Deverbal Nominalization- Constraints on copredication Regine Brandtner, M.A. University of Stuttgart, Germany SFB 732 / Project B1

Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Klaus von Heusinger Project B1: Formation and Interpretation of derived nominals Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Klaus von Heusinger SFB 732: Incremental specification in context collaborative research centre established in 2006 funded by the German National Science Foundation 14 research projects, about 40 researchers (Institute of Natural Language Processing & Institute of Linguistics)

Introduction to deverbal –ung nominals in German: Base mostly transitive verbs, often prefixed: e.g. Absperrung ‘obstruction’ no modal or auxiliary verbs: e.g. *Seiung ‘being’, *Wollung ‘wanting’ Also semantic constraints etc., but they are not that clear

Introduction to deverbal –ung nominals in German: Semantics Entführung ‘kidnapping’ Absperrung ‘obstruction’ Einladung ‘invitation’ Zahlung ‘payment’ EVENT RESULT STATE / OBJECT INFO OBJECT (Medium) RESULT (abstract) Lüftung ‘air conditioning’ Unterführung ‘underpass’ Bedienung ‘waitress’ Verwaltung ‘administration’ Can all be more than one MEANS LOCATION AGENT COLLECTIVE

Introduction to deverbal –ung nominals in German: Indicators for these readings: Event and process indicators: Time frame predicates: beginnen/ abschließen ‘begin’/ ’complete’ Duration: hat 6 Monate gedauert ‘lasted 6 months’ Dates: am 7.Juli ‘July 7th’ Process modifying predicates: vorsichtig ‘cautious’ Iteration: permanent/ wiederholt ‘permanent’/ ‘repeated’ Focus on event and result readings (mostly objects)

Introduction to deverbal –ung nominals in German: Indicators for these readings: Result object indicators: • Physical change: überreichen / erscheinen ‘present’/ ‘appear’ • Location: auf dem Tisch liegen / vorliegen ‘lie on the table’/ ‚be available’ Size, shape etc.: lang, hoch, rot sein ‘be long, high, red’ (based on Ehrich & Rapp 2000) Focus on event and result readings (mostly objects) With which indicators are you working if you annotate the corpus?

Special issue: Copredication  Two of these indicators are in conflict (1) Die [langwierige]EV Übersetzung [brachte mir viel Geld]RE. ‘The tedious translation earned me a lot of money.’ (2) Die [am Montag durchgeführte]EV Messung [belegt]RE, dass der Grenzwert überschritten wurde. ‘The measurement conducted on Monday shows that the critical value was exceeded.’

Classification of the phenomenon nominalization Ambiguity ? Selection of an interpretation out of a given set of senses while cancelling the others  Implication: two disambiguation processes in a row, hence one predication must fail or the nominalization would have to be shifted Keine vagueness, clearly distinct readings  Question: do we really want to establish a theory where a once disambiguated lexical item itself is allowed to change in context?

Classification of the phenomenon nominalization Underspecification / dot objects / local disambiguation? (Bierwisch, Pustejovsky, Solstad & Rossdeutscher) No cancellation of the other options (after the first disambiguation) focus on one of them (others available for reference in the ongoing discourse) Bierwisch: underspecified representation in the lexicon + conceptual knowledge, GL: enriched lexicon entry, S&R: DRS selection  Implication: copredication is not a paradox, every combination should be possible

Question: what about examples like (3) and (4): Underspecification Question: what about examples like (3) and (4): (3) ?Die Absperrung [aus Holz]RE [hat drei Tage gedauert]EV. ‘The wooden obstruction has taken three days.’ (4) ?Die [gemeinsame]EV Bemalung [hat Flecken]RE. ‘The collective painting has stains.’ Bierwisch: underspecified representation in the lexicon + conceptual knowledge, GL: enriched lexicon entry, S&R: DRS selection

A) Predication conflict (concerning the nominal‘s IP in context) Copredication Two main issues: A) Predication conflict (concerning the nominal‘s IP in context) B) Constraints on the combinations of indicators Underspecification has a solution for A), But: we have to define constraints for copredication Bierwisch: underspecified representation in the lexicon + conceptual knowledge, GL: enriched lexicon entry, S&R: DRS selection

Global constraints on copredication Combination of different types: (5) ??Die Leitung der Anwaltskanzlei ist [schwierig]EV.Sie hat [angerufen]agentive ‘The management of the law firm is difficult.It has called.’ (6) ?? Die teure Reinigung [der Kleider]EV [liegt in der Innenstadt]locative. ‘The expensive dry cleaning of the clothes is located in the city centre.’ Sense extensions not with default reading Teuer kann beides sein

Global constraints on copredication Combination of different types: (7) ?Die [regelmäßige]EV Lüftung des Kinderzimmers ist wichtig, aber [kaputt]means. ‘The regular ventilation of the nursery is important, but damaged.’ But: (8) Die Übersetzung war [langwierig]EV … a. und [fehlerlos]Info b. und [liegt jetzt auf dem Tisch]medium. ‘The translation was tedious and faultless/and is on the table now.’ Combination not coming from the event, not always possible because not always all readings available

Local constraints on copredication – some data (9) Die [langwierige]EV Übersetzung [brachte mir viel Geld]RE ‘The tedious translation earned me a lot of money.’  causal relation between the manner of the event and the resulting object Compare: (10) ?Die einfache Übersetzung brachte mir viel Geld ein. ‘The easy translation earned me a lot of money.’ First observations, I just recognized some data, task for the next weeks: make the constraints more explicit (your opinion) Claim: (10) should be worse

Local constraints on copredication – some data (10) ?Die einfache Übersetzung brachte mir viel Geld ein. ‘The easy translation earned me a lot of money.’ Repair / Accomodation: (10’) Die einfache Übersetzung brachte mir dennoch viel Geld ein. ‘The easy translation still earned me a lot of money.’ First observations Claim: (10) should be worse

Local constraints on copredication – some data (11) Die [abblätternde]RE Bemalung [wurde schlampig durchgeführt]EV. ‘The peeling painting (of the wall) was conducted negligently.’  Causal relation Compare: (11’) ?Die abblätternde Bemalung [dauerte 4 Stunden]EV. ‘The peeling painting (of the wall) took four hours.’ We also have that with Simple nouns

Local constraints on copredication – some data (12’) ?Die abblätternde Bemalung [dauerte 4 Stunden]EV. ‘The peeling painting (of the wall) took four hours.’ Repair / Accomodation: (12’’) Die abblätternde Bemalung [dauerte dennoch 4 h]EV. ‘The peeling painting (of the wall) still took four hours.’ We also have that with Simple nouns

Local constraints on copredication – some data (13) Die [täuschend echte]RE Fälschung [dauerte lange]EV. ‘The deceptively real-looking imitation took a long time.’ Compare (13’) ?Die [schlechte]RE Fälschung [dauerte lange]EV. ‘The bad imitation took a long time.’ We also have that with Simple nouns

Local constraints on copredication – some data (13’) ?Die [schlechte]RE Fälschung [dauerte lange]EV. ‘The bad imitation took a long time.’ Repair /Accomodation (13’) Die [schlechte]RE Fälschung [dauerte dennoch lange]EV. ‘The bad imitation still took a long time.’ We also have that with Simple nouns

Local constraints on copredication – some data Other repairs Lunch was delicious, but took forever. (Asher 2007) (15) Obwohl die Messung von Studenten [durchgeführt wurde]EV ist sie sehr [aussagekräftig]RE. ‘Although the measurement was conducted by students it is very significant.’ Better than lunch was delicious and took forever.

Local constraints on copredication – some data Simple nouns: ?The newspaper was founded in 1878 and is printed in Frankfurt. (13‘) The newspaper was founded in 1878 and is typed in Sütterlin . Repair / Accommodation: (13’’) The newspaper was founded in 1878 and is still typed in Sütterlin . We also have that with Simple nouns

Local constraints on copredication – some data (14) ?Die Übersetzung [liegt auf dem Tisch]RE - sie hat [6 Monate gedauert]EV. ‘The translation was on the table - it had taken 6 months.’  Expected narration structure violated Repair / Accommodation: (14‘) Die Übersetzung [liegt endlich auf dem Tisch]RE  sie hat wirklich [6 Monate gedauert]EV. ‘The translation was finally on the table  it had really taken 6 months.’ Temporal strcuture Justification of endlich

Local constraints on copredication – some data (15) Die Übersetzung war [langwierig]EV und [liegt jetzt endlich auf dem Tisch]RE. ‘The translation was tedious and is finally on the table now.’  Construction of a relation between the manner of a past event and the present Still better (16) Die Übersetzung war [langwierig]EV, [liegt jetzt aber endlich auf dem Tisch]RE. ‘The translation was tedious, but is finally on the table now.’

Aims and open questions: Evaluate existing theories on nominalization and polysemy concerning copredication Make the constraints on copredication more explicit Verify the acceptability of the examples by questionnaires Collect more ‘real’ examples from corpora ? Which indicators do you use? ? (How) can we search for copredication examples directly? ? Comments / suggestions / severe criticism? THANK YOU!!

References: Asher, N. 2008. A web of words: Lexical meaning in context. Ms., UT-Austin Bierwisch, M. 1989. “Event Nominalization: Proposals and Problems“. In: W. Motsch (ed.). Wortstruktur und Satzstruktur. Berlin, 1- 73 Brandtner, R. 2008. Meaning Transfer and the Compositional Semantics of Nominalizations. In: SinSpeC. Working Papers of the SFB 732 "Incremental Specification in Context", ed. Florian Schäfer. Online Publikationsverbund der Universität Stuttgart (OPUS) Brandtner, R. & von Heusinger, K. (submitted). Nominalization in Context - Conflicting Readings and Predicate Transfer. submitted to: Artemis Alexiadou &Monika Rathert (eds.). Nominalizations across Languages and Frameworks. Berlin: deGruyter (Interface explorations) Cruse, D. A. 2000. Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press Ehrich, V. & Rapp, I. 2000. Sortale Bedeutung und Argumentstruktur: ung- Nominalisierungen im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 19: 245303.

Heid, U. et al. 2007. Indicators for sortal readings of German nominalizations with –ung: properties and extraction from corpora. Paper presented at the SFB 732 colloquium “Theoretical and Computational Perspectives on Underspecification”, University of Stuttgart, 3.11.2007. Nunberg, G. 2004. The Pragmatics of Deferred Interpretation. In: The Handbook of Pragmatics, eds. Laurence Horn & Gregory Ward, 344364. Oxford: Blackwell Pustejovsky, J. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Roßdeutscher, A. , Kamp, H., Solstad, T. & Reyle, U. 2007. Lexical and supra-lexical underspecification rooted in a dm-based theory of word formation. Paper presented at the SFB 732 colloquium “Theoretical and Computational Perspectives on Underspecification”, Universität Stuttgart, 3.11.2007. Solstad, T. 2008. Constructing anaphoric relations. Manuskript, Universität Stuttgart Weiland, H. 2009. "Empirische Untersuchungen zu pragmatischen Bedingungen für Bedeutungsverschiebungen im Deutschen". Magisterarbeit, Universität Stuttgart

Appendix: An alternative analysis of copredication (using Nunberg’s predicate transfer) Nunberg’s predicate transfer (1) i. I am parked out back. ii. I am {the owner of a car that is parked out back}  predicate transfer on the VP instead of shift on the pronoun (Nunberg 2004) Test for transfer position: (2) i. Ij am {the owner of a car that is parked out back}j and have been waitingj for 15 minutes. ii. #I am {the owner of a cari that is parked out back} and may not starti. • I think I won’t convince you of this analysis, since with dot objects, you don’t really need it.

Copredication with simple nouns (Nunberg 2004): (3) i. Roth is [Jewish]person and [widely read]books. ii. Roth is Jewish and {a person whose books are [widely read] books} person Application to derived nominals (Brandtner & von Heusinger)  Second indicator is enriched to match the requirements of the first one: (4) i. Die [am Montag durchgeführte]EV Messung [belegt]RE, dass... ‘The measurement conducted on Monday shows that …’ ii. Die [am Montag durchgeführte]EV Messung {hat Resultate, die [belegen]RE }EV, dass... {has results that [show]...}  Only one interpretation for the nominal