DOCSLIB.ORG

Ellipsis in Comparatives

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ellipsis in Comparatives TITEL$0733 25-06-04 10:21:40 Titelei: SGG 72, Lechner META-Systems Ellipsis in Comparatives ≥ Studies in Generative Grammar 72 Editors Henk van Riemsdijk Harry van der Hulst Jan Koster Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York Ellipsis in Comparatives by Winfried Lechner Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague) is a Division of Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin. The series Studies in Generative Grammar was formerly published by Foris Publications Holland. Țȍ Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability. ISBN 3-11-018118-5 Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Bibliothek Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at Ͻhttp://dnb.ddb.deϾ. Ą Copyright 2004 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin. All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Printed in Germany. Acknowledgments This book profited greatly from many stimulating discussions with and con- structive comments by numerous linguists. I would like to express my grati- tude for their invaluable contributions at various stages of this project to: Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou, Rajesh Bhatt, Jonathan Bobaljik, Hagit Borer, Mishi Brody, Luigi Burzio, Norbert Corver, Diana Cresti, David Embick, Gisbert Fanselow, Robert Frank, Danny Fox, Anastasia Giannakidou, Kleanthes Grohmann, Hubert Haider, Katharina Hartmann, Martin Hackl, Martin Haiden, Jorge Hankamer, Irene Heim, Roger Higgins, Helen de Hoop, Angeliek van Hout, Bart Hollebrandse, Kyle Johnson, Chris Kennedy, Robert Kühnel, Idan Landau, Jason Merchant, Gereon Müller, Alan Munn, Friedrich Neubarth, Jon Nissenbaum, Roumyana Pancheva, Barbara Partee, Martin Prinzhorn, Orin Percus, Chris Potts, Norvin Richards, Henk van Riemsdijk, Tom Roeper, Maribel Romero, Hotze Rullmann, Uli Sauerland, Ken Safir, Roger Schwarzschild, Melita Stavrou, Wolfgang Sternefeld, Satoshi Tomioka, Hubert Truckenbrodt, Arnim von Stechow, Arthur Stepanov, Ralf Vogel, Chris Wilder, Colin Wilson and Susi Wurmbrand. I am very grateful to Henk van Riemsdijk for having invited me to publish this study, to Katharina Hartmann for an encouraging review of an early version and to an anonymous reviewer, whose detailed critique proved extremely helpful. This book grew out of my 1999 UMass, Amherst, dissertation, but differs substantially from the source text both in from and content. Most prominently, the treatment of comparative ellipsis in chapter 3 and 4 also incorporates the results of Lechner 2001 and related work. I would in particular like to thank Kyle Johnson for his steady intellectual influence, his exceptional guidance as a dissertation supervisor and his support during my stay at UMass. More- over, I am greatly indebted to Roger Higgins, who served as a committee member, and to Barbara Partee. I would also like to express my gratitude to the linguistic community at Umass, which at the time included Kathy Adamczik, John Alderete, Ana Arregui, Emmon Bach, Lynne Ballard, Sigrid Beck, Jill Beckman, Elena Benedicto, Jose Benki, Laura Benua, Hagit Borer, John Boyd, Eugenia Casielles, Isadora Cohen, Mike and Laura Dickey-Walsh, Lyn Frazier, Diamandis Gafos, Irene Heim, Bart Hollebrandse, Angeliek van Hout, Andre Isaak, Junko Itô, John Kingston, Angelika Kratzer, Kiyomi Kusumoto, John McCarthy, Rick McKinnon, Deanna Moore, Alan Munn, Marc van Oostendorp, Orin Percus, Janina Rado, Norvin Richards, Tom Roeper, Bernhard Rohbacher, Maribel Romero, Ed Rubin, Hotze Rullmann, Jeff Runner, Bernhard Schwarz, Lisa Selkirk, Yael Sharvit, Junko vi Acknowledgments Shimoyama, Peggy Speas, Pius Tamanji, Satoshi Tomiyoka, Sue Urbanczyk, Elisabeth Villalta, Ellen Woolford and Jochen Zeller. The study benifited greatly from the time I was allowed to spend at the Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft, Tübingen. In particular, I am grateful for detailed and constructive comments by Uli Sauerland and Satoshi Tomioka, for numerous inspiring discussions with Wolfgang Sternefeld and many stimulating conversations with Fritz Hamm, Orin Percus and Arnim von Stechow. Furthermore, I am deeply indebted to Fabrizio Arioso, Sigrid Beck, Michela Ippolito, Uli Lutz, Pawel Karnowski, Denisa Lenertová, Roland Meyer, Monika Rathert, Ingo Reich, Frank Richter, Manfred Sailer, Yiannis Thomadakis, Craig Thiersch, Hubert Truckenbrodt, Heike Winhart and Kazuko Yatsushiro for their intellectual and personal generosity. The Department of Linguistics & Philosophy at MIT kindly gave me the opportunity to spend Fall 2002 in Boston. I would in particular like to thank Danny Fox, Daniel Harbour, Sabine Iatridou, Chris Kennedy, Andrew Nevins, Jon Nissenbaum, David Pesetsky, Joey Sabbagh, Vina Tsakali and Michael Wagner for their clarifying comments, many interesting conversations and their company. Special thanks to Martin Prinzhorn for his constant, ubiquitous support, and to the Department of Linguistics in Vienna and Prof. Wolfgang Dressler for providing such an extraordinarily stimulating environment. I am also very grateful for having been given the chance to teach parts of this study in Vienna in front of an exceptional audience. Presenting sections of this book at various occasions helped me to consid- erably improve numerous aspects of the content. I would in particular like to thank the audiences at the following institutions for their contributions and patience: GLOW 23 at the University of Basque Country, Vitoria-Gasteiz; GLOW 24 at the University of Porto, Braga; International Syntax Roundtable, Ypps/Danuebe; NELS 29 at the University of Delaware; University of Utrecht; University of Pennsylvania; Egg Summer School 2000 in Blagoevgrad, Bulgaria; Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Berlin. The work on this book was made possible by an APART (‘Austrian Pro- gram for Advanced Research and Technology’) grant by the Austrian Acad- emy of Sciences, which generously supported my research from July 2001 until June 2004 both at the Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft in Tübingen, and at the Department of Linguistics & Philosophy, MIT. I would like to acknowl- edge this essential assistance, as well as the kind and highly effective care by the APART team (in particular Lottelis Moser and Birgit Distler). Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to my family and to my friends for their steady support, and to Elena for her unparalleled emotional capacities and verve. Contents Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................... 1 1. Synopsis of chapter 2: Comparative Deletion .................. 2 2. Synopsis of chapters 3 and 4: Comparative Ellipsis ............. 5 Chapter 2 Comparative Deletion ....................................... 9 1. Introduction ............................................ 9 1.1. Locality and the identification of ellipsis ............... 10 1.2. Semantic approaches towards CD-resolution ........... 11 2. Identification of CD in syntax............................. 14 2.1. Disjoint reference effects........................... 14 2.2. Reflexives and reciprocals.......................... 17 2.3. Coordinate Structure Constraint...................... 18 3. The syntax of NP-comparatives ........................... 22 3.1. The Degree Phrase................................ 22 3.2. Against extraposition of the than-XP.................. 25 3.3. A new structure for prenominal AP’s ................. 29 3.3.1. Low attachment of the than-XP................. 30 3.3.2. Low attachment of the degree variable ........... 37 3.4. A new analysis of Comparative Deletion............... 38 3.4.1. Head Raising ............................... 38 3.4.2. Head raising and comparatives.................. 40 3.4.3. Four direct consequences of AP-Raising .......... 46 4. The semantics of NP-comparatives......................... 51 4.1. The representation of gradable adjectives .............. 52 4.2. Interpreting the comparative complement.............. 53 4.3. Interpreting the matrix clause ....................... 56 5. Prenominal vs. postnominal comparatives................... 57 5.1. Variable size of the CD-site......................... 57 5.2. Upper bound on the size of the CD-site ................ 61 5.3. Intersective and subsective readings .................. 62 5.4. Reconstruction and Principle C...................... 65 viii Contents 6. Semantic properties of the CD-site......................... 67 6.1. Weak and Strong Crossover ......................... 67 6.2. De dicto readings................................. 73 6.2.1. The operator binds an e-type trace............... 74 6.2.2. The operator binds an <e,t>-type trace............ 75 6.2.3. Against existential closure in semantics........... 77 6.2.4. The operator binds an <<e,t>,t>-type trace ........ 81 7. Move Alpha without Form Chain .......................... 86 Chapter 3 Comparative Ellipsis ....................................... 89 1. Introduction ........................................... 89 1.1. Comparative Ellipsis: the CR-Hypothesis .............. 91 1.2. Phrasal comparatives: the PC-Hypothesis .............. 92 1.3. Outline ......................................... 94 2. The Weak CR-Hypothesis ............................... 94 2.1.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Natural Proof System for Natural Language
    A In the �tle of this thesis, a proof system refers to a system that carries out formal proofs (e.g., of theorems). Logicians would interpret a system as a symbolic calculus while com- Natural puter scien�sts might understand it as a computer program. Both interpreta�ons are fine for the current purpose as the thesis develops a proof calculi and a computer program A NATURAL PROOF SYSTEM based on it. What makes the proof system natural is that it operates on formulas with a natural appearance, i.e. resembling natural language phrases. This is contrasted to the Proof artificial formulas logicians usually use. Put differently, the natural proof system is FOR NATURAL LANGUAGE designed for a natural logic, a logic that has formulas similar to natural language sentenc- es. The natural proof system represents a further development of an analy�c tableau system for natural logic (Muskens, 2010). The implementa�on of the system acts as a System pp theorem prover for wide-coverage natural language sentences. For instance, it can prove x n that not all PhD theses are interesting entails some dissertations are not interesting. On z certain textual entailment datasets, the prover achieves results compe��ve to the y s state-of-the-art. t γT pp for zγ αF s Natural vp x t β e s vp t T F e np t s n e Language y z λ e s T t T z γ α z λα t n x e F e s T npα λ γ t x β y pp T pp y np x t γ e T n λ T s e x γ t T z F λ z y γ t T s e z e λ αn s β t T np α λ λ e F t α γ Lasha Abzianidze vp x s e s t vp pp F λ s y t z z T λ β n x αpp γ Lasha Abzianidze γ ISBN 978-94-6299-494-2 A Natural Proof System for Natural Language ISBN 978-94-6299-494-2 cb 2016 by Lasha Abzianidze Cover & inner design by Lasha Abzianidze Used item: leaf1 font by Rika Kawamoto Printed and bound by Ridderprint BV, Ridderkerk A Natural Proof System for Natural Language Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan Tilburg University op gezag van de rector magnificus, prof.dr.
    [Show full text]
  • (Syntax)–Semantics Part Two
    Current Issues in Generative Linguistics Syntax, Semantics, and Phonology edited by Joanna Błaszczak, Bożena Rozwadowska, and Wojciech Witkowski Contents About this volume part one: syntax Generative Linguistics in Wrocław (GLiW) series is published by the Center Ángel l. Jiménez-FernÁndez and Selçuk İşSever for General and Comparative Linguistics, a unit of the Institute of English at the University of Wrocław. Deriving A/A’-Effects in Topic Fronting: Intervention of Focus and Binding Address: nataša knežević Center for General and Comparative Linguistics (CGCL) Serbian Distributive Children ul. Kuźnicza 22 50-138 Wrocław, Poland Slavica kochovSka Two Kinds of Dislocated Topics in Macedonian about the series: Generative Linguistics in Wrocław (GLiW) is meant to provide a suitable forum for the presentation and discussion of the Pol- katarzyna miechowicz-mathiaSen ish research within the field of generative linguistics. We are interested in Licensing Polish Higher Numerals: An Account of the Accusative Hypothesis studies that employ generative methodology to the synchronic or diachronic analysis of phonology, semantics, morphology, and syntax. Apart from that, kathleen m. o’connor we express a keen interest in interdisciplinary research that is based on typol- On the Positions of Subjects and Floating Quantifiers in Appositives ogy, diachrony, and especially experimental methods taken from psycho- or neurolinguistics and applied so as to provide a psycholinguistic background yurie okami to purely theoretical research. We believe that the dissemination of ideas is Two Types of Modification and the Adnominal Modification in Japanese fundamental to any scientific advancement and thus our choice is to publish research studies in the form of ebooks, available for free on our website.
    [Show full text]
  • Person Features: Deriving the Inventory of Persons
    Chapter 2 Person Features: Deriving the Inventory of Persons 1. Introduction One long-standing aim of research into person has been to achieve a deeper understanding of the inventory of personal pronouns by decomposing them into a limited set of person features. The main aim of this chapter is to make a contribution to this enterprise. We will argue that a set of two privative person features is sufficient to derive the full inventory of attested pronouns and their interpretations, without generating non-attested pronouns. In chapter 1 we showed that the cross-linguistic inventory of attested persons is a small subset of the set of theoretically possible persons. The theoretically possible persons are those that can be formed by freely combining the speaker (for which we use the symbol i), associates of the speaker (ai), the addressee (u), associates of the addressee (au), and others (o). The generalizations that distinguish between the attested and non-attested persons are the following (repeated from (9) in chapter 1): (1) a. There is no person that contains associates of a participant but not the participant itself. b. There is no person that consists of others and only speaker(s) or of others and only addressee(s). c. No person system distinguishes pluralities containing a participant but not its associates from pluralities containing that participant as well as its associates. d. First and second person plural pronouns show an ‘associative effect’: any element contained in them other than i or u must be ai or au and cannot be o. 31 This leaves us with three persons with a singular interpretation and four persons with a plural interpretation.
    [Show full text]
  • Cross-Linguistic Representations of Numerals and Number Marking∗
    Proceedings of SALT 20: 582–598, 2011 Cross-linguistic representations of numerals and number marking∗ Alan Bale Michaël Gagnon Concordia University University of Maryland Hrayr Khanjian Massachusetts Institute of Technology Abstract Inspired by Partee(2010), this paper defends a broad thesis that all mod- ifiers, including numeral modifiers, are restrictive in the sense that they can only restrict the denotation of the NP or VP they modify. However, the paper concentrates more narrowly on numeral modification, demonstrating that the evidence that moti- vated Ionin & Matushansky(2006) to assign non-restrictive, privative interpretations to numerals – assigning them functions that map singular sets to sets containing groups – is in fact consistent with restrictive modification. Ionin & Matushansky’s (2006) argument for this type of interpretation is partly based on the distribution of Turkish numerals which exclusively combine with singular bare nouns. Section 2 demonstrates that Turkish singular bare nouns are not semantically singular, but rather are unspecified for number. Western Armenian has similar characteristics. Building on some of the observations in section2, section3 demonstrates that re- strictive modification can account for three different types of languages with respect to the distribution of numerals and plural nouns: (i) languages where numerals exclusively combine with plural nouns (e.g., English), (ii) languages where they exclusively combine with singular bare nouns (e.g., Turkish), (iii) languages where they optionally combine with either type of noun (e.g., Western Armenian). Ac- counting for these differences crucially involves making a distinction between two kinds of restrictive modification among the numerals: subsective vs. intersective modification. Section3 also discusses why privative interpretations of numerals have trouble accounting for these different language types.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrating Type Theory and Distributional Semantics: a Case Study on Adjective–Noun Compositions
    Integrating Type Theory and Distributional Semantics: A Case Study on Adjective–Noun Compositions Nicholas Asher∗ CNRS ∗ Tim Van de Cruys CNRS ∗ Antoine Bride Universit´e Paul Sabatier M´arta Abrus´an∗ CNRS In this article, we explore an integration of a formal semantic approach to lexical meaning and an approach based on distributional methods. First, we outline a formal semantic theory that aims to combine the virtues of both formal and distributional frameworks. We then proceed to develop an algebraic interpretation of that formal semantic theory and show how at least two kinds of distributional models make this interpretation concrete. Focusing on the case of adjective–noun composition, we compare several distributional models with respect to the semantic information that a formal semantic theory would need, and we show how to integrate the information provided by distributional models back into the formal semantic framework. 1. Introduction Formal semantics (FS) has provided insightful models of composition and recently has addressed issues of how composition may in turn affect the original meanings of lexical items (Pustejovsky 1995; Partee 2010; Asher 2011). Type Composition Logic (TCL; Asher 2011) provides a detailed formal model of the interaction between composition and lexical meaning in which the composition of two words w and w may shift the original meanings of w and w . For example, consider the case of an adjective like heavy and a noun like traffic. TCL assigns a logical form to the adjective–noun combination heavy traffic, λx.(O(heavy)(x) ∧ M(traffic)(x)), where O is a functor induced by the noun that outputs a meaning paraphrased as heavy for traffic.TheM functor does something ∗ IRIT, Universit´e Paul Sabatier, 118 Route de Narbonne, F-31062 Toulouse Cedex 9.
    [Show full text]
  • MOSAIC 2 the Meeting of Semanticists Active in Canada Post-CLA Semantics Workshop
    MOSAIC 2 The Meeting of Semanticists Active in Canada Post-CLA semantics workshop June 1, 2010, McGill University Ball Room, Thomson House (David Thomson Post-Graduate Centre), 3650 McTavish Street, Montréal 8:30 Registration and coffee/muffins Session 1 (chair: Keir Moulton, McGill University) 9:00-10:00 Invited talk Epistemic Modals: Embedded, Modified, and Plain Angelika Kratzer (University of Massachusetts, Amherst) 10:00-10:30 Imperfective Values Ana Arregui and Maria Luisa Rivero (University of Ottawa) 10:30-10:50 Break Session 2 (chair: Walter Pederson, McGill University) 10:50-11:20 A Note on Ignorance Inferences Raj Singh (Carleton University) 11:20-11:50 Variable Binding, Reconstruction and Attitudes Keir Moulton (McGill University) 11:50-12:20 Numerals and Number Marking in English, Turkish and Armenian Alan Bale (Concordia University), Hrayr Khanjian (MIT) and Michaël Gagnon (University of Maryland) 12:20-1:50 Lunch at Thomson House for those who are registered online by one week before the workshop Session 3 (chair: Masako Hirotani, Carleton University) 1:50-2:50 Invited talk Distinguishing Contrastive, New and Given Information (joint work with Angelika Kratzer) Elisabeth Selkirk (University of Massachusetts, Amherst) 2:50-3:20 The Semantic Function of Rising Wh-Questions Nancy Hedberg and Morgan Mameni (Simon Fraser University) 3:20-3:40 Break Session 4 (chair: David-Étienne Bouchard, McGill University) 3:40-4:10 Blackfoot ikak-: A Case Study in 'Only' and 'Even' Heather Bliss (University of British Columbia) 4:10-4:40 Focus Sensitivity in Nlhe7kepmxcin (Thompson Salish) Karsten Koch (ZAS, Berlin) and Malte Zimmermann (Universität Potsdam) 4:40-5:10 Conjectural Questions and the Wonder Effect Patrick Littell (University of British Columbia) 5:30-7:00 Dinner arrangements for interested people Please register here by Thursday, May 27.
    [Show full text]
  • Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 20 April 29 - May 1, 2010 University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 20 April 29 - May 1, 2010 University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University Vancouver, BC, Canada Collected Abstracts Invited Speakers A possible worlds semantics for (illocutionary) evidentials Martina Faller The precise relationship between evidentiality, the linguistic marking of the speaker's source of information for a claim, and epistemic modality, the marking of the speaker's evaluation of the truth of a proposition in terms of necessity, possibility or degree of certainty, is not yet fully understood. While these two phenomena are clearly distinct conceptually, it is not always possible to establish two distinct categories empirically in a given language because the two concepts are often expressed simultaneously by a single element. For example, English epistemic must expresses that the speaker s considers the proposition expressed p a necessity and in addition indicates that s has inferred p and does not have direct evidence for it. The two concepts are furthermore closely related in that the type of source information a speaker has will to a great extent determine the speaker's evaluation of the truth of the proposition. Within formal semantics, evidentials are often analyzed as quantifiers over possible worlds with evidential presuppositions, that is, as a kind of epistemic modal. In this talk I will explore to what extent such an analysis is viable for evidentials that do not contribute to the main proposition expressed/at-issue content such as the evidentials of Cuzco Quechua (CQ). CQ has four evidentials which I have ananlyzed in previous work as contributing to the illocutionary level of meaning.
    [Show full text]
  • A Case Study on Adjective–Noun Compositions
    Integrating Type Theory and Distributional Semantics: A Case Study on Adjective–Noun Compositions Nicholas Asher∗ CNRS ∗ Tim Van de Cruys CNRS ∗ Antoine Bride Universit´e Paul Sabatier M´arta Abrus´an∗ CNRS In this article, we explore an integration of a formal semantic approach to lexical meaning and an approach based on distributional methods. First, we outline a formal semantic theory that aims to combine the virtues of both formal and distributional frameworks. We then proceed to develop an algebraic interpretation of that formal semantic theory and show how at least two kinds of distributional models make this interpretation concrete. Focusing on the case of adjective–noun composition, we compare several distributional models with respect to the semantic information that a formal semantic theory would need, and we show how to integrate the information provided by distributional models back into the formal semantic framework. 1. Introduction Formal semantics (FS) has provided insightful models of composition and recently has addressed issues of how composition may in turn affect the original meanings of lexical items (Pustejovsky 1995; Partee 2010; Asher 2011). Type Composition Logic (TCL; Asher 2011) provides a detailed formal model of the interaction between composition and lexical meaning in which the composition of two words w and w may shift the original meanings of w and w . For example, consider the case of an adjective like heavy and a noun like traffic. TCL assigns a logical form to the adjective–noun combination heavy traffic, λx.(O(heavy)(x) ∧ M(traffic)(x)), where O is a functor induced by the noun that outputs a meaning paraphrased as heavy for traffic.TheM functor does something ∗ IRIT, Universit´e Paul Sabatier, 118 Route de Narbonne, F-31062 Toulouse Cedex 9.
    [Show full text]
  • Tilburg University a Natural Proof System for Natural Language
    Tilburg University A Natural Proof System for Natural Language Abzianidze, Lasha Publication date: 2017 Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Link to publication in Tilburg University Research Portal Citation for published version (APA): Abzianidze, L. (2017). A Natural Proof System for Natural Language. Ridderprint. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 04. okt. 2021 A In the �tle of this thesis, a proof system refers to a system that carries out formal proofs (e.g., of theorems). Logicians would interpret a system as a symbolic calculus while com- Natural puter scien�sts might understand it as a computer program. Both interpreta�ons are fine for the current purpose as the thesis develops a proof calculi and a computer program A NATURAL PROOF SYSTEM based on it. What makes the proof system natural is that it operates on formulas with a natural appearance, i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Two Kinds of Procedural Semantics for Privative Modification
    Two kinds of procedural semantics for privative modification Giuseppe Primiero1? and Bjørn Jespersen2?? 1 Centre for Logic and Philosophy of Science, Ghent University (Belgium) [email protected] 2 Department of Computer Science, Technical University of Ostrava; Institute of Philosophy, Department of Logic, Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague (Czech Republic) [email protected] Abstract. In this paper we present two kinds of procedural semantics for privative modification. We do this for three reasons. The first reason is to launch a tough test case to gauge the degree of substantial agree- ment between a constructivist and a realist interpretation of procedural semantics; the second is to extend Martin-L¨of's Constructive Type The- ory to privative modification, which is characteristic of natural language; the third reason is to sketch a positive characterization of privation. 1 Introduction The verbal agreements between constructivist/idealist and platonist/realist se- mantics are so numerous and so striking that it is worth exploring the extent to which there is also substantial agreement. This paper explores some of the common ground shared by the Constructive Type Theory of Per Martin-L¨of3 and the realist Transparent Intensional Logic of Pavel Tich´y.4 We focus here on the following common features: { a notion of construction; { a functional language; { a typed universe; { an interpreted syntax. These four features are sufficient to underpin a neutral notion of procedural semantics. Phrased in neutral terms, linguistic meaning is construed as an ab- stract procedure, of one or more steps, delineating what operations to apply to what operands in order to obtain a particular product as its outcome.
    [Show full text]
  • Realist and Constructivist Semantics for Modal Modification
    Alleged assassins: realist and constructivist semantics for modal modification Bjørn Jespersen1? and Giuseppe Primiero2?? 1 Institute of Philosophy, Department of Logic, Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague; Department of Computer Science, Technical University of Ostrava (Czech Republic) [email protected] 2 Centre for Logic and Philosophy of Science, Ghent University (Belgium) [email protected] Abstract. Modal modifiers such as Alleged oscillate between being sub- sective and being privative. If individual a is an alleged assassin (at some parameter of evaluation) then it is an open question whether a is an assassin (at that parameter). Standardly, modal modifiers are nega- tively defined, in terms of failed inferences or non-intersectivity or non- extensionality. Modal modifiers are in want of a positive definition and a worked-out logical semantics. This paper offers two positive definitions. The realist definition is elaborated within Tich´y'sTransparent Inten- sional Logic (TIL) and builds upon Montague's model-theoretic seman- tics for adjectives as representing mappings from properties to properties. The constructivist definition is based on an extension of Martin-L¨of's Constructive Type Theory (CTT) so as to accommodate partial verifi- cation. We show that, and why, \a is an alleged assassin" and \Allegedly, a is an assassin" are equivalent in TIL and synonymous in CTT. Keywords: Modal modification, property vs. propositional modifica- tion, alleged, allegedly, Transparent Intensional Logic, Constructive Type Theory. 1 Introduction & overview Kamp's seminal [10] seeks to draw a line between those adjectives whose mean- ing is a property and those adjectives whose meaning is a function that maps properties to properties.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards Verb Modification in Frames
    TowardsDRAFT Verb Modification in Frames A Case Study on German Schlagen (to hit) B Anja Goldschmidt1( ), Thomas Gamerschlag2, Wiebke Petersen3, Ekaterina Gabrovska2, and Wilhelm Geuder2 1 UiL OTS, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands [email protected] 2 CRC 991, Heinrich Heine University D¨usseldorf,D¨usseldorf,Germany 3 Department of Linguistics and Information Science, Heinrich Heine University D¨usseldorf, D¨usseldorf,Germany Abstract. Hit-verbs have three basic meaning components, namely movement, contact and force (e.g. [12], Levin 1993), which interact with the verbs’ argument structure in various ways. In this paper, we map out the different grammatical constructions of the German verb schla- gen (usually, though loosely, translated as ‘hit’; also ‘beat’, ‘strike’) and their restrictions on agentivity and the force component. Using modifica- tion by pure manner adverbs as a tool to test for possible default values of the force component, and agent-oriented adverbs to discover possible interactions with agentivity, we show that German schlagen is rather lib- eral with respect to its force component. Crucially, the force component may not only be modified by standard, force-denoting manner adverbs such as lightly and hard, but also through agent-oriented adverbs such as playfully, via a defeasible inference. We show further that our findings can be profitably modelled in Frame Semantics, a framework which is especially well suited for modelling a fine-grained decomposition of word meaning, including the manner-related components of verbs. Keywords: Hit-verbs · Modification · Force · Agentivity · Frame semantics This work was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) with a grant to the Collaborative Research Centre (SFB) 991 “The Structure of Representations in Language, Cognition, and Science”, Projects B09 and C10 (Sebastian L¨obner and Wiebke Petersen).
    [Show full text]