Advertisement

Journal of Logic, Language and Information

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 347–366 | Cite as

Deverbal Semantics and the Montagovian Generative Lexicon \(\Lambda \!\mathsf {Ty}_n\)

  • Livy Real
  • Christian Retoré
Article
  • 166 Downloads

Abstract

We propose a lexical account of event nouns, in particular of deverbal nominalisations, whose meaning is related to the event expressed by their base verb. The literature on nominalisations often assumes that the semantics of the base verb completely defines the structure of action nominals. We argue that the information in the base verb is not sufficient to completely determine the semantics of action nominals. We exhibit some data from different languages, especially from Romance language, which show that nominalisations focus on some aspects of the verb semantics. The selected aspects, however, seem to be idiosyncratic and do not automatically result from the internal structure of the verb nor from its interaction with the morphological suffix. We therefore propose a partially lexicalist approach view of deverbal nouns. It is made precise and computable by using the Montagovian generative lexicon, a type theoretical framework introduced by Bassac, Mery and Retoré in this journal in 2010. This extension of Montague semantics with a richer type system easily incorporates lexical phenomena like the semantics of action nominals in particular deverbals, including their polysemy and (in)felicitous copredications.

Keywords

Lexical semantics Compositional semantics Type theory 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are indebted to Christian Bassac (University of Lyons 2), Marcos Lopes (University of São Paulo), Urszula Wybraniec-Skardowska (University of Opole), and to the anonymous referees for their helpful comments.

References

  1. Alexiadou, A., Iordachioaia, G., & Soare, E. (2010). Number/aspect interactions in the syntax of nominalizations: A distributed morphology approach. Journal of Linguistics, 46, 537–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asher, N. (1993). Abstract objetcs in discourse. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asher, N. (2011). Lexical meaning in context—a web of words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asher, N., & Denis, P. (2005). Lexical ambiguity as type disjunction. Third international Workshop on Generative Approaches to the Lexicon.Google Scholar
  5. Bassac, C., Mery, B., & Retoré, C. (2010). Towards a type-theoretical account of lexical semantics. Journal of Logic Language and Information 19(2):229–245. http://hal.inria.fr/inria-00408308/.Google Scholar
  6. Beard, R. (1995). Lexeme-morpheme based morphology. New York: State University New York Press.Google Scholar
  7. Brandtner R. (2011). Deverbal Nominals in Context: Meaning and Variation Co-predication. PhD thesis, Universität Stuttgart, sinSpec 8 (2011) ISSN: 1867-3082.Google Scholar
  8. Chomsky, N. (1970). Remarks on nominalization. In R. A. Jacob & P. S. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar (pp. 184–221) .Waltham, MA : Ginn.Google Scholar
  9. Comrie, B. (1976). The syntax of action nominals: A cross-language study. Lingua 40.Google Scholar
  10. Cruse, A. (2004). Meaning in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. de Paiva, V., Rademaker, A., de Melo, G. (2012). Openwordnet-pt: An open brazilian wordnet for reasoning. In M. Kay, C. Boitet (Eds.) COLING 2012.Google Scholar
  12. Girard, J. Y. (1971). Une extension de l’interprétation de Gödel à l’analyse et son application: l’élimination des coupures dans l’analyse et la théorie des types. In J.E. Fenstad (Ed.) Proceedings of the Second Scandinavian Logic Symposium, North Holland, Amsterdam, Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, vol. 63,pp. 63–92.Google Scholar
  13. Girard, J. Y. (2011). The blind spot—lectures on logic. European Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
  14. Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Gurevich, O., Crouch, R., King, T. H., & de Paiva, V. (2008). Deverbal nouns in knowledge representation. Journal of Logic and Computation, 18(3), 385–404. doi: 10.1093/logcom/exm070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hamm, F., & Kamp, H. (2009). Ontology and inference: The case of German ung-nominals. SinSpeC 6, 1–67, ISSN: 1867-3082.Google Scholar
  17. Heyvaert, L. (2008). On the constructional semantics of gerundive nominalizations. Folia Linguistica, 49(1), 39–82.Google Scholar
  18. Jackendoff, R. (1975). Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon. Language, 51, 639–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jacquey, E. (2006). Un cas de polysémie logique : Modélisation de noms d’action en français ambigus entre processus et artefact. Traitement Automatique Des Langues 47(1), 137–166, http://www.atala.org/Un-cas-de-polysemie-logique.
  20. Ježek, E., & Melloni, C. (2011). Nominals, polysemy, and co-predication. Journal of Cognitive Science, 22, 1–31.Google Scholar
  21. Lafourcade, M. (2011). Lexique et analyse sémantique de textes - structures, acquisitions, calculs, et jeux de mots. Mémoire d’habilitation à diriger des recherches: Université de Montpellier II.Google Scholar
  22. Lafourcade, M., & Joubert, A. (2010). Computing trees of named word usages from a crowdsourced lexical network. In IMCSIT, Vol Computational linguistics—applications (CLA’10) (pp. 439–446).Google Scholar
  23. Lefeuvre, A., Moot, R., Retoré, C., Sandillon-Rezer, N. F. (2012). Traitement automatique sur corpus de récits de voyages pyrénéens : Une analyse syntaxique, sémantique et temporelle. In Traitement Automatique Du Langage Naturel, TALN’2012, vol. 2, pp. 43–56. http://aclweb.org/anthology/F/F12/.
  24. Luo, Z. (2011). Contextual analysis of word meanings in type-theoretical semantics. In S. Pogodalla & J. P. Prost (Eds.), LACL (Vol. 6736, pp. 159–174). LNCS Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Melloni, C. (2007). Polysemy in word formation: The case of deverbal nominals. PhD thesis, Università degli studi di Verona.Google Scholar
  26. Mery, B., & Retoré, C. (2013). Advances in the logical representation of lexical semantics. In V. de Paiva & L. Moss (Eds.), Natural language and computer science (LICS 2013 Satellite Workshop). New-Orleans.Google Scholar
  27. Mery, B., Moot, R., & Retoré, C. (2013). Plurals: Individuals and sets in a richly typed semantics. In Logic and engineering of natural language semantics 10 (LENLS 10), LNCS.Google Scholar
  28. Moot, R. (2010). Wide-coverage French syntax and semantics using Grail. In Proceedings of Traitement Automatique Des Langues Naturelles (TALN), Montreal.Google Scholar
  29. Moot, R., & Retoré, C. (2012). The logic of categorial grammars: A deductive account of natural language syntax and semantics, vol. 6850.LNCS Springer, http://www.springer.com/computer/theoretical+computer+science/book/978-3-642-31554-1.
  30. Myiamoto, T. (1999). The light verb construction in Japanese: The role of the verbal noun. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  31. Oliveira, D. C. M. (2006). Nominalizações de evento/processo e nominalizações de resultado: Diferenças estruturais. Estudos Linguísticos, 14, 491–502.Google Scholar
  32. Pazelskaya, A. (2007). When eventual semantics meets nominal form: Plural of russian event nouns. In Workshop on Plurality, UMR7023 Structures Formelles du Langage, CNRS: Paris.Google Scholar
  33. Picallo, M. C. (1991). Nominals and nominalizations in Catalan. Probus, 3(3), 279–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pierrel, J. M. (2006). Le trésor de la langue française informatisé : Un dictionnaire de référence accessible à tous. Revue de l’association des membres de l’Ordre des palmes académiques. 17, 25–28. http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00398661.
  35. Prochazkova, V. (2006). Argument structure of czech event nominals. Master’s thesis, CASTL, Universitetet i Tromsø.Google Scholar
  36. Retoré, C. (2012). Variable types for meaning assembly: A logical syntax for generic noun phrases introduced by ”most”. Recherches Linguistiques De Vincennes 41, 83–102. http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00677312.
  37. Retoré, C. (2013). Sémantique des déterminants dans un cadre richement typé. In Morin E, Estève Y (Eds.) Traitement automatique du langage naturel, TALN RECITAL 2013, ACL anthology, vol 1. pp. 367–380. http://www.taln2013.org/actes/.
  38. Roodenburg, J. (2006). The role of number within nominal arguments: The case of french pluralized event nominalizations. work presented at the 36th linguistic symposium on romance language.Google Scholar
  39. Sleeman, P., & Brito, A. M. (2007). Nominalization, event, aspect and argument structure: A syntactic approach. In M. Duguine, S. Huidobro, & N. Madariaga (Eds.), Argument structure and syntactic relations: A cross-linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  40. Van de Cruys, T. (2010). Mining for meaning. the extraction of lexico-semantic knowledge from text. PhD thesis, University of Groningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  41. Van Hout, A. (1991). Deverbal nominalization, object versus event denoting nominals: Implications for argument and event structure. Linguistics in the Netherlands, 8, 71–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de Lingüística, Letras Clássicas e Vernáculas Universidade Federal do ParanáRua General CarneiroCuritibaBrazil
  2. 2.LaBRI Université de BordeauxTalence CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations