Possessive Relation Disambiguation of Japanese Genitive Marker No

Transcription

1 Possessive Relation Disambiguation of Japanese Genitive Marker No Sumiyo Nishiguchi Osaka University Study for the Language and Culture 33 Osaka University June 28, nishiguchi/ 1 / 36

2 2 / 36

3 Abstract Japanese genitive postposition -no is ambiguous and denotes wider range of relations between two entities than the English possessive marker s. It has been suggested that inherently relational possessee nominals as in John s father disambiguates the relation (Partee 1997, Barker 1995) and that even a non-relational possessee noun as in John s poem can be type-raised into a relational noun based on the Qualia Structure (Vikner & Jensen 2002, Pustejovsky 1995). Since possessive relations can be even reversed in Japanese as in bag-no lady the lady who has a bag, I will argue that the Qualia Structure of not only the possessee but also the possessor nominal disambiguates the possessive relations. Possessor nouns are coerced to type-shift into relational nouns. 3 / 36

4 Outline Various Relations and Argument Reversal Various Relations Argument Reversal English Possessive, Noun Compound or PP? Type-Shifting Possessor into a Relational Noun Accompaniment: Type-raising by Telic Role Quantity: Type-raising by Constitutive Role Property Location 4 / 36

5 Various Relations Japanese genitive marker expresses wider range of relations between two entities than the English possessive. NP 1 -gen NP 2 expresses not only possession as in John s pen and part-whole relation as in John s leg, but also location, accompaniment, property and quantity: (1) [[no]] = λx.λy.r(y)(x) I possession: R = {< x, y > x owns y } (2) Tanaka-no kaban Tanaka-gen bag Tanaka s bag 5 / 36

6 II part-whole: R={< x, y > y is part of x} (3) Tanaka-no te Tanaka-gen hand Tanaka s hand III location: R = {< x, y > y is in x } (4) Tokyo-no tomodachi Tokyo-gen friend a friend in Tokyo 6 / 36

7 IV accompaniment: R = {< x, y > y carries x } (5) akai kaban-no hito red bag-gen person a person who carries a red bag 7 / 36

8 V property: R = {< x, y > x is dominant characteristic of y } (6) a. maho-no kuni magic-gen country a magic country b. Kaban-no Sanpei bag-gen Sanpei Bags Sanpei (a bag shop) c. Supa-no Maruetsu supermarket-gen Maruetsu Maruetsu Supermarket 8 / 36

9 VI quantity: R = {< x, y > the quantity of y is x } (7) a. Takusan-no tokei many-gen watch many watches b. san-bon-no enpitsu three-cl-gen pencil three pencils 9 / 36

10 Argument Reversal Reversal of the possessor argument between (I) and (IV-V): Tanaka-no kaban: Tanaka is the possessor Akai-kaban-no hito: hito is the possessor Kaban-no Tanaka: Tanaka is the possessor (seller) Controller-Controllee: Tanaka-no kuruma: the car is at Tanaka s disposal (Vikner & Jensen (2002) for the girl s car) boshi-no hito (a bag lady): a hat is at the lady s disposal 10 / 36

11 Such non-canonical relations, i.e., relations other than possession or part-whole relation, are more likely expressed in noun compounds rather than in possessives in English: (8) Relation Relation JapanesePossessive EnglishPossessive EnglishCompound EnglishPP Intersective possession Tanaka-no pen Tanaka s pen *Tanaka pen a pen of Tana part-whole Tanaka-no kao Tanaka s face *Tanaka face the face of Tan location Tokyo-no shinseki *Tokyo s relative Tokyo relatives the relatives in T accompaniment boshi-no fujin *hat s lady a hat lady a lady with a property inu-no onna-no *dog s girl *dog girl a dog of ko (a girl dog) female kind osu-no tora *male s tiger a male tiger a tiger of male Kaban-no Sanpei *bags Sanpei Bags Sanpei Sanpei of Ba maaruboro-no *Marlboro s Marlboro the country kuni country country of Marlboro quantity 1-kiro-no pasokon *1kg s computer 1kg computer a computer with Nonintersective property nise-no fukahire *fake s shark fin fake shark fin nise-no *fake s police fake police keisatsukan officer officer 11 / 36

12 Problems with Deriving Various Possessive Relations from NP 2 Possessive relations are ambiguous in both English and Japanese. For example, there are more than one interpretation available for Tanaka-no hon Tanaka s book. Tanaka s book may refer to the book that Tanaka owns or the book that Tanaka wrote (Barker 1995:87). Langacker (1993): ownership to be the prototypical meaning of the possessive construction, and other relations to be the instantiations. 12 / 36

13 Partee (1997): two syntactic types for John s (9) a. Free R type Syntax: [John s] NP/CN Semantics: λqλp[np (λz[ x[ y[[q(y) R(y)(z)] y = x] P(x)]])] b. Inherent relation type: inherited from relational nouns, e.g., brother, employee, and enemy Syntax: [John s] NP/TCN (TCN: transitive common noun) Semantics: λrλp[np (λz[ x[ y[r(z)(y) y = x] P(x)]])] (10) Syntax: [[John s] NP/TCN [friend] TCN ] NP Semantics: λrλp[john (λz. x[ y[r(z)(y) y = x] P(x)]](friend of ) = λp[john s(λz. x[ y[friend of (z)(y) y = x] P(x)]] 13 / 36

14 In Japanese case: I. Possession relation: prototypical II. Part-whole relation: can be derived lexically from a possessive nominal te hand (Barker 1995). However, other possessee nominals are not relational necessarily. III. Location: (11) a. Tokyo-no tomodachi a friend in Tokyo b. Kyoto-no shinseki Tokyo relative Tomodachi friend and shinseki relative are relational,friend-of x / relative-of x, but the relation between NP 1 and NP 2 is not friend-of or relative of but of location, NP 2 is in NP / 36

15 As far as we only consider NP 2 and apply (9b), there is no way to derive location, carrying, property and quantity relations. VI. Quantity (12) 1-kiro-no pasokon 1 kg computer No way to type-shift non-inherently relational noun pasokon personal computer into relational noun. Since weight is not part of the qualia structure, we cannot apply the strategy in Vikner&Jensen (2002), namely, the application of Q α as a type-raising function from a word to a relational noun with an unsaturated argument slot. (13) pasokon personal computer 15 / 36

16 2 3 pasokon personal computer TYPESTR = ARG1 = x artifact machine 2 3 D-ARG1 = w human 6 7 ARGSTR = 4D-E1 = e1 transition5 D-E2 = e2 process 2 3 FORMAL = x ( ) system unit, monitor, CONSTITUTIVE = keyboard,... QUALIA = 6 6 TELIC = calculate act e2, x AGENTIVE = make act e1, z, x (14) Argument Structure: λx[computer (x)] Qualia Structure α role: *λxλy[weigh (x)(y)] Q α (pasokon)= *λxλy[weigh (x)(y) computer (x)] 16 / 36

17 IV. Accompaniment: does not derive from the qualia structure of the possessor noun, either. (15) boshi-no fujin the hat lady Fujin a lady does not inherently carry a hat, so carrying or wearing is hard to be considered to be part of the qualia structure. V. Property (16) Kaban-no Sanpei Bags Sanpei NP1 bags carries more information Therefore, I propose that Japanese possessives need to consider the qualia structure of the possessor noun as well. 17 / 36

18 Relation Disambiguation by NP 1 Besides part-whole relation, it is rather possessor nominals than the posssessee nominals that carry more information about relations between two arguments. For example, Tokyo is a location, a bag is something to carry with, and onna woman and 2-kiro 2kg are properties. Even though these nouns are not lexically relational as brother is, our world knowledge that Tokyo is a location, a hat is a thing to wear, female is a property and 2kg is weight assigns carrying, locative and property interpretations to the possessive construction. We need to consider the lexical interpretations of non-relational possessor nouns and apply the type-shifting operators to the possessor noun in Japanese. 18 / 36

19 Vikner&Jensen 2002 applies the Qualia Structure (Pustejovsky 1995) of the possessee noun and type-shifts the possessee noun into a relational noun. John s poem can receive the interpretation of the poem that John composed by means of the meaning shifting operator Q A that raises poem into a two-place holder (17). Then, the type-shifted NP 2 combines with the possessive NP and the authorship relation is derived. (17) a. [[poem]] = λx.[poem (x)] b. Q A (poem) = λxλy[poem (x) compose (x)(y)] Japanese possessives need to look at the Qualia Structure of the possessor noun. The functions Q F, Q T, and Q C type-shift the possessor noun and various relations are inherited from the lexical input of the possessors respectively. 19 / 36

20 Shimazu et al. (1986) proposes comparing semantic features of both NP1 and NP2 ( ignition by features ) kodomo-no asobi children s play > animate-action 20 / 36

21 English possessives have been considered as determiners as in Partee (1997). However, in addition to the fact that Japanese is a language without overt determiners, semantically speaking, Japanese NP1-no in NP1-no NP2 is either intersective or nonintersective adjective with enriched meaning. 21 / 36

22 (18) a. [[wanpisu]] = λx.dress (x) b. [[ao no]] = λx.blue (x) c. [[ao no wanpisu]] = λx.blue (x) dress (x) (19) a. [[Tokyo no]] = λx.in Tokyo (x) b. [[shinseki]] = λx.relative (x) c. [[Tokyo no shinseki]] = λx.in Tokyo (x) relative (x) Similar to English fake, neither nise-no nor magai-no (fake, false) is intersective in that nise-no keisatsukan (false police officer) is not a policeman at all. Nise-no does not compose with extensions of police officers but with intensions. 22 / 36

23 (20) a. boshi-no hito a person who wears a hat b. boshi-no with a hat = who wears a hat [[boshi no]] = λx.wear (ɛy.hat (y))(x) 23 / 36

24 Accompaniment: Type-raising by Telic Role ɛ operator (cf. Cann, Kempson&Marten 2005) (21) a. boshi hat : ɛx.hat (x) : some x satisfying hat (x), if there is one hito man : ιy.man (y): the unique x satisfying man (x), if there is such a thing b. no: λx.λy.ιy.[y (y) TELIC X (ɛx.x (x))(y)] c. boshi-no: λy.ιy.[y (y) wear (ɛx.hat (x))(y)] d. boshi-no hito: λy.ιy.[y (y) wear (ɛx.hat (x))(y)](hito ) = ιy.[man (y) wear (ɛx.hat (x))(u)] 24 / 36

25 boshi hat TYPESTR = ARG1 = x clothing artifact D-ARG1 = w human D-ARG2 = z human ARGSTR = D-E1 = e1 transition D-E2 = e2 state FORMAL = x CONSTITUTIVE = material QUALIA = ( ) TELIC = wear result e2, w, x ( ) AGENTIVE = make act e1, z, x 25 / 36

26 Quantity: Type-raising by Constitutive Role (22) a. 1-kiro-no pasokon (a personal computer of 1 kg) b. 1-kiro 1 kg : λx.1kg (x) pasokon personal computer : λy.computer (y) c. no: λx.λy.ιy.[y (y) CONST X (ɛx.x (x))(y)] d. 1-kiro-no: λy.ιy.[y (y) weigh (ɛx.1kg (x))(y)] e. 1-kiro-no pasokon: λy.ιy.[y (y) weigh (ɛx.1kg (x))(y)](computer ) = ιy.[computer (y) weigh (ɛx.1kg (x))(u)] 26 / 36

27 1-kiro 1 kg TYPESTR = ARG1 = x weight unit of measurement D-ARG1 = y physobj D-ARG2 = w human ARGSTR = D-E1 = e1 process D-E2 = e2 state FORMAL = x ( ) QUALIA = CONSTITUTIVE = weigh e2, y, x ( ) TELIC = measure act e1, w, y 27 / 36

28 Property (23) Osu-no tora a male tiger 28 / 36

29 osu male TYPESTR = ARG1 = x gender QUALIA = [ FORMAL = x male gender ] (24) osu-no male : λy.ιy.[y (y) gender of (ɛx.male (x))(y)] (25) Maaruboro-no kuni Marlboro Country 29 / 36

30 Marlboro TYPESTR = ARG1 = x tobacco D-ARG1 = w human ARGSTR = D-E1 = e1 transition D-E2 = e2 process FORMAL = x ( ) AGENTIVE = make act e1. w, x QUALIA = CONSTITUTIVE = x tobacco ( ) TELIC = smoke act e2, w, x 30 / 36

31 (26) Maaruboro-no Marlboro s : λy.ιy.[y (y) make act (ɛx.marlboro (x))(y)] While the metonymy between country and its people needs to be interpreted further, type-raising of Marlboro allows its telic role to account for the relation between Marlboro and country. 31 / 36

32 Location (27) Tokyo-no shinseki Tokyo relatives (location) 32 / 36

33 Tokyo TYPESTR = ARG1 = x location [ ] ARGSTR = D-ARG1 = w physobj ( ) FORMAL = in w, x QUALIA = ( CONSTITUTIVE = in-japan x ) (28) Tokyo-no: λy.ιy.[y (y) in (ɛx.tokyo (x))(y)] 33 / 36

34 Which Qualia Structure is to be chosen? Maaruboro-no: 1. no: λx.λy.ιy.[y (y) AGENTIVE X (ɛx.x (x))(y)] Maaruboro-no: λy.ιy.[y (y) make act (ɛx.marlboro (x))(y)] 2. no: λx.λy.ιy.[y (y) TELIC X (ɛx.x (x))(y)] Maaruboro-no: λy.ιy.[y (y) smoke act (ɛx.marlboro (x))(y)] (29) λy.ιy.[y (y) R X (ɛx.x (x))(y)] is the most salient property of y in the utterance context 34 / 36

35 (30) a. Tokyo-no shinseki: a relative in Tokyo > a relative who takes care of business with Tokyo b. kaban-no hito: a person who carries a bag > a person who sells bags c. Kaban-no Tanaka: bags shop > a shop that makes bags 35 / 36

36 Japanese genitive postposition -no expresses different kinds of relations between entities. Not only type-raising possessee nominals does not predict the relations rightly in many cases. I proposed that the Qualia Structure of the possessor nouns needs to be considered for disambiguation of the relations between two nominals and that the possessor nouns should be raised into relational nouns according to the Qualia Role. The most salient Qualia Role of NP1 is selected. 36 / 36