Embodiment & Compositionality Two fundamental, but unreconciled, aspects of human language: embodiment and compositionality Embodiment – the realization.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
CSCTR Session 8 Dana Retová. group at UC Berkeley & Uni of Hawaii Nancy Chang Benjamin Bergen Jerome Feldman, … General assumption Semantic relations.
Advertisements

Semantics (Representing Meaning)
Cognitive Linguistics Croft&Cruse 3: Conceptualization and construal operations, pt. 1.
Syntax-Semantics Mapping Rajat Kumar Mohanty CFILT.
What does language do? “Harry walked to the cafe.” “Harry walked into the cafe.” A sentence can evoke an imagined scene and resulting inferences : CAFE.
The Meaning of Language
SEMANTICS.
Cognitive Linguistics Croft&Cruse
Cognitive Linguistics Croft & Cruse 9
Language and Cognition Colombo, June 2011 Day 2 Introduction to Linguistic Theory, Part 4.
Lectures I. Overview 2. Simulation Semantics 3. ECG and Best-fit Analysis 4. Compositionality 5. Simulation, Counterfactuals, and Inference Constructions.
Statistical NLP: Lecture 3
Embodied Compositional Semantics Ellen Dodge
Narrative and Sequential Approaches to Content Data Special Forms of Qualitative Analysis.
The Case for Case Reopened ‘Agents and Agency Revisited’
NLP and Speech 2004 Feature Structures Feature Structures and Unification.
Language, Mind, and Brain by Ewa Dabrowska Chapter 10: The cognitive enterprise.
Cognitive Linguistics Croft & Cruse 10 An overview of construction grammars (part 2, through end)
CS 182 Sections slides created by: Eva Mok modified by jgm April 26, 2006.
CS 182 Sections Eva Mok April 21, 2004.
Cognitive Linguistics Croft & Cruse 10 An overview of construction grammars (part 1, through )
Understanding Sentences. Two steps back: What is linguistic knowledge? Phonological Syntactical Morphological Lexical Semantic.
The Information School of the University of Washington Introduction to frameworks and paradigms? INFO 310.
Speech Acts Lecture 8.
Cognitive Psychology, 2 nd Ed. Chapter 8 Semantic Memory.
Roles of Knowledge in Cognition 1 Knowledge is often thought of as constituting particular bodies of facts, techniques, and procedures that cultures develop,
February 2009Introduction to Semantics1 Logic, Representation and Inference Introduction to Semantics What is semantics for? Role of FOL Montague Approach.
35 years of Cognitive Linguistics Session 8: Cognitive Grammar
NTL – Converging Constraints Basic concepts and words derive their meaning from embodied experience. Abstract and theoretical concepts derive their meaning.
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 12: 22/6/1435 Natural language processing Lecturer/ Kawther Abas 363CS – Artificial Intelligence.
Assessment of Semantics
FACULTY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE G. TOGIA SECTION ΠΗ-Ω 10/14/2009 Introduction to linguistics II 1.
Learning goals.
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.
Learning Science and Mathematics Concepts, Models, Representations and Talk Colleen Megowan.
Introduction to Embodied Construction Grammar March 4, 2003 Ben Bergen
Linguistic Essentials
The Minimalist Program
The meaning of Language Chapter 5 Semantics and Pragmatics Week10 Nov.19 th -23 rd.
INFO 414 Information Behavior Theoretical foundations, frameworks and paradigms.
Knowledge Representation
Philosophy and Cognitive Science Conceptual Role Semantics Joe Lau PhilosophyHKU.
NLP. Introduction to NLP (U)nderstanding and (G)eneration Language Computer (U) Language (G)
Lecture №1 Role of science in modern society. Role of science in modern society.
An Introduction to Semantic Parts of Speech Rajat Kumar Mohanty rkm[AT]cse[DOT]iitb[DOT]ac[DOT]in Centre for Indian Language Technology Department of Computer.
Why languages differ: Variation in the conventionalization of constraints on inference By: Randy J. LaPolla City University of Hong Kong Presented by:
Chapter 11 Language. Some Questions to Consider How do we understand individual words, and how are words combined to create sentences? How can we understand.
MENTAL GRAMMAR Language and mind. First half of 20 th cent. – What the main goal of linguistics should be? Behaviorism – Bloomfield: goal of linguistics.
Art is among the highest expressions of culture, embodying its ideals and aspirations, challenging its assumptions and beliefs, and creating new possibilities.
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.
Figure and Ground Part 2 APLNG 597C LEJIAO WANG 03/16/2015.
Getting From the Utterance to the SemSpec Johno Bryant Need a grammar formalism –Embodied Construction Grammar (Bergen & Chang 2002) Need new models for.
The Neural Basis of Thought and Language Final Review Session.
CS 182 Sections Leon Barrett with slides inspired by Eva Mok and Joe Makin April 18, 2007.
The Neural Basis of Thought and Language Week 14.
A Compositional Constructional Analysis of ‘Hitting’ Verb Argument Realization Patterns and Their Meanings Ellen K. Dodge International Computer Science.
The Neural Basis of Thought and Language Week 12 Metaphor and Automatic Reasoning, plus Grammars.
“Perceptual Symbol Systems”
Lecture – VIII Monojit Choudhury RS, CSE, IIT Kharagpur
Syntax Lecture 9: Verb Types 1.
Statistical NLP: Lecture 3
Semantics (Representing Meaning)
Representation of Actions as an Interlingua
Strong Slot-and-Filler Structures
CSC 594 Topics in AI – Applied Natural Language Processing
Strong Slot-and-Filler Structures
Linguistic Essentials
The role of embodiment in language learning.
Structure of a Lexicon Debasri Chakrabarti 13-May-19.
Presentation transcript:

Embodiment & Compositionality Two fundamental, but unreconciled, aspects of human language: embodiment and compositionality Embodiment – the realization that scientific understanding of mind and language entails detailed modeling of the human brain Compositionality - only people can express and understand an essentially unbounded range of messages

Compositionality Anything that deserves to be called a language must contain meaningful expressions built up from other meaningful expressions” [4] strong compositionality states that the meaning of a expression is totally determined by its form and is independent of context “In its strict version, this claim is clearly wrong” [5].

Truth-conditional Semantics The existence of these forms of context-dependence would thus appear to spell the doom for truth- conditional semantics, understood as the project of assigning properties to syntactic items (partly by finding principles for determining properties of complex syntactic items on the basis of their parts) such that we await only the specification of something like an index to know what the truth- conditions of a given utterance of a given assertive sentence would be.- Jason Bridges Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations: A Critical Guide, A. M. Ahmed (ed.), Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Simulation Semantics Lectures 1 and 3 => embodied But what about public language, text? Skeletal shared meaning => schemas Language Community (LC) –Shares grammar, schemas, analysis rules

Compositionality Put the parts together to create the meaning of the whole. Questions: –what is the nature of the parts? –How and why do they combine with one another? –What meaning is associated with this composition?

Short NTL answers Parts = constructions, schemas Combination = binding, unification Meaning of the whole : –Public (LC) ~ Semantic Specification = SemSpec –Private ~ Enactment/Simulation of SemSpec

ECG Lattices Schemas – Image, X-schemas, Frames Constructions – Lexical, Grammatical Language Communities Situations ~ Mental Spaces Maps ~ Metaphor, etc.

Lectures I. Overview 2. Simulation Semantics 3. ECG and Best-fit Analysis 4. Compositionality 5. Simulation, Counterfactuals, and Inference Constructions Simulation Utterance Discourse & Situational Context Semantic Specification : image schemas, bindings, action schemas Analyzer: incremental, competition-based, psychologically plausibleA

Conceptual Structure Embodied Schematic (Partially) language-independent Conceptual Composition Highly interconnected Primitives Conceptual composition Metaphor

Image Schemas parameters of spatial cognition action schemas - controller goals, force-dynamics (causation) parameters of parts & boundaries Time Social World young/ mature/ old authority, approval, help value, exchange, obligation theory of mind, perception and intention, Communication speaker/ hearer, direct/ indirect true/ false question, command, etc. Grammaticalized concepts person, gender, age, agent, speaker possession, mass/count, reflexives, Primal scenes/ event types – transitive, tense, aspect General Logic connectives, numbers similarity, inference, uncertainty part/ whole, scales, magnitude binding, variables, indefinites, generalization Mental Operations Learning, matching, binding mental spaces, mappings simulation, displacement Some Conceptual Primitives

Conceptual Composition Ellen Dodge Thesis 1. Conjunction – horse with stripes 2. Modification – camel without hump 3. Abstraction - vehicle 4. Mapping a. Metonymy – London thinks b. Metaphor – causes are forces 5. Blending – apple bus 6. Relational – horses eat grass

First example He bit the apple.

schema MotorControl subcase of Process roles Actor ↔ Protagonist Effector Effort Routine constraints Actor ← animate Schemas

schema ForceApplication subcase of MotorControl evokes ForceTransfer as FT roles Actor ↔ FT.Supplier ↔ Protagonist Acted Upon↔ FT.Recipient Effector Routine Effort ↔ FT.Force.amount schema ForceTransfer evokes Conact as C roles Supplier ↔ C.entity1 Recipient ↔ C.entity2 Force schema MotorControl subcase of Process roles Actor ↔ Protagonist Effector Effort Routine constraints Actor ← animate schema Contact subcase of SpatialRelation roles Entity1 : entity Entity2 : entity

Schema Lattice MotorControl Motion SPG Effector Motion Effector MotionPath ForceTransfer ForceApplication Contact SpatiallyDirectedAction CauseEffect Contact Agentive Impact SelfMotion Path MotionPath

Construction BITE1 subcase of Verb form: bite meaning: ForceApplication constraints: Effector ← teeth Routine ← bite // close mouth Verb Constructions schema ForceApplication subcase of MotorControl evokes ForceTransfer as FT roles Actor ↔ FT.Supplier ↔ Protagonist Acted Upon ↔ FT.Recipient Effector Routine Effort ↔ FT.Force.amount

Verb Constructions schema ForceApplication subcase of MotorControl schema Agentive Impact subcase of ForceApplication cxn BITE meaning: ForceApplication schema MotorControl cxn GRASP meaning: ForceApplication cxn PUSH meaning: ForceApplication cxn SLAP meaning: AgentiveImpact cxn KICK meaning: AgentiveImpact cxn HIT meaning: AgentiveImpact

Argument Structure Construction construction ActiveTransitiveAction2 subcase of VP constituents: V : verb NP: NP form constraints: V F before NP F meaning: CauseEffect evokes; EventDescriptor as ED; ForceApplication as FA constraints: {Self m ↔ ED.EventType} {V m ↔ ED.ProfiledProcess} Causer ↔ ED.ProfiledParticipant FA ↔ V m Causer ↔ FA.Actor Affected ↔ FA.ActedUpon Affected ↔ NP m

Argument Structure Construction construction ActiveTransitiveAction2 subcase of VP constituents: V : verb NP: NP form constraints: V F before NP F meaning: CauseEffect evokes; EventDescriptor as ED; ForceApplication as FA constraints: {Self m ↔ ED.EventType} {V m ↔ ED.ProfiledProcess} Causer ↔ ED.ProfiledParticipant FA ↔ V m Causer ↔ FA.Actor Affected ↔ FA.ActedUpon Affected ↔ NP m

CauseEffect schema schema CauseEffect subcase of ForceApplication; Process roles Causer ↔ Actor Affected ↔ ActedUpon ↔ Process.Protagonist Instrument ↔ Effector

MotorControl Motion SPG Effector Motion Effector MotionPath ForceTransfer ForceApplication Contact SpatiallyDirectedAction CauseEffect Contact SelfMotion Path MotionPath Agentive Impact Process Schema Lattice

Argument Structure Construction construction ActiveTransitiveAction2 subcase of VP constituents: V : verb NP: NP form constraints: V F before NP F meaning: CauseEffect evokes: EventDescriptor as ED; ForceApplication as FA constraints: {Self m ↔ ED.EventType} {V m ↔ ED.ProfiledProcess} Causer ↔ ED.ProfiledParticipant FA ↔ V m Causer ↔ FA.Actor Affected ↔ FA.ActedUpon Affected ↔ NP m

Important points  Compositionality does not require that each component contain different information.  Shared semantic structure is not viewed as an undesirable redundancy

Argument Structure Construction construction ActiveTransitiveAction2 subcase of VP constituents: V : verb NP: NP form constraints: V F before NP F meaning: CauseEffect evokes; EventDescriptor as ED ; ForceApplication as FA constraints: {Self m ↔ ED.EventType} {V m ↔ ED.ProfiledProcess} Causer ↔ ED.ProfiledParticipant FA ↔ V m Causer ↔ FA.Actor Affected ↔ FA.ActedUpon Affected ↔ NP m

schema EventDescriptor roles EventType: Process ProfiledProcess: Process ProfiledParticipant: Entity ProfiledState(s): State SpatialSetting TemporalSetting Event Descriptor schema

Preconditions, resources, fine control structure are important aspects of events

Argument Structure Construction Construction ActiveTransitiveAction2 subcase of VP constituents: V : verb NP: NP form constraints: V F before NP F meaning: CauseEffect evokes; EventDescriptor as ED ; ForceApplication as FA constraints: {Self m ↔ ED.EventType} {V m ↔ ED.ProfiledProcess} Causer ↔ ED.ProfiledParticipant FA ↔ V m Causer ↔ FA.Actor Affected ↔ FA.ActedUpon Affected ↔ NP m

construction NPVP1 constituents: Subj: NP VP : VP form Constraints Subj f before VP f meaning: EventDescriptor ProfiledParticipant ↔ Subj m Bindings with other cxns construction ActiveTransitiveAction2 subcase of VP constituents: V ; NP form: V F before NP F meaning: CauseEffect evokes; EventDescriptor as ED constraints: {Self m ↔ ED.EventType} {V m ↔ ED.ProfiledProcess} Causer ↔ ED.ProfiledParticipant Affected ↔ NP m

Construction NPVP1 constituents: Subj: NP VP : VP form constraints Subj f before VP f meaning: EventDescriptor ProfiledParticipant ↔ Subj m Bindings with other cxns construction ActiveTransitiveAction2 subcase of VP constituents: V ; NP form: V F before NP F meaning: CauseEffect evokes; EventDescriptor as ED constraints: {Self m ↔ ED.EventType} {V m ↔ ED.ProfiledProcess} Causer ↔ ED.ProfiledParticipant Affected ↔ NP m schema EventDescriptor roles EventType ProfiledProcess ProfiledParticipant ProfiledState(s) SpatialSetting TemporalSetting

Bindings with other cxns schema EventDescriptor roles EventType ProfiledProcess ProfiledParticipant ProfiledState(s) SpatialSetting TemporalSetting construction NPVP1 constituents: Subj: NP VP : VP form Constraints Subj f before VP f meaning: EventDescriptor ProfiledParticipant ↔ Subj m construction ActiveTransitiveAction2 subcase of VP constituents: V ; NP form: V F before NP F meaning: CauseEffect evokes; EventDescriptor as ED constraints: {Self m ↔ ED.EventType} {V m ↔ ED.ProfiledProcess} Causer ↔ ED.ProfiledParticipant Affected ↔ NP m

Unification CauseEffect causer affected ForceApplication actor actedupon EventDescriptor EventType ProfiledProcess ProfiledParticipant BITE TransitiveAction2 HE NP1 NPVP1 THEAPPLE NP2 ReferentDescriptor ReferentDescriptor MeaningConstructions

Unification CauseEffect causer affected ForceApplication actor actedupon EventDescriptor EventType ProfiledProcess ProfiledParticipant BITE TransitiveAction2 HE NP1 NPVP1 THEAPPLE NP2 ReferentDescriptor ReferentDescriptor resolved referent MeaningConstructions

Unification CauseEffect causer affected ForceApplication actor actedupon EventDescriptor eventtype ProfiledProcess ProfiledParticipant BITE TransitiveAction2 Verb HE NP1 NPVP1 THEAPPLE NP2 ReferentDescriptor ReferentDescriptor resolved referent MeaningConstructions

Unification CauseEffect causer affected ForceApplication actor actedupon EventDescriptor eventtype ProfiledProcess ProfiledParticipant BITE TransitiveAction2 HE NP1 NPVP1 subj THEAPPLE NP2 ReferentDescriptor ReferentDescriptor MeaningConstructions

Unification CauseEffect causer affected ForceApplication actor actedupon EventDescriptor eventtype ProfiledProcess ProfiledParticipant BITE TransitiveAction2 NP HE NP1 NPVP1 THEAPPLE NP2 ReferentDescriptor ReferentDescriptor MeaningConstructions

Semantic Specification He bit the apple EventDescriptor eventtype ProfiledProcess ProfiledParticipant CauseEffect causer affected ForceApplication actor actedupon routine  bite effector  teeth RD55 category Person Apple RD27 category

Argument Structure Construction He was bitten (by a toddler) construction PassiveTransitiveAction2 subcase of VP constituents: V : PassiveVerb (PP: agentivePP) form constraints: V F before PP F meaning: CauseEffectAction evokes; EventDescriptor as ED; ForceApplication as FA constraints: {Self m ↔ ED.EventType} {V m ↔ ED.ProfiledProcess} Affected ↔ ED.ProfiledParticipant FA ↔ V m Causer ↔ FA.Actor Affected ↔ FA.ActedUpon Causer ↔ PP.NP m

Semantic Specification He was bitten (by a toddler) EventDescriptor eventtype ProfiledProcess ProfiledParticipant CauseEffect causer affected ForceApplication actor actedupon routine  bite effector  teeth RD48 category Person Person RD27 category

Variations on a theme He shattered the window The window was shattered The window shattered

Construction SHATTER1 subcase of Verb form: shatter meaning: StateChange constraints: Initial :: Undergoer.state ← whole Final :: Undergoer.state ← shards Verb Construction -- shatter schema StateChange subcase of Process roles Undergoer ↔ Protagonist

Argument Structure Construction He shattered the window construction ActiveTransitiveAction3 subcase of VP constituents: V : verb NP: NP form constraints: V F before NP F meaning: CauseEffect evokes: EventDescriptor as ED; StateChange as SC constraints: {Self m ↔ ED.EventType} {V m ↔ ED.ProfiledProcess} Causer ↔ ED.ProfiledParticipant SC ↔ V m Affected ↔ SC.Undergoer Affected ↔ NP m

Semantic Specification He shattered the window EventDescriptor eventtype ProfiledProcess ProfiledParticipant CauseEffect causer affected StateChange Undergoer state  “wholeness” RD189 category Person Window RD27 category

Argument Structure Construction The window was shattered construction PassiveTransitiveAction3 subcase of VP constituents: V : PassiveVerb (PP: agentivePP) form constraints: V F before NP F meaning: CauseEffect evokes: EventDescriptor as ED; StateChange as SC constraints: {Self m ↔ ED.EventType} {V m ↔ ED.ProfiledProcess} Affected ↔ ED.ProfiledParticipant SC ↔ V m Affected ↔ SC.Undergoer Causer ↔ PP.NP m

Semantic Specification The window was shattered EventDescriptor eventtype ProfiledProcess ProfiledParticipant CauseEffect causer affected StateChange Undergoer state  “wholeness” RD175 category Window

Argument Structure Construction The window shattered construction ActiveIntransitiveAction1 subcase of VP constituents: V : verb form meaning: Process evokes: EventDescriptor as ED; StateChange as SC constraints: {Self m ↔ ED.EventType} {V m ↔ ED.ProfiledProcess} Protagonist ↔ ED.ProfiledParticipant SC ↔ V m Protagonist ↔ SC.Undergoer

Semantic Specification The window shattered EventDescriptor eventtype ProfiledProcess ProfiledParticipant Process protagonist StateChange Undergoer state  “wholeness” RD177 category Window

Summary Small set of constructions and schemas Composed in different ways Unification produces specification of simulation Sentence understanding is simulation Different meanings => different simulations

NTL Compositionality Language understanding is simulation Simulation activates conceptual structures Conceptual Compositionality is basic Grammatical Compositionality is inherently constructional, not surface SemSpec ~ Semantic Specification –Skeletal Meaning –Captures shared understanding of an LC –Site of Compositionality

Argument Structure Construction His white teeth bit into the apple construction ActiveEffectorMotionPath3 subcase of VP constituents: V : verb PP: Spatial-PP form constraints: V F before PP F meaning: EffectorMotionPath evokes; EventDescriptor as ED; ForceApplication as FA constraints: {Self m ↔ ED.EventType} {V m ↔ ED.ProfiledProcess} Effector ↔ ED.ProfiledParticipant FA ↔ V m Actor ↔ FA.Actor // INI Effector ↔ FA.Effector Target ↔ FA.ActedUpon SPG ↔ PP m Target ↔ PP m.Prep.LM

Simulation: His white teeth bit into the apple Action SourcePathGoal Effector Motion Protagonist = Actor Protagonist = Effector

Non-agentive biting He landed on his feet, hitting the narrow pavement outside the yard with such jarring impact that his teeth bit into the edge of his tongue. [BNC] The studs bit into Trent's hand. [BNC] His chest burned savagely as the ropes bit into his skin. [BNC]

MotorControl Motion SPG Effector Motion Effector MotionPath ForceTransfer ForceApplication Contact SpatiallyDirectedAction CauseEffect Contact SelfMotion Path MotionPath Agentive Impact Process Schema Network

Simulation: His teeth bit his tongue SourcePathGoal Motion Protagonist = Mover

Key assumptions of NTL Language understanding is simulation Simulation involves activation of neural structures

Constructions Construction Grammar Constructions are form-meaning pairings A given utterance instantiates many different constructions Embodied Construction Grammar Construction meaning is represented using schemas Meaning is embodied

Lectures I. Overview 2. Simulation Semantics 3. ECG and Best-fit Analysis 4. Compositionality 5. Simulation, Counterfactuals, and Inference Constructions Simulation Utterance Discourse & Situational Context Semantic Specification : image schemas, bindings, action schemas Analyzer: incremental, competition-based, psychologically plausible

Constructions Simulation Utterance Discourse & Situational Context Semantic Specification : image schemas, bindings, action schemas Analyzer: incremental, competition-based, psychologically plausible

Image Schemas parameters of spatial cognition action schemas - controller goals, force-dynamics (causation) parameters of parts & boundaries Time Social World young/ mature/ old authority, approval, help value, exchange, obligation theory of mind, perception and intention, Communication speaker/ hearer, direct/ indirect true/ false question, command, etc. Grammaticalized concepts person, gender, age, agent, speaker possession, mass/count, reflexives, Primal scenes/ event types – transitive, tense, aspect General Logic connectives, numbers similarity, inference, uncertainty part/ whole, scales, magnitude binding, variables, indefinites, generalization Mental Operations Learning, matching, binding mental spaces, mappings simulation, displacement Some Conceptual Primitives

Conceptual Composition 1. Conjunction – horse with stripes 2. Modification – camel without hump 3. Abstraction - vehicle 4. Mapping a. Metonymy – London thinks b. Metaphor – causes are forces 5. Blending – trash can basketball

Putting the parts together Bindings Unification

“Pre-existing” structure Cxn schema Cxn schema

Unification Cxn schema Cxn schema

Process Simulation - He bit the apple CauseEffect ForceApplication Protagonist = Causer ↔ Actor Protagonist = Affected ↔ ActedUpon

Process Simulation - He bit the apple CauseEffect ForceApplication Protagonist = Causer ↔ Actor Protagonist = Affected ↔ ActedUpon

MotorControl Motion SPG Effector Motion Effector MotionPath ForceTransfer ForceApplication Contact SpatiallyDirectedAction CauseEffect Contact SelfMotion Path MotionPath Agentive Impact Process Schema Lattice

Prototypes and extensions? CauseMotion Path: He threw the ball across the room He kicked the ball over the table He sneezed the napkin off the table [He coughed the water out of his lungs]

Key points In prototypical verb-argument structure construction combinations, verb meaning is very similar to argument structure meaning. Verbs whose meaning partially overlaps that of a given argument structure constructions may also co-occur with that argument structure construction These less prototypical combinations may motivate extensions to the central argument structure constructions

Some more variations on a theme He bit the apple He bit into the apple His white teeth bit into the apple.

Argument Structure Construction He bit into the apple construction ActiveEffectorMotionPath2 subcase of VP constituents: V : verb PP: Spatial-PP form constraints: V F before PP F meaning: EffectorMotionPath evokes; EventDescriptor as ED; ForceApplication as FA constraints: {Self m ↔ ED.EventType} {V m ↔ ED.ProfiledProcess} Actor ↔ ED.ProfiledParticipant FA ↔ V m Actor ↔ FA.Actor Effector ↔ FA.Effector // INI Target ↔ FA.ActedUpon SPG ↔ PP m Target ↔ PP m.Prep.LM

Schema schema EffectorMotionPath subcase of EffectorMotion subcase of SPG // or evokes SPG roles Actor ↔ MotorControl.protagonist Effector ↔ SPG.Tr ↔ M.Mover ↔ Motion.protagonist Target ↔ SPG.Lm

MotorControl Motion SPG Effector Motion Effector MotionPath ForceTransfer ForceApplication Contact SpatiallyDirectedAction CauseEffect Contact SelfMotion Path MotionPath Agentive Impact Process Schema Lattice

Argument Structure Construction He bit into the apple construction ActiveEffectorMotionPath2 subcase of VP constituents: V : verb PP: Spatial-PP form constraints: V F before PP F meaning: EffectorMotionPath evokes: EventDescriptor as ED; ForceApplication as FA constraints: {Self m ↔ ED.EventType} {V m ↔ ED.ProfiledProcess} Actor ↔ ED.ProfiledParticipant FA ↔ V m Actor ↔ FA.Actor Effector ↔ FA.Effector // INI Target ↔ FA.ActedUpon SPG ↔ PP m Target ↔ PP m.Prep.LM

EffectorMotionPath Action SourcePathGoal Effector Motion Protagonist = Actor Protagonist = Effector

The ‘subject’ NP (She) is bound to these roles: profiledParticipant of EventDescriptor causer of CauseMotionAction actor of ForceApplication supplier of ForceTransfer [actor of ForcefulMotionAction] [actor of EffectorMotionAlongAPath] protagonist of CauseMotionAction and ForceApplication [protagonist of ForcefulMotionAction and EffectorMotionAlongAPath]

The ‘direct object’ NP (his hand) is bound to: affected of CauseMotionAction protagonist2 of CauseMotionAction actedUpon of ForceApplication recipient of ForceTransfer mover of MotionAlongAPath trajector of SPG [actedUpon Target of ForcefulMotionAction] [target of EffectorMotionAlongAPath] (landmark of a different SPG schema)

construction CauseMotion4 subcase of CauseMotion1 constructional constituents v : Verb np: NP pp: Path-PP form constraints v.f before np.f np.f before pp.f meaning: CauseMotionAction evokes EventDescriptor as ed evokes ForcefulMotionAction as fma constraints ignore self.m v.m self.m.process1 v.m.process1 v.m fma self.m ed.eventType v.m ed.profiledPorcess self.m.affected np.m self.m.causer ed.profiledParticipant self.m.process2.spg pp.m.spg