CAS LX 502CAS LX 502SemanticsSemantics

4b. Events and modification4b. Events and modification

4.1-4.44.1-4.4

AdverbsAdverbs

How might we describe the meaning How might we describe the meaning of an adverb? Say, of an adverb? Say, loudlyloudly.. The hooligan shouted loudly.The hooligan shouted loudly.

Well, it seems a bit like this:Well, it seems a bit like this: There was a shouting event.There was a shouting event. The hooligan was the Agent of that The hooligan was the Agent of that

event.event. It was a loud event.It was a loud event. Adverbs seem to modify eventsAdverbs seem to modify events

Adverb(-like thing)s as Adverb(-like thing)s as event modifiersevent modifiers

The hooligan shouted loudly on Saturday The hooligan shouted loudly on Saturday atop the bench by the tree in the rain.atop the bench by the tree in the rain.

This asserts the existence of an event that:This asserts the existence of an event that: Is a shoutingIs a shouting Has the hooligan as AgentHas the hooligan as Agent Is loudIs loud Is on SaturdayIs on Saturday Is atop the benchIs atop the bench Is by the treeIs by the tree Is in the rainIs in the rain

Great for manner and temporal adverbs.Great for manner and temporal adverbs.

Manner, location, and Manner, location, and temporal adverb(ial)stemporal adverb(ial)s

MannerManner Pat ate the sandwich quicklyPat ate the sandwich quickly Chris answered the question brilliantlyChris answered the question brilliantly Lynn entered the intersection cautiouslyLynn entered the intersection cautiously

LocationLocation Pat drove home in the rainPat drove home in the rain Chris slipped on Comm AveChris slipped on Comm Ave

TemporalTemporal Lynn won the lottery yesterdayLynn won the lottery yesterday Tracy paid the damage deposit in AugustTracy paid the damage deposit in August

Subject-oriented adverbsSubject-oriented adverbs

ZinZinédineédine intentionally hit Marco. intentionally hit Marco. Marco was intentionally hit by ZinMarco was intentionally hit by Zinédineédine..

It’s not the whole event that is It’s not the whole event that is intentional, it is somehow related to intentional, it is somehow related to one of the participants. The subject? one of the participants. The subject? Well, yes. The Agent? Maybe.Well, yes. The Agent? Maybe.

That second one seems a bit ambiguousThat second one seems a bit ambiguous

Speaker-oriented adverbsSpeaker-oriented adverbs

Annoyingly, Pat was late.Annoyingly, Pat was late.

Predictably, Pat (stupidly) answered Predictably, Pat (stupidly) answered the questions (brilliantly)the questions (brilliantly)

ModificationModification

Pat awokePat awoke Pat awoke suddenlyPat awoke suddenly Pat awoke suddenly this morningPat awoke suddenly this morning

This is a yellow pencilThis is a yellow pencil This is yellowThis is yellow This is a pencilThis is a pencil

ModificationModification Adjectives modify nouns by adding Adjectives modify nouns by adding

additional conditions. Yellow is an additional conditions. Yellow is an intersective adjectiveintersective adjective..

““Vague” adjectivesVague” adjectives

Sam is a tall cockroach.Sam is a tall cockroach. Hydrogen is a big atom.Hydrogen is a big atom. Menkaure’s is a small Pyramid.Menkaure’s is a small Pyramid.

Stampy is aStampy is atall elephant.tall elephant.

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Stampy is a tall elephantStampy is a tall elephant

It seems that all It seems that all Stampy is a tall Stampy is a tall elephantelephant can mean is “Stampy is tall can mean is “Stampy is tall for an elephant.”for an elephant.”

This is different from This is different from yellowyellow..

To get the meaning of To get the meaning of talltall right right seems to require taking into account seems to require taking into account the meaning of the noun…the meaning of the noun…

Stampy is a tall elephantStampy is a tall elephant

To describe the meaning of To describe the meaning of yellowyellow, , we might simply say something like:we might simply say something like: x[x is yellow]x[x is yellow]

But But talltall seems to be of a “higher seems to be of a “higher order” (more complex type)order” (more complex type) PPx[x is tall compared to members of x[x is tall compared to members of

{y:P(y)}]{y:P(y)}]

ModificationModification Given that you can use Given that you can use

yellow pencilyellow pencil wherever you wherever you use use pencilpencil, we can suppose , we can suppose that the syntax of adjectives that the syntax of adjectives would be something like this.would be something like this. N N Adj N Adj N Adj Adj yellow yellow N N pencil pencil

What does this predict already? What does this predict already? (Given a more elaborate lexicon, (Given a more elaborate lexicon, at least…)at least…)

N

N

pencilyellow

Adj

ModificationModification And the semantics would be as And the semantics would be as

you’d expect:you’d expect:

[[yellowyellow]]MM = = xx[[x x is yellow in M]is yellow in M] [[pencilpencil]]MM = = xx[[x x is a pencil in M]is a pencil in M] Both type <e,t>Both type <e,t>

Note: I’m taking the same shortcut Note: I’m taking the same shortcut (or, “being equally sloppy”) here as (or, “being equally sloppy”) here as in the F2 definitions, skipping the in the F2 definitions, skipping the “F(yellow)” step.“F(yellow)” step.

N

N

pencilyellow

Adj

ModificationModification Trying to find the semantic value Trying to find the semantic value

of the whole thing leads to a of the whole thing leads to a problem, of a sort—problem, of a sort—

We need a new way to combine We need a new way to combine things:things:

Predicate modificationPredicate modification[[ ]]MM = = xx[[((xx) ) ((xx)])]

N

N

pencilyellow

Adj

ModificationModification Thus: the whole thing winds up Thus: the whole thing winds up

with a semantic value of:with a semantic value of:

zz[[yellow][[yellow]MM((zz) ) [pencil] [pencil]MM((zz)])] zz[[[[xx[[x x is yellow in M]](is yellow in M]](zz))

[[ [[xx[[x x is a pencil in M]](is a pencil in M]](zz)])] zz[[z z is yellow in M is yellow in M z z is a pencil in is a pencil in

M]M]

Predicate modificationPredicate modification[[ ]]MM = = zz[[((zz) ) ((zz)])] ““Alphabetic variants”: Alphabetic variants”: zz[[PP((zz)])]= =

xx[[PP((xx)])]

N

N

pencilyellow

Adj

Predicate ModificationPredicate Modification So, it turns out we need a third rule of So, it turns out we need a third rule of

interpretation (for where functional interpretation (for where functional application cannot apply):application cannot apply):

Functional application:Functional application:[[ ]]MM = = [[]]MM ( [ ( []]M M ))

oror [[]]MM ( [ ( []]M M ))whichever is definedwhichever is defined

Pass-Up:Pass-Up:[[ ]]MM = [ = []]MM

Predicate modification:Predicate modification:[[ ]]MM = = zz[[((zz) ) ((zz)])]

Stampy is a tall elephantStampy is a tall elephant

For For talltall, as we already saw, , as we already saw, this won’t work because this won’t work because talltall is is a bit more complex.a bit more complex.

What we need is not to What we need is not to intersect the two, but rather intersect the two, but rather to have to have talltall take take elephantelephant as as an argument.an argument.

Assume:Assume: [[elephantelephant]]MM = = xx[[x x is an elephant in M]is an elephant in M] Type <e,t>Type <e,t>

N

Adj N

elephanttall

Stampy is a tall elephantStampy is a tall elephant [tall][tall]MM = = PP[[xx[[xx is tall is tall

compared to members of compared to members of {{yy:P(:P(yy)}])}]

The idea: The idea: talltall takes takes elephantelephant (call it “(call it “PP”) and gives back ”) and gives back the (<e,t>) property:the (<e,t>) property: xx[[xx is tall compared to is tall compared to

members of {members of {yy:[elephant]:[elephant]MM((yy)}])}] xx[[xx is tall compared to the set is tall compared to the set

of elephants in M]of elephants in M] What type is What type is talltall then? then?

Takes <e,t>, returns <e,t>.Takes <e,t>, returns <e,t>.

N

Adj N

elephanttall

Different mechanisms?Different mechanisms? Revisiting Revisiting yellowyellow—does the better —does the better

theory have two different ways of theory have two different ways of combining adjectives and nouns?combining adjectives and nouns?

Could we not treat Could we not treat yellowyellow the the same way as we treat same way as we treat talltall?? [yellow][yellow]MM = = PP[[xx[[xx is yellow is yellow P( P(xx)]])]]

We could. It works just as well. We could. It works just as well. However, we will need PM However, we will need PM elsewhere too:elsewhere too: Stampy is an elephant (that) Bart Stampy is an elephant (that) Bart

won.won.

N

Adj N

elephanttall

Even harder casesEven harder cases

Consider an adjective like Consider an adjective like fakefake:: Fake gunFake gun

How might we describe the How might we describe the semantics of semantics of fakefake??

Is it intersective?Is it intersective? Can we model it the same way we Can we model it the same way we

modeled modeled talltall??

The effect of The effect of is ais a So far we’ve really only dealt with So far we’ve really only dealt with tall tall

elephantelephant, but what about the context of a full , but what about the context of a full sentence like sentence like Stampy is a tall elephantStampy is a tall elephant??

We seem to get the right meaning if we We seem to get the right meaning if we simply simply ignoreignore isis and and aa.. Then it comes out just like Then it comes out just like Stampy swimsStampy swims..

This might make a little bit more sense out of This might make a little bit more sense out of the way we treated the way we treated is boringis boring.. We could get away with that because We could get away with that because isis actually actually

doesn’t contribute anything. We might say it is doesn’t contribute anything. We might say it is there simply because the there simply because the syntaxsyntax of English (not of English (not the semantics) requires it.the semantics) requires it.

What kind of thing is What kind of thing is a(n)a(n)?? A noun phrase (a noun with extra stuff—A noun phrase (a noun with extra stuff—

like an article or an adjective; something like an article or an adjective; something that can be the subject of a sentence) with that can be the subject of a sentence) with a(n)a(n) is called is called indefiniteindefinite..

Intuitively, we might class Intuitively, we might class a(n)a(n) together together with with thethe or or everyevery (articles, or determiners) (articles, or determiners)—but their effect on the meaning seems to —but their effect on the meaning seems to be different.be different.

Specifically, it doesn’t seem like Specifically, it doesn’t seem like a(n)a(n) adds adds anything either (like anything either (like isis didn’t). didn’t).

Cf. Cf. thethe The article The article thethe, on the other hand, does , on the other hand, does

seem to have a contribution to the seem to have a contribution to the meaning.meaning. The tall elephant is hungry.The tall elephant is hungry. Bond is hungry.Bond is hungry.

We’d worked out We’d worked out tall elephanttall elephant to be a to be a property. But property. But The tall elephant The tall elephant seems to seems to refer to an individual.refer to an individual.

TheThe seems to “convert” a property into an seems to “convert” a property into an individual. How?individual. How?

TheThe, definite article, definite article

What What thethe seems to do is pick some seems to do is pick some individual that has the property.individual that has the property.

Which one?Which one? Well, if you use Well, if you use thethe, you seem to , you seem to

assume assume that there is some salient that there is some salient individual with the property that you individual with the property that you can pick.can pick.

Specifically, Specifically, thethe presupposespresupposes that that there is a unique and salient there is a unique and salient individual.individual.

The elephantThe elephant So, how could we model So, how could we model thethe??

First, we need to get it to be First, we need to get it to be generated by the syntax.generated by the syntax.

Considerations:Considerations: The (tall) (yellow) elephantThe (tall) (yellow) elephant *The an elephant*The an elephant *Tall the elephant*Tall the elephant

Adjectives can be iterated, but Adjectives can be iterated, but articles/determiners cannot.articles/determiners cannot.

Combining a N and Adj produces Combining a N and Adj produces another N (with which an Adj can be another N (with which an Adj can be combined)combined)

Combining a Det and a N produces Combining a Det and a N produces something different.something different.

DP

Det N

elephantthe

The elephantThe elephant Thus:Thus:

Det Det the, a(n) the, a(n) DP DP Det N Det N

And to resolve this with And to resolve this with the rest of the grammarthe rest of the grammar DP DP N N DP DP Bond, Loren, … Bond, Loren, …

(replacing N (replacing N Bond, Loren, …) Bond, Loren, …) S S DP VP DP VP

(replacing S (replacing S N VP) N VP) VP VP Vt DP Vt DP

(replacing S (replacing S N VP) N VP)

N

Adj N

elephantyellow

DP

Det

the

The elephantThe elephant Now, Now, (yellow) elephant(yellow) elephant was a was a

property, <e,t>, true/false of property, <e,t>, true/false of individuals.individuals.

And And the (yellow) elephantthe (yellow) elephant is is an individual (some salient, an individual (some salient, unique individual with the unique individual with the property property (yellow) elephant(yellow) elephant).).

So, So, thethe takes a property takes a property (<e,t>) and returns an (<e,t>) and returns an individual (<e>).individual (<e>). <<e,t>,e><<e,t>,e>

N

Adj N

elephantyellow

DP

Det

the

The elephantThe elephant

So, So, thethe:: [the][the]MM = = PP[[xx such that such that

PP((xx)])] Presupposes there is a Presupposes there is a

unique unique xx to choose, that to choose, that is familiar.is familiar.

There are additional There are additional complexities, but this complexities, but this will do for the will do for the moment.moment.

N

Adj N

elephantyellow

DP

Det

the

Revisiting indefinitesRevisiting indefinites

Actually, Actually, a(n)a(n) can serve this function as can serve this function as well:well: A tall elephant is hungry.A tall elephant is hungry.

Here too, we seem to be talking about an Here too, we seem to be talking about an individual.individual.

In this case, there need not be a unique In this case, there need not be a unique and salient one—what it seems to assert is and salient one—what it seems to assert is that among the individuals with the that among the individuals with the property property tall elephanttall elephant, one can be found , one can be found that (also) has the property that (also) has the property is hungryis hungry..

Three kinds of indefinitesThree kinds of indefinites In fact, there seem to be at least three In fact, there seem to be at least three

kinds of indefinite noun phrase.kinds of indefinite noun phrase. An elephant is hungryAn elephant is hungry

……I can tell from the noise. (nonspecific)I can tell from the noise. (nonspecific) ……Guess which one (specific)Guess which one (specific) ……and lives in hot climates (generic/kind)and lives in hot climates (generic/kind)

And maybe a fourth, though this might be And maybe a fourth, though this might be also simply a version of the first one.also simply a version of the first one. Stampy is an elephantStampy is an elephant

We’ll get into this further at the same time We’ll get into this further at the same time as we talk about as we talk about Every elephantEvery elephant..

Modification by relative Modification by relative clausesclauses

The elephant that I sawThe elephant that I saw [that I saw] acts here like an adjective.[that I saw] acts here like an adjective. It’s true of things that I saw, and combines It’s true of things that I saw, and combines

intersectively with intersectively with elephantelephant.. Restrictive relativeRestrictive relative

The elephant, who is boring, is hungry.The elephant, who is boring, is hungry. Not quite the same thing as Not quite the same thing as The boring The boring

elephant is hungryelephant is hungry. It’s essentially . It’s essentially expressing a second proposition: The expressing a second proposition: The elephant is boring.elephant is boring.

Non-restrictive relativeNon-restrictive relative

Relative clausesRelative clauses The form of a relative clause is:The form of a relative clause is:

{that/which/who/Ø} S{that/which/who/Ø} S Where S is “missing” something.Where S is “missing” something.

The dog (who/that) I saw _The dog (who/that) I saw _ The dog which/that _ bit meThe dog which/that _ bit me

The interpretation is basically: The property The interpretation is basically: The property of being able to be filled in the blank of being able to be filled in the blank truthfullytruthfully xx[[xx such that such that xx bit me] bit me] xx[[xx such that I saw such that I saw xx]]

More on how we can arrive at this compositionally laterMore on how we can arrive at this compositionally later