Abstract
We present a semantic analysis of the adverb well that captures its degree and manner readings in a principled fashion via the Generative Lexicon Selective Binding composition rule. The analysis integrates Kennedy and McNally’s (Language, 81:345–381, 2005) treatment of scale structure with Generative Lexicon theory, and embeds the resulting semantics in HPSG.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Combining forms such as over-, under- and ill-, as in overloaded, underpaid and ill-nourished show a similar distribution and pattern of behavior, and are thus likely to be amenable to a similar analysis, but since their syntax and semantics is slightly different from that of manner adverbs, we will not discuss them here. See Katz (2005) on the use of other manner adverbs such as surprisingly in degree modification contexts.
- 2.
Throughout, we will refer to past participles as such; however, see Kennedy and McNally (2005) for a variety of arguments that at least those participles which interest us here behave like adjectives on a series of morphological and syntactic tests.
- 3.
These assumptions are not crucial; our central claims can be just as well implemented in a more standard semantic analysis of gradable adjectives in terms of relations between degrees and individuals. Under these assumptions, degree morphemes are expressions that saturate the degree argument of the adjective, and well remains a function from adjective meanings to adjective meanings.
- 4.
The denotations of some other common degree terms are listed in (i): the pos morpheme in (ia), where stnd is a function that returns an appropriate standard of comparison given an adjective denotation G and a contextually supplied property C (a ‘comparison class’; see Klein 1980); very in (ib), which fixes the comparison class to be just those objects that the positive form is true of (Wheeler 1972); and comparatives of superiority in (ic), where dc is the denotation of the comparative clause.
(i)
a. T(pos) = λG <e,d>λx.G(x) ≥ stnd(G)(C<e,t>)
b. T(very) = λG <e,d>λx.G(x) ≥ stnd(G)(λy.pos(G)(y))
c. T(more than dc) = λG <e,d>λx.G(x) > dc
- 5.
Of course, sequences of degree modifiers do occur, as in very very afraid, but in these cases one degree modifier combines first with the other, and then the result combines with the adjective (Kennedy and McNally 2005).
- 6.
For the purposes of this paper we ignore the other standardly-posited element of the cont feature, the context feature.
- 7.
The exact configuration we have given to scale structure is not crucial for the analysis, so for reasons of space we will not justify it here. We use (0,1) to represent an open scale and [0,1] for closed scales; partially closed scales (0,1] and [0,1) are also possible though we will not discuss such examples here.
- 8.
Our analysis will ignore those details which do not bear directly on the issue of how both the degree and non-degree reading of well can be derived from an unambiguous well.
- 9.
Although we assign loaded two different lexical entries corresponding to its two argument structures, these two entries are highly redundant and could be partially unified in a hierarchical lexicon (see e.g. Koenig 1999). To save space we have represented the values of the qualia as simple formulae, rather than as feature-structures.
- 10.
- 11.
We adopt the version of the Semantics Principle for head-modifier structures proposed in Kasper (1997, (31)):
-
(a)
For a head-adjunct phrase, the semantic content (CONT) is token-identical with the MOD|ECONT value of the adjunct daughter, and the MOD|ICONT value of the adjunct daughter is token identical with the adjunct daughter’s CONT.
-
(b)
For all other types of headed phrase, the CONT is token-identical with the CONT of the head daughter.
-
(a)
References
Badia, T., & Saurí, R. (1999). Semantic disambiguation of adjectives in local context: A generative approach. In P. Bouillon & E. Viegas (Eds.), Proceedings of TALN 99 (pp. 163–180). Cargèse: Corsica.
Badia, T., & Saurí, R. (2000). Enlarging HPSG with lexical semantics. In A. Gelbukh (Ed.), Proceedings of CICLing 2000 (pp. 101–122). Mexico City: Computer Research Center, National Polytechnic Institute.
Badia, T., & Saurí, R. (2013). Developing a generative lexicon within HPSG. In J. Pustejovsky (Ed.), Advances in generative lexicon theory (Text, speech and language technology). Dordrecht: Springer.
Bolinger, D. (1972). Degree words. The Hague: Mouton.
Bouillon, P. (1999). The adjective ‘vieux’: The point of view of ‘generative lexicon’. In E. Viegas (Ed.), Breadth and depth of semantic lexicons (pp. 148–166). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Dowty, D. R. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67, 547–619.
Jackendoff, R. (1977). X-bar syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kasper, R.T. (1997). The semantics of recursive modication. Ms., Ohio State University.
Katz, G. (2005). Attitudes towards degrees. In E. Maier, C. Bary, & J. Huitink (Eds.), Proceedings of SuB9 (pp. 183–196). Nijmegen: NCS.
Kennedy, C. (1999). Projecting the adjective: The syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison. New York: Garland.
Kennedy, C., & McNally, L. (1999). From event structure to scale structure: Degree modification in deverbal adjectives. In T. Matthews & D. Strolovitch (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT IX (pp. 163–180). Ithaca: CLC Publications.
Kennedy, C., & McNally, L. (2005). Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language, 81, 345–381.
Klein, E. (1980). A semantics for positive and comparative adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4(1), 1–45.
Koenig, J.-P. (1999). Lexical relations. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Larson, R. (1998). Events and modification in nominals. In D. Strolovitch & A. Lawson (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT VIII (pp. 145–168). Ithaca: CLC Publications.
Lautenbacher, O.-P. (2001). What is formal and what is telic in a predicate? An alternative vision of the Generative Lexicon’s qualia. In P. Bouillon & K. Kanzaki (Eds.), Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Generative Approaches to the Lexicon. Geneva: Switzerland.
Levin, B., & Rappaport-Hovav, M. (1999). Two structures for compositionally derived events. In T. Matthews & D. Strolovitch (Eds.), Proceedings from SALT IX (pp. 199–223). Ithaca: CLC Publications.
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pollard, C., & Sag, I. (1994). Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: CSLI.
Ramchand, G. C. (1997). Aspect and predication. Oxford: Clarendon.
Wheeler, S. (1972). Attributives and their modifiers. Noûs, 6(4), 310–334.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to audiences at the First International Workshop on Generative Approaches to the Lexicon and at Universitat Pompeu Fabra for comments, and to Tom Rozario for assistance with data collection. All errors are our own. This paper is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0094263, and by the Department of Universities, Research, and Information Society of the Generalitat de Catalunya.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
McNally, L., Kennedy, C. (2013). Degree vs. Manner Well: A Case Study in Selective Binding. In: Pustejovsky, J., Bouillon, P., Isahara, H., Kanzaki, K., Lee, C. (eds) Advances in Generative Lexicon Theory. Text, Speech and Language Technology, vol 46. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5189-7_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5189-7_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-5188-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-5189-7
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)