Abstract
In this chapter, I explore the relation between methods of lexical representation involving decomposition and the theory of types as used in linguistics and programming semantics. I identify two major approaches to lexical decomposition in grammar, what I call parametric and predicative strategies. I demonstrate how expressions formed with one technique can be translated into expressions of the other. I then discuss argument selection within a type theoretic approach to semantics, and show how the predicative approach to decomposition can be modeled within a type theory with richer selectional mechanisms. In particular, I show how classic Generative Lexicon representations and operations can be viewed in terms of types and selection.
The framework developed here is extended to a broader classes of coercion types in the context of argument selection in Pustejovsky (2011).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The admission that mentalese appears to be a first order language is already an acceptance that some sort of decomposition is desirable or necessary for describing language. But beyond this, we will see that the vocabulary accepted as standard to discuss verb behavior is a further commitment to types or categories as part of lexical descriptions.
- 2.
Each of these strategies has been thoroughly explored in the literature. What I hope to illustrate here is the organization of these approaches according to the above classification. The focus in the discussion below will be on verbs and their projection to syntactic form.
- 3.
This is the \( \theta \)-theory in varieties of Chomsky’s framework from the 1980s, and the Functional Uniqueness Principle from LFG.
- 4.
For the present discussion, I assume that the subpredicates in the expressions below are related by means of standard first order logical connectives.
- 5.
The neo-Davidsonian position adopted by Kratzer (1994) does not fall into this category, but rather in the supralexical decomposition category below. Reasons for this will become clear in the discussion that follows.
- 6.
Whether the concept of married is any less complex than that of the definiendum bachelor has, of course, been a matter of some dispute. Cf. Weinreich (1972).
- 7.
Recall that such collapsing operations were an important process prior to lexical insertion in Generative Semantics, cf. McCawley 1972; Dowty 1979.
- 8.
In programming languages, the operation of semantic analysis verifies that the typing assignments associated with expressions are valid. This is essentially done in compilation time, as a pre-test, filtering out arguments that would otherwise have the wrong type. In a model that does not perform predicate decomposition to incorporate typing constraints, sentences like (19b) are just false.
- 9.
Regarding argument selection, there are two possible strategies for how the argument accommodates to the typing requirement. Given that the type requirement is a pretest, the argument expression can fail (strict monomorphic typing), or coerce to the appropriate type (polymorphic typing). We will not discuss coercion in the context of the fail early strategy in this paper.
- 10.
This brings up the issue of how a pre-test is related to the presuppositional interpretation of argument selection. Although an important question, I will defer discussion to a forthcoming treatment of selection mechanisms, Pustejovsky (forthcoming).
- 11.
- 12.
In both (40b) and (40c), interpretations are possible with modification over the object, but they are semantically marked with bright and contradictory with long.
- 13.
It is worth noting that the propositions formed by the composition of a natural predicate with natural type entities have a special status, since they form the basis of what we will call natural propositions. Examples of such propositions are given below:
-
The rabbit died.
-
The rock touches the water.
-
The ants are under the tree.
It is interesting to compare this to Anscombe’s (1958) discussion and Searle’s (1995) extension regarding “brute facts” as opposed to “institutional facts.”. The natural predication of a property over a natural entity is a judgment requiring no institutional context or background. Facts (or at least judgments) can be classified according to the kinds of participant they contain; in fact, as we shall see, the qualia and the principle of type ordering will allow us to enrich this “fact classification” even further.
-
- 14.
Dipert makes a similar move in his 1993 book Artifacts, Art Works, and Agency.
- 15.
The judgments expressed by the predication of an artifactual predicate of an artifactual subject results in an artifactual proposition. This is formally similar to Searle’s notion of institutional fact.
- 16.
It might be possible to view pure selection as incorporating the accommodation rule as well, which would result in a more symmetric distribution of behavior in the table. Whether this is computationally desirable, however, is still unclear.
- 17.
Exploitation on the info element of the dot object for book occurs in examples such as
(i)
below:
(i)
I don’t believe this book at all.
Here the verb is selecting for propositional content, which is present by exploitation in the dot object of the direct object.
- 18.
For the present discussion, we ignore selection of a dot object in an artifactual type context. In general, the analysis will follow the introduction rule seen in (71a) below, but there are complications in some cases. These are discussed in Pustejovsky (2011).
References
Anscombe, G. E. M. (1958). On Brute facts. Analysis, 18, 69–72.
Asher, N., & Pustejovsky, J. (2005). Word meaning and commonsense metaphysics. ms. Brandeis University and University of Texas.
Asher, N., & Pustejovsky, J. (2006). A type composition logic for generative lexicon. Journal of Cognitive Science.
Borschev, V., & Partee, B. (2001). Genitive modifiers, sorts, and metonymy. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 24(2), 140–160.
Bouillon, P. (1997). Polymorphie et sémantique lexicale: le cas des adjectifs. Lille: Presses Universitaires du Spetentrion.
Busa, F. (1996). Compositionality and the semantics of nominals. Ph.D. dissertation, Brandeis University.
Busa, F., Calzolari, N., Lenci, A., & Pustejovsky, J. (1999). Building a semantic lexicon: Structuring and generating concepts. In Proceedings of IWCS-III, Tilberg, The Netherlands.
Carlson, G. (1977). Reference to Kinds in English, Ph.D. dissertation. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.
Chierchia, G. (1989). Structured meanings, thematic roles, and control. In G. Chierchia, B. Partee, & R. Turner (Eds.), Properties, types, and meaning (Vol. 2, pp. 131–166). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Copestake, A., & Briscoe, T. (1992). Lexical operations. In a unification-based framework. In J. Pustejovsky & S. Bergler (Eds.), Lexical semantics and knowledge representation. Berlin: Springer.
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language, its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.
Corblin, F. (2003). Presuppositions and commitment stores in Diabruck. 7th Workshop on the semantics and the pragmatics of dialogue, 2003. Saarbruecken, Germany.
Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Davis, A., & Koenig, J.-P. (2000). Linking as constraints on word classes in a hierarchical lexicon. Language, 76, 56–91.
Davidson, D. (1967). The logical form of action sentences. In N. Rescher (Ed.), The logic of decision and action. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.
Dipert, R. R. (1993). Artifacts, art works, and agency. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Dowty, D. R. (1979). Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Dowty, D., Wall, R., & Peters, S. (1980). Introduction to montague semantics, Synthese Language Library. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Dowty, D. R. (1989). On the semantic content of the notion ‘thematic role’. In G. Chierchia, B. Partee, & R. Turner (Eds.), Properties, types, and meaning (Semantic issues, Vol. 2). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Fodor, J. (1998). Concepts. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fodor, J., & Lepore, E. (1998). The emptiness of the lexicon. Critical reflections on J. Pustejovsky’s ‘The generative lexicon’. Linguistic Inquiry, 29, 269–288.
Fellbaum, C. (Ed.). (1998). WordNet: An electronic lexical database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gazdar, G., Klein, E., Pullum, G., & Sag, I. (1985). Generalized phrase structure grammar. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Ginzburg, J., & Sag, I. (2000). Interrogative investigations: the form, meaning, and use of English interrogatives. Stanford: CSLI Publication.
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gupta, A. (1980). The logic of common nouns. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Heim, I., & Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hobbs, J., Stickel, M., Martin, P., & Edwards, D. (1993). Interpretation as abduction. Artificial Intelligence, 63, 69–142.
Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kamp, H., & Partee, B. (1995). Prototype theory and compositionality. Cognition, 57(2), 129–191.
Katz, J., & Fodor, J. (1963). The structure of a semantic theory. Language, 39, 170–210.
Keil, F. (1989). Concepts, kinds, and cognitive development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kratzer, A. (1994). On external arguments. In J. Runner & E. Benedicto (Eds.), Functional projections (pp. 103–129). Amherst: GLSA.
Kratzer, A. (1996). In J. Rooryck & L. Zaring (Eds.), Severing the external argument from its verb. Phrase structure and the lexicon (pp. 109–137). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Lakoff, G. (1965/1970). Irregularity in syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Larson, R., & Cho, S. (2003). Temporal adjectives and the structure of possessive DPs. Natural Language Semantics, 11, 3.
Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (2005). Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1995). Unaccusatives: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marantz, A. P. (1984). On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge: MIT Press.
McCawley, J. D. (1968). The role of semantics in a grammar. In E. Bach & R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Moens, M., & Steedman, M. (1988). Temporal Ontology and Temporal Reference. Computational Linguistics, 14, 15–28.
Moravcsik, J. M. (1975). Aitia as generative factor in Aristotle’s philosophy. Dialogue, 14, 622–36.
Parsons, T. (1990). Events in the semantics of English. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Partee, B. (1992). Syntactic categories and semantic type. In M. Rosner & R. Johnson (Eds.), Computational linguistics and formal semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Partee, B., & Borshev, V. (2001). Genitives, relational nouns, and argument-modifier ambiguity. In C. Fabricius-Hansen, E. Lang, & C. Maienborn (Eds.), Modifying adjuncts (Interface explorations). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Pustejovsky, J. (1991). The generative lexicon. Computational Linguistics, 17, 409–441.
Pustejovsky, J. (1993). Type coercion and lexical selection. In J. Pustejovsky (Ed.), Semantics and the lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The generative lexicon. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Pustejovsky, J. (1998). The semantics of lexical underspecification. Folia Linguistica, 32, 323–348.
Pustejovsky, J. (2001). Type construction and the logic of concepts. In P. Bouillon & F. Busa (Eds.), The syntax of word meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pustejovsky, J. (2005). Natural kinds in linguistics. In Festschrift for Chungmin Lee. Hankook Munhwasa Publishers.
Pustejovsky, J. (forthcoming). Language meaning and the logic of concepts. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Pustejovsky, J. (2011). Coercion in a general theory of argument selection. Journal of Linguistics, 49(6).
Pustejovsky, J., & Boguraev, B. (1993). Lexical knowledge representation and natural language processing. Artificial Intelligence, 63, 193–223.
Putnam, H. (1975). Mind, language and reality (Philosophical papers, Vol. 2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104(3), 192–233.
Searle, J. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York: Free Press.
Van Valin, R. (2005). Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weinreich, U. (1972). Explorations in semantic theory. The Hague: Mouton.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Pustejovsky, J. (2013). Type Theory and Lexical Decomposition. In: Pustejovsky, J., Bouillon, P., Isahara, H., Kanzaki, K., Lee, C. (eds) Advances in Generative Lexicon Theory. Text, Speech and Language Technology, vol 46. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5189-7_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5189-7_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-5188-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-5189-7
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)