A Formal Representation A Formal Representation of Concept Composition of Concept Composition
Christian Horn, Tanja Osswald & Daniel [email protected]
Heinrich-Heine-Universität DüsseldorfDFG-Research Unit FOR 600 „Functional Concepts and Frames“
1
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
1 COMPOUNDING IN GERMAN AS CONCEPT COMPOSITION
3
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
2 Types of Nouns and Concept Types
5
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 unique inherently 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
Correlation of concept types and determination ( lexical noun type, requires shift)
non inherently unique inherently 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
• Typological evidence for the noun-type distinction presented e.g. by Gerland & Horn 2010, Ortmann 2009, Ortmann & Handschuh 2004.
• 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 nouns functional nouns
brother, neighbour, finger mother, 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
3 Representation of Nominal Concepts in Frames
9
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
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
womanSEX
female
adult
AGE
MOTHER
brother
MO
TH
ER
mother
pope
4 A Frame Approach to Concept Composition
12
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
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‘)
4.3 Combinations with Relational Heads
15
chapterBOOK
bible chapterBOOK
pieceOBJECT
cake pieceOBJECT
cake
bible
SN + RN >> SN
Kuchenstück lit: Kuchen ‘cake‘ Stück ‘piece‘
IN + RN >> SN
Bibelkapitel lit: Bibel ‘bible‘ Kapitel ‘chapter‘
4.3 Combinations with Relational Heads
16
memberINSTITUTION
adviserBENEFICIENTINSTITUTION
adviserBENEFICIENT
member
manag.INSTITUTION
memberINSTITUTIONINSTITUTION
memberINSTITUTION
manag.
RN + RN >> RN
Mitgliederberater lit: Mitglied ‘member‘ Berater ‘adviser‘
FN + RN >> RN
Vorstandsmitglied lit: Vorstand ‘management‘ Mitglied ‘member‘
4.4 Combinations with Functional Heads
17
roofROOF
roofROOFKremlin
userINSTITUTION
nameNAMEINSTITUTION
nameNAME
user
Kremlin
IN + FN >> IN
Kremldach lit: Kreml ‘Kremlin‘ Dach ‘roof‘
RN + FN >> RN
Benutzername lit: Benutzer ‘user‘ Name ‘name‘
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
chancellorCHANCELLOR wife
WIFECHANCELLORwife
WIFEchancellor
4.4 Combinations with Functional Heads
SN + FN >> SN
Baumstamm lit: 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, Liedanfang19
movie endEND
tree trunkTRUNK
trunkTRUNK
tree
endEND
movie
5 Conclusion
20
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
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 21-74.
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. 386-399.
Löbner, S. (1985): Definites. Journal of Semantics 4, 297-326.
Löbner, S. (submitted): Types of nouns, NPs, and determination.
Petersen, W. & Osswald, T. (2010): A Formal Interpretation of Frame Composition, presentation given at Riga 2010.
22
Thanks for Your Attention!
Thank youfor listening!!!
Special thanks to the German Research Foundation for funding the research unit “Functional Concepts and Frames“ (www.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/fff/)