Meaning ? Text Theory: Recent Developments

1
Meaning ? Text Theory Recent Developments

• Leonid L. Iomdin
• Computational Linguistics Laboratory, Institute
  for Information Transmission Problems, Russian
  Academy of Sciences

2
Abstract

• The talk will cover important contributions to
  MTT by the Moscow Semantic School
• a new theory of lexical functions by Jury
  Apresjan, which shows in particular that even
  syntactically-driven lexical functions of the
  Oper-Func family have lexical meanings of their
  own and are therefore semantically motivated
• an extended theory of semantic valences by Igor
  Boguslavsky, which offers a broad generalization
  of the notion of valence and is used to explain
  complex semantic interactions of lexical units in
  natural language utterances
• 3) a theory of microsyntax by Leonid Iomdin,
  which provides a theoretical basis for a uniform
  description and treatment of syntactic idioms as
  well as a variety of minor type syntactic
  phenomena.

3
Plan

1. MTT in brief
2. Lexical Functions the modern view
3. Theory of Valence new approaches
4. Microsyntax in Pursue of the Integrated
   Description of Language

4
1. MTT in brief
5
Classical Version of MTT

• Object of modeling the phenomenon of language
  command
• The overall view of language in MTT is extremely
  simple. The language is a means with the help of
  which its speakers perform two operations
• 1) They communicate their ideas to other people,
  i.e. they code certain senses with texts that
  express them (text production, generation,
  synthesis)
• 2) They understand ideas of other people, i.e.
  they perform the reverse operation of extracting
  senses from the text perceived (text
  understanding, or analysis).

6
Classical Version of MTT

• MTT can be viewed as a logical device simulating
  these two operations in their simplest
  manifestations, associated exclusively with the
  knowledge of the language (the dictionary and the
  grammar).
• Even though wholly unrestricted communication
  without the knowledge of the external world, the
  dialogue partner, communication situation etc,
  consideration of these factors go far beyond
  linguistic models in the proper sense.

7
Classical Version of MTT

• Of these two operations, the active operation of
  text production is viewed as more important the
  phenomenon of language acquisition manifests here
  in full.

8
Classical Version of MTT

• This phenomenon consists of three human
  abilities
• The ability of choosing appropriate language
  units that express the required meaning. It is
  ensured by the speakers knowledge of word
  senses.
• The ability to correctly combine linguistic units
  that have the required meaning.
• The ability to paraphrase ones utterances
  retaining its content.

9
Classical Version of MTT

• One of the main theses of classical MTT is as
  follows world languages dispose of several
  dozens of very abstract meaninfs like high
  degree, beginning, causation, liquidation
  etc., called Lexical Functions.
• The choice of a concrete word W to express this
  meaning is fully determined by the lexical
  properties of its argument X, with which W
  combines. We say ????????? ???? black darkness
  and ??????? ?????? dead silence, but not
• ??????? ???? and ????????? ??????.

10
Classical Version of MTT

• Hence, the choice of W for value of this LF of X
  is semantically unmotivated, i.e. idiomatic.

11
2. Lexical Functions the Modern View
12
Lexical Functions Correction of the General Idea

• In the MTT, lexical functions of the
  OPER-LABOR-FUNC are considered to be semantically
  empty and phraseologically bound, so that the
  choice of a verb as a value of a given LF appears
  to be semantically unmotivated.
• There are certain reservations, however. Melcuk
  and Zholkovsky say that OPERs, FUNCs and
  LABORs are verbs that turn semantically empty in
  the context of the keyword.

13
Lexical Functions Correction of the General Idea

• Apresjan assumes that any verb of the
  OPER-LABOR-FUNC family has its own lexical
  meaning (i.e. it can never be semantically
  empty), which is why its choice for the role of a
  given LF for an argument is semantically
  motivated, though not always free. The extent of
  semantic motivation is different from different
  LFs.

14
Lexical Functions Correction of the General Idea

• In somewhat more precise terms, the choice of a
  specific word L1 as value of a function F1 whose
  argument is noun X is partially motivated by the
  general meaning of F1, the lexical meaning of L1
  and the fact that X belongs to a specific class
  or subclass of the fundamental semantic
  classification of predicates.

15
Lexical Functions Correction of the General Idea

• It is growing with transition from OPERs to
  LABORs and FUNCs, and within any of the classes
  it grows from smaller index numbers to bigger
  index numbers. For instance, OPER1 as a whole is
  semantically less meaningful and less motivated
  than OPER2 an obvious reason being than the
  number of words representing OPER1 is many times
  larger than that of OPER2.

16
Lexical Functions Correction of the General Idea

• Apresjan further showed that all words that act
  as values of certain lexical functions for
  specific argument words are semantically
  meaningful and accordingly have their own lexical
  meanings. The effect of emptiness emerges due to
  the fact that the meaning of the LF like OPER1
  and OPER2 is fully included into the meaning of
  the keyword.

17
Lexical Functions Correction of the General Idea

• For example, if one considers words with the
  meaning of a speech act, the value of OPER1 for
  these words is likely to be ?????? give (in the
  metaphorical sense of transferring an immaterial
  object) ?????? ?????, ??????????, ????????,
  ??????, ???????, ????????????, ????????,
  ??????????, ?????, ??????, ???????, ??????????,
  ???????????, ????????????, ????????????, ?????,
  ????????, ???????? give a vow, instruction,
  interview, oath, command, promise, explanation,
  answer, order, permission, elucidation, advice,
  consent, directions etc. Why?

18
Lexical Functions Correction of the General Idea

• As is known, no speech act is possible without
  the Speaker (A1), Information Content (A2) and
  the Addressee (?3). The semantic role of the
  Addressee eventually amounts to the role of the
  Recipient an Addressee is the recipient of a
  communication. But the Recipient is the third
  actant (?3) of the verb ?????? in the sense of
  physical transmission, as in ?? ??? ??? ????? he
  gave me a book. Accordingly, the choice of
  ?????? for OPER1 of speech acts is not
  accidental the recipient of a physical action
  transforms legitimately into an Addressee of an
  information action when we move from the physical
  sense of the verb ?????? to the lexical
  functional sense.

19
Lexical Functions Correction of the General Idea

• OPER2 from action names like ???????? control,
  that presuppose the domination of the second
  participant of the situation (patient) by the
  first one (Agent), is more often than note
  represented by the verb ????????????
  ???????????? ????????, ??????, ?????, ???????,
  ?????????????, ???????, ????????, ????????,
  ???????, ????????, ???????, ????????, ?????????,
  ??????, ????????, ???????????, ????????,
  ??????????, ??????, ?????, ??????????????, ?????,
  ??????, ???????, ??????. be subject to
  aggression, arrest, attack, boycott, shelling,
  persecution, pressure, interrogation, banishment,
  criticism, torture, punishment, raid, insult,
  beating, whipping, biting, censure, fine. Why?

20
Lexical Functions Correction of the General Idea

• The verb ???????????? has a passive meaning and
  presupposed a participant of the situation who is
  affected by another participant who has power or
  authority.

21
Lexical Functions Correction of the General Idea

• Accordingly, if you fix the arguments of an LF
  (e.g. OPER1, and one of its expressions (e.g.
  ??????), than we can see that these arguments are
  words of a sufficiently uniform semantic class.
  This is accounted for by a general law of
  semantic agreement, which demands that the
  meanings of combining words had a common
  component of meaning. Then if we take a noun, it
  must semantically agree with the expressions of
  all LFs possible for it.

22
Lexical Functions Correction of the General Idea

• In this way, the update theory of LFs acquires
  the main property of any theory the predicting
  power. Knowing semantic classes and a universal
  set of LFs, we can form correct lexicographic
  expectations (in the form of probabilistic
  forecasts) even about partially non-free
  combinability of words. This upgrades the work of
  a lexicographer to a new level from individual
  description of the material to a systemic one.

23
3. Theory of Valence new approaches
24
Theory of Valence new approaches

• Arguments (actants) of predicates have two
  important properties regarding the correspondence
  between the syntactic and semantic structure.
• The first property concerns syntactic positions
  the arguments occupy with respect to the
  predicate.
• The second property is related to the
  correspondence between their positions in the
  syntactic and semantic structures.

25
Theory of Valence new approaches

• In the prototypical case, arguments are directly
  subordinated to their predicates and occupy
  positions of the subject and direct or indirect
  object. Valence slots filled in this way are
  called active.

26
Theory of Valence new approaches

• In non-prototypical cases, arguments can
  syntactically subordinate their predicate
  (passive valence slots) and even have no
  immediate syntactic link with it (distant, or
  discontinuous valence slots).
• These types of valence slots are mostly
  characteristic of adjectives, adverbs and nouns.

27
Theory of Valence new approaches

• A number of linguistic concepts are related,
  directly or indirectly, to the notion of actant.
  However, usually only prototypical active
  valency instantiation is taken into account. If
  one includes into consideration passive and
  discontinuous valency slot filling, the area of
  actant-related phenomena expands greatly. Some of
  these phenomena will be discussed below to show
  that the notions of diathesis and conversion
  require broader generalization.

28
Theory of Valence new approaches

• We will approach this subject from the position
  of Moscow Semantic School (MSS). It intersects,
  to a certain extent, with the theory of Formal
  Semantics (FS).

29
Theory of Valence new approaches

• The main similarity between MSS and FS lies in
  the recognition of the fact that the argument
  structure of the sentence plays the role of the
  semantic glue which combines the meanings of
  words together.
• FS took in this revolutionary idea in the
  beginning of the 70s from R. Montague (Partee
  1966).

30
Theory of Valence new approaches

• Starting with the 8th issue of Machine
  translation and applied linguistics (1964),
  which initiated the Meaning Text approach in
  the Soviet Union, and subsequent publications on
  the Explanatory Combinatorial Dictionary, it was
  explicitly claimed that the semantic definition
  of many words contains valence slots for the
  arguments. In the semantic definition, these
  slots are represented by variables.
• To construct the semantic structure of the
  sentence, one has to identify the actants with
  the help of the Government Pattern (?
  Subcategorization Frame) and substitute them for
  the variables.

31
Theory of Valence new approaches

• The differences between the MSS and FS approaches
  consist, mostly, in the aim, object and tools of
  semantic analysis.
• For MSS, the meaning definition of each
  linguistic unit is of primary importance and
  should be carried out in maximum detail (Apresjan
  1999).
• This definition is formulated in a natural
  language it may be simplified and standardized,
  but must be sufficient for capturing subtle
  semantic distinctions. Rules of meaning
  amalgamation are devised to closely interact with
  semantic definition of words.

32
Theory of Valence new approaches

• FS does not make it its aim to semantically
  define all meaningful units of language. This
  task is relegated to the lexicon, while FS is
  more interested in the mechanisms of meaning
  amalgamation than in the meanings as such.
• For meaning representation, it uses a logical
  metalanguage which is less suitable for
  describing the spectrum of linguistically
  relevant meanings.
• On the other hand, this metalanguage is much more
  convenient for describing logical properties of
  natural languages than the semantic language of
  MSS.

33
Theory of Valence new approaches

• However, one cannot describe the way lexical
  meanings are put together without disposing of
  the detailed semantic definition of each word.
• We proceed from the assumption that if word A
  semantically affects word B then B should contain
  a meaning component for A to act upon.

34
Theory of Valence new approaches

• To give one example, the Longman Dictionary of
  Contemporary English defines accent as the way
  someone pronounces the words of a language,
  showing which country or which part of a country
  they come from.

35
Theory of Valence new approaches

• So, southern accent is interpreted as the way
  somebody pronounces the words of a language,
  showing that the speaker is from the South.
• However, this definition does not explain the
  combinability of this word with intensifiers
  strong ltheavy, pronounced, slightgt accent. It
  does not contain any quantifiable component that
  is affected by these adjectives. What do these
  adjectives intensify? When we say that somebody
  speaks English with a heavy ltslightgt Essex accent
  we mean that his pronunciation of English words
  (a) is typical for people from Essex and (b) is
  very ltslightlygt different from the standard.

36
Theory of Valence new approaches

• This is a good reason for revising the definition
  of accent and including the component different
  in this definition
• X has a A accent (in B) the way X pronounces
  the words of language B is different from the way
  speakers of B usually pronounce them and typical
  for speakers of language, group or locality A.

37
Theory of Valence new approaches

• For MSS, the starting point is the semantic
  analysis of the situation denoted by the given
  word. Analytical semantic definition of this word
  is constructed according to certain requirements.
  In this respect, all types of words verbs,
  nouns, adjectives, adverbs, prepositions, etc.
  are on equal footing and obey the same principles
  of description.

38
Theory of Valence new approaches

• For a word to have a certain valence it is
  necessary, though insufficient, that a situation
  denoted by this word should contain a
  corresponding participant in the intuitively
  obvious way.
• From this point of view, not nearly all
  generalized quantifiers are eligible for having a
  valence filled by a verbal phrase. Noun phrases
  twenty students and many of the students may both
  form a sentence when combined with a one-place
  verb phrase (e.g. were late for the exam) and
  therefore are generalized quantifiers. However,
  only in the second case (many of) are we prepared
  to postulate a semantic valence filled by a
  verbal phrase.

39
Theory of Valence new approaches

• Let us assume that we have a good dictionary
  which contains definitions of all meaningful
  linguistic units. What else should we know in
  order to combine the meanings of these units so
  that to obtain the semantic structure of the
  sentence?
• The main mechanism of meaning amalgamation is
  instantiation of valence slots. A set of valence
  slots of a word is determined by its semantic
  definition. An obligatory participant of the
  situation denoted by the word opens a valence
  slot if this participant is expressed together
  with this word in a regular way (Melcuk
  2004a,b).

40
Theory of Valence new approaches

• It is often believed that valences are primarily
  needed for the description of government
  properties of words. It is this task that
  motivates the creation of numerous valence
  dictionaries. We put a different emphasis
  valences are mainly needed for uniting meanings
  of words to form the semantic structure of the
  sentence.

41
Theory of Valence new approaches

• Valence slot filling can be considered as
  semantic glue which connects meanings of words.
  We assume that if there is a syntagmatic semantic
  link between two words, then in most cases one of
  them fills a valence slot of the other, or, more
  precisely, the meaning of one of these words
  contains a predicate whose argument makes part of
  the meaning of the second one, as we saw in the
  accent example.

42
Theory of Valence new approaches

• There are three types of valence slots active,
  passive, and discontinuous ones (Boguslavsky
  2003).
• An active valency slot of predicate L is filled
  with sentence elements which are syntactically
  subordinated to L.
• A passive valency slot is filled with elements
  that syntactically subordinate L.
• The elements that fill a discontinous valence
  slot do not have any direct syntactic link with
  L.

43
Theory of Valence new approaches

• Active valency slots are well fit for solving the
  problem of slot filling. First of all, this fact
  manifests itself in that each valence slot has
  its own set of surface realizations. If a word
  has several valency slots, their means of
  realization, as a rule, clearly contrast.
  Different semantic actants are marked by
  different means cases, prepositions,
  conjunctions.
• However, this is not an absolute rule. Sometimes,
  different valency slots of the same predicate can
  be filled in the same way. The best known example
  are the genitive subjects and objects of nouns
  amor patris, invitation of the president. Cf.
  also prepositionless first and second complements
  of the type Give Mary a book Answer the question
  vs. answer nothing.

44
Theory of Valence new approaches

• A rarer example is provided by Russian words
  ?????????? sufficient and ??????????
  necessary that can fill both valence slots by
  means of the same conjunction ????? in order
  to.

45
Theory of Valence new approaches

• A rarer example is provided by Russian words
  ?????????? sufficient and ??????????
  necessary that can fill both valence slots by
  means of the same conjunction ????? in order
  to.

46
Theory of Valence new approaches

• (2a) ????? Q, ??????????, ????? P for Q it is
  sufficient if P
• (2b) ????? ??? ???????? ?? ??????, ??????????,
  ????? ???-?????? ?????? ?????? (lit. that
  everything blows up sufficient that anyone
  strikes a match)
• it is sufficient to strike a match and
  everything will blow up

47
Theory of Valence new approaches

• In this case, though, the identity of the
  conjunction is made up for with the word order
  distinction
• (2c) ????? ???-?????? ?????? ??????,
  ??????????, ????? ??? ???????? ?? ??????
• lit. that anyone strikes a match sufficient that
  everything blows up
• Curiously enough, in case of ?????????? (but not
  ?????????? necessary) valenc? slot P can be
  filled with the coordinating conjunction a
  phenomenon known in English, too cf. the
  translation of example (2b)
• (2d) ??????????, ????? ???-?????? ?????? ??????,
  ? ??? ??????? ?? ?????? it is sufficient to
  strike a match and everything will blow up

48
Theory of Valence new approaches

• For each class of predicates there exists a
  prototypical syntactic position of their actants
  and a number of non-prototypical positions. The
  prototypical position is the one occupied by the
  actant of a monovalent predicate. If a verb has
  only one valence slot, an actant that fills it
  will most probably be a subject (John sleeps).
  For nouns, the prototypical position is that of a
  genitive complement (as in ?????? ???????? the
  beginning of the concert).
• For predicates with passive valence slots, the
  prototypical position of the actant is that of
  the subordinating word a noun, in case of
  adjectives (interesting book), and a verb, in
  case of adverbs (run fast).

49
Theory of Valence new approaches

• If a predicate has more than one valency slot,
  other actants occupy other, less prototypical
  positions. Which are they?
• Leaving aside directly subordinated actants
  accounted for by the government pattern, there
  are three positions which a non-first actant may
  occupy that of a subordinating verb, a dependent
  of the subordinating verb, and a dependent of the
  subordinating noun.

50
Theory of Valence new approaches

• Subordinating Verb
• An important class of words which have a valency
  slot filled by a subordinating verb are
  quantifiers (all, every, each, some, many of,
  most, majority, minority, etc.). These words have
  at least two valence slots. One of them is filled
  by a noun phrase directly connected to the
  quantifier, and the other by a subordinating
  verbal phrase. For example, the words most and
  majority denote a certain part of a whole R that
  consists of elements having property P and is
  larger than the part of R that does not share
  this property.

51
Theory of Valence new approaches

• Subordinating Verb
• (4) Most people R ltthe majority of the people
  Rgt havent taken P any steps to prepare for a
  natural disaster.
• This sentence means that the group of people who
  havent taken any steps to prepare for natural
  disasters is larger that the group of people who
  have. Those who doubt that most has valency P may
  note that the phrase most people (as opposed to
  phrases like five people) does not mean anything
  unless a property is specified which is shared by
  all members of this group (one cannot imagine a
  film or novel entitled most people).

52
Theory of Valence new approaches

• Dependent of the Subordinating Verb
• This type of valence slot is typical of
  adverbials. For example, by habit has two valence
  slots inherited from the underlying predicate
  habit X the person who has a habit and P
  what X does by habit. Valence P is filled by a
  subordinating verb, and X by its subject.
  Therefore, if we introduce this adverbial in
  sentences which denote the same situation but use
  verbs with different subjects, synonymy
  disappears. In (5a) it is John who has a habit,
  and in (5b) it is Mary
• (5a) By habit, John X borrowed P some money
  from Mary.
• (5b) By habit, Mary X lent P John some money.

53
Theory of Valence new approaches

• Dependent of the Subordinating Noun
• The possessive adjective my in (6) is
  syntactically linked to the noun, but
  semantically is an actant of favorite Xs
  favorite Y is the Y which X likes more than other
  Y-s
• (6) my X favorite color Y.
• Although filling this valence with a possessive
  adjective or a noun in the possessive case
  (Johns favorite color) is more frequent, it can
  also be filled by a prepositional phrase
• (7) a favorite spot Y for picnickers X

54
Theory of Valence new approaches

• Different Actants One Syntactic Position, One
  Actant Different Positions
• Now we have prepared everything to show that one
  syntactic position can correspond to more than
  one valence of the word and one valence can
  correspond to multiple syntactic positions.

55
Theory of Valence new approaches

• Majority / Minority Active and Passive Filling
  of the Same Valence
• One of the valences of majority denotes a whole R
  of which a part is extracted, and another valence
  corresponds to property P, which distinguishes
  the extracted part from the rest of R.
• Prototypically, R is expressed by an of-phrase,
  and P by the subordinating verb. Cf. (9a) where
  the whole class of the opponents of war is
  divided into two parts by the property of voting
  against the prime-minister.
• (9a) A majority of the opponents of war R is
  voting P against the prime-minister.

56
Theory of Valence new approaches

• Majority / Minority Active and Passive Filling
  of the Same Valence
• In (9b) the interpretation of the of-phrase is
  totally different. The opponents of war do not
  form a set a larger part of which has a certain
  property (voting against the prime-minister), as
  it is in (9a).
• Here, being a war opponent is itself a property
  that divides the society into a larger and a
  smaller part. That is, the of-phrase fills
  valence slot P. The same is true for the
  interpretation of minority of supporters.
• (9b) The war in Chechnya is splitting the society
  into the majority of its opponents P and the
  minority of supporters P
• Example (10) demonstrates another case of filling
  valency slot P of majority/minority by a
  subordinated phrase. Here, P is filled by a
  modifying adjective.
• (10) The rural minority ltmajoritygt of the
  population is not happy with the new law.

57
Theory of Valence new approaches

• ??????? strict Prototypical and
  Non-prototypical Filling of the Same Valency
• In Russian, there is a class of adjectives which
  have a valence slot for a beneficiary ???????
  strict, ???????????????? benevolent,
  ??????????????? indulgent, ?????? kind etc.
• (11) ??????? ????? ?????? ? ????? ????? the
  Ivanovs are strict with their children
• When this slot is not filled, the sentence bears
  no information as to who the beneficiary is
• (12a) ?????? ????? ????? Ivanov is very strict.
• (12b) ??????? ???? a strict lady
• These phrases should be understood in the
  universal sense the strictness applies to
  everybody.

58
Theory of Valence new approaches

• ??????? strict Prototypical and
  Non-prototypical Filling of the Same Valency
• However, in the context of relational nouns,
  which denote a person who is in a certain
  relationship to other people, the interpretation
  of this valency slot changes
• (13a) ??????? ???? a strict mother
• (13b) ??????? ??????? affectionate pupils
• (13?) ?????????????? ????????? an exacting boss
• The beneficiary of adjectives is determined quite
  definitely it is a person (or persons) with whom
  a person denoted by the modified noun is in the
  corresponding relation. A strict mother is strict
  with her children, affectionate pupils love their
  teacher, an exacting boss demands something from
  his subordinates.

59
Theory of Valence new approaches

• Here we are dealing with a curious type of the
  syntax-semantics correspondence.
• In Syntactic Structure, the beneficiary valence
  slot of the adjective is not filled, just as the
  valence slot of the noun. However, in SemS these
  slots are not empty but co-indexed, i.e. filled
  by the same variable

60
Theory of Valence new approaches
61
Theory of Valence new approaches

• These examples show that a valency slot of some
  adjectives can be realized in more than one way
  prototypically, by a subordinate prepositional
  phrase, as in (11), and non-prototypically by a
  variable, co-indexed with a variable
  corresponding to a valence slot of its other
  SemA, as in (13a-c).

62
3. Microsyntax in Pursue of the Integrated
Description of Language
63
Microsyntax

• We will deal here with a special type of Russian
  sentences with embedded (semi-)phraseological
  expressions like ?? ?????????? ???? ????? ??? He
  does the Devil knows what. It is very difficult
  to build adequate syntactic representations for
  such sentences. An unexpected solution is
  proposed for this problem, admitting that
  sentences of this type have two syntactic starts.
  Apart from this, such constructions have other
  interesting syntactic and semantic features.

64
Microsyntax

• (1) ?? ?????????? ???? ????? ??? He does the
  Devil knows what
• (2) ??? ???? ??? ?????? / ????? ?? ????? ???
  / ????? ????! ? I felt so flattered to climb
  after you God knows where (Marina Tsvetayeva)

65
Microsyntax

• It is extremely difficult to build adequate
  surface syntactic representations for such
  sentences. Namely, it is unclear what the
  syntactic role of the verb ????? knows in (1)
  and (2) can be.

66
Microsyntax

• It cannot be the topmost head of the surface
  syntactic tree as in
• (1?) ???? ?????, ??? ?? ?????????? The devil
  knows what he does
• where ????? is the top of the tree
• (1?) is neither syntactically nor semantically
  equivalent to (1)

67
Microsyntax

• There is no reasonable syntactic governor for
  ????? in (1) and (2).
• If we subordinate it to the main verb of the
  sentence we shall face the problem of what the
  syntactic relation between the verbs is. This
  problem has no plausible answer.

68
Microsyntax

• We might view the syntactic governor of ????? in
  the pronouns ???? or ???. Phraseological
  expressions like ???? ????? may be suspected of
  having transformed into merged lexical units
  equivalent to indefinite particles like??????
  or ????.

69
Microsyntax

• Such a solution does not hold, since the embedded
  constructions of this type are not confined to
  phraseological expressions cited and may include
  rather free clauses formed with different verbs.

70
Microsyntax

• ????? ? ??? ??????????, ??????? ??????????? ??
  ???? ????????? ?????????? ?? ????? ??? ? ?????
  ????? ??????? ????????? ????????.
• When I was a youth I was deeply impressed by the
  story of the Panama adventure that I read in I
  dont remember which book (Novoye Vremya)

71
Microsyntax

• "????????" ??? ? "???????? ???" ???? ??????????
  ?????? ?. ?????????, ? ??????? ? ????????? ??
  ???? ???????? ?????? ? ? ?????????, ? ????, ?
  ????????, ? ??? ?? ?????? ???.
• Following this, Leningrad University Bulletin
  published a paper of I. Lapitsky, where I was
  accused of all mortal sins I am a monarchist, a
  socialist-revolutionary, a Trotskyist and I cant
  remember who else (Dmitry Likhachev)

72
Microsyntax

• ? ???????, ?? ???????? ? ????? ??????, ???
  ???????? ????? ? ??????? ? ???? ???????.
• In America, I cant remember in which town, two
  salesmen came into a restaurant and sat down to
  dinner (Sodeistvie Newspaper, 1868)

73
Microsyntax

• Even the second parts of these constructions are
  not necessarily interrogative pronominal words.
  They may be represented by conjunction ??? or
  or the particle ?? whether

74
Microsyntax

• ??? ????? ?? ????????????, ??????? ?? ??????????
  ???????? ??? ???
• lit. He is being tried for a crime which it is
  not clear if he committed or not

75
Microsyntax

• ????? ????, ???? ??? ????? ???????????? ???????,
  ??? ??????? ???????? ????? ? ????????? ?????????
  ?? ? ??? ??????? ???????
• Besides, there are such deterrent factors as the
  presence of North Korea with nuclear weapons that
  it might or might not have lit. the presence
  of North Korea with it-is-unclear-whether-availabl
  e-to-it nuclear weapons (an analytical review on
  the Polit.Ru website).

76
Microsyntax

• Whilst there is no evident syntactic governor for
  the second verbs of the sentences considered, the
  pronominal words have as many as two plausible
  candidates for governor.

77
Microsyntax

• (1) ?? ?????????? ???? ????? ???
• He does the Devil knows what

78
Microsyntax

• ?n the one hand, one may suggest that ???
  instantiates the 1st completive valence of
  ??????????, being the only word of sentence (1)
  that stands in the instrumental case exactly
  the one that is required by ??????????.

79
Microsyntax

• On the other hand, the same pronominal word may
  be viewed as instantiating the 1st completive
  valency of the verb ?????, the way it does in
  isolated (elliptic) sentences like ? ???? ??? I
  know what.

80
Microsyntax

• So, the syntactic structure of (1) has two
  oddities at a time one word in need of a
  governor (?????) has no good candidate while
  another word (???) has two.

81
Microsyntax

• The duality of syntactic dominance for ??? in (1)
  is far from trivial and requires further
  reasoning. In simple single-clause sentences
  pronominal words like ??? cannot depend on verbs
  that, unlike ?????, do not take propositional
  complements
• ? ????????? ??? I do what

82
Microsyntax

• Such pronouns may either form a special question
  like ??? ?? ???????????? What do you do? in
  which case the pronoun is interrogative too or
  a highly colloquial general question like ??
  ???????????? ???? Do you do anything? where ???
  in an indefinite pronoun and really means
  anything

83
Microsyntax

• Assuming that (1) is not a single-clause
  sentence, we define what clauses it may consist
  of. The most natural assumption is that (1)
  consists of two clauses, one constituted by verb
  ?????????? and the other constituted by verb
  ?????.

84
Microsyntax

• Where are the boundaries of the two clauses? The
  left-hand boundaries of both clauses are evident
  for the first clause it is the beginning of the
  whole sentence and for the second clause it is
  the word ???? which is the subject of the verb
  ?????.

85
Microsyntax

• Hypothesis the right-hand boundaries of both
  clauses are the same and coincide with the end of
  the sentence, so that the pronominal word ???
  belongs to both clauses.

86
Microsyntax

• (1) ?? ?????????? ???? ????? ???
• He does the Devil knows what
• (3) ? ????, ??? ?? ?????????? I know what he
  does

87
Microsyntax

• The lack of such subordination distinguishes the
  second clause of (1) from the subordinate clause
  of (3). The head of the second clause of (1)
  remains without a governor at all. This is the
  most crucial characteristic of this type of
  sentences.

88
Microsyntax

• Sentences (3) and (1) are unfolding differently
• (3) is smoothly produced by the speaker,
• (1) has a sort of leap amidst generation before
  the first clause is finished, the second clause
  starts to evolve, and, after some time, the two
  proceed together until the end of the whole
  sentence.

89
Microsyntax

• The second clause in (1) behaves like a tributary
  to a river, which contributes to its course.

90
Microsyntax

• Evolution of sentence (1) resembles the
  correlation between the main and the
  parenthetical clauses if the latter is situated
  in the middle of the sentence, as in
• ? ???? ?????? ?????-?? ??????? ??????? (??? ? ???
  ????) ???????? ? ????? At this moment a young
  man (this was Ivan) rose from his place

91
Microsyntax

• The drastic difference between this sentence and
  (1) is that parenthetical clauses are finished
  sooner than the main clauses while in (1) the
  tributary clause ends together with the first
  clause.

92
Microsyntax

• If this stand is taken, we will have to admit
  that sentences of this type have two syntactic
  starts.

93
Microsyntax

• They violate the fundamental requirement of the
  surface syntactic component of the Meaning ??
  Text theory that the syntactic structure of any
  sentence should be a tree.

94
Microsyntax

• One more syntactic particularity is that
  expressions like ???? ????? ??? may include a
  personal pronoun whose syntactic status is
  unclear

95
Microsyntax

• ??? ????? ??? ???? ??? ????????, ??????? ???? ???
  ????? ???!
• lit. Its high time he buys a house, he rents
  the Devil knows him what

96
Microsyntax

• ?????? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ????
• lit. Money goes the devil knows it where
  (Vladimir Lenin, in a letter to his mother,
  1895).

97
Microsyntax

• The constructions discussed are subject to rather
  tight lexical restrictions.

98
Microsyntax

• Within the phraseological subset, the
  constructions are formed with the verbs ?????
  and, occasionally, ?????? know, almost always
  in the present tense, whose subjects can be
  either
• 1) nouns ????, ?????? devil, ????? wood
  goblin, ??? and ??? demon, ??? jester and
  ??? dog (the last two are probably euphemisms
  for ????), practically always in the singular.

99
Microsyntax

• 2) derogatory nouns like ??? or ???? that are in
  fact euphemisms for an obscene word, as in ?
  ?????? ????? ??? ????? ??? ???????? Soon,
  goodness knows what will start in this country,
  or this obscene word itself
• 3) nouns ??? God, ??????? Lord, ?????
  Allah, ????????? Almighty, as in M?? ??
  ????????, ??? ?? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ???
  ????? ???? I don't like it that they invite God
  knows whom to attend the city anniversary.

100
Microsyntax

• ?????? ?????????? ???? ?? ???????????? ?????
  ????? ??????? ??????? ?????
• lit. The first proof-sheet left the publisher
  Buddha knows how long ago (from a posting about
  the publication of a manuscript on East Asia).

101
Microsyntax

• The semantics of the ???? ????? ??? type of
  construction is very interesting and deserves
  special attention and careful study.

102
Microsyntax

• The meanings of collocations that represent the
  construction are remarkably close to each other.
  All of them have a strong evaluative component
  that expresses the speakers negative attitude
  toward the participant or circumstance of the
  situation conveyed by the collocations.

103
Microsyntax

• There is a noticeable difference of meaning
  between the variety of collocations based on ???
  and the remaining collocations.
• In the former, the speakers negative attitude
  becomes milder and is substituted by regret and,
  possibly, compassion. To my mind, the speakers
  negative attitude belongs to the assertive part
  of the meaning rather than the presupposition. In
  particular, this may account for the
  ungrammaticality of sentences like ?? ??????
  ???? ????? ???? He betrayed the devil knows
  whom in all probability, the semantics of the
  verb ??????? ? be disloyal to requires that its
  object deserve loyalty and the collocation ????
  ????? ??? introduces an unknown and/or bad person
  who does not deserve loyalty.

104
Microsyntax

• The construction considered here has clear
  negative polarity. Almost all of its lexical
  realizations have an overt or incorporated
  negation but even the variants without the
  negation (???? ????? ???, ??? ????? ???? etc.)
  introduce unknown entities.
• He went God knows where really means the same as
  Nobody knows where.

105
Microsyntax

• 3. At least some of the collocations that
  represent the construction lack compositionality.
  An example is the expression containing ???????
  how much sentences like
• ?? ??????? ???? ????? ??????? ?????
• He got the devil knows how much money
• refer to situations that involve an indefinitely
  large amount of money but never to situations
  that involve an indefinitely small amount of
  money.

106
Microsyntax

• The constructions considered here are unique and
  have no close cognates in the language.
• In particular, the constructions like ??? ????
  ?????? lt???? ???? ??????gt Go wherever you
  please, O? ??????? ? ??? ?????? He would dance
  with the first person he comes across, ???????
  ??? ??? ?? ?????? The child eats whatever comes
  to hand that share with our constructions the
  presence of interrogative pronouns and the
  meaning of indefiniteness are nonetheless
  drastically different from them.

107
Microsyntax

• Most importantly, they do not have an additional
  syntactic start.

108
References

• ??????? ?.?. ??????????? ?????????. ?. ?????,
  (1974).
• ??????? ?.?. ????????????? ?????????????
  ????????? ? ????? ?? ????????. ???. ??, ???.
  ???. ? ??., ? 4. (1999)
• ???????, ?.?., ?????? ?.?. ??????????? ???? ?????
  ????? ? ??????? ????? ????????? ? ?????????.
  (Constructions of the NEGDE SPAT' type in
  Russian Syntax and semantics.) Semiotika i
  informatika, No. 29. Moscow, 1990, pp. 3-89.
• ???????????? ?.?. ????? ???????? ???????????
  ??????. ?. ????? ????? ??????? ????????
  (1996), 460 p.
• Boguslavsky I. On the Passive and Discontinuous
  Valency Slots, Proceedings of the 1st
  International Conference on Meaning-Text Theory.
  Paris, Ecole Normale Supérieure, June 1618
  (2003). p 129-138.
• ???????????? ?.?. ??????????? ?????????? ????.
  ???????????????? ?????? ?????, ??????, (2005),
  ??.139-165.
• Haspelmath, Martin. Indefinite pronouns. Oxford
  Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory.
  Oxford Oxford University Press, 1997.
• Lakoff, George. Syntactic Amalgams. // Papers
  from the 10th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic
  society, 1974, pp. 321-344.
• Melcuk I. Actants in semantics and syntax I
  actants in semantics, Linguistics, 42(1) 1-66
  (2004a).
• Melcuk I. Actants in semantics and syntax II
  actants in syntax, Linguistics 42(2) 247-291
  (2004b).
• Melcuk I. Aspects of the Theory of Morphology.
  BerlinNew York Mouton de Gruyter. (2006)
• Paducheva E. Diathesis some extended
  applications of the term. Proceedings of the 1st
  International Conference on Meaning-Text Theory.
  Paris, École Normale Supérieure, June 1618,
  (2003).
• Partee B.H. The Development of Formal Semantics
  in Linguistic Theory. Sh. Lapin (ed.) The
  Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. Oxford
  Blackwell. (1996)
• Partee B.H. Diathesis Alternations and NP
  Semantics. East West Encounter Second
  International Conference on Meaning Text
  Theory. ????? ?????????? ????????. ??????,
  (2005).
• Testelets Y., E. Bylinina. Sluicing-Based
  Indefinites in Russian. // Formal Approaches to
  Slavic Linguistics 13 The South Carolina
  Meeting. Ann Arbor, MI Michigan Slavic
  Publications. 2005, 355-364.