{ "paper_id": "C96-1042", "header": { "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", "date_generated": "2023-01-19T12:52:02.860249Z" }, "title": "Semantics of Portions and Partitive Nouns for NLP", "authors": [ { "first": "Salvador", "middle": [], "last": "Climent", "suffix": "", "affiliation": { "laboratory": "", "institution": "Lingtifstica General Universitat de Barcelona Gran Via", "location": { "addrLine": "Sccci6, 585", "postCode": "08007", "settlement": "Barcelona", "country": "Spain" } }, "email": "climent@goliat.upc.cs" } ], "year": "", "venue": null, "identifiers": {}, "abstract": "This paper describes a system of representation of nouns denoting portions, segments and relative quantities of entities, in order to account for this case of part-whole relationship. The semantics of both constructions denoting portions aad nouns used to build them arc discussed and eventually formalised in a unification-based formalism (LKB-IA~L) in terms of Pustciovsky's Theory of Qualia and Jackendoff's Conceptual Semantics.", "pdf_parse": { "paper_id": "C96-1042", "_pdf_hash": "", "abstract": [ { "text": "This paper describes a system of representation of nouns denoting portions, segments and relative quantities of entities, in order to account for this case of part-whole relationship. The semantics of both constructions denoting portions aad nouns used to build them arc discussed and eventually formalised in a unification-based formalism (LKB-IA~L) in terms of Pustciovsky's Theory of Qualia and Jackendoff's Conceptual Semantics.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Abstract", "sec_num": null } ], "body_text": [ { "text": "Processes of inference of meaning concerning partwhole relations can be drawn from a lexicon bearing meronymic links between words (ef. [WAI~881) e.g. component-whole links (hand-arm), membercollection (tree-forest) and so. The case of portions, segments and relalivc quantities of objects or substances (slices, lumps, buckets, spoon.rids, grains, tops or tips of things) is the exception, since this is a relation which is encoded in the language by means of constructions. Coutrm'y to that which some authors posit ([CIIAS8] , [WIN87] ), it doesn't seem to be a productive linguistic gencr~disation to set in a lexicon some part-of link between slice and cake. In any case, such relalion would exist between cake and slice of cake -namely, the part-of relalion shouhl stand between slice and any sliceable thing.", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 518, "end": 527, "text": "([CIIAS8]", "ref_id": null }, { "start": 530, "end": 537, "text": "[WIN87]", "ref_id": null } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Introduction and Motivation", "sec_num": "1." }, { "text": "Generally speaking, the relation portion may be charactcriscd, semantically, in Ihat lhe whole preexists the part and the part retains most of the properties of lhe whole ([IRI88]), and, syntactically, as surfacing in structures, being potentially an apparently heterogeneous collection of words which, henceforlh, billowing [CO1\u00d7)2] We will refer to ~ts Partitive Nouns (l'Ns). On Ihc other hand, portions denoted by such constructions differ from their wholes in some aspects, basically iudividuation, quantity, process of bringing about, and shalx:. Such properties, since they are present in , are assumed to be carried to the coustruclion by the noun (). I 'll try to show here Ihat it is plausible to give a glob~d account of such heterogeneous set of words, since they bear a range of common and distinctive linguistic features, and 1'11 try to provide a representation feasible for NLP which account both for PNs as a general class and for the homogeneous subclasses which wilhin them could be distinguished and defined 1.", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 713, "end": 714, "text": "I", "ref_id": null } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Introduction and Motivation", "sec_num": "1." }, { "text": "We assume some general familiarity with the framework Wc work within: LKB- I LKB-I~RL is an IIPSG-liko formalism based on typed feature structures ( [CAR92] ) developed within the Acquilex Project which makes use of unification and mechanisms of defaull inheritance. There are four basic levels of representation: ()RTII, CAT, SEM and RQS. CAT encodes syntax using a eategorial grammar approach, so there are simple (e.g. noun: N) and complex (e.g. adjective: N/N) categories. It is to be noticed that in complex categories the active element is not a category but a lexical sign, in a way that selective restrictions may be set at this level by specifying the semantic type or other features of the selected sign. SEM encodes logic,'d semantics, RQS is basically equivalent to Pustejovsky's Qualia SlruCltlre (henceforth QUAI,IA).", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 75, "end": 76, "text": "I", "ref_id": null }, { "start": 149, "end": 156, "text": "[CAR92]", "ref_id": "BIBREF0" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Framework", "sec_num": "2." }, { "text": "The Theory of Qualia is embedded in that of the Generative Lexicon and has as a basic aim lo improve compositionalily by endowing lexical signs with a rich internal structure which accounls for different facets of human knowledge about lexical-semantic content, in a way that, iu many cases, it allows for avoiding listing separate entries to account for lexic~d polysemy. [PUS95] posits the lexical entry to be constituted by four stn~ctures: Fveut, Argument, Lcxical-lnheritauce and QUALIA. The latter consists of lout Quales: Agentivc (origin or 'bringing ~d\u00d7mt' of objects), Telic (purpose and function), Formal (Ihat which distinguishes it withiu a larger domain: magnitude, shape, dimcusionality) and Constitutive (relation between au object and its constituents or [ ]'his work has been dcvelopped for Spanish. Notwithstanding, for case of exposition, 1'11 exemplify the discussion by means of examples of English -when possible. In any case, for what concerns us here, Spanish and English are, hoth semantically and structurally, strongly comparable -the kernel comes out in Spanish as a literal translation, .", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 373, "end": 380, "text": "[PUS95]", "ref_id": "BIBREF9" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Framework", "sec_num": "2." }, { "text": "proper parts).", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Framework", "sec_num": "2." }, { "text": "[JAC91] posits that speakers tmderstand and schematise a range of phenomcua such as mass-cotHlt distinction, plurality, parlilive conslruclions and boundary words in terms of clementmy conceptual features such as dimension~dity, idealised boundm'ies and internal structure, lie introduces features [ Moreover, he posils that boundaries of entities are conceptualised as minimal elaborations (notated e) of their ideal topological boundm'ies (i.e.the tip of the tongue is tile portion which conesponds to a minimal elaboration of tile 0-dimensional point which would ideally be the tongue's tip).", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 298, "end": 299, "text": "[", "ref_id": null } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Framework", "sec_num": "2." }, { "text": "A portion designs a bounded region within a domain ([I.AN91]), hence tile pollion is an individuated entity (even in tile case tile whole be a substance or m,'t,;s). The syntactic effect is that, as pointed out in [VOS94] , the construction which dcnolcs the portion is syntactically countable.", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 214, "end": 221, "text": "[VOS94]", "ref_id": "BIBREF12" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Portions and Partitive Nouns", "sec_num": "3." }, { "text": "A portion, an individuated (bounded), object has a shape different from thai of the whole. This information is contribuled to tile conslruclion by tile PN. There are PNs which clearly specify shape (ROI)AJA, lunzp) while others underspecify il (fragment). Ill many cases, PNs, as acljectives do, predicale properties of the portion, specially shape (tile translation of Spanish RODAJA must be lhe paraphrase round slice; a lath of anything is saliently elongated) or size, but also thickness, consislency or others (as in the c;me of MI);NDRUGO, equivalent to portion (of bread) except for lhe fact that entails that Ihe bread is not fi'esh bul stale).", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Portions and Partitive Nouns", "sec_num": "3." }, { "text": "A portion always conveys a measure wilh relation to tile total magnitude of tile whole. Therefore, nouns such as bucket, ,slice, lump or grain are relalivc quantifiers in tile sense of II~AN91]:", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Portions and Partitive Nouns", "sec_num": "3." }, { "text": "A portion has been oblained by a diflbrent process lhan the whole: a cake has been obtained by baking it, but a slice o1' cake by cutting it off tile cake. The meaning of portions is many times tightly related to such agenlive process -if one has obtained 'slices' it necessarily has been by culling somelhing; there even exists the verb to slice. As pointed out in [PUS95] , knowledge of 'coming into being' is a property of nominals which has remarkable linguistic consequences since it can account for a reduction of lexical polysemy. I entails assuming that it has undergone a dcrivation~d 'grinding' rule which converts countable individuals in masses. Nevertheless, a round-slice of lemon is always a slice of some individual lemon, not a special measure of substance which some time in the past was 'lemon'. In any case, if a 'lemon' weren't an individuated and bounded thing, it couldn't be sliced and tile shape of tile portion wouldn't depend on that of the whole. The confusing point is that I,IMON in tile example, RODAJA DI: LIMON, surfaces grammatically as substances usually do -namely, zerodelermined. Bul zero-detcrlninalion is not exclusively a ressource to refer to substances, it is the way of expressing cumulative rclcrence. Both individuals and substances may be refered to cumulatively, that is, bc construed as an indiffercntiated ~unassment. This surfaces in the language as a zero-determiner plus tile noun in singular in the case of substances (a glass of wine), and either in singular or plural in the case of individuals (a slice of lemon, a basket of lemons).", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 366, "end": 373, "text": "[PUS95]", "ref_id": "BIBREF9" }, { "start": 538, "end": 539, "text": "I", "ref_id": null } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "a relative quanttfier is so-called because it specifies a quantity in relation to a reJ?.rence mass; in the de~mlt-case inteJpretation, this reference mass consists of the maximal instantiation of the pertinent categoJy (i.e. its ftdl extension in all conceivable worlds).", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "St), in our poinl of view PNs lipically select the nOllll of the whole as it surfaces when conSll'uing cumulative reference -bul this doesn't compulsorily enlails neither lhe referent is a substance nor it is refcred to by lliOallS of a lll}lSS llOHll, ht lhe case of individuals, referenls still are bounded things, hence both they can be sliced and the shape of lheir portions still can depend on that of the original whole. We can't go further with Ihe issue here but, at last, what the discussion above stands for is that human conceptualisation is c(mside,'ed as Ihe cause, and the mass-count distinction, as tb.e surface effect.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "a relative quanttfier is so-called because it specifies a quantity in relation to a reJ?.rence mass; in the de~mlt-case inteJpretation, this reference mass consists of the maximal instantiation of the pertinent categoJy (i.e. its ftdl extension in all conceivable worlds).", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "PNs A basic linguistic t'ealllre of PNs is lhal they, as relational predicates, bear seleclional restrictions. Namely, each kind at: PN Call combine with cerlain relercatial llOtlllS but Call 11o1 combine wilh others, depending on ccrlain fcaltlrcs of tile refcrelllial tlOUXl. These fealures are nlostly linguistic (type, countabilily, singular or plural) bul also can depend on knowledge of the world (physical slale, etc.). We hypothesise that, in general, distinctions belween classes of PNs contcerning selectional restrictions must be due to linguistic reasons, while further specifications within each class would be due to properties of the referent, l:,.g., it could be asstlmed that containers (CUlrV, baskets) select [-BN items (substances and plurals), and more specifically, cttps select liquids and baskets non-liquids.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "a relative quanttfier is so-called because it specifies a quantity in relation to a reJ?.rence mass; in the de~mlt-case inteJpretation, this reference mass consists of the maximal instantiation of the pertinent categoJy (i.e. its ftdl extension in all conceivable worlds).", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "We are not committed here to represent individuation of groups (temn, committee) or aggregates (cattle, fimfiture), ha our background ontology, which is inlended to represent things in the world as conceplualised by humans (rigA), these conslilute a different class since, in this class of words, speakers' conceptualisalion focuses not on the elemenl entities but in their aggregation, l'lurals are considered as representing an aggregation (Iherefore a -B+t concept) of bounded things (therefore cithcr individuals or groups) by means of a derivative (lexical) rule applied on signs denoting those elements ( fig.2 ) -e.g. cow --> cows, team --> teams; but gold,callle --> *golds/*callles). With respect to shape, it has to be noticed that while that of ELT and MDLD is inherent to the portion itself (in ELT because the porlion pre-existed as an individual; in MDLD because the whole was an mnorphous mass and it is tile process of portioning what has bounded the new thing), in BOUND and DTCIID shape is somehow relative to the whole. This way, a RODAJA is round because it is a cross-cut of either approximately-spherical (lemon)or cylindrical (sausage) objects; a slice of bread will be elliptic or square depending oil whether the 'bread' is the classical lo~ff or tile modem ixflyhedfic-shapcd one; top of a box will show identic~d behaviour.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [ { "start": 611, "end": 616, "text": "fig.2", "ref_id": "FIGREF1" } ], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Sorts of PNs", "sec_num": "4." }, { "text": "Something similar happens with relative quantification. While the measure conveyed by CONT, ELT and MI)LD is absolute, that of BOUND and DTCttl) is relative: a top of a box or a slice of bread will be bigger or smaller depending on tile magnitude of the box or the loaf of bread.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Sorts of PNs", "sec_num": "4." }, { "text": "To represent PNs in the LKB we have made some interpretations for FORMAL aud CONST Quales of the QUALIA.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Representation", "sec_num": "5." }, { "text": "We assume that the minimal and most basic FORMAL distinction among entities (as conceptualised by speakers) is that of their bouudedness or not in terms of [JAC91] . Therefore, this Quale will be a~signed to one of both types (or a coherent subtype). Similarly, the miuimal constitutive distinction to be done is assumed to be that of entaihnent or not about internal structure of ORTI 1: 'cake'", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 156, "end": 163, "text": "[JAC91]", "ref_id": "BIBREF4" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Representation", "sec_num": "5." }, { "text": "CAT:", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Representation", "sec_num": "5." }, { "text": "NP SEM: cake(y) QUALIA: 1\" THLIC: eat ] L AGENTIVE: bake things. Therefl)re, the CONST role will be assigned to one of both [_+I] types (i str true/i str false).", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Representation", "sec_num": "5." }, { "text": "In this way, selectional restrictions of PNs will be basically defined as selection of signs hearing appropriate types lot their FORMAL mid CONST Quales.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Representation", "sec_num": "5." }, { "text": "As defined ill [PUS951, SltAPE ~md magnitude (MAGN) are features of the FORMAL Role. Their values cml be, as discussed above, either absolute or relative, depending on tile kind of portion. In the latter cases, SIIAPE and MAGN of portions will be a function of file corresponding values of file QUALIA of tile whole 2. This interpretation of the MAGN feature accounts for the nature of relative quantifiers of PNs.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Representation", "sec_num": "5." }, { "text": "At their turn, [+I] CONSTs be~ the feature ELTS e.g. riee:QUALIA:CONST:ELTS:grain.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Representation", "sec_num": "5." }, { "text": "(vid. []ACgll, ,also [CO1\u00d7)21).", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Representation", "sec_num": "5." }, { "text": "[PUS95] (assuming [VIK94] interpretation) attributes the CONST Role the function of representing the predicative relation Part-Of. Coherently, we assume CONST as encoding a relational predicate R(x,y), being R a type taxonomically daughter of Part-Of. In the default case, R will be 'Portion' and in more fine-grained cases, a daughter type of it -e.g. 'Slice'.", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 18, "end": 25, "text": "[VIK94]", "ref_id": "BIBREF11" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Representation", "sec_num": "5." }, { "text": "The Logical Semantics of PNs (SEM) will account for their both pm'titive and relational nature by adopting as predicate-,'ugulnent structure that of their CONST Role. For the sake of unification, in the LKB, SEM will be the conjunction of this predicate and the SEM value of the sign deuoting the whole. qhis way (vid. fig.3 ), that of 'slice of cake' will result in SLICE( Moreover, CAT bears the feature COUNT slaildiug, as well for ease of exposition, for the range of (surface) gramlnalical belmviour of lexical signs usually refened to as couulability/uncounlability (see discussiou alxwe). Being [+B] , such wholes bear definite shape and magnitude; therefore such values for the portiou will be fuiictious of those of the whole. MAGN, specifically, is assumed to be conceptualised as solnehow ininiln~d, therefore notated 'e' ( [JAC91] ). What is more remarkable in MDLD PNs ( fig.7 ) it that the CONST type of the whole (thelelore its value for CONST:I{LTS) is iuherited by the portion -e.g., if 'sugm + 'is [+1] and consists of grains, a lump of sugar so; if 'paper 'has no entailment about internal structure, a sheet of paper has not either. MAGN is absolute (i.e., not related to that of the whole, since that is l-B]; e.g., in broad outline, ',all the sugm'/paper of the world'). SHAPE is assumed to be schematic (vid. \u00a74).", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 602, "end": 606, "text": "[+B]", "ref_id": null }, { "start": 835, "end": 842, "text": "[JAC91]", "ref_id": "BIBREF4" } ], "ref_spans": [ { "start": 319, "end": 324, "text": "fig.3", "ref_id": null }, { "start": 884, "end": 889, "text": "fig.7", "ref_id": null } ], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Representation", "sec_num": "5." }, { "text": "SIIAPE and MAGN of ELT portions ( fig.8 ) me also nou-relative. These PNs select [+I] eutities, usually substances ('wheat', 'rice') but also possibly individuals ('lelnou', as conventioualised in Spanish as internally-structured in GAJOS). The value for CONST:ELTS of the whole will be the CONST predicate of the portion, titus its SEM predicate -e.g. ", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [ { "start": 34, "end": 39, "text": "fig.8", "ref_id": "FIGREF7" } ], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Representation", "sec_num": "5." }, { "text": "In lhis paper we presented a system of representation of relational nouns denoting per'lions, segments and relative quanlities of entities according Io the Theory of Qualia ([PUS95]), which has been parlially reinterpreted and adapted to the insights of Conceptmd Semantics ( [JAC91] ). This syslem accounts for a range of linguistic facts, being the most remm'kable the following: 1. Portions m'e mainly encoded in the language by means of constructions inslead of by single lexical units 2. Portions are both bounded entities aml relative measures of the wholes of reference 3. Portions inherit li'om their wholes their purpose or function, but, on the contrary, they show distinctive shape, mafimlude and origin 3 Possibly also [-B] collections (groups) (a wagon of cattle), but, as said before, we're not commited here to discuss individuation of collections. 4. Partitive Nouns (PNs) select whole-denoting nouns according to the properties of the referent wholes ,'ks conceptualised by speakers PNs havc been classified according to the semantic regulmities they show, resulting in a system of five basic types, which have been represented in a unification formalism, LKB-LRL ( [COP92] ), allowing for composition of PNs (e.g. slice) and NPs (e.g. cake) (plus the semanlically void preposition 'of; in Spanish, DE) into portion-denoting signs (e.g. slice of cake).", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 276, "end": 283, "text": "[JAC91]", "ref_id": "BIBREF4" }, { "start": 1183, "end": 1190, "text": "[COP92]", "ref_id": "BIBREF2" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Concluding Remarks", "sec_num": "6." }, { "text": "[JAC9I] develops a method to formalise relative shapes including judgements about dimensionality.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "", "sec_num": null } ], "back_matter": [ { "text": "I'd like to thank Drs. Toni Marti and Iloracio Rodriguez for their comments and support. This research is funded by the project PB-94-0830 of the DGICYT.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Acknowledgements.", "sec_num": null } ], "bib_entries": { "BIBREF0": { "ref_id": "b0", "title": "The l,ogie of Typed Feature Structures", "authors": [ { "first": "", "middle": [], "last": "Carpenter B", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1992, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "CARPENTER B. 1992. The l,ogie of Typed Feature Structures. Cambridge University Press.", "links": null }, "BIBREF1": { "ref_id": "b1", "title": "The nature of semantic relations. Ill Relational Models of the Lexicon, Martha Walton Evens ed. Cambridge U. Press [CI IO81 ] CI IOMS KY N. 1981. I xctures o n Govermnent and Binding", "authors": [ { "first": "R", "middle": [], "last": "Ciiaffin", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "", "middle": [ "J" ], "last": "Iierrman D", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1988, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "CIIAFFIN R. and IIERRMAN D.J. 1988. The nature of semantic relations. Ill Relational Models of the Lexicon, Martha Walton Evens ed. Cambridge U. Press [CI IO81 ] CI IOMS KY N. 1981. I xctures o n Govermnent and Binding. Foris, Dordrecht.", "links": null }, "BIBREF2": { "ref_id": "b2", "title": "The Representation of Lexical Semantic Information", "authors": [ { "first": "A", "middle": [], "last": "Coiqistake", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1992, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "COIqiSTAKE, A. 1992. The Representation of Lexical Semantic Information. Ph. D. Thesis. University of Sussex (Cognitive Science research paper CSRP 280)", "links": null }, "BIBREF3": { "ref_id": "b3", "title": "Problems of the part-whole relation", "authors": [ { "first": "Iris", "middle": [ "M A" ], "last": "Eitowiqz", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "B", "middle": [ "E" ], "last": "", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Walton", "middle": [], "last": "Evens M", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1988, "venue": "Relational Models of the Lexicon", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "IRIS M.A., EITOWIqZ B.E. and WALTON EVENS M. 1988. Problems of the part-whole relation. In Relational Models of the Lexicon, Martha Walton Evens ed. Cambridge 1]niversity Press.", "links": null }, "BIBREF4": { "ref_id": "b4", "title": "Parts and Boundaries. In l,exical and Conceptual Semantics, I,evin & Pinker eds", "authors": [ { "first": "", "middle": [], "last": "Jack!!ni)off R", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1991, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "JACK!!NI)OFF R. 1991. Parts and Boundaries. In l,exical and Conceptual Semantics, I,evin & Pinker eds. Elsevier Science Publishers. Amsterdam.", "links": null }, "BIBREF5": { "ref_id": "b5", "title": "Nominal Reference and Temporal Constitution: Towards a Semantics of Quantity", "authors": [ { "first": "M", "middle": [], "last": "Krifka", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1987, "venue": "Proceedings of tile 6th. Amsterdam Colloquium", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "153--173", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "KRIFKA, M. 1987. Nominal Reference and Temporal Constitution: Towards a Semantics of Quantity. Proceedings of tile 6th. Amsterdam Colloquium pp. 153-173. University of Amsterdam.", "links": null }, "BIBREF6": { "ref_id": "b6", "title": "Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol II. Descriptive Application", "authors": [], "year": 1991, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "I,ANGACKER R. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol II. Descriptive Application. Stanford University Press. Stanford, CA.", "links": null }, "BIBREF7": { "ref_id": "b7", "title": "Women, Fh'e and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind", "authors": [ { "first": "G", "middle": [], "last": "I~akoff", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1987, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "I~AKOFF G. 1987. Women, Fh'e and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. University of Chicago Press. Chicago.", "links": null }, "BIBREF8": { "ref_id": "b8", "title": "Semantics", "authors": [ { "first": "J", "middle": [], "last": "Lyons", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1977, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "LYONS J. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.", "links": null }, "BIBREF9": { "ref_id": "b9", "title": "The generative l,exicon", "authors": [ { "first": "J", "middle": [], "last": "Piistejovsky", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1995, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "PIISTEJOVSKY J. 1995. The generative l,exicon. The MIT Press. Cambridge, Ma.", "links": null }, "BIBREF10": { "ref_id": "b10", "title": "The Relation of Grammar to Cognition: A Synopsis", "authors": [ { "first": "L", "middle": [], "last": "Tai~my", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1978, "venue": "Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing", "volume": "2", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "TAI~MY, L. 1978. The Relation of Grammar to Cognition: A Synopsis. In D. Waltz (Ed.), Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing 2. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.", "links": null }, "BIBREF11": { "ref_id": "b11", "title": "Knowledge Bases and Generative Lexicons. Prec. of 'Workshop on Lexieal Semantics", "authors": [ { "first": "C", "middle": [], "last": "Vikner", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "P", "middle": [], "last": "Tiansen", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1994, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "VIKNER C. and P. tIANSEN. 1994. Knowledge Bases and Generative Lexicons. Prec. of 'Workshop on Lexieal Semantics', University of Copenhagen.", "links": null }, "BIBREF12": { "ref_id": "b12", "title": "Untangling l)efinition Structure into Knowledge Representation", "authors": [ { "first": "", "middle": [], "last": "Vossen P. & Copestake A", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1994, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "VOSSEN P. & COPESTAKE A. 1994. Untangling l)efinition Structure into Knowledge Representation. In Briscoe, de Paiva, Copestake Eds. \"Inheritance, Defaults, and the I,exicon\", CUP, Cambridge.", "links": null }, "BIBREF13": { "ref_id": "b13", "title": "Relational Models of the Lexicon", "authors": [ { "first": "Walton", "middle": [], "last": "Evf", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Ns", "middle": [ "M" ], "last": "Ed", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1988, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "WALTON EVF, NS M. Ed. 1988. Relational Models of the Lexicon. Cambridge University Press.", "links": null }, "BIBREF15": { "ref_id": "b15", "title": "A Taxonomy of Part-Whole Relations", "authors": [], "year": null, "venue": "Cognitive Science", "volume": "11", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "A Taxonomy of Part-Whole Relations. Cognitive Science 11, 417 444.", "links": null } }, "ref_entries": { "FIGREF0": { "num": null, "text": ",Pd~ ([CO1\u00d732]) as a formalism of computational representation, The Geueralive Lexicon ([P[ 1S95 I) as a theoretical ground lbr the fonmdisatiou of lexical signs, and Conceptual Semantics ([JAC91]) for the conceptualisation of parts and Ixmndaries of entities.", "uris": null, "type_str": "figure" }, "FIGREF1": { "num": null, "text": ")UAI.S(+B) SUBSTANCKS(-B)(IROUPS(+B) A(IGREGATFN(-g) Figure 1. Ontology Entity-portioning terms have been sorted as fl)llows: Contents (hellceforlh CENT) (a bucket of water, a basket of wheat, a basket of lemons). They are metonymies of containers expressing a conventionalised measure or quantity of a l-B] entity. Shape is not relevant -a bathtub may contain a bucket o1: water without Ihere being any bucket in it (. l'luralizatiml (I,exical) Rule i,]lements (]:d]l') tUN GAJ() l)li I,IMON [an 'inncr-preexistent-division-of-some-fiuits'of lemon], a grain of rice). They are individuations of pre-existing parts of the whole. They select [+II entities, either individuals or substances. They are not committed to an Agentive process as they may remain attached to the whole. Shape and measure, if considered relevant, are inherent to the portion itself.", "uris": null, "type_str": "figure" }, "FIGREF2": { "num": null, "text": "x,y) & CAKE(y) -thus accounting /'or the logics of John eats a slice of cake as EAT(e,John,x) & SLICE(x,y) & CAKE(y) versus that of John eats cake as EAT(e,John,x) & CAKE(x). For ease of exposition, the syutax (CAT) of PNs is represented here as the colnplex category N/NP_sigu, where the NP_sign is app!'opriately lex-poriion-sign ~.'A'I'", "uris": null, "type_str": "figure" }, "FIGREF3": { "num": null, "text": "General Portion Sign speeilied to account for selectional reslrictions and transitivity of properlies between the whole and the porlion via feature reeiitraucies. This way, the eoinlx)sition of slice (N/NP) alld cake (NP) will restlll iu au N (slice of cake). This accotulls fof the fact thai partitive constructions (e.g. slice qf cake) do bern\" the combinatorial possibilities of nouns, while those of PNs are distinct and specific. The pleposiliou (oJ) is omitted here -not in the LKB implelneimltiou-since it is unrelewmt its it lacks senianlie COllteilt. We assume so [CI IO81] aualysis which cousiders of in lhis kiud of COllSlrtlclious a lnere surface case-marker.This view is confinned by data of Spauish (tIN VASe VINe =: UN VASe )].~._VINO, [IN \"I'ROZO PAN : I 1N 'I'I{OZO PAN) ['a glass witie' = 'a glass o1__~ wine', 'a portioli bread' = 'a porlion of bread'] in which the preposition is elidible -soinelhiug which is not possible in the case of couleutful prepositions (VENGO 1) I{ BARCELONA-> *VF, NGO BARCEI,ONA) ['l-come from Barcelolm'-> *'I-colne Barcelona'l.", "uris": null, "type_str": "figure" }, "FIGREF4": { "num": null, "text": "lex-BOllND-porti0n-sign CAT: COUNT:true CAT:N / NP .SIGN : SEM: IND: individual ~ounded G QUALIA: FORMAl.: I SilaPiZ:~l, ap< = {211 tMA(IN: nlagi' = [3~ QUALIA:FORMAL: \"SIIAPE:tunclion oil2] ] I MAGN: fundi0n_0f-[3] (=e) j/ --Boundary Portions Provided all which has boon discussed up to here, the general lex-PORTION-sign is defined as in fig.4; that is, as selecting NPs and resultiug in FORMAL:[+B] entity-denoting signs (lherefore individuated and syntactically couutable) where the only QUALIA feature which percolale from the whole is the TELIC Role -the rest of Quales may be oveiTiddeu by that of the PN. Specific sub-types are shown in figs. 5 to 9. BOIINI) PNs (fig.5) select [+B] entities (Iherefore individuated and countable) (the tip of the tongue).", "uris": null, "type_str": "figure" }, "FIGREF5": { "num": null, "text": "r<)RMAL: I sttAPl3: sh.~ : [llll i I MAGN: magn = t:}ll --..... <\"'Jl AGI{NI'IVI{: detachment j", "uris": null, "type_str": "figure" }, "FIGREF6": { "num": null, "text": "Detached Portions Similmly, StlAPE and MAGN of 1)TCItD PNs (fig.6) arc fuactious of SIIAPE and MAGN of the wholes they select. The difforcuco with BOUND l'Ns is that Ihe MAGN value doesu't tend to be minilnal. 'lhe AGI{N'I'IVI: Role is here relevant -as it as well is in MI)I J) PNs. lex-MDl,D-portlon-sign [\u2022CA'I': COUNT: fl dse 11 I SliM: IND:subsl ance ('AT: N / NP SIGN = l [", "uris": null, "type_str": "figure" }, "FIGREF7": { "num": null, "text": "rice:QUALIA:CONST:ELTS:grain=> grain:QUALIA:CONST:grain(x,y) => grain-of-rice:SEM:grain(x,y) & rice(y). ex-ELT.portion.sign EM: P(y) = 131 CAT:N/ NP SIGN ]Qt,ALIA: CONS'I':[~ str true 71 SEM: [2] & [31 L LELTS: ~lt~ = ['lJ.J QUALIA: ]-FORMM,: [~l IAI' [{: sha peT\" ] Flenlent l'ortions Last, CONT PNs (fig,9) select [-B] items (therelbre substances but also plurals) 3. The portion retains the constitution o1' the whole. As discussed above, SIIAPE is not relevant, measure (MAGN) is. AGENT1VI{, if cousidercd relevant, will be a process of filling the container. lex-CONT-porlbn-sign 2AT: N/ NP SIGN= QUAIJA: I A'[': C()(JNT: false IX) NST: f~' LP~f~ ::|'s = [ 2]~ QUAI ,IA: ~ORMA],: Ul|b~llded I I\"OP, MAL: [] ....... dcd ]7", "uris": null, "type_str": "figure" }, "TABREF1": { "html": null, "content": "
Specifically,ltt mpoperates
simultaneously as both a mensural (meaning
conventional dose) and classal (denoting a cerlain type
of aggrcgale) classifier.
Some have assumed Ihat PNs select mass nouns
(slice of cake, glass of wine), being mass nouns the
way in which substances tipically surface in tile
language. Instead, we posit that PNs select both kinds
of nouns (count or mass) denoting both kinds of
things (individuals or subslances), but in any case,
crucially, surl'acing as expressing cumulative
l'eli3rence.
Let's consider t~OI)A.IA I)E I.IMON [round-slice
of lemon].
", "text": ":or instance, tile Spanish phrase IIACER PAN [to-make bread] means baking bread, whilst IIACER RI~,BANADAS (DE PAN) [to-make slices (ofbread)] means slicing (bread). This way, the very same verb IIACER shows two radically different meanings, which in principle should be listed scpm-alely in the lexicon. Nevertheless, both can be accounted for in a single entry which selects the Agentive Role of the complement. More specifically talking about the lexical signs wc call PNs, [IXO77] shows that lhey correspond to the classifiers in languages as Tzeltal, Mandarin Chinese or Viemamese. In languages wilh classifiers, these words, semantically strongly similar to deterinincrs and quantifiers, have functions of individuation and enumeration, making surface notions such as sorl of entity, shape or measure. E.g. the Chinese phrase SAN BEN SIIU is translatable by three plane-entity book; three whiskies wotfld be conslructed with a mensural classifier, being the translation paraphrasablc by three unit/doses whisky. [IXO77] makes notice lhal words such as head (of cattle), sheet (of paper) or lump (of sugar) slaIId for exactly tile same function as classifiers in those languages. To assume that ].IMON here is mass", "num": null, "type_str": "table" }, "TABREF2": { "html": null, "content": "", "text": "are not straightforwardly referential, as they predicate wilh reference Io another entity. This may Ix: noticed considering sentences such as '??.h;hn rite a slice or ??I dt-attgllt three CUl)S. They arc semantically tmcomplele as they don't allow the hearer to relricve fl'om Ihem the information the speaker wanls Io convey, l:urlher information as in ,lohn ate a slice of cake or It was an excellent cq[lee. I draught three cupsis needed to do the task. When appearing in the discourse, PNs need of further specificalion of the referent, either via of-compleinenlalion or via ellipsis or anaphora. Consequetltly, they can not bc tnnary bul relational predicates in Ihe sense of [I,AN91 l, thai is, terms which are predicates cmly with reference to some other entity.", "num": null, "type_str": "table" } } } }