Advertisement

Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 38, Issue 1, pp 31–66 | Cite as

The interaction of compositional semantics and event semantics

  • Lucas ChampollionEmail author
Open Access
Research Article
First Online:

Abstract

Davidsonian event semantics is often taken to form an unhappy marriage with compositional semantics. For example, it has been claimed to be problematic for semantic accounts of quantification (Beaver and Condoravdi, in: Aloni et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the 16th Amsterdam Colloquium, 2007), for classical accounts of negation (Krifka, in: Bartsch et al. (eds.) Semantics and contextual expression, 1989), and for intersective accounts of verbal coordination (Lasersohn, in Plurality, conjunction and events, 1995). This paper shows that none of this is the case, once we abandon the idea that the event variable is bound at sentence level, and assume instead that verbs denote existential quantifiers over events. Quantificational arguments can then be given a semantic account, negation can be treated classically, and coordination can be modeled as intersection. The framework presented here is a natural choice for researchers and fieldworkers who wish to sketch a semantic analysis of a language without being forced to make commitments about the hierarchical order of arguments, the argument-adjunct distinction, the default scope of quantifiers, or the nature of negation and coordination.

Keywords

Event semantics Thematic roles Quantifiers Negation Coordination Conjunction For-adverbials 
Download to read the full article text

Supplementary material

10988_2014_9162_MOESM1_ESM.mp4 (274.1 mb)
ESM 1 (mp4 280,694 kb)

References

  1. Barker C. (2002) Continuations and the nature of quantification. Natural Language Semantics 10: 211–242. doi: 10.1023/A:1022183511876 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barker C., Shan C. (2008) Donkey anaphora is in-scope binding. Semantics and Pragmatics 1: 1–46. doi: 10.3765/sp.1.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barker, C., & Shan, C. (2014). Continuations and natural langauge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Barwise J., Cooper R. (1981) Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4(2): 159–219. doi: 10.1007/bf00350139 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beaver, D., & Condoravdi, C. (2007). On the logic of verbal modification. In M. Aloni, P. Dekker, & F. Roelofsen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 3–9). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  6. Beghelli, F., & Stowell, T. (1997). Distributivity and negation: The syntax of each and every. In A. Szabolcsi (Ed.), Ways of scope taking (Vol. 65, pp. 71–107). Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-011-5814-5_3.
  7. Bittner M. (1994) Cross-linguistic semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 17: 53–108. doi: 10.1007/bf00985041 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brasoveanu A. (2012) Modified numerals as post-suppositions. Journal of Semantics 30(2): 155–209. doi: 10.1093/jos/ffs003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carlson, G. N. (1977). Reference to kinds in English. Dissertation. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  10. Carlson G. N. (1984) Thematic roles and their role in semantic interpretation. Linguistics 22(3): 259–280. doi: 10.1515/ling.1984.22.3.259 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carlson, G. N. (2003). Weak indefinites. In M. Coene & Y. D’hulst (Eds.), From NP to DP (Vol. 1, pp. 195–210). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  12. Champollion, L. (2010a). Cumulative readings of every do not provide evidence for events and thematic roles. In M. Aloni, H. Bastiaanse, T. de Jager, & K. Schulz (Eds.), Logic, language and meaning: Proceedings of the 17th Amsterdam Colloquium. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 6042, pp. 213–222). Berlin: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-14287-1_22.
  13. Champollion, L. (2010b). Parts of a whole: Distributivity as a bridge between aspect and measurement. Dissertation. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  14. Champollion, L. (2012). Temporal dependencies: anaphora vs. movement. Poster presentation at the 35th GLOW colloquium, Potsdam, Germany. doi: 10.13140/2.1.4058.2080.
  15. Champollion, L. (2013). Man and woman: the last obstacle to boolean coordination. In M. Aloni, M. Franke, & F. Roelofsen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 83–90). doi: 10.13140/2.1.4779.1045.
  16. Champollion, L. (2014a). Covert distributivity in algebraic event semantics. Under review. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002097.
  17. Champollion, L. (2014b). Overt distributivity in algebraic event semantics. Under review. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002098.
  18. Champollion, L. (2014c). Reply to Roger Schwarzschild on event semantics. doi: 10.13140/2.1.1027.1682. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002165.
  19. Champollion, L. (2014d). Ten men and women got married today. Under review. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002025.
  20. Champollion, L. (to appear-a). Back to events: More on the logic of verbal modification. In Proceedings of the 38th Penn Linguistics Colloquium. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics (Vol. 21.1). http://www.ling.upenn.edu/pwpl/volumes.
  21. Champollion, L. (to appear-b). Distributivity, collectivity and cumulativity. In L. Matthewson, C. Meier, H. Rullmann, and T. E. Zimmermann (Eds.), Wiley’s companion to semantics. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002133.
  22. Champollion, L., & Krifka, M. (to appear). Mereology. In P. Dekker & M. Aloni (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of semantics. Cambridge University Press. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002099.
  23. Champollion, L., Tauberer, J., & Romero, M. (2007). The Penn Lambda Calculator: Pedagogical software for natural language semantics. In T. H. King & E. Bender (Eds.), Proceedings of the Grammar Engineering Across Frameworks (GEAF) 2007 workshop. Stanford, CA: CSLI Online Publications. doi: 10.13140/2.1.3255.3928.
  24. Charlow, S. (2014). On the semantics of exceptional scope. Dissertation. New York, NY: New York University.Google Scholar
  25. Condoravdi, C. (2008). Punctual until as a scalar NPI. In K. Hanson & S. Inkelas (Eds.), The nature of the word: Studies in honor of Paul Kiparsky. Current studies in linguistics (pp. 631–654). Cambridge, MA: MIT. doi: 10.7551/mitpress/9780262083799.003.0027.
  26. Csirmaz, A. (2006). Aspect, negation and quantifiers. In K. E. Kiss (Ed.), Event structure and the left periphery. Studies in natural language and linguistic theory (Vol. 68, pp. 225–253). Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-4755-8_10.
  27. Davidson, D. (1967). The logical form of action sentences. In N. Rescher (Ed.), The logic of decision and action (pp. 81–95). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. doi: 10.1093/0199246270.003.0006.
  28. Davidson, D. (1969). The individuation of events. In Essays in honor of Carl G. Hempel: A tribute on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday. Synthese Library (pp. 216–234). Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-017-1466-2_11.
  29. Dayal, V. (2011). Bare noun phrases. In K. von Heusinger, C. Maienborn, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning. Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft/Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science (HSK) (Vol. 2, Chap. 44, pp. 1109–1130). de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110255072.1088.
  30. de Swart H. (1996) Meaning and use of not … until. Journal of Semantics 13(3): 221–263. doi: 10.1093/jos/13.3.221 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. de Swart H., Molendijk A. (1999) Negation and the temporal structure of narrative discourse. Journal of Semantics 16(1): 1–42. doi: 10.1093/jos/16.1.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Diesing, M. (1992). Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  33. Dowty, D. R. (1979). Word meaning and Montague grammar: The semantics of verbs and times in generative semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy (Vol. 7). Dordrecht: Reidel. doi: 10.1007/978-94-009-9473-7.
  34. Dowty D. R. (1991) Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3): 547–619. doi: 10.1353/lan.1991.0021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Eckardt, R. (2010). A logic for easy linking semantics. In M. Aloni, H. Bastiaanse, T. de Jager, & K. Schulz (Eds.), Logic, language and meaning. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 6042, pp. 274–283). Berlin: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-14287-1_28.
  36. Forbes G. (2012) On some examples of Chomsky’s. Prospects for Meaning 3: 121–142. doi: 10.1515/9783110216882.121 Google Scholar
  37. Giannakidou, A. (2002). UNTIL, aspect and negation: a novel argument for two “until”s. In B. Jackson (Ed.), Proceedings of the 12th conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 12) (Vol. 12, pp. 84–103). http://elanguage.net/journals/salt/article/view/12.84.
  38. Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1990). Dynamic Montague grammar. In L. Kálmán & L. Pólos (Eds.), Papers from the 2nd Symposium on Logic and Language (pp. 3–48). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
  39. Gruber, J. S. (1965). Studies in lexical relations. Dissertation. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/13010.
  40. Hackl M., Koster-Hale J., Varvoutis J. (2012) Quantification and ACD: Evidence from real-time sentence processing. Journal of Semantics 29(2): 145–206. doi: 10.1093/jos/ffr009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Heim, I., & Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  42. Hendriks, H. (1993). Studied flexibility. Dissertation. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  43. Heycock C., Zamparelli R. (2005) Friends and colleagues: Plurality, coordination, and the structure of DP. Natural Language Semantics 13(3): 201–270. doi: 10.1007/s11050-004-2442-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Higginbotham J. (1983) The logic of perceptual reports: An extensional alternative to situation semantics. The Journal of Philosophy 80(2): 100–127. doi: 10.2307/2026237 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Higginbotham, J. (1999). On events in linguistic semantics. In J. Higginbotham, F. Pianesi, & A. C. Varzi (Eds.), Speaking of events (pp. 18–52). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199239313.003.0002.
  46. Horn, L. (1989). A natural history of negation. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  47. Huang, C.-T. J. (1999). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Huang S.-F. (1981) On the scope phenomena of Chinese quantifiers. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 9(2): 226–243Google Scholar
  49. Iatridou, S., Anagnostopoulou, E., & Izvorski, R. (2001). Observations about the form and meaning of the Perfect. In Ken Hale: A life in language (pp. 189–238). Cambridge, MA: MIT. doi: 10.1515/9783110902358.153.
  50. Jackendoff, R. S. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  51. Jacobson P. (1999) Towards a variable-free semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 22(2): 117–185. doi: 10.1023/a:1005464228727 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kratzer, A. (2000). The event argument and the semantics of verbs, Chap. 2. Manuscript. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/GU1NWM4Z/.
  53. Krifka, M. (1989). Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In R. Bartsch, J. van Benthem, & P. van Emde Boas (Eds.), Semantics and contextual expression (pp. 75–115). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  54. Krifka, M. (1998). The origins of telicity. In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Events and grammar. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy (Vol. 70, pp. 197–235). Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-011-3969-4_9.
  55. Krifka, M. (1999). At least some determiners aren’t determiners. In K. Turner (Ed.), The semantics/pragmatics interface from different points of view (pp. 257–291). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  56. Landman, F. (1996). Plurality. In S. Lappin (Ed.), Handbook of contemporary semantic theory (pp. 425–457). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  57. Landman, F. (2000). Events and plurality: The Jerusalem lectures. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy (Vol. 76). Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-011-4359-2.
  58. Lasersohn, P. (1995). Plurality, conjunction and events. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy (Vol. 55). Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-015-8581-1.
  59. Link, G. (1991). Plural. In A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (Eds.), Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung/semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research. Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft/Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science (HSK) (Vol. 6, pp. 418–440). Berlin: de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110203363. (Reprinted in Link (1998), Chap. 2, translated by the author.)
  60. Link, G. (1998). Algebraic semantics in language and philosophy. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. http://standish.stanford.edu.
  61. Marantz, A. (1984). On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  62. May, R. (1985). Logical form: Its structure and derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  63. Montague R. (1970) Universal grammar. Theoria 36(3): 373–398. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-2567.1970.tb00434.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Montague, R. (1973). The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In J. Hintikka, J. Moravcsik, & P. Suppes (Eds.), Approaches to natural language: Proceedings of the 1970 Stanford workshop on grammar and semantics. Synthese Library (Vol. 49, pp. 221–242). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Dordrecht: Reidel. doi: 10.1007/978-94-010-2506-5_10.
  65. Parsons, T. (1990). Events in the semantics of English. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  66. Parsons, T. (1995). Thematic relations and arguments. Linguistic Inquiry 26(4):635–662 http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178917.
  67. Partee B. H. (1973) Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. The Journal of Philosophy 70: 601–609. doi: 10.2307/2025024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Partee, B. H. (1987). Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In J. Groenendijk, D. de Jongh, & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Studies in discourse representation theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers (pp. 115–143). Dordrecht: Foris. doi: 10.1002/9780470758335.ch15.
  69. Partee, B. H., & Rooth, M. (1983). Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity. In R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze, & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Meaning, use and interpretation of language (pp. 361–383). Berlin: de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110852820.361.
  70. Rathert, M. (2004). Textures of time. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
  71. Rooth, M., & Partee, B. H. (1982). Conjunction, type ambiguity and wide scope or. In D. P. Flickinger, M. Macken, & N. Wiegand (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 1) (pp. 353–362). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  72. Schein, B. (1993). Plurals and events. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  73. Schein, B. (2002). Events and the semantic content of thematic relations. In G. Preyer & G. Peter (Eds.), Logical form, language and semantic content: On contemporary developments in the philosophy of language and linguistics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Schwarzschild, R. (2014). Distributivity, negation and quantification in event semantics: Recent work by L. Champollion. Manuscript, MIT.Google Scholar
  75. Smith, S. B. (1975). Meaning and negation. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  76. Szabolcsi A. (2014) Quantification and ACD: What is the evidence from real-time processing evidence for? A response to Hackl et al. (2012). Journal of Semantics 31(1): 135–145. doi: 10.1093/jos/ffs025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. von Stechow, A. (2009). Tenses in compositional semantics. In W. Klein & P. Li (Eds.), The expression of time (pp. 129–166). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110199031.129.
  78. Winter, Y. (1995). Syncategorematic conjunction and structured meanings. In M. Simons & T. Galloway (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 5) (pp. 387–404). http://elanguage.net/journals/salt/article/view/5.387.
  79. Winter, Y. (2001). Flexibility principles in Boolean semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  80. Winter, Y., & Zwarts, J. (2011). Event semantics and Abstract Categorial Grammar. In M. Kanazawa, M. Kracht, & H. Seki (Eds.), Proceedings of Mathematics of Language 12. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 6878, pp. 174–191). Berlin: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-23211-4_11.
  81. Zucchi S., White M. (2001) Twigs, sequences and the temporal constitution of predicates. Linguistics and Philosophy 24(2): 187–222. doi: 10.1023/a:1005690022190 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2014

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsNYUNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations