| { |
| "paper_id": "P89-1006", |
| "header": { |
| "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", |
| "date_generated": "2023-01-19T08:14:54.825812Z" |
| }, |
| "title": "REFERENCE TO LOCATIONS", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Lewis", |
| "middle": [ |
| "G" |
| ], |
| "last": "Creary", |
| "suffix": "", |
| "affiliation": { |
| "laboratory": "", |
| "institution": "Hewlett-Packaxd Laboratories", |
| "location": { |
| "addrLine": "3U 1501 Page Mill Road", |
| "postCode": "94304-1126", |
| "settlement": "Palo Alto", |
| "region": "CA" |
| } |
| }, |
| "email": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "J", |
| "middle": [ |
| "Mark" |
| ], |
| "last": "Gawron", |
| "suffix": "", |
| "affiliation": { |
| "laboratory": "", |
| "institution": "Hewlett-Packaxd Laboratories", |
| "location": { |
| "addrLine": "3U 1501 Page Mill Road", |
| "postCode": "94304-1126", |
| "settlement": "Palo Alto", |
| "region": "CA" |
| } |
| }, |
| "email": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "John", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Nerbonne", |
| "suffix": "", |
| "affiliation": { |
| "laboratory": "", |
| "institution": "Hewlett-Packaxd Laboratories", |
| "location": { |
| "addrLine": "3U 1501 Page Mill Road", |
| "postCode": "94304-1126", |
| "settlement": "Palo Alto", |
| "region": "CA" |
| } |
| }, |
| "email": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": "", |
| "venue": null, |
| "identifiers": {}, |
| "abstract": "I.I Sketch of Proposal We propose a semantics for locative expressions such as near Jones or west of Denver, an important subsystem for NLP applications. Locative expressions denote regions of space, and serve as arguments to predicates, locating objects and events spatially. Since simple locatives occupy argument positions, they do NOT participate in scope ambiguities m pace one common view, which sees locatives as logical operators. Our proposal justifies common representational practice in computational linguistics, accounting for how locative expressions function anaphoritally, and explaining a wide range of inference involving locatives. We further demonstrate how the argument analysis may accommodate multiple locative arguments in a single predicate. The analysis is implemented for use in a database query application.", |
| "pdf_parse": { |
| "paper_id": "P89-1006", |
| "_pdf_hash": "", |
| "abstract": [ |
| { |
| "text": "I.I Sketch of Proposal We propose a semantics for locative expressions such as near Jones or west of Denver, an important subsystem for NLP applications. Locative expressions denote regions of space, and serve as arguments to predicates, locating objects and events spatially. Since simple locatives occupy argument positions, they do NOT participate in scope ambiguities m pace one common view, which sees locatives as logical operators. Our proposal justifies common representational practice in computational linguistics, accounting for how locative expressions function anaphoritally, and explaining a wide range of inference involving locatives. We further demonstrate how the argument analysis may accommodate multiple locative arguments in a single predicate. The analysis is implemented for use in a database query application.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Abstract", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "body_text": [ |
| { |
| "text": "Locative expressions take diverse forms: in New York, here, there, nowhere, and on a boat he has in Ohio. They combine with common nouns (city on the Rhine), or with verbs or verb-phrases (work in Boston), always locating objects and situations in space. Some temporal expressions are similar, but we focus here on spatial locatives.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Introduction", |
| "sec_num": "1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The analysis was developed for use in an NLP system producing database queries; it is fully implemented and has been in frequent (developmental) use for 18 months. It is important to provide facilities for reasoning about location in database query applications because users typically do not query locative information in the exact form it appears in the database. A database may e.g. contain the information that a painting is in the Guggenheim Museum, perhaps even that it's in the Guggenheim in New York, and yet be helpless when queried whether that same painting is in the US. In our implementation information about location is represented using the logical analysis provided here. I i of course, the in\u00a3ormation that New York is in the US must be provided by a compatible geographical knowledge base.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Introduction", |
| "sec_num": "1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The provides general service: first, in collecting the data relevant to a semantic analysis of locatives; second, in presenting the proposal in a fashion which applies to other natural languages and other logical representations; and third, in noting the consequences of our proposal for the organization of NLP systems, specifically the cooperation of syntax and semantics.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Introduction", |
| "sec_num": "1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The behavior of locatives in inference and anaphora reflects their semantics. This behavior justifies the hypothesis that (unquantified) locatives refer to regions, while related sequences of locatives refer to the intersection of the regions associated with their components. E.g. the phrase (sequence) in Canada on the Atlantic Coast refers to the (maximal) region which is both in Canada and on the Atlantic Coast.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Introduction", |
| "sec_num": "1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Locative adverbials within a verb phrase will then be seen to contribute to a location argument in predicates which identifies an area within which the predicate is asserted to hold. The view that locatives occupy an ARGUMENT position within a predication is contrasted with the view that they are EXTER-NAL OPERATORS (cf. Cresswell [7] ), or MODIFIERS on predications (cf. Davidson [8] or Sondheimer [18] ). In fact, however, the analysis of locative phrases as arguments jibes well with the practice of most computational linguists; cf. Allen [1] , pp.198-207 and the references there, [1] , p.218. The present effort contributes to the justification and explication of this practice.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 333, |
| "end": 336, |
| "text": "[7]", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 383, |
| "end": 386, |
| "text": "[8]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF7" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 401, |
| "end": 405, |
| "text": "[18]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF17" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 545, |
| "end": 548, |
| "text": "[1]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF0" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 588, |
| "end": 591, |
| "text": "[1]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF0" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Introduction", |
| "sec_num": "1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Our approach is closest to Jackendoff [12] . We follow Jackendoff first, in suggesting that locative phrases are referential in the same way that noun phrases (NPs) are; and second, in taking locative adverbials to function as arguments. But there is a significant foundational problem implicit in the hypothesis that locatives are arguments: locatives, unlike standard arguments in the predicate calculus, appear optionally and multiply. Predicate logic does not accommodate the occurrence of multiple arguments in a single argument position. We solve this technical problem by allowing that multiple locatives CON-STRAIN a single argument within a predication. This effectively challenges a standard assumption about the syntax-semantics interface, viz. how syntactic elements map into arguments, but leads to an elegant semantics.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 38, |
| "end": 42, |
| "text": "[12]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF11" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Introduction", |
| "sec_num": "1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In addition to the adverbial use of locatives, we recognize a predicative use illustrated by (1) . We return to these in Section 6 below.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 93, |
| "end": 96, |
| "text": "(1)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF0" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Introduction", |
| "sec_num": "1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(I) Tom is in Canada on the Atlantic Coast.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Introduction", |
| "sec_num": "1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In this section we collect valid and invalid argumentpatterns involving adverbial locatives. A semantics of locatives should explain the entailments we catalog here. We restrict our attention initially to locative phrases in which locations are specified with respect to logical individuals (denoted by proper names, e.g. 'Boston', 'Jones', or 'Mass Ave') because we assume that their analysis is relatively uncontroversial. 2 We begin by noting that any number of locatives may adjoin to almost any verb (phrase);", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Logic of Locatives", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(2) Tom works on Mass Ave. in Boston near MIT.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Logic of Locatives", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "A natural question to ask, then, concerns the logical relation between complex clauses like (2) and simpler clauses eliminating one or more of its locatives. To begin, the SIMPLIFYING INFERENCE in (3) is valid:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Logic of Locatives", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(3)", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Logic of Locatives", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "AI works in Boston. .'. AI works.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Logic of Locatives", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Using multiple adjuncts doesn't disturb this pattern of inference, as (4) and (5) illustrate:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Logic of Locatives", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "AI works on Mass Ave. in Boston. (4) \".'. 'AI works in Boston.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The Logic of Locatives", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Al works on Mass Ave. in Boston. .'. Al works on Mass Ave. PERMUTING locative adjuncts has no effect on truth conditions. Thus the sentences in (6) are truthconditionally equivalent. Some are less felicitous than others, and they may manipulate discourse context differently, but they all describe the same facts:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "(5)", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "2We don't think it matters whether the proper names are taken to be indlvidtud constants, as they normally are, or whether they are analyzed as restricted parameters, as situation semantics ( [3] ,pp.165-68) has suggested. ", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 192, |
| "end": 195, |
| "text": "[3]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF2" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "(5)", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(9)", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "(5)", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "A1 works in New York. New York is in the US. .'. AI works in the US.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "(5)", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The dog sleeps under the table. Under the table is in the house (region \"under the table\" is contained in region \"in the house.\") .'. The dog sleeps in the house.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "(10)", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Notice in (10) that the locative phrases are specified with respect not to locations, but to other logical individuals. This is accomplished by the semantics of the prepositions under and in; our proposal will require that locative PHRASES refer to regions, but not that their subcomponents must.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "(10)", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Locatives by themselves do NOT induce scope ambiguity with respect to negation, thus the semantic nonambiguity of (11); compare that with (12) . The causal adjunct becanse of DOES induce a scope ambiguity with respect to negation. That is why (12) has two readings, one (narrow scope negation) on which Tina's not drinking is in some way due to her husband, another (wide-scope negation) which denies that Tina's drinking is because of her husband. (11) shows no analogous scope ambiguity. Thus, locatives appear to behave differently from at least some other adjuncts in that they no show no scope variation with respect to negation. The simplest explanation of this failure to induce scope ambiguity is to deny that simple locatives have scope, i.e. to deny that they are logical operators or external modifiers. We propose exactly this when we postulate that they are arguments rather than operators. We grant that locatives in sentence-initial position DO display properties which suggest scope, but this needn't vitiate the argument analysis, s", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 138, |
| "end": 142, |
| "text": "(12)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF11" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 243, |
| "end": 247, |
| "text": "(12)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF11" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 449, |
| "end": 453, |
| "text": "(11)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF10" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Scope", |
| "sec_num": "3.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Note that the \"commutativity of locatives\" shown in (6) is another indication of failure to scope: locatives fall to scope with respect to each other.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Scope", |
| "sec_num": "3.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In evaluating the claim that no SCOPE AMBIGUITY is possible in (11) , it is important not to be confused by the possibility of interpreting the FOCUS of negation in various ways. The association of negation with a focused element is a well-discussed, if not not a well-understood, phenomenon in the literature (see Jackendoff ([11] , pp.229-78), Chomsky ([4], pp.199-208), and Rooth [17] for discussions of focus). The crucial point about focus is that it affects arguments and adjuncts alike, and that ambiguities involving the association of negation with focus affect both. For example, (13) Elizabeth Browning didn't adore Robert.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 63, |
| "end": 67, |
| "text": "(11)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF10" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 326, |
| "end": 331, |
| "text": "([11]", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 383, |
| "end": 387, |
| "text": "[17]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF16" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Scope versus Focus", |
| "sec_num": "3.1.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The focus can be either on adore or on Robert, giving different presuppositions, 4 even though the proper name Robert is never analyzed as scope-inducing.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Scope versus Focus", |
| "sec_num": "3.1.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "PaEPOSED locatives do show properties that resemble scope. Cf. Thomason and Stalnaker ([21] , p.205):", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 63, |
| "end": 91, |
| "text": "Thomason and Stalnaker ([21]", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Preposed Locatives", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "nit is worth emphasizing that we are nanking a semantic point boa-e--there may be a syntactic (attachment) ambiguity in (11) , but it's not one that has any semantic significance.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 120, |
| "end": 124, |
| "text": "(11)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF10" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Preposed Locatives", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "t Relevant here is Horn's [10] notion of metallnguistic negation, which accounts for purely contrastive or contradicting negation. The issues Horn discusses are also orthogonal to the ambiguity in (12) , since the ambiguity persists outside of contrastive contexts.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 26, |
| "end": 30, |
| "text": "[10]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF9" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 197, |
| "end": 201, |
| "text": "(12)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF11" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Preposed Locatives", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In that restaurant, if John is asked to wear a (14) tie, he wears a tie.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 47, |
| "end": 51, |
| "text": "(14)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF13" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Preposed Locatives", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Here the preposed locative does not belong exclusively to either the antecedent or the consequent of the conditional; rather, the sentence says: if John is asked to wear a tie in that restaurant, he wears a tie in that restaurant. Thomason Everyone is eating at our house.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 231, |
| "end": 239, |
| "text": "Thomason", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Preposed Locatives", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Here there is a reading of the first which can be paraphrased Everyone at our house is eating, where the quantifier is restricted to people at our house. The most important point to make here is that \"preposing\" generates new readings, readings unavailable for unpreposed adverbial locatives. So if these examples are evidence for a sentenceoperator semantics for locatives, then it's a semantics limited to locatives found in this position. The \"wide-scope\" readings occur only for locatives in this \"topic\" (sentence-initial) position, s It would be semantically implausible to regard the preposed adverbials here as mere stylistic variants of nonpreposed elements, s", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Preposed Locatives", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "\u2022 But we note further that locations can be restricted by discourse context alone: (16) Joan lived in LA. She often went swimming.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 83, |
| "end": 87, |
| "text": "(16)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF15" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Preposed Locatives", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "We naturally interpret Joan as swimming in LA; and such effects can extend indefinitely through discourse.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Preposed Locatives", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "We propose to analyze both Thomason and Stalnaker's example and Cresswell's example as R.E-STRICTINO TOPIC locatives that restrict some location roles in the sentence to follow. In the case of (14), the restriction applies to the locations of both the antecedent and consequent clauses of the conditional sentence; in the case of (15), the restriction 5Note that this is not normally the case for sentenceoperator adverbials; The number of the planeta is necessarily nine is semantically ambiguous between a wide-and narrowscope reading of neeessarlb.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Preposed Locatives", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "eIt is syntactically implausible as well to regard restricting topic elements as stylistic variants of unpreposed elements, since some preposed dements can only occur preposed:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Preposed Locatives", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Of the dogs at the show, only Schnauzers were affected. applies to the quantifier Everyone, limiting its domain to those individuals at \"our house. \"7 This has the consequence that there is a class of restrictive topic-position modifiers that cannot be analyzed as preposed adverbials.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Preposed Locatives", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Analogy with NPs Second, we find similarly noteworthy the indefinitely referring locative somewhere. We note that its particular reference (like that of someone) is available for subsequent anaphoric use. That is, (18) may be understood to claim that Ed works where AI works, s (18) AI lives somewhere on the Ohio, and Ed works there.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "3.3", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Third, we note that deictic locative reference is possible (using here or there), just as deictic nonlocative reference is (using pronouns or demonstratives). We address the fourth and final reminder of the analogy between NP and locative reference, locative anaphora, in Section 3.4, immediately below. ~'We don't claim to offer a complete analysis of these topiclocatives (nothing we have said makes it clear how these restrictions are enforced, or what the constraints on them are); but we offer a plausibility argument that these ewe cases of a somewhat different color.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "3.3", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "SThis contrasts with examples of locative anaphors with shnple locative antecedents, examined below in Section 3.4.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "3.3", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "cf. (19) .", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 4, |
| "end": 8, |
| "text": "(19)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF18" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "3.3", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Viewing simple locatives as analogous to singular NPs, we obtain a simple account of the anaphoric potential of locatives by taking them to denote spatial regions. The functioning of locatives as antecedents for the locative pro-form there then provides additional evidence that simple locatives are in a class with singular NPs. Consider:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Anaphora", |
| "sec_num": "3.4" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(19) A1 lives on the Ohio, and Ed works there.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Anaphora", |
| "sec_num": "3.4" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(19) makes the claim, not that AI lives in the same place Ed works, but that he lives on the same river that AI works on. Thus the reference of both on the Ohio and there appears to be the entire spatial region which is ON the Ohio (as opposed to any particular subregion of it). This region is uniquely (though vaguely) determined in a given context by the name of the river and the particular preposition on. We are, in effect, claiming that the PP on the Ohio acts as a sort of definite description of a particular spatial region. Anaphoric reference back to it is reference back to that same region. A further note is worthwhile here. If the locative phrase on the Ohio in (19) refers to the entire region which may be so described (as we've just argued), then the LOCATION role of the predicates LIVE and WORK must be construed as specifying a region 'within which' a relation is somewhere instantiated. Indeed, we postulate this as a general property of location roles within all predicates.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 677, |
| "end": 681, |
| "text": "(19)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF18" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Anaphora", |
| "sec_num": "3.4" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Next consider a more complicated version of (19):", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Regional Intersection", |
| "sec_num": "3.5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(20) AI lives on the Ohio in Kentucky, and Ed works there.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Regional Intersection", |
| "sec_num": "3.5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In (20) one may understand there as referring to the intersection of the regions 'on the Ohio,' and 'in Kentucky' (and again, NOT to the particular subpart of that intersection where AI lives). In fact, this reading is preferred. (There may also be understood to refer to one of the component superregious, and our analysis is fully compatible with this possibility.) Let's consider how best to supply the intersective reference for the pronoun there.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 3, |
| "end": 7, |
| "text": "(20)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF19" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Regional Intersection", |
| "sec_num": "3.5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In (20) the two locative expressions in the first clause simultaneously constrain the same location role. In general, each successive locative in a clause further narrows the region filling the location role:", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 3, |
| "end": 7, |
| "text": "(20)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF19" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Regional Intersection", |
| "sec_num": "3.5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(WORK agent : Ed ", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Regional Intersection", |
| "sec_num": "3.5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "We employ a syntax/semantics interface that's innovative in two respects: first, we allow that adjuncts (locatives) be interpreted as arguments, rather than operators. Cf. McConnell-Ginet ( [14] ,p.167ff) for a similar proposal about manner adverbs. Second, we allow that multiple locatives (in the same verb phrase) jointly determine a single location argument via the intersection of regions. Thus we allow several syntactic dependents corresponding to a single semantic argument. This challenges a standard working assumption about the syntax-semantics mapping made in a number of frameworks, 9 but it leads to a neuter semantic account: by allowing several locative specifiers to constrain a single role, we account more easily for the permutability of locatives, and we provide the right range of anaphoric antecedents.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 190, |
| "end": 194, |
| "text": "[14]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF13" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Syntax/Semantics Mapping", |
| "sec_num": "4" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Here we describe the logical expressions into which locatives (and sentences containing them) are translated, and the semantic interpretations of the logical expressions.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Formal Aspects", |
| "sec_num": "5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Our logical formalism is called NFLT. t\u00b0 It is a modification and augmentation of standard predicate calculus, with two modifications relevant here: predicates and functors of variable arity, and a semantic interpretation in terms of situation-types.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Overview of NFLT", |
| "sec_num": "5.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Predications and functional terms in NFLT have an explicit rolemark for each argument; in this respect NFLT resembles semantic network formalisms and differs from standard predicate calculus, where the 9This doesn't contradict Montague's semantic theoriea, but it abandons the favored \"functional application n mode of interpretation. Cf. Montague [15] , p.202. Neither verb (phrase) nor locative is interpreted as a function applying to the argument supplied by the other.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 348, |
| "end": 352, |
| "text": "[15]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF14" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Predicate and Function Expressions", |
| "sec_num": "5.1.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "l\u00b0Cf. Creary and Pollard [6] for conceptual background, literature references, and more complete presentation of NFLT. roles are order-coded. For example, atomic formulas in NFLT are constructed of a base-predicate and a set of rolemark-argument pairs, as in the following translation of Tom works in Boston:", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 25, |
| "end": 28, |
| "text": "[6]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Predicate and Function Expressions", |
| "sec_num": "5.1.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(22) (WORK agent:TOM location: (IN theme:BOSTON) )", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 31, |
| "end": 48, |
| "text": "(IN theme:BOSTON)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Predicate and Function Expressions", |
| "sec_num": "5.1.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The explicit representation of roles permits each predicate-and function-symbol in NFLT to take a variable number of arguments, so that different occurrences of a verb are represented with the same predicate-symbol, despite differences in valence (i.e. number and identity of attached complements and adjuncts). 11", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Predicate and Function Expressions", |
| "sec_num": "5.1.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Functional location terms are functional terms denoting regions. These are of two general sorts, simple and intersective. The simple ones consist of a prepositional functor applied to an appropriate argument, while the intersective ones consist of a regional intersection functor applied to a set of regions. As an example, consider the following location term, which might serve as the translation (in a given context) of the iterated locatives on the Ohio in Kentucky near ", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Functional Location Terms", |
| "sec_num": "5.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "This is a complex location term whose components are simple functional location terms. NE.L~I should denote (e.g.) a function that maps Illinois onto a region beginning at its borders and extending out a short distance. The functor of an intersective location term denotes the regional intersection function, which maps RI, R~, ..., Rn onto their intersection R. More formally, we postulate that spatial regions, partially ordered by the subregion relation (written __.~), form a LATTICr.. The intersection of regions is then their lattice-theoretic MEET (written 17~), the greatest lower bound with respect to C,~.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "NEAEI(ILLINOIS)})", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The eommutativity and associativity of n~ justify specifying its arguments via sets. The orderindifference of set specification accounts for the permutability of locatives illustrated in (6) .", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 187, |
| "end": 190, |
| "text": "(6)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "NEAEI(ILLINOIS)})", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "We will also make use of the following familiar lattice theorem: llIn order to save space, we shall write II(Boston) for (II where l~m~..", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "NEAEI(ILLINOIS)})", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "According to (24), an intersective location term T always denotes a subregion of the region denoted by the result of deleting some (but not all) of the argumentterms of T.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "NEAEI(ILLINOIS)})", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "This is a fact about situations being located in space: if an event or state occurs or obtains within a region R, then it occurs or obtains within any region R' containing R: Both the premise and the conclusion of (27) are interpreted as denoting situation-types; each is true if there exists a situation of the type it denotes. Since every situation of the type denoted by the premise is necessarily also of the type denoted by the conclusion, the truth of the premise necessarily entails the truth of the conclusion. This accounts for the validity of (3) in the situation-theoretic framework of NFLT. In a fixed-arity framework, one would represent the conclusion as existentially quantifying over a location argument-position; the inference would then be existential generalization.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Located Predications", |
| "sec_num": "5.3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "We recall that (7), repeated here for convenience, is invalid, while the similar (8) (right) is valid:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Located Predications", |
| "sec_num": "5.3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Tom works in NY. Tom works in Boston. .~. Tom works in NY in Boston.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Located Predications", |
| "sec_num": "5.3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Tom works in NY. Tom works in Boston. .'. Tom works in NY and in Boston.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Located Predications", |
| "sec_num": "5.3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The reason is that the premises of the former may locate two different 'working' events while its conclusion refers to one. The conclusion of the latter, on the other hand, may refer to distinct 'working' events. Its translation into NFLT is: This conclusion is nothing more than the conjunction of the premises.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Located Predications", |
| "sec_num": "5.3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "We propose above that the ability to induce scope effects is a litmus test for distinguishing arguments and operators. This test, together with anaphoric evidence, suggests a heterodox treatment of adnominal locatives. In a nutshell, these locatives might be arguments as well. Note that in both formulations there is reference to a region, and that the locative cannot participate in scope ambiguities. 12", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Adnominal Locatives", |
| "sec_num": "6" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "12We leave as an exercise for the reader to show that the well known (semantically significant) attachment ambiguity between adverbial and adnominal loactives may be represented h~re:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Adnominal Locatives", |
| "sec_num": "6" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Tom evaluated a car in Ohio. We suspect that Cresswell would classify the tack taken toward locative adverbials in this paper as an \"extra argument\" analysis, but we shall note below some important differences between our approach and Davidson's.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Adnominal Locatives", |
| "sec_num": "6" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "We find fault with the operator analysis of locative adverbials since it inherently attributes a scope to locatives which, as Section 3.1 shows, isn't reflected in natural language semantics. It is also clear that the simplifying and commutative inferences for locatives noted in Section 2 are not predicted by the external operator analysis. Locatives wouldn't necessarily have these properties any more than negation or the modal adverbs. Finally, we note as problematic the comportment of the operator analysis with the anaphoric evidence, particularly where multiple locatives are concerned.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Adnominal Locatives", |
| "sec_num": "6" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Davidson [8] , and, following him, Bartsch [2] and Sondheimer [18] have proposed that adverbial modification is best represented using an unexpected argument place within a predicate. Bartsch ( [2] , pp.122-39) and Sondheimer [18] focus on locative constructions, so we concentrate on those works here. Sondheimer ( [18] , pp.237-39) provides the following analysis:", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 9, |
| "end": 12, |
| "text": "[8]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF7" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 43, |
| "end": 46, |
| "text": "[2]", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 62, |
| "end": 66, |
| "text": "[18]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF17" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 194, |
| "end": 197, |
| "text": "[2]", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 226, |
| "end": 230, |
| "text": "[18]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF17" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 316, |
| "end": 320, |
| "text": "[18]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF17" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Davidsonian Analyses", |
| "sec_num": "7.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(32)", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Davidsonian Analyses", |
| "sec_num": "7.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "John stumbled in the park under a tree.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Davidsonian Analyses", |
| "sec_num": "7.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The standard logic textbook representation of an intransitive verb such as stumble uses a ONE-PLACE predicate, where Sondheimer, following Davidson, uses the TWO-PLACE predicate signifying a relation between an individual and an event. This is the \"extra argument place\" that distinguishes Davidsonian treatments. It is worth noting that this approach accounts for the logical properties of locatives that we noted in Section (2) above. The simplification and commutativity of locatives follow from the propositional logic of conjunction.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "3e(Stmbl(J,e) A In(e,p) A Under(e,t))", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The most important differences between Davidsonian analyses and our own are the ability to account for locative anaphors, and the treatment of scope. As presented in Section 3.4 above, our treatment provides correct regional antecedents for the locative anaphor there. On the other hand, Davidsonian treatments make no explicit reference to regions at all (to which anaphors might refer), and further provide no mechanism for referring to the intersective regions that were seen to be required in the analysis of (20).", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "3e(Stmbl(J,e) A In(e,p) A Under(e,t))", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Our analysis places simple locatives within the scope of all sentence operators. The Davidsonian analysis creates multiple propositions, and scopeinducing elements such as negation can then be analyzed as including some, but not all of these propositions within their scope. For this reason, Davidsonian treatments are much less specific in their predictions vis-a-vis scope (than the one proposed here). Bartsch ( [2] , p.133) indicates e.g. that she would allow sentential negation to have scope over some of the conjuncts in logical forms such as (32), but not others; and Sondheirner ( [18] , p.250) seems to have a similar move in mind in his discussion of almost as in I almost locked him in the closet. As indicated in Section 3.2 above, we regard such renderings as confusions of scope and focus.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 415, |
| "end": 418, |
| "text": "[2]", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 590, |
| "end": 594, |
| "text": "[18]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF17" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "3e(Stmbl(J,e) A In(e,p) A Under(e,t))", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Jackendoff ([12] , Chap.3,9) argues that reference to places be recognized in semantic theory, thus allowing that locative phrases refer in the same way that NPs do, and that they function as arguments. But Jackendoff never examined inferences involving locatives, nor did he attempt to deal with the prima facie difficulties of the argument analysis--the fact that locatives occur optionally and multiply. It is the latter facts which make the argument analysis technically difficult. Finally, where we have been precise about the semantics of the location role, emphasizing that it specifies a region WITHIN WHICH a relation must hold, Jackendoff was less exact. On the other hand, Jackendoff's analysis of PATH EXPRESSIONS is intriguingly analogous to that of locatives, and offers opportunity for extension of the work here.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 11, |
| "end": 16, |
| "text": "([12]", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Other Works", |
| "sec_num": "7.3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Colban ([5] ) analyzes locatives in situation semantics, and would like to have the operator/argument issue both ways: he allows that locatives might be external modifiers or arguments. But he offers no evidence to support this postulate of ambiguity. Ter Meulen ([20] , also working within situation semantics, provides a means of referring to the location of complex events, such as the event of two detectives (33) solving a crime. She crucially requires a reference for locative expressions, and her proposals seem compatible with ours.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 7, |
| "end": 11, |
| "text": "([5]", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 263, |
| "end": 268, |
| "text": "([20]", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Other Works", |
| "sec_num": "7.3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Talmy [19] , Herskovits [9] , and Kautz [13] theorize about the INTERPRETATION of locative expressions, and especially how this is affected by the sorts of objects referred to in locative expressions. Much of this latter work may be regarded as complementary to our own, since we have not attempted to characterize in any detail the manner in which context affects the (34) choice of functional denotation for particular locative prepositions. ", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 6, |
| "end": 10, |
| "text": "[19]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF18" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 24, |
| "end": 27, |
| "text": "[9]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF8" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 40, |
| "end": 44, |
| "text": "[13]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF12" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Other Works", |
| "sec_num": "7.3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Locative expressions (e.g. north of Boston near Harry) denote regions of space. The denotations may be referred to anaphorically.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "4.", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Locative expressions are used adverbially to constrain a location argument in a relation defined by a verb. Thus simple locatives fail to show scope (like proper names).", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "4.", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Relations are upwardly monotonic at location arguments: if a relation holds at R, then it holds at every containing R I.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "4.", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "When multiple locatives are used, the intersection of their denoted regions plays 8 location role. This describes the truth conditions and anaphoric potential of such uses, and predicts correctly the permutability and omissibility of locatives.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "4.", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "We don't claim that all reference to regions is through upwardly monotonic location arguments. On the contrary, regions can stand in relations in a variety of other ways. To take an obvious case, the subregion relation is upwardly monotonic (transitive), but only in one (superregion) argument--it's not upwardly monotonic in the first (subregion) argument. Here are two more fairly transparent examples of reference to locations that don't involve the location at-guments of predicates, and therefore aren't upwardly monotonic:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Qualifications", |
| "sec_num": "8.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Tom likes it in Mendocino. ./. Tom likes it in California.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Qualifications", |
| "sec_num": "8.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "George VI ruled in England. ./. George VI ruled in Europe.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Qualifications", |
| "sec_num": "8.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "We claim that the regions referred to in (33) aren't location arguments, but rather theme (or patient) arguments. There are other examples of monotonicity failing that are less easily dismissed, however:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Qualifications", |
| "sec_num": "8.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "It is the tallest in Palo Alto ./. It is the tallest in California.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Qualifications", |
| "sec_num": "8.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "He is alone in the dining room. .f. He is alone in the house.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Qualifications", |
| "sec_num": "8.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The apparent location argument of these relations (and of all superlatives) is especially interesting because it not only fails to be upwardly monotonic, it even turns out to be downwardly monotonic. We wish to deny that these phrases denote regions which play location roles--more specifically, we allow that the phrases denote regions, but we distinguish the semantic role that the regions play. In the case of LOCATION arguments, the intended semantics requires that the relation hold somewhere within the region denoted.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Qualifications", |
| "sec_num": "8.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In the case of (34), however, the relation can only hold be said to hold if it holds fhrougho,t the region denoted. It is this implicit (universal) quantification that explains the failure of upward monotonicity, of course. We symbolize this sort of role as \"throughout, and represent the downwardly monotonic (34) in the following way: (We emphasize that this is intended to illustrate the distinction between the various semantic roles that locations play--it is not proferred as a serious analysis of the superlative.)", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Qualifications", |
| "sec_num": "8.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Qualifications", |
| "sec_num": "8.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "We'd like to improve this account in several ways: first, we'd like to understand the interface between the syntax and semantics more rigorously. Section 4 explains what is unusual about our views here, but the model of syntax/semantics cooperation it suggests is something we'd like to explore. Second, we need an account of preposed locatives, as Section 3.2 admits. Third, we'd like to describe the relationship between predicates relating objects and regions on the one hand with regions occupied by the objects, as Section 6 shows. Fourth, we'd be interested in exploring the relation between our work on the semantics of locatives with work on the contextually dependent interpretation of locatives, such as the work by Herskovits [9] and Retz-Schmidt [16] .", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 737, |
| "end": 740, |
| "text": "[9]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF8" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 758, |
| "end": 762, |
| "text": "[16]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF15" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Future Directions", |
| "sec_num": "8.3" |
| } |
| ], |
| "back_matter": [ |
| { |
| "text": "We're indebted to Carl Pollard for the suggestion to use the algebraic operator 'N~ We'd like to thank him, Barbara Partee, David Dowry, and our colleagues in the Natural Language Project at Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, especially Bill Ladusaw, for discussion and criticism of the ideas presented here.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Acknowledgements", |
| "sec_num": "9" |
| } |
| ], |
| "bib_entries": { |
| "BIBREF0": { |
| "ref_id": "b0", |
| "title": "Natural Language Understanding", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "James", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Allen", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1987, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "James Allen. Natural Language Understanding. Benjamin/Cummings, Menlo Park, 1987.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF2": { |
| "ref_id": "b2", |
| "title": "Situations and Attitudes", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Jon", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Barwise", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "John", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Perry", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1983, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Jon Barwise and John Perry. Situations and At- titudes. MIT Press, Cambridge, 1983.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF3": { |
| "ref_id": "b3", |
| "title": "Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Noam", |
| "middle": [ |
| "A" |
| ], |
| "last": "Chomsky", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1970, |
| "venue": "Semantics: An Interdiscipinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics, and Psychology", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "183--216", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Noam A. Chomsky. Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation. In Danny D. Steinberg and Leon A. Jacobovits, ed- itors, Semantics: An Interdiscipinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics, and Psychology, pages 183-216. Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, 1970.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF4": { |
| "ref_id": "b4", |
| "title": "Prepositional phrases in situation schemata", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Erik", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Colban", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1987, |
| "venue": "Situations, Language, and Logic", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "133--156", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Erik Colban. Prepositional phrases in situation schemata. In Jens Erik Fenstad, Per-Kristian Halvorsen, Tore Langholm, and Johan van Ben- them, editors, Situations, Language, and Logic, pages 133-156. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1987.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF5": { |
| "ref_id": "b5", |
| "title": "A computational semantics for natural language", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "G", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Lewis", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Carl", |
| "middle": [ |
| "J" |
| ], |
| "last": "Creary", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Pollard", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1985, |
| "venue": "Proceedings of the ~Sth Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "172--179", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Lewis G. Creary and Carl J. Pollard. A compu- tational semantics for natural language. In Pro- ceedings of the ~Sth Annual Meeting of the As- sociation for Computational Linguistics, pages 172-179, 1985.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF6": { |
| "ref_id": "b6", |
| "title": "Adverbial Modification: Interval Semantics and its Rivals", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "M", |
| "middle": [ |
| "J" |
| ], |
| "last": "Cressweu", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1985, |
| "venue": "D.Reidel", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "M. J. CressweU. Adverbial Modification: Interval Semantics and its Rivals. D.Reidel, Dordrecht, 1985.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF7": { |
| "ref_id": "b7", |
| "title": "The logical form of action sentences", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Donald", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Davidson", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1967, |
| "venue": "The Logic of Decision and Action", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "81--95", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Donald Davidson. The logical form of action sen- tences. In Nicholas Rescher, editor, The Logic of Decision and Action, pages 81-95. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, 1967.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF8": { |
| "ref_id": "b8", |
| "title": "Space and Prepositions in English: Regularities and Irregularities in a Complez Domain", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Annette", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Herskovits", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1985, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Annette Herskovits. Space and Prepositions in English: Regularities and Irregularities in a Complez Domain. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1985.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF9": { |
| "ref_id": "b9", |
| "title": "Metafinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Laurence", |
| "middle": [ |
| "R" |
| ], |
| "last": "Horn", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1985, |
| "venue": "Language", |
| "volume": "61", |
| "issue": "1", |
| "pages": "121--174", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Laurence R. Horn. Metafinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity. Language, 61(1):121-174, 1985.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF10": { |
| "ref_id": "b10", |
| "title": "Semantics Interpretation in Generative Grammar", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Ray", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Jackendoff", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1972, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Ray Jackendoff. Semantics Interpretation in Generative Grammar. MIT Press, Cambridge, 1972.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF11": { |
| "ref_id": "b11", |
| "title": "Semantics and Cognition", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Ray", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Jackendoff", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1983, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Ray Jackendoff. Semantics and Cognition. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1983.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF12": { |
| "ref_id": "b12", |
| "title": "Formalizing spatial concepts and spatial concepts", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "A", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Henry", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Kautz", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1985, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Henry A. Kautz. Formalizing spatial concepts and spatial concepts. In Hobbs et at., editor, Commonsense Summer: Final Report, pages 2.1-2.45. CSLI, 1985.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF13": { |
| "ref_id": "b13", |
| "title": "Adverbs and logical form", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Sally", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Mcconnell-Ginet", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1982, |
| "venue": "Language", |
| "volume": "58", |
| "issue": "1", |
| "pages": "144--184", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Sally McConnell-Ginet. Adverbs and logical form. Language, 58(1):144-184, 1982.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF14": { |
| "ref_id": "b14", |
| "title": "English as a formal language", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Richard", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Montague", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1970, |
| "venue": "Lingnaggi neUa societa e nella tecnica. Edizioni di Comunita", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Richard Montague. English as a formal lan- guage. In Bruno Visentini, editor, Lingnaggi neUa societa e nella tecnica. Edizioni di Comu- nita, Milan, 1970.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF15": { |
| "ref_id": "b15", |
| "title": "Various views on spatial prepositions", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Gudula", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Retz", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "-", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Schmidt", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1988, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "9", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "95--105", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Gudula Retz-Schmidt. Various views on spatial prepositions. AI Magazine, 9(2):95-105, 1988.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF16": { |
| "ref_id": "b16", |
| "title": "Association and Focus", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Mats", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Rooth", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1986, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Mats Rooth. Association and Focus. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, 1986.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF17": { |
| "ref_id": "b17", |
| "title": "Reference to spatial properties", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Norman", |
| "middle": [ |
| "K" |
| ], |
| "last": "Sondheimer", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1978, |
| "venue": "Linguistics and Philosophy", |
| "volume": "2", |
| "issue": "2", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Norman K. Sondheimer. Reference to spatial properties. Linguistics and Philosophy, 2(2), 1978.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF18": { |
| "ref_id": "b18", |
| "title": "How language structures space", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Leonard", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Talmy", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1983, |
| "venue": "Spatial Orientation: Theory, Research, and Application", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Leonard Talmy. How language structures space. In Herbert Pick and Linda Acredolo, editors, Spatial Orientation: Theory, Research, and Ap- plication. Plenum Press, 1983.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF19": { |
| "ref_id": "b19", |
| "title": "Locating events", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Alice", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Ter Meulen", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1986, |
| "venue": "Jeroen Groenendijk, Dick de Jongh, and Martin Stokhof", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "27--40", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Alice ter Meulen. Locating events. In Jeroen Groenendijk, Dick de Jongh, and Mar- tin Stokhof, editors, Foundations of Pragmatics and Lezical Semantics, pages 27-40. Forts, Dor- drecht, 1986.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF20": { |
| "ref_id": "b20", |
| "title": "A semantic theory of adverbs", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Richmond", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Thomason", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Robert", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Stalnaker", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1973, |
| "venue": "Linguistic Inquiry", |
| "volume": "4", |
| "issue": "2", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Richmond Thomason and Robert Stalnaker. A semantic theory of adverbs. Linguistic Inquiry, 4(2), 1973.", |
| "links": null |
| } |
| }, |
| "ref_entries": { |
| "FIGREF0": { |
| "text": "Tina didn't work in New York. (12) Tina didn't drink because of her husband.", |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "uris": null, |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF1": { |
| "text": "loc : ( n~reg: {0N(Ohio), IN(Kentucky) })) 'n~' is the intersection operation over regions. Cf. Section 5.2 for formal discussion. Now, since the filler of a Location role is always a single region, the anaphoric potential illustrated in (20) Ls explained. It would remain unexplained if each locative introduced a distinct predication.", |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "uris": null, |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF3": { |
| "text": "BOSTON), however.", |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "uris": null, |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF4": { |
| "text": "Ex sub:(rlxreg:{R1,R2,..., P~}) (24) eup:(l'l=reg:{R1,R2,..., P~}) ),", |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "uris": null, |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF5": { |
| "text": "~ eub:R eup:R') A (PRED ... loc:R)) (PRED ... loc:R')) This is simply a statement of upward monotonicity for the location arguments of relations. The schemata (24) and (25) together justify the inference schema This accounts for the correctness of the locativesimplifying inferences in (4) and (5). The other sort of simplifying inference given in Section 2 was that exemplified in (3), the inference from Tom's working in Boston to Tom's working. In NFLT this inference is formulated thus: (NORK ag't:TOM loc:IN(BOSTON)) (27) .-. (woRK ag~:T0X)", |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "uris": null, |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF6": { |
| "text": "(WORK agt:TOM loc:IN(~P[)) A (28) (W0RK ag~:TOM loc:IN(BOSTON)) )", |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "uris": null, |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF7": { |
| "text": "Few cars in Ohio rust.(30) (FEg x (CAR inszance:x loc:IN(0HI0)) (RUST thm:x))There is a reasonable competing (predicative) analysis of the use of adnominal locatives, however.", |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "uris": null, |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF9": { |
| "text": "", |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "uris": null, |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "TABREF0": { |
| "content": "<table><tr><td colspan=\"2\">Even though the simplifying inference in (3) is</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">valid, we must take care, since the complementary</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">(accumulative) inference (7) is INVALID (but cf. the</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">valid (8)):</td></tr><tr><td/><td>AI works in NY.</td></tr><tr><td>(7)</td><td>AI works in Boston.</td></tr><tr><td/><td>./. AI works in NY in Boston.</td></tr><tr><td/><td>AI works in NY.</td></tr><tr><td>(8)</td><td>AI works in Boston.</td></tr><tr><td/><td>.'. Al works in NY and in Boston.</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">Finally, there is what we call the UPWARD MONO-</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">TONICITY of locatives. If a sentence locating some-</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">thing at a region R is true, and if R is contained in</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">the region R ~, then a sentence locating that thing at</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">R ~ is true:</td></tr></table>", |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "text": "AI works on Mass Ave in Boston near MIT AI works near MIT on Mass Ave in Boston Al works near MIT in Boston on Mass Ave Al works in Boston near MIT on Mass Ave AI works in Boston on Mass Ave near MIT Al works on Mass Ave near MIT in Boston", |
| "num": null, |
| "html": null |
| }, |
| "TABREF2": { |
| "content": "<table><tr><td>Jackendoff ([12], Chap.3) is partially devoted to ar-</td></tr><tr><td>ticulating the strong semantic analogy between loca-</td></tr><tr><td>tive phrases and noun phrases. The analogy includes</td></tr><tr><td>quantification, a distinction between definite and in-</td></tr><tr><td>definite reference, deictic reference, and anaphora.</td></tr><tr><td>Jackendoff's programmatic point is that the seman-</td></tr><tr><td>tic status of locatives is therefore the same as that of</td></tr><tr><td>NPs: they both refer and both function as arguments.</td></tr><tr><td>It is noteworthy that locatives have explicitly quan-</td></tr><tr><td>tificational forms, as in:</td></tr><tr><td>(17) Bill sang everywhere Mary sang.</td></tr></table>", |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "text": "This suggests that quantified locatives have the same relationship to simple locatives as general NPs (such as erery small country) have to singular NPs (such as the smallest country, a small country, and Honduras). Though SIMPLE locatives show no scope variation with respect to other scope operators, quantified locatives (such as everywhere and nowhere) clearly do. But this scope is due to the quantification, not to the locative function. Since locatives occupy argument positions in predications, quantified locatives are simply quantifications over those predications, exactly analogous to nonlocative quantifications.", |
| "num": null, |
| "html": null |
| } |
| } |
| } |
| } |
