Arguments for Relational Nouns Stephen Wechsler University of Texas at Austin

Symposium on Relational and Role-Governed Categories: Views from Psychology, Computational Modeling, and Linguistics CogSci 2009, Amsterdam, August 1, 2009, 10 a.m.

1

‘Excuse me— I think you’re the father of one of my kids.’

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/80637745/

2

Woman: Excuse me— I think you're the father of one of my kids. Man: [in shock] Oh! … Cancun… Spring Break… '99. Woman: What? [Voiceover: Oops! Someone forgot to boost! The same scene starts over, only this time the main is drinking juice.] Woman: Excuse me— I think you're the father of one of my kids. Man: Oh, my daughter's in your art class. Sister Mary Catherine. 3

Two Notions of Relational Noun Psychology (‘P-Relational Noun’): ‘membership is determined by a common relational structure rather than by common properties.’ (Gentner and Kurtz 2005, 151) e.g.

bridge: connects two other entities or points carnivore: eats animals

vs. entity categories: members share many intrinsic properties. tulip, camel, etc.

Linguistics (‘L-Relational Noun’): A noun with arguments, where the syntax provides a means for expressing those arguments. (Partee 1999; Barker 1995) 4

L-Relational Nouns sister is an L-Relational Noun: John has a sister. ∃x[sister(john, x)] ??John has the sister. John’s sister ιx[sister(john, x)] weapon is not: John has a weapon. ∃x[possess(john, x) ∧ weapon(x)] John has the weapon. possess(john, the-weapon) John’s weapon ιx[possess(john, x) ∧ weapon(x)]

5




L-Relational Nouns a subset of P-Relational Nouns? L-Relational sister, nose, bad breath, a Norwegian accent,

non-L-Relational hammer, bridge, tulip, book, tool, carnivore, mirror… barrier, trap, weapon, guide, signal, barrier, tool, filter, shield P-Relational Entity categories

Some examples are from (Kurtz and Gentner 2001)

6

Arguments for arguments ____’s N

(N = sister, car, yoga class…)

____ has a N.

• Do these positions express an argument of N? • Or are they for ‘possessors’, irrespective of N?

7

English have + NP & NP’s N states: Mary has… total freedom faith in the flying spagetti monster a headache a cold the chills the hiccups the creeps Mary’s freedom, etc.

8

kinship, qualities, body parts, other relational NPs: Mary has… Mary’s sister a sister a big nose an agreement with Susan bad breath a charming personality a Norwegian accent inanimate possessor: The room has… a mirror four walls a nice view

the room’s four walls

9

alienable possession: Mary has… the key to the safe a mirror events: Mary is having… knee surgery a haircut an argument a yoga class a tantrum dinner an accident a discussion

Mary’s key to the safe

Mary’s operation, etc.

10

The Saxon Genitive ____’s N

• Does this position express an argument of N? • Or is it for possessors, irrespective of N?

11

When the Genitive is clearly for an argument Gerundive: John’s singing the national anthem (irritated Mary) ⇒John MUST be the singer. Deadjectival nouns: John’s tallness ⇒John MUST be tall. Deverbal event nominals: John’s destruction of the evidence ⇒strong but not absolute bias toward John as destroyer

12

N preserves argument structure of V arrive< th > ⇒ arrival< th > arrival, disappearance, fall… A letter arrived. *The mailman arrived a letter. the arrival of the letter *the mailman’s arrival of a letter the letter’s arrival destroy < agt, th >⇒ destruction< agt, th > destruction, creation, assignment… The army destroyed the city. the army’s destruction of the city 13

A famous exception (Chomsky 1970, Marantz, Pesetsky, Borer, i.a.)

grow < (agt) th > ~

growth < th >

1. a. Tomatoes grow here. b. John grows tomatoes. 2. a. the tomatoes’ growth, the growth of the tomatoes b. *John’s growth of tomatoes

Why is growth special? Well…

14

History matters! c725:

grow (‘be verdant’ … ‘increase’)

1587:

growth

1774:

grow (‘cultivate crops’)

When growth entered the language, there was only intransitive grow! (Wechsler 2008a; Wechsler 2008b)

15

Genitive with relational and non-relational N sister: John's sister:

λxλy[sister(x,y)] ιy[sister(John,y)]

'the entity y such that y is the sister of John' weapon: λy[weapon(y)] John's weapon: ιx[possess(john, x) ∧ weapon(x)] 'the entity y such that y is a weapon & John possesses y'

16

A Typological Universal alienable possession: ji bi nggwe I of garden ‘my garden’

inalienable possession: ji syim I arm ‘my arm’

(Abun, West Papuan) Universal: ‘If a language has an adnominal alienability split, and one of the constructions is overtly coded while the other one is zero-coded, it is always the inalienable construction that is zero-coded, while the alienable construction is overtly coded.’ (Haspelmath 2009 handout p. 2; Haiman 1983) 17

Is ‘Inalienable Possession’ a Misnomer? ‘Lexical possession’ vs. ‘Extrinsic possession’ (Barker 1995) Lexical: the relation comes from the Noun: I have a (strong) arm. ∃x[arm(me, x)] my arm: ιy[arm(me,y)] Extrinsic: I have a garden. my garden:

∃x[possess(me, x) ∧ garden(x)] ιx[possess(me, x) ∧ garden (x)]




Abun bi = ‘possess’

18

Who are my children? the children I am the parent of the children I teach my children = the children I take care of …etc. H1: The argument of child is vague: parent, teacher, etc. H2. child is ambiguous: (i) parent sense (relational); (ii) other senses (perhaps non-relational, cp. the child; genitive is adjunct). 19

argument optionality child1:

child〈 entity , parent 〉

‘offspring’

child2:

child〈 entity 〉

‘young human’

her child1:

her adult child

Adult Children1 of Alcoholics World Service Organization

Teacher: I think you’re the father of one of my children. ⇒ The teacher’s ‘children’ CANNOT be adults! Thus, this is child2, NOT child1.

20

Conclusions about Saxon Genitive

____’s N

• The Saxon Genitive functions to mark an argument of N, if N is relational; otherwise it marks a possessor. • Some N’s alternate between relational & non-relational.

21

have ____ has a N.

(N = sister, car, yoga class…)

• Do these positions express an argument of N? • Or are they for ‘possessors’, irrespective of N?

22

Existential have with L-Relational NPs John has a sister. *John has the sister. There will be a candidate for the job. *There will be the candidate for the job. OK: a, some, three, at least three, several, many, a few, no, few, at most three, exactly three… BAD: the, every, both, most, neither, all, all three, the three. But: John has the weapon.

23

have + L-Relational NP 1. 2.

John has a sister. ??John has the sister.

has: a sister: John has a sister.

λRλy∃x[R(x,y)] sister' ∃x[sister'(john, x)]

y + have + relational-NP: asserts the existence of something bearing a relation R to y; the relational NP provides R. (Partee 1999, citing Landman & Partee 1987 unpublished abstract) 24

Existential have with non-relational NPs 1. 2.

I have a car. I have the car.

‘possess’ (own or control) ‘control’

3. 4.

I don’t have a car, so I’m borrowing one. #I don’t have the car; I’m just borrowing it.

A: That’s a nice car. B: Yeah… It’s Mary’s. / It belongs to Mary. / Mary owns it. #Mary has it. (Tham 2002; Tham 2005) 25

Possessor of topical NP must be animate John has a mirror. The bathroom has a mirror. Q: Where is the mirror? A: John has it. #The bathroom has it. (cp. It’s in the bathroom.) (Tham 2002; Tham 2005)

26

two have’s 1. Existential have: y + have + existential-NP: asserts the existence of something bearing a relation R to y; • if NP is relational, then NP provides R. • if NP is not relational, then R = possess John has a sister. John has a tulip.

∃x[sister(john, x)] ∃x[possess(john, x) ∧ tulip(x)]




2. Control have: control(x,y), a type of possession where x must be a sentient agent. John has the tulip.

control(john, the-tulip)

27

How different are relational Nouns? John has a sister. John has a condo.

∃x[sister(john, x)] ∃x[possess(john, x) ∧ condo(x)]




Combinations are not zeugmatic: He has [a condo and a rich sister who pays the bills]. He has [big feet and big shoes]. (Beavers, Ponvert, and Wechsler 2008)

28

Two ways to assimilate the two types John has a sister. ∃x[possess(john, x) ∧ sister(john, x)] John has a condo. ∃x[possess(john, x) ∧ condo(x)] 


1. possess comes from have: ‘inalienable possession’. 2. possess comes from the Noun: A type-shifting rule adds a possessor argument to condo. The condo1 is nice. condo1:

λx[condo(x)]

John has a condo2. / John's condo2. condo2: λxλy[possess(y, x) ∧ condo(x)]

29

focus have focus: new info. relative to the rest of the sentence. Requires a salient presupposed open proposition (OP); focus = DP object. Context: Duties are being divvied up for a refurbishing project; A asks about Eliza’s duties. A: What will Eliza be polishing? (OP = [Eliza will be polishing X]) B: Eliza has all the mirrors. (focus = ‘all the mirrors’) interpretation: ‘Eliza will be polishing all the mirrors.’ (Tham 2002; Tham 2005) 30

Conclusion: three have’s 1. Existential have: y + have + existential-NP: asserts the existence of something bearing a relation R to y, where: • if NP is relational, then NP provides R; • else, R = possess 2. Control have: control(x,y), a type of possession where x must be a sentient agent. 3. Focus have: provides focus to saturate a salient open proposition.

31

Other verbs incorporating ‘have’ Sublexical scope over implicit ‘having’ state 1. 2. 3. 4.

John wants your car (for two days). (‘John wants to have your car for two days.’) John gave me his car (for two days). (‘John caused me to have his car for two days.’) I got John’s car (for two days). (‘I came to have John’s car for two days.’) a. Yesterday John wanted your car tomorrow. b. *Yesterday John painted your car tomorrow. (McCawley 1974, Ross 1976, Dowty 1979, i.a.)

32

want + relational N

non-relational: Bill wants a car. = ‘Bill wants to have a car.’

(possession)

relational: Bill wants a daughter. = ‘Bill wants to have a daughter.’

33

(kinship)

have / get / give + relational N 1. a. John gave everyone flak. b. You get flak (when you take a stand) 2. a. I have a headache. b. I got a headache. c. Formal semantics gives me a headache.

34

35

36

Idioms? Are give flak, get flak, have the creeps, get the creeps, give NP the creeps, have a fit, etc. idioms? No, they are compositional.

37

flak without get, take, or give

1. In spite of the current flak between Mayor Lindsay and...the...administrator of Boston and New Haven..., the potential for the city is unlimited. (OED) 2. Well, all right. So why all the flak? (OED) 3. Isn’t that going to cause rather a lot of flak in the... P.L.P.? (OED) 4. Just imagine the flak flying about if we have bad results. (BNC) 5. I expect the flak. If we get beat, it’s my fault. (BNC)

38

39

40

41

42

Conclusion • A Noun’s argument structure can be detected by the compositional semantics. • The syntax of English provides several ways to express an argument of an L-Relational Noun: Saxon Genitive have, get, give, want • Those mechanisms double as markers of the possessor. Q: Why this duality in the syntax? A speculation:

43

Nouns alternate • Many Nouns allow ‘relational’ or ‘entity’ conceptualization. • E.g. children often initially treat relational terms as entity terms (Gentner & Rattermann 1991, Clark, 1993; Keil & Batterman, 1984). brother = ‘boy about 12 years old’ uncle = ‘nice man with a pipe’ island = ‘place with sand and palms’ This tendency persists in the adult grammar. The syntax accomodates it. 44

45

Selected References

Anttila, Arto, and Vivienne Fong. 2004. Variation, ambiguity, and noun classes in English. Lingua 114, no. 9-10: 12531290. Barker, Chris. 1995. Possessive Descriptions. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Beavers, John, Elias Ponvert, and Stephen Wechsler. 2008. Possession of a Controlled Substantive: Light have and Verbs of Possession. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 18. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. Gentner, D., and K. J. Kurtz. 2005. Relational categories. In Categorization inside and outside the laboratory: Essays in honor of Douglas L. Medin, ed. W. K. Ahn, R. L. 46

Goldstone, B. C. Love, A. B. Markman, and P. Wolff, 151– 75. Washington, D.C.: APA. Haiman, John. 1983. Iconic and economic motivation. Language 59, no. 4: 781-819. Haspelmath, Martin. 2009. Explaining alienability contrasts in adnominal possession: economy vs. iconicity. In . San Francisco. Kurtz, K. J., and D. Gentner. 2001. Kinds of kinds: Sources of category coherence. In Proceedings of the twenty-third annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 522527. Partee, B. H. 1999. Weak NP’s in HAVE sentences. In Essays Dedicated to Johan van Benthem on the Occasion of his 50th Birthday, ed. J. Gerbrandy, M. Marx, M. de Rijke, and Y. Venema. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. 47

Tham, Shiao-Wei. 2002. The Definiteness Effect in English Have Sentences. In Texas Linguistic Society 8 Proceedings. University of Texas, Austin. ———. 2005. Representing possessive predication: Semantic dimensions and pragmatic bases. Stanford University. Wechsler, Stephen. 2008a. A Diachronic Account of English Deverbal Nominals. In Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. Charles B. Chang and Hannah J. Haynie, 498-506. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. ———. 2008b. Dualist Syntax. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Keihanna, Japan: CSLI On-line publications.

48