Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

A Formal Representation of Concept Composition Christian Horn, Tanja Osswald & Daniel Schulzek

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "A Formal Representation of Concept Composition Christian Horn, Tanja Osswald & Daniel Schulzek"— Presentation transcript:

1 A Formal Representation of Concept Composition Christian Horn, Tanja Osswald & Daniel Schulzek Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf DFG-Research Unit FOR 600 „Functional Concepts and Frames“ 1

2 Outline 1)Compounding in German as Concept Composition 2)Types of Nouns and Concept Types 3)Representation of Nominal Concepts in Frames 4)A Frame Approach to Concept Composition 5)Conclusion 2

3 1 COMPOUNDING IN GERMAN AS CONCEPT COMPOSITION 3

4 1.1 Compounding in German Morphologically, compounds in German are  the result of juxtaposing two or more lexems all syntatic categories involved grammatically no upper limit in combining lexemes example: Donaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaftskapitänsmützenhaken  right headed combinations  grammatically determined by the head (as to formation rules for compounding in German cf. Neef 2009)  In this talk: focussing on nominal compounds with two constituents Compounding in cognitive semantics:  Compounding is a special kind of concept combination (cf. Wisniewski 1997) 4

5 2 Types of Nouns and Concept Types 5

6 Traditional noun-type distinction: sortal and relational nouns (Behaghel 1923, Vikner & Jensen 1994, 2002, Partee & Borschev 1983/1997, 2007, among many others). Löbner (1985, submitted) distinguishes four basic underlying noun types corresponding to their concepts: sortal, individual, relational and functional concepts differ with respect to their referential properties such as uniqueness and relationality nouns in use are neither grammatically nor conceptually restricted to the way they are lexically construed >> Type Shift non inherently uniqueinherently unique non inherently relational SORTAL NOUNS (SN) dog, table, adjective INDIVIDUAL NOUNS (IN) sun, weather, proper names inherently relational RELATIONAL NOUNS (RN) sister, leg, blood, modifier FUNCTIONAL NOUNS (FN) father, head, age, subject 2 Types of Nouns and Concept Types 6

7 Correlation of concept types and determination ( lexical noun type,  requires shift) non inherently uniqueinherently unique non inherently relational SORTAL NOUNS (SN) dog, table, adjective indefinite  definite absolute  possessive INDIVIDUAL NOUNS (IN) sun, weather, proper names  indefinite definite absolute  possessive inherently relational RELATIONAL NOUNS (RN) sister, leg, blood, modifier indefinite  definite  absolute possessive FUNCTIONAL NOUNS (FN) father, head, age, subject  indefinite definite  absolute possessive 2 Types of Nouns and Concept Types Noun Types and Grammatical Predispositions

8 Typological evidence for the noun-type distinction presented e.g. by Gerland & Horn 2010, Ortmann 2009, Ortmann & Handschuh Polysemous variants often show differing valences and noun types (Gerland & Horn 2010, Löbner submitted): child 1 ‘descendant (of)’; 2-place relational [RN] 2 ‘non-adult person’; sortal [SN] relational nounsfunctional nouns brother, neighbour, fingermother, head, president One of my fingers hurts.Tom‘s mother works a lot. Our neighbours fight all day.My head hurts. § The brother is calling. § A mother of Tom works a lot. § A finger is broken. § A head of mine hurts. § requires certain contexts of use. 2 Types of Nouns and Concept Types 8

9 3 Representation of Nominal Concepts in Frames 9

10  Frame as meaning representation: appraoches devoloped among others by Minsky, Fillmore, Koenerding  Barsalou (1992): empirically sound format of cognitive representation  Frames in the sense of Barsalou (1992) Recursive attribute-value structures Attributes: Properties of category members (COLOR, SHAPE) Values: specifications of attributes (›red‹, ›round‹) 3.1 Frames in the sense of Barsalou 10

11 Charactericstics of Concept Types sortal nouns: one angular node functional nouns two angular nodes, one determining arc relational nouns: two angular nodes, no determining arc individual nouns one angular node, uniqueness marker  Logical modeling of frames in as directed connected graphs (cf. Petersen 2007) Central node: concept that is represented by the frame (double border) Attributes represented as arcs  functions in the mathematical sense Values represented as nodes  Angular nodes: open arguments concerning the syntax-semantics interface  Round nodes: specifications of conceptually relevant properties or satisfied arguments 3.1 Modeling in Frames in Graphs 11 woman SEX female adult AGE MOTHER brother MOTHER mother pope

12 4 A Frame Approach to Concept Composition 12

13 4.1 Fanselow‘s Analysis of Relational Heads Fanselow (1981):  analysis of German compounding in Montague‘s Grammar  differentiates between sortal and relational nouns  first one who deals with relational heads  one central thesis of interest  If the argument of the head noun is satisfied by the modifier, the type of the modifier determines the type of the compound.  Modification of Fanselow‘s thesis: not generalizable for functional heads 13

14 4.2 Combinations of Concept Types Compounds with underlying relational and functional heads Possible combinations: 14 SN + RN >> SN Kuchenstück (Kuchen ‘cake‘ Stück ‘piece‘) IN + RN >> SN Bibelkapitel (Bibel ‘bible‘ Kapitel ‘chapter‘) RN + RN >> RN Mitgliederberater (Miglied ‘member‘ Berater ‘adviser‘) FN + RN >> RN Vorstandsmitglied (Vorstand ‘management‘ Mitglied ‘member‘) IN + FN >> IN Kremldach (Kreml ‘Kremlin‘ Dach ‘roof‘) RN + FN >> RN Benutzername (Benutzer ‘user‘ Name ‘name‘) FN + FN >> FN Kanzlergattin (Kanzler ‘chancellor‘ Gattin ‘wife‘) SN + FN >> SN / / FN Baumstamm / / Filmende (Baum ‘tree‘ Stamm ‘trunk‘) (Film ‘movie‘ Ende ‘end‘)

15 4.3 Combinations with Relational Heads 15 chapter BOOK bible chapter BOOK piece OBJECT cake piece OBJECT cake bible SN + RN >> SN Kuchenstücklit: Kuchen ‘cake‘ Stück ‘piece‘ IN + RN >> SN Bibelkapitel lit: Bibel ‘bible‘ Kapitel ‘chapter‘

16 4.3 Combinations with Relational Heads 16 member INSTITUTION adviser BENEFICIENT INSTITUTION adviser BENEFICIENT member manag. INSTITUTION member INSTITUTION member INSTITUTION manag. RN + RN >> RN Mitgliederberater lit: Mitglied ‘member‘ Berater ‘adviser‘ FN + RN >> RN Vorstandsmitglied lit: Vorstand ‘management‘ Mitglied ‘member‘

17 4.4 Combinations with Functional Heads 17 roof ROOF roof ROOF Kremlin user INSTITUTION name NAME INSTITUTION name NAME user Kremlin IN + FN >> IN Kremldach lit: Kreml ‘Kremlin‘ Dach ‘roof‘ RN + FN >> RN Benutzername lit: Benutzer ‘user‘ Name ‘name‘

18 4.4 Combinations with Functional Heads FN + FN >> FN Kanzlergattin lit: Kanzler ‘chancellor‘ Gattin ‘wife‘  This modeling is in line with (Petersen & Osswald 2010) for possessive constructions. 18 chancellor CHANCELLOR wife WIFE CHANCELLOR wife WIFE chancellor

19 4.4 Combinations with Functional Heads SN + FN >> SN Baumstammlit: Baum ‘tree‘ Stamm ‘trunk‘ non-functional: § Der Baumstamm der Eiche (the tree trunk of the oak) SN + FN >> FN Filmende lit: Film ‘movie‘ Ende ‘end‘ functional: Das Filmende von „Vom Winde verweht“ (the movie end of Gone with the Wind) morphological, but no referential saturation of the possessor  resulting compound type is functional in contrast to SN-RN compounds: § Das Kuchenstück der Kirschtorte similar examples: Wortbedeutung, Buchtitel, Liedanfang 19 movie end END tree trunk TRUNK trunk TRUNK treeend END movie

20 5 Conclusion 20

21 5 Conclusion and Outlook  Modifier determines the concept type of the compound in most cases Exception: the resulting type of SN-FN compounds can be functional if  modifier saturates the possessor morphologically, but not referentially  modifier determines the category of possessors  Process of composition is adequately modeled with frames Where to go from here  Compounding with non-relational heads  Compounding beyond the lexical level  Transfer results to compounds with more than two constituents 21

22 References Barsalou, L. W. (1992): Frames, Concepts and Conceptual Fields. In: Lehrer, Adrienne; Kittay, Eva F. (eds.): Frames, Fields, and Contrasts. New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, page Fanselow, G. (1981): Zur Syntax und Semantik der Nominalkomposition.Tübingen: Niemeyer. Neef, (2009) (2009): “IE, Germanic: German.” In: Lieber, Rochelle; Stekauer, Pavol (eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Compounding. Oxford: University Press Löbner, S. (1985): Definites. Journal of Semantics 4, Löbner, S. (submitted): Types of nouns, NPs, and determination. Petersen, W. & Osswald, T. (2010): A Formal Interpretation of Frame Composition, presentation given at Riga

23 Thanks for Your Attention! Thank you for listening!!! Special thanks to the German Research Foundation for funding the research unit “Functional Concepts and Frames“ (www.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/fff/)


Download ppt "A Formal Representation of Concept Composition Christian Horn, Tanja Osswald & Daniel Schulzek"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google