (9-b)?
(9)
a.
b.
“a”, “admission”, “allows” “an” “Applicants” “country” “degree”
“doctoral” “equivalent” “for” “have” “in” “Italian” “must” “obtained.” “or”
“programme” “qualification” “the” “to”
“Applicants must have an Italian university degree or an equivalent
degree qualification which allows for admission to a doctoral
programme in the country where the degree was obtained.”
I
Any answer to this question requires a theory of what meanings are, and
how can we express them in a language which is at the same time
powerful and explicit.
I
Many answers have been given. The type of semantics adopted in this
course defines meaning in terms of truth, and uses formal logic as a
language for meaning representation.
Pragmatics
Sentence meanings are not computed in a vacuum. The meaning of
sentence (10) depends on where it is uttered, who utters it and what this
person is pointing at.
(10)
Today I walked from there to here.
Moreover, sentences can be used to convey meanings that go beyond their
literal meaning, due to social conventions or to general rules of how
conversations should procede.
(11)
a.
b.
Can you pass me the salt?
a polite request
May I remind you that your account has expired?
a remind
Pragmatics studies the meaning of utterances, which depends on the
‘abstract’ meaning of the sentence combined with social conventions,
speaker and hearer’s goals and extralinguistic reasoning.
Discourse
The study of discourse (= any sequence of connected sentences on a
common topic) strongly interacts with pragmatics, and semantics, but adds a
dynamic dimension, and stresses the existence of multiple speakers, each
with his mental models of what is being said and understood.
Typical questions:
I
How does a sentence added to a conversation modify the state of knowledge of
the participants in that conversation?
I
When does a dialogue ‘flow’, and when is it just a string of disconnected
sentences on similar topics?
I
How are pronouns interpreted, across sentence boundaries?
(12)
I
The cati saw the mousej . Immediately, iti jumped and caught itj
How noun phrases introduced by the word the refer back to objects mentioned in
other sentences?
(13)
I saw [a house]. [The building] was abandoned, but [the door] was still
shut.
(“a house” is “a building”, “the door” is probably the one by which one enters the
house)
(note the use of subscript (i , j , k etc.) to indicate ‘same reference’)
“Universal” and “specific” linguistics
I
All the areas of linguistics can apply to the description of a single
language (e.g. for the purpose of writing a detailed descriptive grammar,
or a parser).
I
But they can also study and compare individual languages in the attempt
to understand which phonological, syntactic and semantic principles are
common to all languages (thus, to language as a human faculty)
I
The latter has been a major goal of current theoretical linguistics
research.
Methodology: Native Speaker Intuitions
Native speakers have the ability to make grammaticality judgments about the
syntactic well-formedness of sentences such as:
(14)
a. If you don’t know the meaning, look it up in a dictionary.
b. *If you don’t know the meaning, look up it in a dictionary.
They also can say whether certain sentences have more than one
interpretation (= are ambiguous).
(15)
Sam loves you more than Jim.
a. Sam loves you more than Jim loves you.
b. Sam loves you more than Sam loves Jim.
(16)
We want to build machines who can produce sentences as well as
humans.
a. ... as well as humans produce them.
b. ... and human beings, too.
Conversely, they can say when sentences have the same interpretation (=
are paraphrases of each other).
(17)
a.
b.
John shot Bill.
Bill was shot by John
(18)
a.
b.
John seems to be tired today.
It seems that John is tired today.
(19)
a.
b.
All the children have left.
The children have all left.
(20)
a.
b.
Carlo lo vuole vedere.
Carlo vuole vederlo.
‘Carlo him wants to see’
‘Carlo wants to see him’
Perfect periphrases are rare. Here I will adopt that criterion that S1 and S2
are paraphrases if one cannot find a state of the world where one would be
judged true and the other false.
Grammaticality vs. Sense vs. Truth
Speaker’s judgments on the well-formedness of sentences should be kept
distinct from semantic judgments (= judgements of meaning).
(21)
a.
b.
(22)
Featherless intelligent bipeds sleep horizontally. Grammatical
(and true)
Featherless intelligent bipeds sleep vertically. Grammatical
(and false)
a.
Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.
nonsensical)
b. *Furiously green ideas colorless sleep.
Grammatical (and
Ungrammatical!
“Nonsensical sentences” are those that cannot be true no matter what is the
state of world in which their meaning is evaluated (cf. logical inconsistency).
If a nonsensical sentence is grammatical, it can always be turned into a
meaningful sentence by replacing its nouns, verbs or adjectives with others
other nouns, verbs or adjectives, respectively.
(23)
New clever ideas appear rarely.
same structure as (22-a).
The problem of negative evidence
Speaker’s judgments provide valuable negative evidence about possible
linguistic structures.
One problem to supplement or replace speaker’s judgements with data
extracted from large corpora of naturally occurring language is that it is
difficult to extract negative evidence from corpora. The absence of a string
can be due to several factors.
I
The string is ungrammatical.
I
The string is not there by pure chance (the corpus is not large enough)
I
The string describes facts that do not obtain (I was born on the moon) or
are rare (I was born in Paris, Texas vs. I was born in New York)
I
The string is grammatical, but has a structure so complex that it sounds
unnatural (e.g. multiple interrogatives like (24))
(24)
the linguist’s dream case
Which mother would like to see which girl and John together?
Unfortunately, many linguistic theories hinge on structures that are quite
complex (cf. particle physics)
I
The string has a structure which is simple, but difficult to parse due to
memory limitations (a performance problem)
Grammaticality vs. processing status
I
Human being can process long sentences very well, and can deal with
sentences inside sentences and nouns phrases inside noun phrases:
(25)
I say that Mary believes that I would have claimed that she had
lied.
(26)
A friend of a cousin of the father of a relative of mine died.
However, human beings have trouble processing centrally embedded
sentences like (27):
(27)
a.
b.
c.
d.
The mouse died.
The mouse that the cat chased died
The mouse that the cat that the dog hates chased died.
The mouse that the cat that the dog I own hates chased
died.
(28)
a.
b.
c.
Noun1 V1
Noun1 [ Noun2 V2 ] V1
Noun1 [ Noun2 [ Noun3 V3 ] V2 ] V1
I
Other sentences are hard because they are misleading to parse (these
are called garden path sentences (29))
(29)
a.
b.
The horse raced past the barn.
The donkey raced past the barn fell.
raced ... fell
The donkey that was
Summary: Corpora and Judgements
I
The lack of unambiguous negative evidence has hampered the use of
corpora for theoretical language research.
I
Corpora (particularly, corpora of oral language) contain many false
positives: strings which are ungrammatical but comprehensible and
perfectly sensible.
(30)
a.
b.
There was someone we couldn’t find out whether anybody
knew him.
The child seems sleeping.
I
Corpora give little clues for the semantic interpretation of sentences (but
see alligned multilingual corpora: Canadian Hansard etc.)
I
But: many of these drawbacks can be corrected with more advanced
statistical techniques. To begin, one doesn’t search for “I was born in
New York”, but “PRON BE V-PART in PLACE-NAME”.
I
However, many statistical techniques already require some level of
(non-trivial) linguistic analysis, and heavy-duty corpus annotation (in
particular, semantic annotation).
The International Phonetic Alphabet
The most widely accepted system to write phones *=sound segments) has
been created by the International Phonetics Association. Other, simpler
systems are in use (esp. in American dictionaries)
I
PDF of the IPA Chart
I
The clickable IPA map (excellent to hear the actual sounds; requires
Quicktime)
I
The web page of the late Peter Ladefoged, with a number of links to
valuable resources for the study of phonetics.
We will concentraate on the consonant chart and on the vowel diagram.
Consonants
Three main variables:
I
Place of articulation in the mouth (mostly top part)
I
Manner of articulation (why in which the sound is produced, toungue
position, etc.)
I
Glottal status (whether there is air flow or not)
Oral tract schema of places of articulation
Manners of articulation
I
Plosives: total closure/obstruction at some point of vocal tract with
subsequent release
I
Nasals: total closure but release of airstream through the nose
I
Trill: vibration of some articulatory organ
I
Tap or Flag: single tap/vibration against some articulatory organ
I
Fricatives: partial closure of the vocal tract with noise
I
Approximants: partial closure of vocal tract without noise (also called
glides)
I
Laterals: air escapes at the side of tongue
The State of the Glottis
I
The distinction between voiced and unvoiced consonants is extremely
common in the world’s languages.
Notive how your throat vibrates only with voiced sounds (including of
course vowels!)
(31)
I
p/b, f/v
Also common is the difference between aspirated and unaspirated
consonants:
(32)
a.
b.
[t]
[th ]
Italian,
English (Tom)
Complex Sounds
Affricates: complex segments made up of a plosive and a fricative part:
I
Voiceless: pf (as in German pferd), ts (as in Italian azione),
I
Voiced: *bv (missing!), dz (as in Italian azalea),
Vowels
In vowels the air flows relatively unobstracted. The difference in sounds
comes from the tongue position, which is traditionally organized as a
trapezoid
Lexical categories
(33)
Since he wanted to arrive early, Karl and his friend had probably told
him that he should book a seat in one of those early morning trains.
Exercise: identify the lexical categories in the sentence above.
Lexical categories
(34)
Since he wanted to arrive early, Karl and his friend had probably told
him that he should book a seat in one of those early morning trains.
Nouns: friend, morning, trains, seat
Proper Names: Karl
(... United States, The Emirates, Jey Gould)
Main verbs: arrive, told, take, book
(in English, many double as nouns)
Adjectives: early (in “early morning”)
(... tall, Italian)
Adverbs: probably, early (in “arrive early”)
Auxiliary verbs: had, to, should
Modal verbs: must
Prepositions: in, of
Pronouns: his, he, him
Articles: a
Demonstratives: those
Numerals one
Subordinating Conjunctions: since, that
Coordinating conjunctions: and
(... is, was, will, do)
(... can, could, ought)
(... under, over)
(... himself, one)
(... the, some)
(... these, this)
(... two, four thousand five hundred)
(... when, though, if)
(... or, but)
Exercise: Translate the sentence in (35) in your native language and write it
in a piece of paper.
(35)
Her husband told Sue that he might be late for the dinner she had
prepared.
Next, mark the lexical category of each word using the categories seen
before (use “other” for parts that do not seem to fall into any of them)
Morphemes
Even in English, a morphologically rather simple language, not all words are
atomic:
(36)
a.
b.
c.
wanted = want-ed
dogs = dog-s
carefully = care-ful-ly
(37)
corre-v-amo
run-IMPERFECT-1P.PL
“we used to run / we were running”
(38)
morpheme = a part of a word that cannot be divided preserving a
meaning.
I
The morpheme is thus basic descrete unit of information in human
language – cf. the bit in informatics. Language is not analogic.
I
The meaning of a morpheme is given by a connection to objects (things,
actions, events...) in the world (mediated by our mental representation of
them), but the morpheme-object mapping is arbitrary (and historically
derived)
I
A few exceptions: names for animal sounds (but cookadoodle-doo vs.
chicchirichì); rimbombare ‘to rumble’ (onomatopoeia);
The formal side: Free and Bound Morphemes
Some morphemes can stand alone as words (39): they are called free
morphemes (this doesn’t mean that they can never appear together with
other morphemes: see want-ed, vs. also)
(39)
a.
b.
book, want, also, enough, Jack, girl
città ‘city’, va ‘go’, che, ‘that’
Other morphemes need to be attached to other morphemes to be used (they
are typically written with a dash at the connection point). They are called
bound morphemes.
(40)
a.
b.
-ed, -s, -ly, -er (in bigg-er)
-amo, -mente, -o (in ragazz-o ‘boy’)
Words can be formed by a single (free) morpheme, or by multiple morpheme:
(41)
book-s, girl-friend-s, son-in-law, black-bird
The formal side: Free and Bound Morphemes
Bound morphemes typically attach to the part of a word which gives the word
its “core” meaning:
(42)
a.
b.
in-sincere, anti-gravity, pre-cognition
sincer-ity, gravitation-al, colonializ-ation
When a bound morpheme attaches to a (part of a) word:
I
the (part of the) word that supports the morpheme is called the base.
Bases can be:
I
I
I
Morphemes themselves: they are called roots: girl-s, want-ed
Derived from roots+morphemes: they are called derived words or
derivatives: colonializ-ation, girl-friend-s
that part of the word that attaches to a base is called an affix.
Depending on the position, it can be:
I
I
I
a prefix, if it attaches before the base: anti-gravity, pre-mature
an suffix, if it attaches after the base: colonializ-ation, girl-friend-s
an infix, if it attaches inside the base (typologically more rare, but see the
non concatenative morphology of Semitic languages): abso-bloodly-lutely
Exercize: Dissect a word
anticolonialization
I
Divide the word into morphemes.
I
For each morpheme, state whether it is is free or bound, a prefix or an
affix.
I
Give the order of their application
(“first X attaches to the base Y as a prefix, then ...”)
Exercize: dissect a word
anticolonialization
(43)
a.
b.
c.
d.
anti-colonialization
colonializ-ation
colonial-ize
colony-al
prefix+base
base+suffix
base+suffix
base+suffix
Now give the syntactic category for each base (test: can it go with an article,
a noun, a subject?)
The meaning side: Content and Function Morphemes
Along another dimension, morphemes can be distinguished in two classes
related to a very general aspect of meaning
1. Lexical (or contentful, or content) morphemes
2. Grammatical (or functional, or just function) morphemes
In the first class: morphemes that form the root for nouns, names, verbs and
adjectives. Properties:
I
They have a link (“refer”) to objects, events, actions, properties in the
world.
I
More of them can be easily formed (laser, to laser; acronyms,
product/company names, etc.): they are an open class
I
Last objects lost in certain brain damages (strokes, dementia)
The meaning side: Content and Function Morphemes
In the second class, grammatical/function morphemes: free morphemes for
determiners, prepositions, conjunctions, certain adverbs, as well as affixes
for tense, number, gender, auxiliary verbs, etc.
(44)
-s, -ed, therefore, always, he, upon, every, -ly
I
They do not refer to entities in the world.
I
They make explicit the grammatical relations among other morphemes /
words / phrases.
I
Their meaning often expresses a small number of grammaticalized
alternatives (e.g. plural vs. singular, masculine vs. feminine, present vs.
past, perfect vs. imperfect)
I
They are closed-class items: they are introduced and lost in language
only in long spans of time (language change).
I
They can be disrupted in forms of brain damage which do not disrupt
content words.
Many mixed or unclear cases; movement from content to function
(grammaticalization)
(45)
this sort of people, he sort-of accepted
Morphemes and Morphs
I
Morphemes can often be concretely realized in multiple ways.
I
Useful to distinguish between the abstract concept of “morpheme” and
its actual realizations, called a morph
(46)
(from the Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics on
Book Rags)
a. “The smallest meaningful phonetic segment of an utterance
on the level of parole which cannot yet be classified as a
representative of a particular morpheme (on the level of
langue).”
b. “If two or more morphs have the same meaning but a
different distribution then they belong to the same
morpheme and are called allomorphs of that morpheme.”
(47)
drink-able, ed-ible = can be drank/eaten.
able-morpheme
(48)
a.
b.
Allomorphs of
tap-s, cat-s, Rebok-s Allomorphs of the English plural suffix
tab-s, cad-s, bog-s
Notice that the variation depends on the phonological form of the root (a
case of conditioned allomorphy)
Morphemes and Morphs
I
Allomorphy: an extreme case (?)
(49)
more rare / rar-er, most rare / rar-est
Acceptable to the extent one cannot find difference in meaning for the
two forms (cf. this is more rare than unique vs. this is rarer than unique)
I
Sometimes the same phonetic string is a morph of different morphemes.
(50)
(51)
-er
a. hard-er
b. writ-er
a.
b.
comparative
agentive
in-delebile
negative: cf. im-possibile, in-audito, ...
in-fiammabile “(make to) become X”: cf. inacidire, imbellire,
inorgoglire, ...
Exercise: Swahili Verbs, English -s
I
Analyze the following Swahili verbs in morphemes and roots:
(52)
I
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Ninasoma
Anasoma
Tunasoma
Nilisoma
Alisoma
Nitasoma
Tutasoma
I am reading
he/she is reading
we are reading
I read (past)
he/she read (past)
I will read
We will read
Show that the -s in (53-a) and (53-b) are distinct morphemes with the
same allomorph (ignore the ortographic convension of writing “’s”)
(53)
a.
b.
Your parent-s
Your parent-’s house
Inflection and Derivation
Affixes can be divided in two classes: inflectional and derivational
I
Inflectional affixes espress the traditional notions of (noun and
adjectives) declension and (verbal) conjugation.
They express obligatory grammatical information (e.g. whether a noun is
plural or singular, nominative or accusative), some of which can be
involved in syntactic processes such as agreement.
(54)
I
I ragazz-i corr-ono
the boy-s run-3P.PLUR
Derivational affixes are affixes that create new word forms starting from
existing ones. They do not trigger agreement.
(55)
employ / employs
(56)
emply-er / employ-ee
Inflection and Derivation
I
In English or Italian inflectional affixes are always suffixes (i.e. they never
occur before the root); derivational affixes can be prefixes (dis-, ex-, in-)
or affixes (happy-ness, audac-ity).
I
Across languages, inflectional affixes always apply outside derivational
ones.
(57)
I
I
a.
b.
Boy-hood-s / *boy-s-hood
behaviour-ism-s / *behaviour-s-ism
Derivational affixes can apply over other derivational affixes, inflectional
ones over inflectional ones.
(58)
Antidisestablishmentarianism
(59)
scatol-ett-in-a.
box-SMALL.CUTE-SMALL-FEM
“a little cute box”
(60)
Muchach-o-s
youth-MALE-PLUR
“boys”
Only inflection can use non-affixal means (e.g. ablaut) to express
grammatical features: mouse/mice, sing /sang, ox/oxen
Inflection and Derivation
I
Derivational affixes are often semantically opaque: the meaning of the
root+suffix is not predictable from the meaning of its parts.
(61)
inter-view, curios-ity (as in shop of curiosities)
I
The application of a derivational affix to a root can be hardly productive
(no words can be coined from new roots plus a ‘non productive’ suffix)
I
Sometimes derivational affixes apply only to certain (historically
motivated) subsets of the lexicon.
(62)
(63)
a.
b.
sign-ify, ident-ity, investig-ate, feder-al
friend-ship, sweet-ness, beauti-ful, brother-hood
*ident-ness, *feder-hood, *sweet-ity, *brother-al, *brother-ity
The suffixes in (62-a) only apply to Latinate roots, those in (62-b) to
Germanic roots.
Inflection and Derivation
I
Derivational affixes can change the syntactic category of a word,
inflectional ones never do.
AFFIX
-ment
-ize
-ful
-ly
-s
-er
I NPUT
Verbs
Nouns
Adjs
Nouns
Adjs
Nouns
Adjs
OUTPUT
Nouns
Verbs
Verbs
Adjs
Advs
Plural Nouns
Compar.Adjs
EXAMPLE
establish-ment
burglar-ize
Islamic-ize
care-ful
calm-ly
dog-s
big-er
Exercise: -ly
Is English -ly a derivational or an inflectional affix?
Consider:
(64)
slowly, smoothly, hardly, rarely, intelligently, purposefully
For the Italian speakers: what about the Italian ‘superlative’ affix -issim- ?
(65)
alt-issim-a
tall-VERY-SNG.FEM
Zero Allomorphy
Consider:
(66)
Il cricet-o corr-e
the hamster-SING run-3P.SING
(67)
Il cricet-i corr-ono
the hamster-PLUR run-3P.PLUR
(68)
The hamster(s) run(s)
If inflectional morphemes express ’syntactically useful’ info which trigger
agreement, what is in English the morpheme which triggers SING in runs?
Zero Allomorphy
To keep the system run as in Italian (and many other languages), we have to
say that -sSING alternates with a zero morph: a morpheme with no phonology.
Cf.
(69)
a.
b.
Karl has left while Julia hasn’t.
Jack bought whisky and Gina, soda.
(70)
Partirò ’I_will_leave’
Zero-affixation is not limited to inflectional morphology:
(71)
The water runs / to water the plants.
(72)
“In English, any noun can be verbized”
Not to be outdone, Italian sports infinito sostantivato
(73)
Il [camminare lentamente] fa bene
the [walkINF
slowly]
is healthy
Portmanteau Morphemes
Consider:
(74)
a.
b.
Muchach-o-s ’youth-MASC-PLUR’
ragazz-o ’youth-MASC.PLUR’
(75)
ragazz-o, ragazz-a, ragazz-i, ragazz-e
Spanish
Italian
The morphemes -o,-a,-i-,e convey two independent grammatical features,
which are assigned to different morphemes in Spanish (∅/-s, -o-/-a-)
A morpheme which expresses more than one grammatical aspect is called a
“portmanteau morpheme”
English example: I/me, he/him. Why?
Suppletion
Consider:
(76)
a.
b.
c.
d.
be, is, am, was, were (*be-ed, *be-s)
go/went (*go-ed)
good/well (*good-ly)
Mouse/mice (“mouses” – only computer’s)
Irregular forms like these are called suppletive forms
I
Suppletive forms are typical of highly frequent verbs (e.g. auxiliaries)
I
They typically reflect a process of historical change.
I
As they learn the language, children go through a phase in which all
these forms are regularized (daddy goed).
Blocking
An interesting question is: what makes go-ed impossible, since go-ing exists?
(so the root go- must be available).
The phenomenon is quite more general:
(77)
audacity, generosity, *gloriosity
(78)
idea: (i) Glory exists, audacy, genery do not; (ii) more
specific/idiosyncratic lexical items prevent the creation of more
compositional root-affix combinations.
Blocking
More generally:
(79)
Specific rules block more general rules Kiparsky’s “elsewhere
condition”
In Italian:
(80)
*audacità, generosità, *gloriosità
audacia, gloria, *generosia
Other examples:
(81)
a.
b.
thief, *steal-er
liver (organ), *liver (one who lives)
Three conditions: synonymy, productivity, and frequency (of the blocker)
What’s listed in the lexicon?
1. Roots
2. Inflectional and derivational suffixes
3. Suppletive forms
4. Idioms
5. (High frequency) regular roots plus derivational affixes (?)
6. (High frequency) regular inflected forms (?)
7. All possible root+suffix combinations (??)
The last possibility would be feasible in English, but hardly in other languages.
Example: the Zapotec spoken in S.Lucas Quiavinì, a Mayan language.
Verbs marked differently depending on (i) distance of the subject (ii)
formality (iii) person (iv) number (total: 19 forms), (v) aspect (6
forms) (vi) suffixed adverbials. = about 2394 distinct forms for each
verb.
This is probably an excessive amount even for the human brain.
Cranberry morphemes
(82)
a.
b.
c.
d.
blue-berry
black-berry
rasp-berry
cran-berry
(83)
De-fer, con-fer, in-fer, pre-fer
Question: what do these series have in common?
Cranberry morphemes
(84)
a.
b.
c.
d.
blue-berry
black-berry
rasp-berry
cran-berry
(85)
De-fer, con-fer, in-fer, pre-fer
Answer: They contain the morphemes cran- and -fer (from latin fero), which
do not have any actual meaning and do not exist independently.
(86)
basset horn, bogeyman, iceberg, fig newton
(87)
strawberry, cottage cheese, polka dot, tea cozy, hillbilly, sheepfold
Sometime a paradigm shows that some part of a word must be a morpheme,
but we don’t (or no longer) have a way to say what it means (the “ultimate
bound morpheme”).
Multiple affixation
Question: What is the correct pars for cases such as:
(88)
unregretful
a. un-regret-ful
b. un-regretful
c. unregret-ful
What about:
(89)
de-caffein-ate
Neither decaffe nor caffeinate is really a (used) morpheme (note however that
the de meaning remove/without does not really apply to Ns, while caffeinate
could be a real operation)
What counts as a “possible morpheme”?
Additional word formation processes
I
Troncation (clipping)
(90)
Aaron / Ron, Elizabeth / Liz
I
Blends (mo-dem, sm-og)
I
Acronyms (USA)
I
Reduplication
(91)
I
skasing / skaskaplur ‘to be white’
Compounding
Lakhota
Compounding
In many languages, the most general way to form new words.
Properties:
I
Recursivity
I
Headedness
I
Stress
I
Interpretation
Compounding: Recursivity
(92)
a.
b.
c.
d.
teaching award
university [teaching award]
[university [teaching award]] committee
[[university [teaching award]] committee] member
(93)
a.
b.
[university teaching] award
university [teaching award]
(94)
a.
b.
c.
astro-physics
bio-chemistry
photo-ionize
(95)
astro-, bio-, photo-
bound content morphemes (from Latin)
Compounding: Headedness
In English (and all Germanic) compounds have their head to the right. The
“head” determines the global meaning, syntactic behaviour and grammatical
featutes of the whole compound.
(96)
a.
b.
film company
company film
(97)
a.
b.
deep-fryv
knee-deepadj
(98)
beer bottle
(99)
a. *parks commissioner
b. park commissioners
countable
In Romance languages, on the other hand, the head is on the other side:
(100)
a.
b.
uomo rana ‘man frog’
Apri bottiglie ’open can’
Exceptions: terre-moto ‘Earth move’
scuba diver
can opener
from Latin
Compounding: Stress
In English, the stress in a DP is normally on the rightmost element (the
noun). Not so with compounds:
(101)
a.
b.
The green cárpet, his new háuse, such a good jób
[páyment problems], [installátion guide], [gréen preservation]
(102)
a black bóard vs. a bláck board
But many exceptions:
(103)
a.
b.
Sixth ávenue
Síxth street
The meaning of compounds
Compounds range from completely lexicalized and frozen cases to
completely new and productive ones. The topic is much investigated in the
computational community.
Compounds can contain certain syntactic combinations:
Conjunction:
(104)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
[health and welfare] fund
[primary and caucus] states
[cock and bull] story
[media, retail, and property] empire
[relaxation and [focus concentration]] techniques
[[stress relief] and [aroma therapy]] product
The meaning of compounds
Adjective-Noun Combinations:
(105)
a.
b.
c.
d.
[foreign exchange] flow
[sexual harassment] laws
[First Amendment] values
[smoked pork shoulder][boiled dinner]
Paired arguments
(106)
a.
b.
[love-hate] relationship
[Port-cornstarch] mixture
Compounds as remnants of protolanguage
Jackendoff, R. “Compounding in the Parallel Architecture”
(107)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
accident prevention program
neighborhood liquor store
campaign finance indictment
winter weather skin troubles
health management cost containment services
Similarity between compound structures, pidgin, aphasic languages
N-N compound schemata
(108)
a.
b.
Argument schema: [N1 N2] = ’a N2 by/of/... N1’
example:
“Truck driver” = a driver of trucks
Modifier schema: [N1 N2] = ’an N2 such that some relation F is
true of N1 and N2’
example: “gun attack” = an attack carried
out with guns
But are there constraints on what F can be ?
Reversibility
Sometimes the relation is reversible:
(109)
a.
b.
helicopter1 attack2 = ’an attack on something by helicopter(s)’
attack1 helicopter2 = ’a helicopter whose proper function is to
attack things’
(110)
beef stew ‘stufato di manzo’ / stew beef ‘manzo da stufato’
Sometimes “profiling” is at work: choosing one of the participant in a relation
as the “active” one.
(111)
a.
b.
John sold Bill a cow.
Bill bought a cow from John
Classification of some possible relations between N1 and N2
I
CLASSIFY (X,Y), ’X classifies Y’: beta cell, X-ray. This is the loosest
possible relation, in which the meaning of N1 plays only a classificatory
role.
I
Y(X), ’an X of/by Y’: sea level, union member, wavelength, hairstyle,
helicopter attack, tooth decay. Sometimes reversible.
I
BOTH (X,Y), ’both X and Y’: boy king, politician tycoon. (“Dvandva”
compounds)
I
SAME/SIMILAR (X, Y), ’X and Y are the same/similar’: zebrafish, piggy
bank, string bean, sunflower.
I
KIND (X,Y), ’X is a kind of Y’: puppy dog, ferryboat, limestone.
Reversible: seal pup, bear cub
I
SERVES-AS (Y, X), ’Y serves as X’: handlebar, extension cord,
farmland, retainer fee, buffer state.
I
LOC (X, Y), ’Y is located at/in/on X’: sunspot, window seat, tree house,
background music, nose hair, donut hole. Reversible: ’X located at/in/on
Y’, or, reprofiled, ’Y with X at/in/on it’: raincloud, garlic bread, inkpad,
stairwell, icewater, water bed
I
LOCtemp (X, Y), ’Y takes place at time X’: spring rain, morning swim, 3
a.m. blues. A special case of LOC (X, Y).
I
CAUSE (X, Y), ’X causes Y’: sunburn, diaper rash, knife wound, surface
drag.
I
COMP (X, Y), ’Y is composed of X’: felafel ball, rubber band, rag doll,
tinfoil, brass instrument Reversible: ’Y that X is composed of’: wallboard,
bathwater, brick cheese, sheet metal.
Compound meanings: Italian vs. English
It has been noted that prepositionless compounds have wider meanings in
English (Germanic) than in Italian (Romance).
(112)
a.
b.
c.
Bike girl
Ragazza bicicletta
ragazza della bicicletta
Many English compounds are rendered as prepositional compounds
(113)
abito da sera, elicottero da attacco, cibo per cani, etc.
Perhaps a syntax vs. morphology divide?
Compounds: syntac or morphology?
Case in point: Italian deverbal nominal compounds.
(114)
a.
b.
raccolta privata rifiuti tossici
collection private waste toxic
’private collection of toxic waste’
delibera comunale raccolta privata rifiuti tossici
deliberation municipal collection private waste toxic
’municipal deliberation on the private collection of toxic waste’
(115)
trattamento plastiche e multimateriale da raccolta differenziata
treatment plastics and multi-material from collection selective
’treatment of plastic materials and diverse materials (derived) from
selective (waste) collection’
(116)
trattamento [materie plastiche]i e [smaltimento loroi derivati]
treatment [materials plastic]i and [disposal
theiri by-products]
’treatment of plastic materials and disposal of their by-products’
Baroni, Guevara, Zamparelli (2008): they are part of the syntax of “titles”.
Sensitivity to structures
What does it mean to say that language is sensitive to structure?
Example. Suppose we want to state the rule of English that forms yes/no
questions out of affirmative sentences, mapping (a) into (b).
(117)
a.
b.
Memories will fade away.
Will memories fade away?
(118)
a.
b.
John can do it.
Can John do it?
(119)
a.
b.
Mary does speak Mandarin!
Does Mary speak Mandarin?
Hypothesis 1: “To form a question, move the 2nd word before the 1rst
word.”. But:
(120)
a. John speaks Mandarin.
b. *Speaks John Mandarin? OK in Shakespeare’s
English
(121)
a. Memories of happiness will fade away.
b. *Of memories happiness will fade away?
(122)
a. Probably John can do it.
b. *John probably can do it?
Hypothesis 2: “To form a question, move the first auxiliary at the beginning.”
But:
(123)
a. A guy I have met is sick.
b. *Have a guy I met is sick?
What we really want is:
“Invert the first auxiliary of the main clause with the noun phrase functioning
as subject of that clause”
Note: From the way most of them begin in English, the interrogative elements
who, what, which, where, when, why and how are called Wh-pronouns.
Example 2: Wh-questions.
How to describe the process that leads from (124-a) to (b).
(124)
a.
b.
Anna will leave Frank
Who will Anna leave?
Hypothesis 1: Assign numbers to the words and go from (125-a) to (b).
(125)
a.
b.
1-2-3-4⇒
who 2 - 1 - 3?
Problem:
(126)
Anna saw the child ⇒ who saw Anna the?
Hypothesis 2: “Remove the last noun and the article preceding it. Insert who
at the beginning of the sentence. Invert the first verb with the
first noun”
Problem:
(127)
Anna swam with a friend. ⇒ Who swam Anna with
Morale: counting words or using identifiers such as “the first/last verb/noun”
just doesn’t work.
Neither does linear order: a pronouns like him or the reflexive himself cannot
always refer to a noun just because it precedes the pronoun.
(128)
a.
b.
Johni likes himselfi /*himi
Two sisters of Johni like *himselfi /himi
(129)
a. [The teacher], [every student]i and [heri mother]
b.??Either [the teacher and [every student]i ] or [heri mother]
We need more structured concepts: linguistic constituents, natural units
identified by the role they play in the sentence.
I
Constituents can then be grouped into larger constituents (so they can
be formed by words or by smaller constituents)
I
Constituents can be named after the main word they contain (technically,
the head)
I
Constituents can contain other constituents of the same type (= they can
be recursive).
I
All syntactic and semantic operations are sensitive to constituent
structure.
Constituents
How can we decide which parts of a string of language should be grouped
together as a constituent?
Constituents behave as natural units for many linguistic phenomena.
(130)
The president ate a pretzel
(131)
a. [the president] ate [a pretzel]
b. *the [president ate] [a pretzel]
In this case, the intuition that determiner and noun form a unit together is
strong and clear.
We can give names for these units: since they contain a determiner and a
noun we call them Determiner Phrases DP for short (in the older literature,
they were referred to as Noun Phrase, or NP.
Today, the Det is considered to be the head of DPs, and “NP” is reserved as
the name for a subpart of DPs, see later.)
In less clear cases, we can use a variety of constituency tests:
I
Pronominalization
I
Isolated answer
I
Cleft
I
Topicalization
I
Adverb insertions.
I
...
Pronominalization/isolated answer
Pro-forms always refer to constituents. If a suitable pro-form exists in the
language, it is possible to use it to identify a constituent. This also applies tp
Wh-forms.
(132)
a.
b.
The president tasted a pretzel.
Hei tasted itj .
he = the president, it = a pretzel
(133)
The president tasted a pretzel last night in his limousine, with a
pinch of salt.
(134)
a.
b.
When1 and how2 did he3 tasted it4 there5 ?
[The president]3 tasted [a pretzel]4 [last night]1 [in his
limousine]5 , [with a pinch of salt]2 .
Moreover. “the president” can be used as a stand alone reply to the question
“who tasted the pretzel?”. This cannot be done with other substrings like
“president tasted” or “tasted the”.
Cleft
Linguistically, a “Cleft” is a structure of the form:
(135)
It was X + Relative Clause ...
where the X must be a constituent.
(136)
(137)
a.
b.
c.
d.
It was [the president] who saw the pretzel.
It was [the pretzel] what the president saw.
It was [in his limousine] that the president ate the pretzel.
It was [just the other day] that the president ate the pretzel.
*It was [president taste] what/that (the) the pretzel.
⇒ only constituents can be clefted.
Topicalization
It Italian, constituents can be fronted to make them dicourse topics.
(138)
[Il pretzel], il presidente lo visto.
[the pretzel], the president it saw
(139)
[Nella macchina], [il presidente] [il pretzel] lo mangierebbe.
[in_the car],
[the president], [the pretzel], he_it_would_eat
The first 3 constituents are topicalized. The rest of the sentence is just “lo
mangerebbe” (‘he would eat it’).
The next, less trivial question question is: what to do with the rest of (140)?
(140)
[The president] tasted [a pretzel]
Should it be a tripartitite structure, as in (141-a), or should we postulate one
of the two asymmetric possibilitie?
(141)
a.
b.
c.
[[the president] [tasted] [a pretzel]]
[the president] [tasted [a pretzel]]
[[the president] tasted] [a pretzel]
symmetrical
right-branching
left-branching
The relation between V and the two noun phrases with respect to agreement
suggests an symmetry (142). Left or right?
(142)
a. [The president]sing eatssing [doughnuts]plur
b. *[The president]sing eatplur [doughnuts]plur
Consider:
I
Adverb insertion:
(143)
I
[The president] immediately ate [a doughnut]
[The president] ate immediately [a doughnut]
Pro-forms:
(144)
I
a.
b.
a. The president [ate a doughnut], and Hilary did, too.
b. *[The president ate] a doughnut, and did a marshmallow,
too.
Focusing:
6) The president said he would eat a doughnut, and indeed, [eat a
doughnut] he did!
I
Isolated answers
(145)
(146)
I
b.
Q: Who did something to the pretzel, and what did he do?
/ What happened to the pretzel?
A: *The president tasted.
a.
b.
Q: What did you want the president to do?
A: Taste the pretzel.
a.
Cleft:
(147)
a. It is [taste the pretzel] what the president did.
b. *It is [the president taste] what the pretzels.
We conclude that the verb plus the object forms a Determiner Phrase (DP),
that we call Verb Phrase (VP). Note that here we have a constituent (VP) that
contains another constituent (a DP)
(148)
John [ VP fed [ DP his dog]]
What about intransitive verbs? For uniformity, we can assume that even verbs
like sleep, blush or arrive are contained in (or as linguists say, project) a VP,
formed in this case by a single word.
(149)
John [ VP slept]
We also want to use the terminology “Determiner Phrases” non only for
(150), but also for the bracketed constituents in (151), which do not contain a
determiner (recall that determiners are words like (a, the, every, many, two,
twenty seven, some, most, a few etc.).
(150)
It was [a boy]
(151)
a.
b.
c.
d.
[I] saw [horses]]
[He] drank [whisky]
[They] met [Jack]
The reason os that the linguistic tests that tell us that a boy is a constituent in
(150) (pronominalization, etc.) give the same results for (151), and there is no
sytactic context (in English) which could accept the woman but not, e.g., Sue,
she.
Now that DPs and VPs are in place, we can look at the functional role DPs
play with respect to the verbs. Five possible roles are recognized:
1. Subject
2. Predicate
3. Direct Object
4. Indirect Object
5. Adjunct
Subjects and predicates
(152)
[The cat] [devoured the rat]
Subject Predicate
How to define ‘subject’?
“The first DP in the sentence”
but:
(153)
Last night John came home drunk.
I
Subject (semantic definition): “that constituent which tells who or what
performs the action denoted by the verb” or “what the sentence is about”
I
Predicate (semantic definition): whatever functions to specify what the
subject is engaged in doing.
I
Predicate (operative definition): everything in the sentence but the
subject.
We can try to identify subjects using multiple tests from different viewpoints.
Subjects...
Status
...are obligatory
[always, but so are
predicates]
(1) John ate (a pie)
(2) * Ate a pie
Position
...are the first DP in the sentence
[often]
Category
...are Determiner Phrases
[usually]
Agreement ...agree with the verb
[in many languages
Inversion
...may invert with the Auxiliary
[in Germanic langua
(3a) The teacher is drunk
(3b) Is [the teacher] drunk?
(4a) The kids have arrived safely
(4b) Have the kids arrived safely
Tags
...are referred to in tag questions
[in English]
(5) [This teacher]i is a genious, isn’t hei
(6)[The kids]i have arrived safely, haven’t theyi
A corollary: meaningless (“expletive”) subjects.
(154)
It was freezing cold in Moscow
(155)
It rains a lot.
(156)
It seems that John is guilty(, doesn’t it)?
(157)
There is a man in the Moon(, isn’t there)?
(158)
There seems to be some confusion on this matter.
Contrast with referencial uses of “it/there”
(159)
We bought [a new fridge]i . Iti is freezing ice cubes in the kitchen.
(160)
{Under the bed/There} is a nice place to hide!
Direct Objects (DO)
(161)
The cat devoured [the rat]
[the rat] = Direct object (DO)
The obligatory presence of objects is of a different nature than that of subject:
it is not a language-wide specification; rather, it depends on the type of verb:
Transitive verbs, e.g. “devoured”, “bought”, “takes”
Intransitive verbs, e.g. “slept”, “run”, “arrived”
Finer classification:
Verb class
Transitive
Transitive,
with reflexive intransitive
Transitive,
with (related?) intransitive
Transitive,
with implicit/prototypical
object understood
Intransitive,
with possible
‘internal’ object
Intransitive
Example
John displaced *(the table)
John said *(that Mary had gone)
John shaved (himself)
Mary washed (herself)
John moved the table.
John moved.
John walked the dog
John walked
The baby ate (the soup)
The gypsy was reading (the book)
John ran (a long run)
Mary slept (a very good sleep)
John arrived (* a great arrival)
Mary came back (* a late return)
Notes
not: himself
not: “his toy”
not: “my hand”
Transitive verbs select the type of objects they require, DP, declarative
sentence or either.
(162)
a.
b.
c.
d.
I displaced {the table / *that ... / *if ...}
I hope {*the victory / that she won / *if she wins }
I wonder {*the issue / *that she won / if she won }
I know {the story / that she won / whether she won}
Parallel between transitive/intransitive V and determiners/pronouns:
(163)
a.
b.
c.
[the presidents] (“the” = a ‘transitive’ determiner)
[them/we] (intransitive determiners = pronouns)
[we linguists] (intransitive determiners with a modifier)
Direct objects can passivize:
(164)
a.
b.
His girlfriend bought this computer.
This computer was bought (by his girlfriend)
(165)
a.
b.
My sister found this book
This book was found (by my sister)
In passivization:
I
DO of active sentence becomes Subject of passive.
I
The auxiliary “be” is inserted.
I
The verb of active sentence appears in participle form.
I
Subject of active goes in a “by” phrase.
I
The “by”-phrase is optional.
A typical linguistic question:
what is passive? why not all verbs passivize?
(166)
a. John resembles Bill
b.??Bill is resembled by John
(167)
a. 1996 witnessed the revival of tribal body piercing.
b. *The revival of tribal body piercing was witnessed by 1996.
(168)
a. The pig weighs 200 Kg.
b. *200 Kg are weighed by the pig.
Indirect Object (IO)
(169)
We gave [the boys] the CD
(170)
The publisher sent [her] a copy of the book
Semantically: the entity (typically, animate) that ‘receives’ the DO. Indirect
Objects ...
I
Are DPs
I
Require DO
(171)
I
Always precede DO.
(172)
I
*We gave the CD [the boys]
Can be alternatively expressed with a “to”-phrase
(173)
I
*We gave the boys.
We gave the CD [to the boys]
Can be turned into passives (the subject goes into a “by”-phrase. DO
stays put)
(174)
[The boys] were given the CD by us
Contrast:
(175)
a.
b.
We gave the boys the CD
We gave the CD to the boys.
(176)
a. *The CD was given the boys by us
b. The CD was given to the boys by us
Test: how do IO behave in your language? Can they passivize?
Adjuncts
I
Subjects and Direct Objects answer the question who? or what?.
I
Indirect Objects answer the question To whom?
I
Adjuncts answer all the remaining question types: how?, why?, where?
and when?. Adjuncts are often contrasted with Arguments, which are:
Subjects, DO, IO.
(177)
The bus stopped [suddently]
(178)
Shakespeare wrote his plays [long time ago]
(179)
They went to theatre [in London]
(180)
He hates math, [because he cannot understand it]
Adjuncts are always optional, and can be repeated.
Q: Which of the bracketed constituenst is an adjunct?
(181)
a.
b.
c.
John slept [on the bed]
John put the blanket [on the bed]
The blanket is [on the bed]
A: The first one. Why?
Many approaches to the problem of meaning.
I
Meaning of words (for content words, entailment relations: run ⇒ move,
bird ⇒ animal)
I
Relations between the verbal arguments and the verb (thematic roles).
I
The meaning of whole sentences, compositionally derived from their
constituent parts.
I
The meaning of discourses (what makes a discourse coherent, how the
reference of pronouns and definite descriptions is established across
sentences).
Meaning of content words (lexical semantics)
I
Morphology (derivational: drinkable = can be drank; compounds fishing
rod = rod which is used for fishing)
I
Relations between word meanings (hypo- and hyper-onymy,
material-part-of: discussed in the course on “Language Resources and
Ontologies”)
Thematic Rolations
So far we have seen different classifications for a string like the ugly dog
I
With respect to the syntactic head that introduces it, it is a Determiner
Phrase (DP). This will not change no matter where you place the string.
I
With respect to the syntactic relations with the verb, it can be a subject
(the ugly dog runs), an object (“I kicked the ugly dog”), an indirect object
(directly, as in I gave the ugky dog a bone or within a PP, as in I gave a
bone to the ugly dog), an adjunct (John sleeps with the ugly dog at his
side).
I
We need to introduce a third, more semantic classification, based on the
type of semantic relation it established with the verb: agent, patient,
experiencer, etc.
A logically-minded functional distinction for sentences regards them as
objects formed by predicates and arguments.
Predicates differ in the number of arguments they can take.
I
Intransitives: only one (the Subject)
I
Transitives: two (Subject and Direct Object)
hate
I
Ditransitives: three (Subject, Direct Object and Indirect Object)
give
I
More than 3 arguments (?): these cases always include a sentencial
complement: e.g. bet ([John] bet [5 dollars][with Bill] [that the Yankees
would win]). Difficult the distinguish them from adjuncts.
Since the Subject is external to the Verb Phrase, it is called the External
Argument. DO and IO are Internal Arguments.
smile
A typical list of theta roles
Agent The deliberate ‘doer’ of an action denoted by the predicate.
Patient Undergoes the action and its state is changed.
Theme Undergoes the action and is not changed by it.
Experiencer The living entity which experiences the action, state or event
denoted by the predicate.
Goal The location or entity toward which something moves or is
carried.
Benefactive The entity that benefits from the action/event.
Source The location or entity from which something comes.
Instrument The medium by which the action/event is carried out (by an
agent)
(Natural) cause The natural cause of something.
Locative The specification of the place where the action/event takes
place.
Temporal The specification of the time where the action/event takes
place.
Measure Expresses an amount along a scale.
Agents are arguments that deliberately ‘bring about’ a state of affairs.
Syntactically, they are typically subjects. The line between agents, on the one
hand, and instruments or (natural) causes, on the other, can be fuzzy, but
agents are (or are perceived to be) conscious or sentient, while instruments
and causes aren’t.
(182)
a.
b.
c.
[The lions] devoured the wildbeast.
The boys caught some fish.
My mother wrote me a letter.
Agent
(183)
a.
b.
c.
[This key] opens the door to the main office.
They must have used [indelible ink].
They broke in with [a hammer]
(184)
a.
b.
c.
[Hurricane-force winds] demolished much of the town.
Natural Cause
[An epidemic] killed off all of the tomatoes.
[An economic downturn] put thousands of workers out of work.
Instrument
The distinction between themes and patients is slippery and many
researchers use only one of the two, or consider them synonymous. For
those who don’t, the difference seems to be that patients arguments undergo
a change of state as a result of the action, while themes don’t.
(185)
a.
b.
c.
The lions devoured [the wildbeast].
John broke [the door] to the main office.
The sun melted [the snow].
Patient
(186)
a.
b.
c.
John saw [Bill].
I remember [Samarcanda] vividly.
I pushed [the chair] away.
Theme
(the fine line is whether a physical movement as in (186-c) counts as a
‘change-of-state’).
The Unaccusative Alternation
Note frequent alternations such as:
(187)
a.
b.
John broke [the vase]
[The vase] broke
(188)
a.
b.
The sun died up [the tomatoes]
[the tomatoes] dried up.
(189)
a.
b.
The doctor healed [the wound]
[the wound] healed.
(190)
a.
b.
c.
John filled up [the truck] with [hay]
[Hay] filled up the truck.
[the truck] filled up.
But no pairs like:
(191)
a. John bought [coffee]
b. *[Coffee] bought.
The meaning of sentences
I
What is the right approach to capture the meaning of constituents larger
than words?
I
One approach is start from the meaning of declarative sentences.
Sentences were not very studied in linguistics before the 50ies, but there
is an extensive logico/philosophical tradition (dating back to Aristotle and
to the work of Medieval grammarians) to analyze the meaning of certain
types of subject-predicate sentences and of their valid patterns of
inference.
I
These approaches are all based on the notion of truth.
The truth-functional approach to declarative sentences
I
The basic idea behind this approach is that to understand the meaning
of a sentence S means to be able to say, in every possible circumstance,
whether S is true or not.
I
This approach can be extended to interrogative sentences (who are
you?), imperatives (Go out!), using the notions of what it means to
answer the question or to obey the command.
Compositionality
I
Just as in syntax we can parse and give grammaticality judgements on
sentences we have never heard, thus in semantics we can understand
the meaning of completely novel sentences.
I
There must thus be a principle to compose the meaning of smaller units
into the meaning of larger ones (Principle of Compositionality).
I
Hypothesis: The constituents built via syntactic principles are the same
used to build meaning compositionally.
Sentence truth
I
To lay down the general plan for the construction of meaning we will
make use of concepts taken from mathematics (in particular, set theory)
and logic. One key concept is the matematical notion of function.
I
We assume that the meaning of a declarative sentence S is a function f
such that for every possibly circumstance f(S) = 1 or f(S) = 0.
I
While f( ) (called the evaluation function) can go directly from language
to {1,0}, in most theories sentences are first translated in formulas of a
logical language (commonly the language of first-order Predicate
Calculus (PC)), which can them be interpreted as {1,0} by a (more or
less standard) procedure to give a semantics to PC.
Instead of writing every time f([John]) for “the semantic interpretation of the
syntactic structure John”, we will use the double square brackets J K.
(192)
(193)
JJohnK = the interpretation of the string “John” (a person)
JJohn loves MaryK = the interpretation of “John loves Mary” (true or
false in context)
Going via logic:
(194)
JJohn sleepsKt,w = sleep’(john)
A function which, evaluated at time t and place w, will give 1 iff the individual
john satisfies the property sleep0 at t in w.
(195)
JJohn loves MaryKt,w = love’(john, mary)
A function which, evaluated at time t and place w, will give 1 iff the relation
love0 holds between the individuals john and many at t in runw.
Assuming that a simple declarative sentence such as John sleeps denotes a
truth value, what should be the denotation for the complex cases in (196)?
(196)
a.
b.
c.
d.
It isn’t true that [John sleeps].
Either [John sleeps] or [Mary sleeps].
If [John sleeps], [I will wake him up]
[John sleeps] and [Mary sleeps]
The result can be computed using the connectives of propositional calculus.
Symbols for the logical connectives
“→” material implication (“if A then B”)
“∧” conjunction (“A and B”)
“∨” non-exclusive disjunction (“A or B r both”)
“¬” Negation (Unary) (“It is not the case that A”)
“↔” equivalence (“A if and only if B”, “A iff B”)
Also useful:
“[,(,), ”] round and square parenthesis (useful to disambiguate
scope: (A∨(B∧C)) 6= ((A∨B)∧C)
“∀” “for all”: the Universal Quantifier.
“∃” “there is”: the Existential Quantifier
Truth table for the propositional calculus
P
0
0
1
1
Q
0
1
0
1
P∧Q
0
0
0
1
P∨Q
0
1
1
1
P→Q
1
1
0
1
P↔Q
1
0
0
1
P XOR Q
0
1
1
0
¬P
1
1
0
0
Exercize
Write the PC formulas and calculate a truth value for the following sentences:
(197)
a.
b.
c.
d.
Mary sleeps
If [John sleeps and Mary sleeps], then [John sleeps or Mary
sleeps].
[If John sleeps then John sleeps] or [if Mary sleeps then John
doesn’t sleep]
If [if John sleeps then Mary sleeps], then [if Mary doesn’t sleep
than John doesn’t sleep].
And and ∧
One thing to notice is that the truth functional meaning of ∧ is common to a
variety of constructions which all require for the conjoined elements to be all
true (but differ in the additional effects they have)
(198)
a.
b.
c.
d.
Alex ate and he wept.
Alex wept but he ate.
Alex is weeping although he has eaten
Alex is weeping because he has eaten.
(198-a-d), if true, all entail the truth of (199-a) and (b):
(199)
a.
b.
Alex wept.
Alex ate.
“And” has many more uses than propositional conjunction.
I
Temporal sequences: He shot and killer her 6= He killed her and he shot”.
I
Subordination: Another step and I shoot you (= if you take another step
then I shoot you).
I
Conjunction of non propositional elements: proper names (Marco and
Maria), adjectives (tall and slim), verbs (Karl [saw] and [greeted] Mary),
etc.
I
Giving a semantics for the word and which can capture all these
meanings (and the fact that they hold across languages) is an active
research topic in formal semantics.
I
Similar issues for or...
If/then and material implication
Material implication (→) is often different from the if. . . then . . . of natural
language. If/then is often interpreted as a biconditional (↔).
(200)
a.
b.
c.
If you give me 5 euro I will give you this CD
Implicature: and if you don’t give me 5 euro I will not give you
this CD
5euro → give-CD (∧ ¬5euro → ¬give-CD)
But:
(201)
If you eat only hamburgers you will get sick.
Ex falso quodlibet
I
In material implication, a non sequitur can be truthfully derived from the
falsity of the antecedent:
(202)
If 1+1=3 than [I am a kangaroo].
True!
I
However, it is plausible to derive the oddness of (202) not from the logic
of implication, but from more general consideration of language use
(pragmatics). The problem is that anything can be inserted within the
square brackets above and give a true statement.
I
Therefore, the reason to insert something there cannot be the resulting
truth value, but only the desire to stress a causal connection between
the consequent and the antecedent (otherwise, why use this
construction at all?).
Connectives: semantics vs. pragmatics
Considering these differences, we can think of words like and, or, but, not,
if/then, etc. as a combination of:
I
A ‘logical’ meaning given by the truth-table, for sentential connectives,
and (as we shall see) by basic set-theoretic operations for constituents
smaller than sentences.
I
A ‘pragmatic’ side, driven by the Cooperation principles of Grice, which
generally makes the logical meaning more specific.
A language for propositional logic
To define a language L capable of representing the meaning of complex
expressions, we need:
I
A set of propositional letters (A,B,C,D,...), each of which stands for a
truth value.
I
The logical connectives (∨, ∧, ¬, →, ↔)
I
Now we can define the notion of well-formed formula (WFF) in L.
WFF
WFFs of L: inductive definition:
i. A propositional letter in the vocabulary of L is a WFF.
ii. If A is a WFF, then ¬A is a WFF.
iii. If A, B are WFFs, then (A∧B), (A∨B), (A→B) and (A↔B) are WFFs.
iv. Only objects that are generated by steps i.-iii. above are WFFs.
A WFF that does not contain connectives is called atomic.
A semantics for L
I
To define a semantics for L we need a eValuation function V whose
domain is the set of atomic WFF in L and whose range is {0,1}.
I
For non-atomic WFFs, the effect of V is defined via induction:
I
I
I
I
I
I
V(¬A) = 1 iff V(A) = 0
V(A∧B) = 1 iff V(A) = 1 and V(B) = 1
V(A∨B) = 1 iff V(A) = 1 or V(B) = 1
V(A→B) = 0 iff V(A) = 1 and V(B) = 0
V(A↔B) =1 iff V(A) = V(B)
Note that this doesn’t tell us how to determine the truth of atomic WFF.
Logical relations
I
Equivalence: A and B are logically equivalent iff for every evaluation
function V, V(A) = V(B).
I
Tautology: a WFF A is a tautology iff for every evaluation function V, V(A)
= 1.
I
Contradiction: a WFF A is a contradiction iff for every evaluation function
V, V(A) = 0.
I
WFFs which are neither tautologies nor contradictions are called
contingent (their truth depends on the choice of V). Most interesting
WFF are contingent.
Predicate Logic
I
Predicate Logic (PL) is a logical system which extends the propositional
calculus introducing the notions of variable, quantifier and predicate.
I
Propositional Calculus finds a linguistic application only in the semantics
of complex sentences, built from atomic sentences using conjunctions.
I
However, only PL (extended with lambda-conversion) can ‘enter’ atomic
declarative sentences and help us build their meaning starting from the
meaning of their constituents.
The meaning of simple sentences
I
The notion of interpretation function J K can also be used to characterize
not just the meaning of sentences, but also the meaning of predicates,
proper names, adjectives and all other types of phrases.
I
To this end, it is useful to be able to conceptualize nouns and verbs as
simple functions, corresponding to sets, and all grammatical words
(determiners, conjunctions, auxiliaries, etc.) as more complex functions
which apply to lexical and grammatical words.
Set theory pills
If A, B and C are sets of objects and x is an object:
I
x∈A “x is an element of A”
I
A⊆B “A is a subset of B” (true even if A = B)
I
A∪B = C “the union of A and B is equal to C”
I
A∩B = ∅ “The intersection between A and B is the empty set”
Recall moreover that:
I
The identity of a set is entirely determined by its members;
I
The same element cannot appear more than once in the same set;
I
Elements in a set are not ordered.
J K on DPs
I
The simplest case: DP = Proper names
I
JDPK = JProper NameK = the unique individual in D whose name is
Proper Name (context required to disambiguate)
Characteristic functions
Sets can easily be seen as functions:
I
Functions that yield “true” (1) or “false” (0) are called characteristic
functions of the set of all the elements for which they return the value 1.
I
Correspondence between (203-a) and (b):
(203)
a.
b.
I
{<x,y> : for every x, if x is American, then y=1, otherwise
y=0}
{x : x is American}
Seen as a function with domain ‘entities’ and range ‘truth values’, a set
becomes an active participant in the computation of meaning.
The extension of predicates
I
Idea: the evaluation of the meaning of predicates is their characteristic
function.
I
This means that we can regard the meaning of a property as it
extension: the set of individuals of which that property is true (at a given
time, in a given state of the world).
I
This is in a sense a very concrete way of conceptualizing the meaning of
(abstract) properties.
Sentencial semantics using sets
(204)
a.
b.
Bill is American
[ IP [ DP Bill] [ VP is American]]
(205)
a.
b.
c.
d.
(206)
J[F DP VP]K =
JVPK(JDPK) = 1 iff JDPK∈JVPK
J[IP [DP Bill] [VP is American]]K =
J[DP Bill]K∈J[VP is American]K
[is American] = {x∈D : x is American}
a. 1 iff Bill∈{JFK, Bob Dylan, Malcom X, ...}
Transitive Verbs
I
So far we have only considered unary predicates that combine with
simple subjects (PN). Most were intransitive verbs (IV).
I
How to deal with transitive verbs? (TV)
I
The natural answer, given the binary branching structure provided by
syntax, is to treat TVs as verbs that combine with their object to yield
another function which combines with the subject to yield a truth value.
Computational note: the idea of functions that return other functions
should be well-known to those familiar with programming languages like
LISP, Scheme or Haskell.
I
Another way to describe TV is that they are elements that combine with
objects to give IV, which then combine with subjects in the usual way.
Transitive Verb Schema
IP
DP
VP
Marc
V
DP
m
loves Sue
Ftv (x)
s
Semantic Typing
I
Thus, a TV denotes a function
f(x)D→{g:g(y )D→{0,1} }
I
A more coincise and general way to say the same thing is to introduce
the notion of semantic type.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
<e> is the type of individuals, members of D.
<t> is the type of truth values, members of {0,1}.
<et> is the type of a function from D to truth values (i.e. a function that
takes in input elements of semantic type <et> and produces as output
elements of semantic type <t>). Note that this is the type of characteristic
functions of sets of individuals, and thus the type of ‘normal’ properties
(“be_American”<et> , “be_a_man”<et> , ...)
<e<et>> a function from individuals to functions from individuals to truth
values.
<<et>e> a function from functions from individuals to truth values to
individuals.
<<et>t> a function from functions from individuals to truth values to truth
values.
Exercise: What would the last example be, in terms of sets?
Questions
I
What is the appropriate type for Intransitive Verbs?
I
What is the appropriate type for Transitive Verbs?
Lambda notation
I
An equivalent notation to the one used for the abstract description of a
set uses the symbol λ (“lambda”).
(207)
I
{x : x is a horse} ≡ λx[x is a horse] ≡ ‘the set of x such that x is
a horse’
The letters x,y,k,z,... that appear after the lambda are variable bound by
it. Typically, they occur inside the body of the lambda (the bracketed part
after the variable).
(208)
[λx [ ... any free occurrence of x is bound by λ here...] ... x is
not bound by λ here ...]
Dropping unuseful parenthesis in nested lambda expressions, we can
write λx[λy[y loves x]] as λxλy[y loves x]
Modifiers
I
So far we have seen how arguments are combined with predicates and
how simple phrases combine to give complex sentences.
I
But how to deal with modifiers, which are optional?
(209)
a.
b.
c.
Paris is [a romantic city]
Paris is [in France]
Paris is [romantic]
They must be predicates (type <et>)
I
But these expressions can also be used to change other predicates
(witness romantic in (209-a)).
(210)
I know a [romantic] city [in France]
(211)
[romantic]<et> city<et> [in France]<et>
to use modifiers it is necessary to have a new rule for combining two
properties into one:
(212)
Rule of predicate modification: if a node A has two branches, B
and C, both of semantic type <et>, then: A = λx[B(x) = C(x) = 1]
(or equivalently: A = B∩C). Modifiers that can be composed by intersection
are called intersective. Not all modifiers are intersective (see e.g. alleged in
alleged criminal).
Modifiers are functions
I
An alternative: treating (non-intersective) modifiers as functions that
apply to a property (e.g. that of being an ant) and return another
property.
I
The output property might or might not be a subset of the original one.
(213)
JsmallK = small’<<e,t><e,t>> =
λPλx[P(x) = 1 and x is smaller that the average size of the
elements in P]
Quantifiers
I
Problem: how to deal with quantified noun phrases:
(214)
a.
b.
c.
[Everyone] is mortal.
[A man] is mortal
[No one] is immortal
I
A very special kind of individuals? (type <e>, then, ).
I
Many problems.
(215)
a.
b.
c.
“Every living person” has at least one lung.
“Every living person” has the right lung.
“Every living person” has the left lung.
(216)
a.
It is not true that “every living person” has the right lung or
the left
equivalent to:
It is not true that “every living person” has at least one lung
Contradiction!
b.
True
False
False
Semantics of subject quantifiers
I
Appropriate meaning for a sentence containing DPs with quantificational
determiners?
I
Using the symbols ∀ ( “every”) and ∃ ( “there is/exists”):
(217)
“A man is running” = ∃x [man’(x) ∧ run’(x)]
Some
(218)
∃x [man’(x) ∧ run’(x)] =
a. “There is an x such that x is a man and x runs”
b. “There is an x such that x has property of being a man and x
has the propriety of running”
c. “There is an x such that x is an element of the set of men and
an element of the set of runners” = [man’∩run’6= ∅]
(Note that (218) makes no logical distinction between the phrases “a man
runs” and “a runner is a man”).
Every
I
How to render “every man runs?”
I
First hypothesis:
(219)
∀x[man’(x) ∧ run’(x)]
I
Too strong! This formula has the meaning “Every x is such that the x is a
man and x runs” or equivalently: “Everything is a man that runs”!
I
We need: “If something is a man, then it runs” (and it it isn’t, we don’t
care what it does)
Every
I
(220)
I
⇒ Basic asymmetry between existential (“a”, “some”, “two”, “a few”) and
universal determiners (“every”, “each”)
I
Could implication be used for a man, too?
(221)
I
a.
b.
a.
b.
If something is a man, then it runs
∀x[man’(x) → run’(x)]
A man runs
∃x[man’(x) → run’(x)]
Too weak! True if there is something which is not a man.
No
(222)
a.
No man runs =
(223)
a.
b.
¬∃x[man’(x) ∧run’(x)]
∀x[man’(x) →¬run’(x)]
or equivalently
Set-theoretic interpretation for quantifiers
The meaning of all sentences with quantified subjects can be expressed in
set-theoretic terms:
(224)
a.
b.
c.
A man runs: man’∩run’ 6= ∅
Every man runs: man’⊆run’
No man runs: man’∩run’ = ∅
In general, determiners always express a relationship between two sets: the
one denoted by its restrictor (the NP after the determiner, here, man) and the
one denoted by the predicate (here runs).
Inferences
Understading sentences means, among other thing, having the ability to draw
inferences from its meaning.
But inferences are heavily determined by the determiner used.
(225)
a.
b.
Luca runs. ⇒ Luca moves.
Luca moves. 6⇒ Luca runs.
valid inference
invalid inference
Negation inverts:
(226)
a.
b.
Luca doesn’t run. 6⇒ Luca doesn’t move.
Luca doesn’t move. ⇒ Luca doesn’t run.
invalid inference
valid inference
Inferences
Determine the inferences for every, no, some, at least 3, exactly 3 in the
place of DET:
(227)
DET dogs run.
(228)
a.
b.
c.
d.
⇒ DET animals move.
⇒ DET poodles move.
⇒ DET animals run fast.
⇒ DET poodles run fast.
⇑,⇑
⇓,⇑
⇑,⇓
⇓,⇓
Definite Articles
I
What is the difference between a man runs and the man runs?
According to Frege (and many others), the indicates uniqueness (in the
context of utterance).
I
Therefore, if there is one man, the interpretation of the man is running
would be the same as a man is running: ∃x[man’(x) ∧ run’(x)]
I
But what if there is more than one man? What to say of descriptions
such as: The satellite of Mars is smaller than the moon?
Definite article
I
Two positions: Russell vs. Frege/Strawson.
I
Russell: If the uniqueness of definite articles is not satisfied, the
sentence contenining it is false:
∃x[man’(x) ∧ run’(x) ∧ ∀y[man’(y) → x = y]]
I
Strawson (following Frege): “the” presupposes uniqueness. If this
presupposition is not satisfied, the assertion is neither ’true’ nor ’false’,
but simply not interpretable (like other assertion whose presupposizions
are violated).
Presuppositions
Other examples of presupposizioni:
Assertion
(229)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Presupposition
Fabio cheated me again.
Fabio cheated me on other
occasions.
It is strange that Mary has been fired.
Mary was fired.
I stopped coloring your hair?
I used to color my hair.
Was it Ugo that ate the cake?
Someone ate the cake.
Who left?
Someone left.
I fixed the chair in my room.
There is one chair in my room.
A definitional property of presuppositions is that they persist when the
assertion that produced them is negated.
(230)
a.
b.
c.
d.
Fabio didn’t cheat me again.
It isn’t strange that Mary has been fired.
It wasn’t Ugo that ate the cake.
I didn’t fix the chair in my room.
Rendering quantifier scope ambiguity
(231)
A child caressed every dog.
2 meanings
The translation in first-order logic can be used to disambiguate:
(232)
a.
b.
∀ x [dog’(x) → ∃ y [child’(y) ∧ caress’(y,x)]]
∃y [child’(y) ∧ ∀x[dog’(x) → caress’ (y,x)]]
In (1), all (translated as ∀) takes scope over a (∃): “For every x, if x is a dog
then there is a y such that y is a child and y caressed x” (so for every dog
there can be distinct children)
In (2), a scopes over all: “There is a y such that y is a child and for every x, if
x is a dog then y caresses x” (exactly one child for all the dogs)
Building these formulas in a principled compositional way has been one of
the main problems for modern semantics.
Verbs of perception
Consider the difference between:
(233)
a.
b.
I heard [that the Callas sang in the Arena]
I heard [the Callas sing in the Arena]
In the second case, it is not a matter of information, but of direct perception
(cf. I witnessed that event)
This and many other facts have prompted the idea that the grammar of
human language does not only have objects as primitives, but also events –
‘things that happen’.
Events in the semantics of verbal predicates
(234)
a.
b.
Anna left
That has been an event of Anna’s leaving
(235)
a.
b.
left’(anna)
old representation
∃e[left’(anna,e)]
“There was an event e such that Anna left in e”
(236)
JleaveK = λx∃e[leave’(x,e)]
Every (verbal) predicate receives a new additional argument, the event
argument; by default, this is bound by a ∃. But it can also be bound explicitely:
(237)
a.
b.
Anna left three times.
3e[left’(anna,e)]
“For 3 distinct values of e, e an event, Anna left at e”
This is the approach in Davidson 1967.
Events and times
(238)
a.
b.
c.
JAnna leftK = ∃e[leave’(anna,e) ∧ before(e,now)]
JAnna is leavingK = ∃e[leave’(anna,e) ∧ at(e,now)]
JAnna will leaveK = ∃e[leave’(anna,e) ∧ after(e,now)]
(This is a very crude approximation; it doesn’t distinguish, e.g. between left,
has left, had left; è partita, partiva, etc.)
Modifiers and participants
One of the great advantages of events is that they give us the possibility to
capture the entailment between a sentence with modifiers and one without.
(239)
Brutus attacked Caesar [with a dagger][in the forum][in the
morning][on the idi of March]
(239) entails all of (240):
(240)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
Brutus attacked Caesar [in the forum][in the morning]
Brutus attacked Caesar [with a dagger][on the idi of March]
Brutus attacked Caesar [in the forum][on the idi of March]
Brutus attacked Caesar [with a dagger][in the forum]
Brutus attacked Caesar [with a dagger]
Brutus attacked Caesar
Caesar was attacked
There was an attack by Brutus
An attack happened
Modifiers and participants
I
The entailment can be captured if we treat modifiers like in the forum,
etc. as properties of events (i.e. sets of events), which combine with the
event just like adjectives combine with the noun.
Parson’s representation:
(241)
∃e[attack’(,caesar,e) ∧ AGENT(brutus,e) ∧
PATIENT(caesar,e)
∧ with-a-dagger’(e) ∧ in-the-forum’(e) ∧ at-noon’(e) ∧ ...]
Obtaining the inference
In the logic translations of a sentence, adverbial modifiers will thus be
conjoined with the predicates that state that something is an event.
Now we can use a logical property of conjunction: (“⇒” = logically entails)
(242)
A∧B⇒A
For instance:
(243)
∃e[attack’(brutus,caesar,e) ∧ with-a-dagger’(e)] ⇒
∃e[attack’(brutus,caesar,e)]