POSTER TEMPLATE BY: www.PosterPresentations.com Chinese ‘dou’ and Cumulative Quantification Yanyan Sui & Lucas Champollion University of Pennsylvania {yanyans,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
October 2004CSA4050: Semantics III1 CSA4050: Advanced Topics in NLP Semantics III Quantified Sentences.
Advertisements

COGEX at the Second RTE Marta Tatu, Brandon Iles, John Slavick, Adrian Novischi, Dan Moldovan Language Computer Corporation April 10 th, 2006.
Semantics (Representing Meaning)
Lexical Functional Grammar History: –Joan Bresnan (linguist, MIT and Stanford) –Ron Kaplan (computational psycholinguist, Xerox PARC) –Around 1978.
Language and Cognition Colombo, June 2011 Day 2 Introduction to Linguistic Theory, Part 4.
L41 Lecture 2: Predicates and Quantifiers.. L42 Agenda Predicates and Quantifiers –Existential Quantifier  –Universal Quantifier 
Grammatical Relations and Lexical Functional Grammar Grammar Formalisms Spring Term 2004.
CAS LX 502 8a. Formal semantics Truth and meaning The basis of formal semantics: knowing the meaning of a sentence is knowing under what conditions.
Linguistic Theory Lecture 8 Meaning and Grammar. A brief history In classical and traditional grammar not much distinction was made between grammar and.
Introduction to Semantics To be able to reason about the meanings of utterances, we need to have ways of representing the meanings of utterances. A formal.
1 Predicates and quantifiers Chapter 8 Formal Specification using Z.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Pearson Addison-Wesley Chapter 6 The Relational Algebra and Relational Calculus.
Syntax Lecture 3: The Subject. The Basic Structure of the Clause Recall that our theory of structure says that all structures follow this pattern: It.
THE PARTS OF SYNTAX Don’t worry, it’s just a phrase ELL113 Week 4.
Lecture 19 Ling 442. Exercises 1.Provide logical forms for the following: (a)Everything John does is crazy. (b)Most of what happened to Marcia is funny.
February 2009Introduction to Semantics1 Logic, Representation and Inference Introduction to Semantics What is semantics for? Role of FOL Montague Approach.
Debbie Mueller Mathematical Logic Spring English sentences take the form Q A B Q is a determiner expression  the, every, some, more than, at least,
Albert Gatt LIN 3098 Corpus Linguistics. In this lecture Some more on corpora and grammar Construction Grammar as a theoretical framework Collostructional.
Language and Culture Prof. R. Hickey SoSe 2006 How language works
CAS LX 502 Semantics 3a. A formalism for meaning (cont ’ d) 3.2, 3.6.
Syntax Lecture 8: Verb Types 1. Introduction We have seen: – The subject starts off close to the verb, but moves to specifier of IP – The verb starts.
Lecture 9: The Gerund.  The English gerund is an intriguing structure which causes a particular problem for X-bar theory  [His constantly complaining.
IV. SYNTAX. 1.1 What is syntax? Syntax is the study of how sentences are structured, or in other words, it tries to state what words can be combined with.
CAS LX 502 8b. Formal semantics A fragment of English.
Review I Rosen , 3.1 Know your definitions!
November 2003CSA4050: Semantics I1 CSA4050: Advanced Topics in NLP Semantics I What is semantics for? Role of FOL Montague Approach.
CSE314 Database Systems The Relational Algebra and Relational Calculus Doç. Dr. Mehmet Göktürk src: Elmasri & Navanthe 6E Pearson Ed Slide Set.
1 LIN 1310B Introduction to Linguistics Prof: Nikolay Slavkov TA: Qinghua Tang CLASS 24, April 3, 2007.
INTRODUCTION: RESEARCH AREA 1. Chinese Semantics 2. Semantic difference related to syntax 3. Module Attribute Representation of Verbal Semantics (MARVS)
CS344: Introduction to Artificial Intelligence Lecture: Herbrand’s Theorem Proving satisfiability of logic formulae using semantic trees (from Symbolic.
CS621: Artificial Intelligence Pushpak Bhattacharyya CSE Dept., IIT Bombay Lecture 28– Interpretation; Herbrand Interpertation 30 th Sept, 2010.
October 2004CSA4050: Semantics III1 CSA4050: Advanced Topics in NLP Semantics III Quantified Sentences.
Lecture 7: Tense and Negation.  The clause is made up of distinct structural areas with different semantic purposes  The VP  One or more verbal head.
Lecture 7 Natural Language Determiners Ling 442. exercises 1. (a) is ambiguous. Explain the two interpretations. (a)Bill might have been killed. 2. Do.
1 LIN 1310B Introduction to Linguistics Prof: Nikolay Slavkov TA: Qinghua Tang CLASS 12, Feb 13, 2007.
Copyright © 2014 Curt Hill Sets Introduction to Set Theory.
Semantic Construction lecture 2. Semantic Construction Is there a systematic way of constructing semantic representation from a sentence of English? This.
Albert Gatt LIN3021 Formal Semantics Lecture 4. In this lecture Compositionality in Natural Langauge revisited: The role of types The typed lambda calculus.
Rules, Movement, Ambiguity
Lecture 18 Ling 442. Exercises (part 1) 1.Explain the difference between grammatical relations and thematic roles. 2.Provide some examples of verbs with.
1 Context Free Grammars October Syntactic Grammaticality Doesn’t depend on Having heard the sentence before The sentence being true –I saw a unicorn.
The Minimalist Program
Chapter 2 Logic 2.1 Statements 2.2 The Negation of a Statement 2.3 The Disjunction and Conjunction of Statements 2.4 The Implication 2.5 More on Implications.
LDK R Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation First Order Logics (FOL) Originally by Alessandro Agostini and Fausto Giunchiglia Modified by Fausto.
Argument realization and encoding in the noun phrase SFB 732 Artemis Alexiadou.
◦ Process of describing the structure of phrases and sentences Chapter 8 - Phrases and sentences: grammar1.
Passive Generalizations Li, Charles N. & Thompson, Sandra A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese - A Functional Reference Grammar. Los Angeles: University of California.
1 Chapter 2.1 Chapter 2.2 Chapter 2.3 Chapter 2.4 All images are copyrighted to their respective copyright holders and reproduced here for academic purposes.
Lec. 10.  In this section we explain which constituents of a sentence are minimally required, and why. We first provide an informal discussion and then.
Week 12. NP movement Text 9.2 & 9.3 English Syntax.
1 Section 4.4 Inductive Proof What do we believe about nonempty subsets of N? Since  N, <  is well-founded, and in fact it is linear, it follows that.
Event Semantics Martha Palmer Orin Hargraves University of Colorado LING 7800/CSCI February 19, 2013.
Descriptive Grammar – 2S, 2016 Mrs. Belén Berríos Droguett
Lecture 2: Categories and Subcategorisation
An Introduction to the Government and Binding Theory
English Syntax Week 12. NP movement Text 9.2 & 9.3.
Logic II CSE 140 etc..
Syntax Lecture 9: Verb Types 1.
Day 47 –Lord of the flies week 1 Discussion, Infinitives, Symbolism
Semantics (Representing Meaning)
CSC 594 Topics in AI – Applied Natural Language Processing
Discrete Mathematics Lecture 4 & 5: Predicate and Quantifier
Discrete Mathematics Lecture 4 & 5: Predicate and Quantifier
Lecture 5 Krisztina Szécsényi
Traditional Grammar VS. Generative Grammar
Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation
Lecture 7 Krisztina Szécsényi
Structure of a Lexicon Debasri Chakrabarti 13-May-19.
Verbal Classifiers, Numerals, & Telicity in Mandarin:
Presentation transcript:

POSTER TEMPLATE BY: Chinese ‘dou’ and Cumulative Quantification Yanyan Sui & Lucas Champollion University of Pennsylvania {yanyans, Introduction 1.Previous Analysis: Dou is a distributivity operator (Lin 1998, and references therein). (1) Only cumulative reading san-ge haizi chi-le shi-ge pingguo three-CL kid eat-ASP ten-CL apple ‘three kids between them ate ten apples.’ (2) Only distributive reading san-ge haizi dou chi-le shi-ge pingguo three-CL kid DOU eat-ASP ten-CL apple ‘three kids each ate ten apples.’ (1’) ∃ X[3-kids(X) ∧ ∃ Y[10-apples(Y) ∧ ∈ **ate]] (2’) ∃ X [3-kids(X) ∧ X ∈ *[ λ x ∃ Y[10-apples(Y) ∧ ate(x,Y)]]] X ∈ *P iff X is the sum of one or more elements of P (Link, 1987), and ∈ **R iff is the sum of one or more pairs in R (Sternefeld, 1998). Problem: dou is compatible with cumulative readings involving numeral quantifiers, which is unexpected if dou is uniformly translated as a 1-place dist operator * (Link 1983). We adopt a Neo-Davidsonian framework, whereby verbs, VPs, and IPs denote predicates over events. (1’’) The cumulative reading of (1) ∃ E [*eat(E) ∧ ∃ X [three- kids(X) ∧ [**agent(E) = X]] ∧∃ Y [ten-apples(Y) ∧ [**theme(E) = Y]]] ”There exist a set X of three kids, a set Y of ten apples, and a set E of eating events, each member of X is an agent of a member of E, each member of E has a member of X as its agent, each member of Y is a theme of a member of E, each member of E has a member of Y as its theme". Two cumulative relations in (1’’), not just one: a.between the sum event and the sum agent, b.between the sum event and the sum theme. They are introduced by the thematic roles agent and patient. Claim: dou is a theta role modifier. (3) [[dou]] = λR. λ P. λ V. λ E. ∃ X. P(X) ∧〈 E,X 〉∈ ** λ e λ x.[ATOM(x) ∧ θ (e)=x ∧ V(e)] In (3), e ranges over events and sums of events; x ranges over individuals, and X over individuals and sums of individuals. Dou combines with a theta role R, a noun phrase P, and a verbal projection V. The resulting predicate states that every atomic part of X is the theta role of some part of E, with none of E left out; and that the verb phrase V applies to each such part of E. Background: A Neo-Davidsonian Framework dou contains a ** operator over two-place predicates with an argument and an event position; the verb phrase is distributed over the parts of the event argument, and the event argument remains accessible for modifiers higher up the tree such as agent and existential closure. A theta role modified by dou causes its bearer to take distributive scope over the event predicate it c-commands. If that predicate contains a quantifier, dou distributes over it. Otherwise, the effect of dou is almost vacuous. The distributive reading of (2) with dou under this analysis is (2’’). (2’’) ∃ E ∃ X [three-kids(X) ∧ (( ∈ **( λ e'. λ x.[atom(x) ∧ (**agent(e') = x) ∧ *eat(e') ∧ ∃ X [ten-apples(X) ∧ [**theme(e') = X]]]))] DOU in ba -constructions is compatible with both distributive and cumulative readings. A ba -construction has the surface word order of “DP1+ba+DP2+VP”. ba is claimed to be a spell-out of little v that introduces the agent DP1 (Zhao 2009); DP2 is the theme or patient. (4) DP1+ba+DP2+VP (5) DP1+ba+DP2+ dou +VP (6) DP1+ dou +ba+DP2+VP Only cumulative reading Only cumulative reading Only distributive reading san-ge haizi ba shi-ge pingguo chi-le san-ge haizi ba shi-ge pingguo dou chi-le san-ge haizi dou ba shi-ge pingguo chi-le three-CL kid BA ten-CL apple eat-ASP three-CL kid BA ten-CL apple DOU eat-ASP three-CL kid DOU BA ten-CL apple eat-ASP ‘Three kids between them ate 10 apples.’ ‘Three kids between them ate 10 apples.’ ‘Three kids each ate ten apples.’ (4’) ∃ E [*eat(E) ∧ ∃ X [ten-apples(X) ∧ [**theme(E) = X]] ∧ ∃ Y [three-kids(Y) ∧ [**agent(E) = Y]]] (5’) ∃ E[ ∃ Y [three-kids(Y) ∧ [**agent(E) = Y]] ∧ ∃ X [ten-apples(X) ∧ ( ∈ **( λ e'. λ x.[atom(x) ∧ (**theme(e') = x) ∧ *eat(e')]))]] (6’) ∃ E ∃ X [three-kids(X) ∧ ( ∈ **( λ e'. λ x.[atom(x) ∧ (**agent(e') = x) ∧ *eat(e') ∧ ∃ Y [ten-apples(Y) ∧ [**theme(e') = Y]]])] In (6), ba places the event into a relation with the agent, and dou determines that this is done to each member of the agent. If dou was absent in (6), ba would place the event into a relation with the entire set of three kids, giving the cumulative reading (4). In (5) we assume that dou scopes only over the verb as indicated by its overt position, since Chinese scope seems to follow the surface order (Huang 1982). As a result, the contribution of dou is minimal: the only thing it contributes is that each apple was the theme of an eating event, which is vacuous since eating is distributive on its theme. A derivation for (5): A puzzle: Dou in BEI-constructions References In a bei -construction “DP1 bei DP2 VP”, DP1 is usually the theme/patient; and DP2 is the agent. Dou is also compatible with cumulative readings in bei-constructions, but the position of dou relative to [ bei DP2] does not affect the cumulative readings. (7) DP1+ bei+ DP2+VP Cumulative reading only shi-ge pingguo bei san-ge haizi chi-le ten-CL apple bei three-CL kid eat-ASP ‘Ten apples were eaten by three kids together.’ (8) DP1+ bei+ DP2+ dou +VP Cumulative reading only shi-ge pingguo bei san-ge haizi dou chi-le ten-CL apple bei three-CL kid dou eat-ASP (9) DP1+ dou +bei+ DP2+VP Cumulative reading only shi-ge pingguo dou bei san-ge haizi chi-le ten-CL apple dou bei three-CL kid eat-ASP Problem: Dou in (9) does not give a distributive reading as (6). Hypothesis 1: The semantics of bei is similar to the semantics of ba, both are translated as agent. And [bei+quantifier] as an appositive, which does not take scope under another quantifier. Hypothesis 2: The semantics of bei differs from the semantics of ba. While ba introduces an agent, bei does not. Bei has been proposed as a verbal category (Feng 1980). MACSIM April 2010 UPenn OPTIONAL LOGO HERE Proposal: DOU is a Theta Role Modifier DOU with Distributive and Cumulative Readings Chinese ‘dou’ and Cumulative Quantification Yanyan Sui & Lucas Champollion University of Pennsylvania The idea in a nutshell Huang, C.-T. James: 1982, Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Lin, J.-W Distributivity in Chinese and its implication. NLS 6: Link, G Algebraic Semantics in Language and Philosophy. Stanford: CSLI. Sternefeld, W Reciprocity and cumulative predication. NLS 6: Zhao, Q Ba as spell-out of little v. Manuscript.