A Formal Representation A Formal Representation of Concept Composition of Concept Composition

Christian Horn, Tanja Osswald & Daniel Schulzekchorn@phil.uni-duesseldorf.de

tosswald@phil.uni-duesseldorf.de

schulzek@phil.uni-duesseldorf.de

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/)