Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T19:20:16.127Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genitive Modifiers, Sorts, and Metonymy1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2008

Vladimir Borschev  and
Barbara H. Partee
Vladimir Borschev
Affiliation:
VINITI, Russian Academy of Sciences. E-mail: [email protected].
Barbara H. Partee
Affiliation:
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003-7130, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Our long-term goal is to contribute to the integration of formal and lexical semantics. Our more immediate theoretical starting point is the idea of “text as theory”, within a model-theoretic semantic framework. We describe a set of empirical problems in the domain of genitive modifiers that offers a challenge to theories of the integration of lexical, compositional, and contextual information. After sketching a solution, we raise the issue of metonymy in the interpretation of genitives, and examine the role of sortal information in the specification of underspecified meanings and in processes of type-shifting and sort-shifting, including metonymy.

Type
Articles
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , December 2001 , pp. 140 - 160
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Apresjan, J. D. 1974. Leksicheskaja Semantika. Sinonimicheskie Sredstva Jazyka. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Apresjan, J. D. 1986. Dejksis V Leksike I Grammatike I Naivnaja Model Mira [Deixis in Lexicon and Grammar and the Naive Model of the World]. Semiotika i Informatika 28.Google Scholar
Apresjan, J. D. 1994. O Jazyke Tolkovanij I Semanticheskix Primitivax [On the Language of Lexical Explications and Semantic Primitives]. Izvestija Rossiskoj Akademii Nauk, Serija lit. i jazyka 53.Google Scholar
Apresjan, J. D., Mel'chuk, I. & Zholkovsky, A. 1969. Semantics and Lexicography: Towards a New Type of Unilingual Dictionary. In Kiefer, F. (ed.), Studies in Syntax and Semantics. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 1–33.Google Scholar
Asher, N. & Lascarides, A. 1995. Lexical Disambiguation in a Discourse Context. Journal of Semantics 12, 69–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, E. 1986a. The Algebra of Events. Linguistics and Philosophy 9, 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, E. 1986b. Natural Language Metaphysics. In Marcus, R. B., Dorn, G. J. W., & Weingartner, P. (eds). Logic. Methodology, and Philosophy of Science Vii. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 573–595.Google Scholar
Bennett, M. 1974. Some Extensions of a Montague Fragment of English, University of California at Los Angeles: PhD dissertation; distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, M. & Schreuder, R. 1992. From Concepts to Lexical Items. Cognition 42, 23–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borschev, V. & Partee, B. H. 1998. Formal and Lexical Semantics and the Genitive in Negated Existential Sentences in Russian. In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 6: The Connecticut Meeting 1997. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 75–96.Google Scholar
Borschev, V. & Partee, B. H. 1999a. Semantic Types and the Russian Genitive Modifier Construction. In Boskovic, E., Franks, S. & Snyder, W. (eds). Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Seattle Meeting 1998. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Borschev, V. & Partee, B. H. 1999b. Semantika Genitivnoj Konstrukcii: Raznye Podxody K Formalizacii [Semantics of Genitive Construction: Different Approaches to Formalization]. In Rakhilina, E. V. & Testelets, Y. G. (eds), Tipologija I Teorija Jazyka: Ot Opisanija K Ob”Jasneniju. K 60-Letiju Aleksandra Evgen'evia Kibrika [Typology and Linguistic Theory: From Description to Explanation. For the 60th Birthday of Aleksandr E. Kibrik]. Moscow: Jazyki Russkoj Kul'tury, pp. 159–172.Google Scholar
Borschev, V. B. 1996. Estestvennyi Jazyk – Naivnaja Matematika Dlja Opisanija Naivnoj Kartiny Mira [Natural Language as Naive Mathematics]. Moscow Linguistic Almanac 1. 203–225.Google Scholar
Borschev, V. B. & Knorina, L. V. 1990. Tipy Realij I Ix Jazykovoe Vosprijatie [Types of Entities and Their Perception in Language]. In Language of Logic and Logic of Language. Moscow, pp. 106–134.Google Scholar
Copestake, A. & Briscoe, T. 1995. Semi-Productive Polysemy and Sense Extension. Journal of Semantics 12, 15–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dölling, J. 1992a. Flexible Interpretation Durch Sortenverschiebung. In Zimmermann, I. & Strigin, A. (eds), Fügungspotenzen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, pp. 23–62.Google Scholar
Dölling, J. 1992b. Polysemy and Sort Coercion in Semantic Representations. In Bosch, P. & Gerstl, P. (eds). Discourse and Lexical Meaning: Proceedings of a Workshop of the Dfg Sonderforschungsbereich 340. Stuttgart: Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereich 340: “Sprachtheoretische Grundlagen für die Computerlinguistik”, pp. 61–78.Google Scholar
Dölling, J. 1993. Commonsense Ontology and Semantics of Natural Language [1993]. Sprachtypol. Univ. Forsch. (STUF) 46, 133–141.Google Scholar
Dölling, J. 1995. Ontological Domains. Semantic Sorts and Systematic Ambiguity. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 43, 785–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dölling, J. 1997. Semantic Form and Abductive Fixation of Parameters. In van der Sandt, R., Blutner, R. & Bierwisch, M. (eds), From Underspecification to Interpretation. Heidelberg: IBM Deutschland. pp. 113–138.Google Scholar
Heim, I. & Kratzer, A. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hobbs, J. R., Stickel, M. E., Appelt, D. E. & Martin, P. 1993. Interpretation as Abduction. Artificial Intelligence 63, 69–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. 1997. The Architecture of the Language Faculty: Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 28. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jensen, P. A. & Vikner, C. 1994. Lexical Knowledge and the Semantic Analysis of Danish Genitive Constructions. In Hansen, S. L. & Wegener, H. (eds), Topics in Knowledge-Based Nlp Systems. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur, pp. 37–55.Google Scholar
Knorina, L. V. 1985. Ob Interpretacii Genitivnyx Konstrukcij [On the Interpretation of Genitive Constructions]. In Theses of the Workshop “Semiotic Foundations of Intellectual Activity”. Moscow: VINITI.Google Scholar
Knorina, L. V. 1988. Klassifikacija Leksiki I Slovarnye Definicii [Lexical Classification and Dictionary Definitions]. In Karaulov, J. N. (ed.), Nacional'naja Specifika Jazyka I Ee Otraženie V Normativnom Slovare. Moskva: Nauka, pp. 60–63.Google Scholar
Knorina, L. V. 1989. Gentivnye Sravnenija V Poezii Pasternaka [Genitive Similes in the Poetry of Pasternak]. Stilistika i poetika [Stylistics and Poetics].Google Scholar
Knorina, L. V. 1990. Narushenija Sochetajemosti I Raznovidnosti Tropov V Genitivnoj Konstrukcii [Violations of Cooccurrence and Varieties of Tropes in Genitive Construction]. In Contradictions and Anomalies of Text. Moscow, pp. 115–124.Google Scholar
Knorina, L. V. 1996. The Range of Biblical Metaphors in Smikhut. Moscow Linguistic Journal 3, 80–94.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. 1994. The Event Argument and the Semantics of Voice. Ms. UMass Amherst.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. 1995. Stage-Level and Individual-Level Predicates. In Carlson, G. N. & Pelletier, F. J. (eds). The Generic Book. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 125–175.Google Scholar
Krifka, M. 1995. Common Nouns: A Contrastive Analysis of Chinese and English. In Carlson, G. N. & Pelletier, F. J. (eds). The Generic Book. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 383–411.Google Scholar
Lascarides, A. & Asher, N. 1993. Temporal Interpretation, Discourse Relations and Commonsense Entailment. Linguistics and Philosophy 16, 437–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lascarides, A. & Copestake, A. 1995. The Pragmatics of Word Meaning. In Simons, M. & Galloway, T. (eds). Proceedings from Salt V. Ithaca: Cornell University, pp. 204–221.Google Scholar
Lascarides, A., Copestake, A. & Briscoe, T. 1996. Ambiguity and Coherence. Journal of Semantics 13, 41–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Link, G. 1983. The Logical Analysis of Plurals and Mass Terms: A Lattice-Theoretical Approach. In Bäuerle, R., Schwarze, C. & von Stechow, A. (eds), Meaning. Use and the Interpretation of Language. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 303–323. Reprinted in Link, Godehard. 1998. Algebraic Semantics in Language and Philosophy: CSLI lecture notes No. 74. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 11–34.Google Scholar
Montague, R. 1973. The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English. In Hintikka, K. J. J., Moravcsik, J. M. E. & Suppes, P. (eds), Approaches to Natural Language. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 221–242. Reprinted in Montague 1974, pp. 247–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, T. 1985. Underlying Events in the Logical Analysis of English. In LePore, E. & McLaughlin, B. (eds), Actions and Events: Perspectives of the Philosophy of Donald Davidson. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 235–267.Google Scholar
Parsons, T. 1990. Events in the Semantics of English. A Study in Subatomic Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Partee, B. 1997. Genitives – a Case Study [Appendix to Theo Janssen's Chapter “Compositionality”]. In Benthem, J. v. & Meulen, A. T. (eds). Handbook of Logic and Language. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 464–470.Google Scholar
Partee, B. H. & Borschev, V. B. 1998. Integrating Lexical and Formal Semantics: Genitives, Relational Nouns, and Type-Shifting. In Cooper, R. & Gramkrelidze, T. (eds). Proceedings of the 2nd Tbilisi Symposium on Language, Logic, and Computation. Tbilisi: Center on Language, Logic, Speech, Tbilisi State University, pp. 229–241.Google Scholar
Partee, B. H. & Borschev, V. B. 2000. Genitives, Relational Nouns, and the Argument-Modifier Distinction. In Fabricius-Hansen, C., Lang, E. & Maienborn, C. (eds), ZAS Papers in Linguistics 17. Berlin: Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung, pp. 177–201.Google Scholar
Partee, B. H. & Borschev, V. 2001. Some Puzzles of Predicate Possessives. In Kenesei, I. & Harnish, R. M. (eds). Perspectives on Semantics, Pragmatics and Discourse. A Festschrift for Ferenc Kiefer. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 91–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. 1993. Type Coercion and Lexical Selection. In Pustejovsky, J. (ed.), Semantics and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer. pp. 73–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rothstein, S. (ed.) 1998. Events and Grammar, vol. 70. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tenny, C. & Pustejovsky, J. (eds) 2000. Events as Grammatical Objects: The Converging Perspectives of Lexical Semantics, Logical Semantics and Syntax, vol. 100. CSLI Lecture Notes. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Vikner, C. & Jensen, P. A. 1999. A Semantic Analysis of the English Genitive: Interaction of Lexical and Formal Semantics. Ms. Copenhagen and Kolding, Denmark.Google Scholar
Williams, E. 1981. Argument Structure and Morphology. The Linguistic Review 1, 81–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar