Diathesis Alternations and NP Semantics

1
Diathesis Alternations and NP Semantics

• Barbara H. Partee
• University of Massachusetts, Amherst

2
Acknowledgements

• Thanks to the Fulbright Foundation for a
  Fellowship to teach in Moscow in 2005.
• Thanks to many students in classes at RGGU and
  MGU for data and suggestions.
• Thanks to Vladimir Borschev, Elena Paducheva,
  Ekaterina Rakhilina, and Yakov Testelets for
  ongoing discussion.
• This material is based upon work supported in
  part by the National Science Foundation under
  Grant No. BCS-0418311 to B.H. Partee and V.
  Borschev.

3
Abstract

• In this paper we examine the relationships among
  diathesis alternations, the semantics of verbs,
  and the referential status of NPs.
• Some diathesis shifts are argued to involve
  changes in the semantic type of NP arguments,
  including possible alternations between
  referential NPs and property-type NPs.
• We explore applications of this approach to
  alternations of Genitive and Accusative, both
  with intensional verbs like dat and with the
  Genitive of Negation.

4
1. Examples and issues.

• For the purposes of this paper, I take the notion
  of diathesis alternation in a broad sense. I
  include not only familiar alternations of
  syntactic patterns as in examples (1a-b)
• (1) a. The farmers loaded the truck with (the)
  hay.
• b. The farmers loaded (the/some) hay on the
  truck.
• but also alternations of case assignment, as in
  the next examples.

5

• (2) a. On det podrugu. (Neidle 1988,
  p.31)
• He waits girlfriend-acc
• Hes waiting for his girlfriend.
• b. On det otveta na vopros.
• He waits answer-gen to question
• Hes waiting for an answer to the
  question.
• (3) a. On ne polucil pismo.
• he NEG received letter-acc
• He didnt receive the letter.
• b. On ne polucil pisma.
• he NEG received letter-gen
• He didnt receive any letter.

6
Examples and issues, continued.

• Concern the interaction between
• lexical semantic interpretation of the verb in
  its various diathesis frames and
• the semantic interpretation of noun phrase (NP)
  arguments that appear in those frames.
• Long-range goal integration of lexical semantics
  with compositional semantics, (Borschev and
  Partee 1999, 2002, Partee and Borschev 2003).

7
Diatheses and referential differences

• (1a) The farmers loaded the truck with
  (?the/?some) hay.
• (1b) The farmers loaded (the/some) hay on the
  truck.
• In (1a-b) we see a preference for the direct
  object to be definite in either diathesis frame.
• The difference is most pronounced for the role
  which is Means in (1a) (sredstvo -- Apresjan)
  and Patient in (1b) hay is almost obligatorily
  non-specific in (1a) but may be indefinite or
  definite in (1b).

8
Intensional verbs and referential status

• In (2a-b) there is a clear difference in
  referential status of the direct object argument
  in the two cases, and a correlated difference in
  the sense of the verb.
• (2) a. On det podrugu-acc (Neidle 1988)
• Hes waiting for his girlfriend.
• b. On det otveta-gen na vopros.
• Hes waiting for an answer to the
  question.

9
Genitive of Negation and Referential Status

• Similar difference in referential status of the
  object in (3a-b) in this case the verb itself
  does not seem different, but negation together
  with the verb creates a context somehow similar
  to the non-referential complement of dat. This
  possibility was raised by Neidle (1988), Partee
  and Borschev (2004), Kagan (2005). (More on this
  later.)
• (3) a. On ne polucil pismo-acc.
• He didnt receive the letter.
• b. On ne polucil pisma-gen.
• He didnt receive any letter.

10
The Issues

• The questions of concern in this paper are to
  what extent the semantic interpretation of the NP
  is part of, or is affected by, the semantics
  connected with the diathesis alternations seen in
  such pairs, and how the semantics of the
  diatheses are connected with the lexical
  semantics of the verb.

11
Not only diathesis alternations

• Correlation between different senses of a verb
  and different interpretations of an NP argument
• (4) John is looking for a blue Volkswagen.
• a. He cant remember where he parked it.
• b. If he finds one, he will buy it for his
  wife.
• Look for in (4a) denotes a relation between two
  entities in (4b) it denotes a relation between
  an entity (the agent) and some intensional object
  (Montague 1973), perhaps a property as argued by
  Zimmermann (1993).
• (4a-b) are not normally classed as diathesis
  alternation, but the interaction of verb and NP
  interpretations is similar.

12
Filip Verbal affixes, diathesis shift, and
quantificational effects

• Filip (In press) has explored some cases that
  were first discussed in Partee (1991, 1995), in
  which verbal affixes together with diathesis
  shifts can be used to express various kinds of
  quantificational and closely related meanings
  like measure, distributivity, totality,
  exclusivity or exhaustiveness.

13
Filip Verbal affixes, diathesis shift, and
quantificational effects, continued.

• One example is the use of the Czech prefix po- ,
  discussed in Partee (1991, 1995) and illustrated
  here by examples (5a-b) from Filip (In press)
• (5) a. Maloval hesla (na sténu). Czech
• paint.past.impf.3sg slogan.acc (on wall)
• He painted (the/some) slogans (on the
  wall).
• b. PO-maloval sténu hesly.
• tot-paint.past. 3sg wall.acc
  slogans.inst
• He covered the wall with slogans.
• c. PO-maloval hesla na sténu.
• tot-paint.past.pf.3sg slogan.pl.acc on
  wall.sg.acc He covered (the/some)
  slogans on the wall.

14
a. Maloval hesla-acc (na sténu). b.
PO-maloval sténu-acc hesly-instr.

• When po- is applied to an imperfective verb with
  a meaning like write, draw, etc., which
  takes an object of creation (5a), the resulting
  perfective verb in (5b) takes as its direct
  object the optional locative complement of the
  base verb, and the direct object of the base verb
  is demoted to an optional instrumental complement
  of the prefixed verb.
• The meaning of the perfective verb pomaloval in
  (5b) is he painted all over X or he covered X
  with painting. Hence, the prefix po- is in a
  certain sense quantificational but at a lexical
  rather than a syntactic level (Partee 1995).
• Note the different interpretations of the bare NP
  hesla the/some slogans as direct object of the
  imperfective verb in (5a), and in instrumental
  form in (5b). In (5b) it can only be indefinite,
  and in a sense is even more indefinite than it
  can be in (5a).

15
Lines of investigation

• Formal semanticists who have studyied connections
  between verb semantics and the semantics of NP
  arguments have emphasized quantificational
  properties,
• relation between aspectual properties of verbs
  and the count/mass distinction
• (Krifka, Bach, Dowty, Filip, Partee).
• Paducheva correlations between decreased
  assertiveness (snjataja utverditelnost) in
  sentences and decreased referential status in
  NPs.
• Yanko diathesis alternations correlating with
  Theme-Rheme structure (also in recent work of
  Levin and Rappaport Hovav, below).

16
Debates about semantics of diathesis alternations

• Formal semanticists have recently begun seeking
  arguments to distinguish between diathesis
  alternations that carry genuine semantic
  distinctions and those that may carry only
  Theme-Rheme structure distinctions (Krifka 2004).
  
• An example of the difficulty of sorting out such
  factors can be seen in debates concerning
  semantics and pragmatics of the Dative
  Alternation in English (6a-b).
• (6) a. Ann sold the car to Beth
• NP0 V NP2 to NP1
• b. Ann sold Beth the car
• NP0 V NP1 NP2
• The double object construction in (6b) is argued
  by Levin and Rappaport Hovav and by Bresnan to be
  motivated largely to make the dative argument
  the Theme.

Rheme
Theme
17
(6) a. Ann sold the car to Beth NP0 V NP2
to NP1 b. Ann sold Beth the car NP0 V
NP1 NP2

• On Krifkas analysis, the lexical semantics of
  many of the verbs that occur in both frames of
  (6a-b) is a manner of action.
• The construction in (6a) contributes an
  entailment that NP0 caused NP2 to go to NP1.
• The construction in (6b) contributes an
  entailment that NP0 caused NP1 to have NP2.
• Some verbs, like give and sell, have so much
  information in their lexical semantics that the
  constructions contribute nothing new, and the
  sentences in the two frames end up
  truth-conditionally equivalent in this case, it
  is especially likely that differences in
  Theme-Rheme structure will be the most salient
  differences.
• But in other cases, as with different sorts of
  verbs of causation of motion, like throw vs.
  push, the semantic difference between the two
  frames may be quite noticeable.

18
(6) a. Ann sold the car to Beth NP0 V NP2
to NP1 b. Ann sold Beth the car NP0 V
NP1 NP2

• Most relevant to this paper, we see the grounds
  for a prediction of a difference in referential
  status to arise in certain cases.
• Consider the two subparts of the interpretations,
  
• NP2 to go to NP1 for (6a) vs. NP1 to have NP2
  for (6b)
• In the first, NP2 must exist throughout the
  action in the second, NP2 may come into
  existence as a result of the action.
• Krifka shows cases where this results in only one
  of the two diatheses being possible with some
  NPs.
• (7) a. The explanation gave a headache to
  Susan.
• b. The explanation gave Susan a headache.
• The headache does not exist throughout the event,
  so only the (7b) frame (cause to have) is
  appropriate for less referential headache.

19

• In the case of the Dative Alternation, we see the
  situation that the semantics of the two diatheses
  permits cases in which the referential status of
  NP2 differs, but does not require them to differ.
  A fully referential NP2 is possible in both
  frames, while non-referential NP2 is possible
  only in construction (6b).

20
Still to come

• In the second half of the paper, we look at the
  interaction of indefiniteness and decreased
  referential status of NPs with diathesis
  alternations and verbal semantics.

21
Referential Status in formal semantics

• In formal semantics there has been a great deal
  of work on NP interpretations, including much
  work on
• quantification,
• definiteness and indefiniteness
• kind-denoting NPs
• property-denoting NPs
• type-shifting among different possible
  interpretations of NPs
• and recently on semantic typology and different
  kinds of indefinite and quantificational NPs.

22
Generalized Quantifiers

• Classic formal semantics adopted Montagues
  proposal (Montague 1973) for the semantics of
  Noun Phrases (NPs). Every NP was interpreted as
  denoting a Generalized Quantifier, i.e. a set of
  sets, type ,t (strictly, a set of
  properties, type ,t.)

23
NP interpretations Montague

• Some NP interpretations on Montagues analysis
• John ?PP(j) (the set of all of Johns
  properties)
• every student ?P?xstudent(x) ? P(x)
• (the set of all of properties that every student
  has)
• a student ?P?xstudent(x) P(x)
• (the set of properties that at least one student
  has)
• the king ?P ?xking(x) ?y ( king(y) ? y x)
  P(x))
• (the set of properties which the one and only
  king has)

24
Indefinites

• What could indefinite mean in such a framework?
  The need for such a distinction first arose in
  discussions of the prohibition of definite NPs
  in English existential there-sentences see the
  contrast between the acceptable sentences in (9)
  and the sentences in (10), which are anomalous
  without special contexts.
• (9) a. There is a new problem.
• b. There are three/many/several/few/no
  semantics textbooks.
• (10) a. There is every/neither/the linguistics
  student.
• b. There are most/both/the three democratic
  governments.

25

• No intuitive notion of definite vs.
  indefinite explains why some quantifiers, like
  three and many, pattern with indefinites while
  others, like every, most, and both, pattern with
  definites. Milsark (1974, 1977) provided the
  kernel of a semantic explanation, dividing
  determiners into weak and strong, which was
  further developed by Barwise and Cooper (1981)
  and by Keenan (1987).

26
Semantic explanation Milsark, Barwise and
Cooper, Keenan

• Definition (Keenan 1987) A determiner D is a
  basic existential determiner if for all models M
  and all A,B ? E,
• D(A)(B) D(A?B)(E).
• English test Det CN VP is true iff Det CN
  which VP exist(s) is true.

27
Examples

• (i) Three is an existential determiner Three
  cats are in the tree iff three cats which are in
  the tree exist.
• (ii) Every is not existential
• Suppose there are 5 cats, and 3 are in the tree.
  Then
• Every cat is in the tree is false but Every
  cat which is in the tree exists is true.

28
Existential Symmetric

• Basic existential determiners symmetric
  determiners.
• One can prove, given that all determiners are
  conservative (Barwise and Cooper 1981), that
  Keenans basic existential determiners are
  exactly the symmetric determiners.
• Symmetry A determiner D is symmetric iff for all
  A, B, D(A)(B) D(B)(A).

29
Weak and Strong Determiners

• The determiners three, a, some, no, at least
  three, exactly three, at most three are all weak.
  
• The determiners the, the three, every, both,
  most, neither are all strong.
• These semantic definitions laid a successful
  groundwork for a great deal of further research
  on the semantics of weak and strong NPs and their
  distribution (Büring, de Hoop, Partee, Rullmann).

30
Property-type NP interpretations

• While some properties of weak and strong NPs
  can be accounted for within the theory of
  generalized quantifiers, as in the account above,
  it has been argued that in some cases, weak NPs
  are really of property type (Montagues type
  , functions from possible situations to
  sets of entities), rather than generalized
  quantifiers.
• Property-type analyses of various weak NPs are
  becoming increasingly common in Western formal
  semantics, and they may have an important role to
  play in accounting for non-referential readings
  of NPs in various diatheses, possibly including
  the Russian Genitive of Negation (Partee and
  Borschev, Kagan)

31
Property-type interpretations

• Zimmermann 1993 argues against Montagues
  analysis of intensional transitive verbs like
  seek
• Montague object is intensional generalized
  quantifier, type ,t.
• Zimmermann object is property-type, type
  .

32
Fundamental properties of intensional contexts

• (11) Caroline found a unicorn.
• (extensional, unambiguous)
• (12) Caroline sought a unicorn.
• (intensional, ambiguous)
• Sentences with seek are ambiguous between a
  specific and a non-specific reading (or
  transparent vs. opaque reading). (11) is
  unambiguous, (12) is ambiguous.
• On the opaque reading of (12), the existence of a
  unicorn is not entailed.

33
Fundamental properties of intensional contexts,
continued

• Substitution of extensionally equivalent
  expressions in an intensional context does not
  always preserve truth-value.
• Caroline is looking for a unicorn
• The set of unicorns the set of 13-leaf clovers
• Not entailed Caroline is looking for a 13-leaf
  clover

34
Zimmermanns account

• (Montagues account see written text.)
• Zimmermann we can capture the relevant
  generalizations if we treat definite and
  indefinite arguments of intensional verbs, (but
  not generalized quantifiers) as properties, type
  .
• Zimmermanns proposal is that a verb like seek1
  denotes a relation between an individual and a
  property.

35
Zimmermanns account, continued

• Zimmermann seek a unicorn
• seek(unicorn)
• ( is Montagues intension operator)
• This is a case of NP type-shifting by coercion
  seek demands a property-type argument.
• We know that indefinite NPs easily shift into
  readings, as was shown for predicate
  nominals in (Partee 1986).
• transparent, or de re, reading quantify in to
  e-type argument position of seek2.

36
(2) a. On det podrugu-acc Hes waiting for
his girlfriend. b. On det otveta-gen.
Hes waiting for an answer.

• In the case of the potentially intensional verb
  dat in (2a-b), we see that its intensional
  genitive-taking variant in (2b) has all the
  properties of English seek.
• Its extensional accusative-taking variant, (2a),
  allows referential NPs and quantificational NPs.
• We predict that genitive should be disallowed
  with essentially quantificational NPs such as
  those formed with kadyj.

37
What about Genitive of Negation?

• Hypothesis (Neidle, Partee Borschev, Kagan)
• Wherever we see Nom/Gen and Acc/Gen alternation
  (under negation, just as under intensional
  verbs)
• Nom or Acc represents an ordinary e-type argument
  position (referential and may be quantified)
• Gen NP is always interpreted as property-type
  , or .

38
Russian Genitive of Negation, continued.

• In the case of Genitive of Negation, the
  construction is not intensional.
• But Russian linguists from Jakobson to Paducheva
  have argued that Genitive-marked NPs have reduced
  referential status, and Western linguists have
  generally claimed that they must be indefinite.
  

39
Kinds of reduced referentiality

• Negation is not really intensional there seem to
  be different kinds of reduced referentiality.
• Intensional NPs existence in possible worlds
• Abstract NPs peace, justice, trouble may exist
  in actual world, but their existence is less
  concrete.
• Quantificational NPs many different kinds, some
  just as real-world existent as a definite NP,
  some not (Paducheva, others)
• Indefinites under negation if non-presuppo-sition
  al, then non-existence may be implied.
• Predicate NPs, Property-type NPs less
  referential just as adjectives are less
  referential.

40
Genitive as a mark of reduced referentiality

• A Genitive NP as an argument of a verb may always
  be less referential in some sense competing
  theories may all be right
• There may well be more than one way for an NP to
  be less referential (much as there are several
  different kinds of imperfective meaning),
  including being quantificational/partitive,
  being modalized/intensional (not necessarily
  actual), being property-type or kind-type or
  abstract

41
Are Gen Neg NPs property-denoting?

• Evidence in favor parallels to ?????.
• (a) ???? ????? ?????.
• (b) ???? ?? ????? ?????.
• (c) ???? ?? ????? ??????.
• Accusative implies actual-world existence,
  Genitive does not.

42
Parallels between Gen Neg and Subjunctive

• From Kagan 2005
• 25 a. Ivan ne pocuvstvoval, cto bylo
  xolodno
• Ivan NEG felt that
  be(past) cold
• Ivan didnt feel that it was cold.
• b. Ivan ne pocuvstvoval, ctoby
  bylo xolodno
• Ivan NEG felt that-subj
  be(past) cold
• 26 a. Ivan ne pocuvstvoval xolod.
• Ivan NEG felt cold(acc)
• Ivan didnt feel the cold.
• b. Ivan ne pocuvstvoval xoloda.
• Ivan NEG felt cold(gen)
• Such parallels support a property-type analysis

43
Problems for property-type analysis

• Evidence casting doubt on property analysis
• (a) ? ?? ?????? ????.
• (b) ? ?? ?????? ????.
• The (b) case causes problems for all
  quantificational approaches to the Genitive of
  Negation, unless we suggest a meaning like any
  trace of Masha.
• (c) ???? ?? ????? ??? ??????.
• (d) ???? ?? ????? ???? ?????.
• Exs. (c-d) may differ in scope, but not in
  intensionality.

44
Possible non-uniform analysis

• There may be more than one way that the reduced
  referentiality of Gen Neg NPs comes about,
  licensed by different classes of verbs. (Cf.
  multiple kinds of Imperfective meanings.) The
  property-type idea may be correct for a number of
  cases, but other quantity-based ideas may be
  better for other cases.
• Work in progress!