Skip to main content

Compositionality in Privative Adjectives: Extending Dual Content Semantics

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
At the Intersection of Language, Logic, and Information (ESSLLI 2018)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 11667))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 395 Accesses

Abstract

Privative adjectives such as fake have long posed problems to theories of adjectives in a compositional semantics. In this paper, I argue that a theory like Del Pinal’s recent Dual Content semantics, which encodes lexical entries with both an extension-determining component and a conceptual component, is best equipped to account for privativity while maintaining compositionality, but requires some revisions to do so. I provide some novel evidence for this system regarding recursive privativity to justify a new denotation for fake, use this to derive the patterns in some recent experimental data, and introduce an extension to the system to account for privative behaviors of intersective adjectives.

In writing this paper, I am grateful to Kathryn Davidson and the other members of the Meaning & Modality Lab at Harvard for enlightening discussions, the audience at ESSLLI 2018 at the University of Sofía for their valuable questions, and especially the reviewers whose insightful and generously detailed comments have reshaped it so much for the better. As always, all remaining errors are my own.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Of course, a rich philosophical history also brings with it a deep and heated debate. Holism is not without its critics. Here, we focus on the consequences for privativity, ignoring both Putnam’s arguments against atomism and others’ arguments against dual content-style representations, but an interested reader is pointed to Fodor [4] for these objections, and to Bilgrami [1] for a holistic response.

  2. 2.

    A reviewer points out that, if stone were to be E-structurally specified for its perceptual quale, this analysis would not work. My simple answer to this objection is that stone clearly is not - I don’t think anyone would say that if a stone item were made to look even completely like something else, it would no longer count as stone in the way that it would not were it actually composed of some other material - and were it, then we would probably want to predict a contradiction here. If both \(\beta \) and \(\gamma \) are E-structurally specified for the same quale, then (15) would simply conjoin them and if they are contradictory, we get an infelicitous utterance.

References

  1. Bilgrami, A.: Why holism is harmless and necessary. Philos. Perspect. 12, 105–126 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Del Pinal, G.: Dual content semantics, privative adjectives, and dynamic compositionality. Semant. Pragmat. 8(7), 1–53 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Franks, B.: Sense generation: a “quasi-classical” approach to concepts and concept combination. Cognit. Sci. 19, 441–505 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Fodor, J., Lepore, E.: Holism: A Shopper’s Guide. Blackwell, Cambridge (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hogeweg, L.: Rich lexical representations and conflicting features. Int. Rev. Pragmat. 4, 209–231 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kamp, H.: Two theories about adjectives. In: Keenan, E.L. (ed.) Formal Semantics of Natural Language. Cambribge University Press, Cambribge (1975)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Lakoff, G., Johnson, M.: Metaphors We Live By. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1980)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Oliver, M.: Interpretation as optimization: constitutive material adjectives. Lingua 149, 55–73 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Partee, B.: Formal semantics, lexical semantics, and compositionality: the puzzle of privative adjectives. Philologia 7, 11–21 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Partee, B.: Privative adjectives: subsective plus coercion. In: Zimmerman, T., et al. (eds.) Presuppositions and Discourse: Essays Offered to Hans Kamp, pp. 273–285. Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Pavlick, E., Callison-Burch, C.: So-called non-subsective adjectives. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Joint Conference on Computational Semantics, pp. 114–119 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Pustejovsky, J.: The generative lexicon. Comput. Linguist. 17(4), 409–441 (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Putnam, H.: Is semantics possible? Metaphilosophy 1(3), 187–201 (1970)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joshua Martin .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Martin, J. (2019). Compositionality in Privative Adjectives: Extending Dual Content Semantics. In: Sikos, J., Pacuit, E. (eds) At the Intersection of Language, Logic, and Information. ESSLLI 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11667. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-59620-3_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-59620-3_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-59619-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-59620-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics