29.2415, Diss: Linguistic Theories; Pragmatics; Semantics: Lelia Glass: ''Distributivity, lexical semantics, and world knowledge''

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-29-2415. Tue Jun 05 2018. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 29.2415, Diss: Linguistic Theories; Pragmatics; Semantics: Lelia Glass: ''Distributivity, lexical semantics, and world knowledge''

Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Helen Aristar-Dry, Robert Coté,
                                   Michael Czerniakowski)
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Sarah Robinson <srobinson at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2018 12:32:16
From: Lelia Glass [lelia at stanford.edu]
Subject: Distributivity, lexical semantics, and world knowledge

 
Institution: Stanford University 
Program: Department of Linguistics 
Dissertation Status: Completed 
Degree Date: 2018 

Author: Lelia Glass

Dissertation Title: Distributivity, lexical semantics, and world knowledge 

Dissertation URL:  https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004050

Linguistic Field(s): Linguistic Theories
                     Pragmatics
                     Semantics


Dissertation Director(s):
Beth Levin
Christopher Potts
Cleo Condoravdi
Daniel Lassiter

Dissertation Abstract:

A predicate is understood distributively if it is inferred to be individually
true of each member of a plural subject, nondistributively if not. ''Alice and
Bob smiled'' conveys that Alice smiled and Bob smiled (distributive); ''Alice
and Bob met'' conveys that they met jointly (nondistributive); ''Alice and Bob
opened the window'' can describe a situation in which they each did so
(distributive), or one in which they did so only jointly (nondistributive). 

These facts raise a compositional semantics question and a lexical semantics
question. The compositional semantics question has been discussed widely: how
should these sentences be represented semantically? To what extent should such
representations capture inferences about distributivity? The lexical semantics
question has received less attention: which predicates are understood in which
ways? Certainly these inferences are grounded in the events described by these
predicates (''smile'' is distributive because people have their own faces);
but which further predicates behave like ''smile'', like ''meet'', or like
''open the window'', and why? 

To make progress, this dissertation presents the Distributivity Ratings
Dataset, over 2300 verb phrases (built from the verbs of Levin 1993) rated for
their distributivity potential by online annotators. This dataset provides
evidence consistent with a series of hypotheses: that predicates describing
the action of an individual body or mind (''smile'') are distributive given
that individuals have their own bodies and minds; that predicates describing
inherently multilateral actions (''meet'') are nondistributive given that
individuals cannot carry out these actions unilaterally; that causative
predicates (''open a window'', describing an action where the subject causes
the object to change) can (but need not) be nondistributive given that
multiple individuals’ actions may be jointly but not individually sufficient
to cause a result; and finally, that predicates with incremental objects
(objects whose parts correspond to the parts of the event described by the
predicate, as in ''eat a pizza'') can also be nondistributive, given that each
member of a plural subject might carry out the verb event on a different
portion of the object, only jointly adding up to the whole. 

Turning from verb phrases to adjectives, the dissertation draws on tools from
measurement theory to argue that a gradable adjective’s potential for
distributivity depends on the nature of the scale associated with it. An
adjective can be understood nondistributively (as when ''the boxes are heavy''
conveys that the boxes are jointly but not individually heavy) if the scale
associated with the adjective behaves ''positively'' with respect to
concatenation: if the weight of two boxes together exceeds the weight of each
one. That way, the contextual standard for what counts as ''heavy'' can be set
in such a way that two boxes together exceed it, while each box individually
falls short of it — nondistributive.

Turning to the compositional semantics question, the dissertation advocates
for an underspecified semantics in which a predicate is true of each cell of a
contextually supplied cover (set of subparts) of its plural subject. All
inferences about distributivity are framed as inferences about which cover(s)
to entertain, given what is known about the event or property described by the
predicate. This semantic analysis does not explain anything on its own, but
becomes explanatory when combined with a predictive analysis of which
predicates can be understood in which ways.




------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:

              The IU Foundation Crowd Funding site:
       https://iufoundation.fundly.com/the-linguist-list

               The LINGUIST List FundDrive Page:
            http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-29-2415	
----------------------------------------------------------