Deriving Syntactic Properties of Arguments and Adjuncts from Neo-Davidsonian Semantics

  • Tim Hunter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6149)

Abstract

This paper aims to show that certain syntactic differences between arguments and adjuncts can be thought of as a transparent reflection of differences between their contributions to neo-Davidsonian logical forms. Specifically, the crucial underlying distinction will be that between modifying an event variable directly, and modifying an event variable indirectly via a thematic relation. I note a convergence between the semantic composition of neo-Davidsonian logical forms and existing descriptions of the syntactic properties of adjunction, and then propose a novel integration of syntactic mechanisms with explicit neo-Davidsonian semantics which sheds light on the nature of the distinction between arguments and adjuncts.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Amblard, M.: Répresentations sémantiques pour les grammaires minimalistes. Tech. Rep. 5360, INRIA (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carlson, G.: Thematic roles and their role in semantic interpretation. Linguistics 22, 259–279 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Castañeda, H.N.: Comments. In: Rescher, N. (ed.) The Logic of Decision and Action. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh (1967)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Davidson, D.: The logical form of action sentences. In: Rescher, N. (ed.) The Logic of Decision and Action. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh (1967)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Davidson, D.: Adverbs of action. In: Vermazen, B., Hintikka, M. (eds.) Essays on Davidson: Actions and Events. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1985)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Frey, W., Gärtner, H.M.: On the treatment of scrambling and adjunction in minimalist grammars. In: Jäger, G., Monachesi, P., Penn, G., Wintner, S. (eds.) Proceedings of Formal Grammar 2002, pp. 41–52 (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heim, I., Kratzer, A.: Semantics in Generative Grammar. Blackwell, Oxford (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kobele, G.M.: Generating Copies: An investigation into Structural Identity in Language and Grammar. Ph.D. thesis, UCLA (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kobele, G.M.: Inverse linking in minimalist grammars, ms. (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Larson, R.K.: Events and modification in nominals. In: Proceedings of SALT VIII, pp. 145–168. CLC Publications, Ithaca (1998)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lecomte, A., Retoré, C.: Extending lambek grammars: a logical account of minimalist grammars. In: ACL 2001: Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 362–369. Association for Computational Linguistics, Morristown (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McNally, L., Boleda, G.: Relational adjectives as properties of kinds. Empirical Issues in Formal Syntax and Semantics 5, 179–196 (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Parsons, T.: Events in the semantics of English. MIT Press, Cambridge (1990)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pietroski, P.M.: Events and Semantic Architecture, Oxford, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pietroski, P.M.: Interpreting concatenation and concatenates. Philosophical Issues 16(1), 221–245 (2006)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schein, B.: Plurals and Events. MIT Press, Cambridge (1993)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schein, B.: Events and the semantic content of thematic relations. In: Preyer, G., Peter, G. (eds.) Logical Form and Language, pp. 263–344. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stabler, E.P.: Derivational minimalism. In: Retoré, C. (ed.) LACL 1996. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1328, pp. 68–95. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stabler, E.P., Keenan, E.L.: Structural similarity within and among languages. Theoretical Computer Science 293, 345–363 (2003)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vermaat, W.: Controlling Movement: Minimalism in a deductive perspective. Master’s thesis, Utrecht University (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tim Hunter
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of Maryland 

Personalised recommendations