next up previous contents index
Next: 7.6 Oblique Arguments Up: 7 Relations Previous: 7.4 Existential Entailment II   Contents   Index

7.5 Arguments and entailments

On the basis of consistency, we stated that the number of arguments of a logical predicate should always be the same. But we also want to correctly represent existential entailments.

This means that SOME verbs can't be translated with one predicate.

Wrong
Natasha kicked Boris.
$ {kick}(n,b)$
Natasha kicked.
$ \exists x \: kick(n,\: x)$
Right
Natasha kicked Boris.  
$ {kick/2}(n,b)$  
Natasha kicked. (Natasha could be doing a chorus line kick.)
   
$ {kick/1}(n)$  
Why \framebox{
$
\mathrm{\:Natasha \:}\begin{array}[t]{@{}l} \text{kicked.} \not \Rightarrow\\
\text{There exists something that Natasha kicked.}
\end{array}$}

  Existential entailment  
John ate $ \Rightarrow$ John ate something.
John kicked $ \not\Rightarrow$ John kicked something.
John replied $ \Rightarrow$ John replied to something/someone.



Another example:
(a)   Fred burned the house.  
(b) # Fred burned. Fred not filling the same role!
(c)   The house was burned by Fred. Same meaning as (a)?
(d)   The house was burned. Same relation as (a)?
(e)   The house burned. Same relation as (a)?

Should we use the same relation in (a), (d) and (e)? This question is answered by asking if

\framebox{
$
\mathrm{\:The\: house \:}\begin{array}[t]{@{}l} \text{was burned}
\Rightarrow\\
\text{Someone/thing burned the house.}
\end{array}$}

And if:

\framebox{
$
\mathrm{\:The\: house \:}\begin{array}[t]{@{}l} \text{burned}
\Rightarrow\\
\text{Someone/thing burned the house.}
\end{array}$}

Here's another interesting fact. Consider purpose clauses:

John went into town (in order) to buy some bubble gum.
Purpose clauses usually require some rational entity capable of purpose in context in order to be interpreted. Consider:
(f) The house was burned to collect the insurance.
(g) # The house burned to collect the insurance.

Other verbs like burn:
  English causative alternation
heat
The soup heated.
John heated the soup.
cool
The soup cooled.
John cooled the soup.
break
The vase broke.
John broke the vase.
move
The lid moved.
John moved the lid.
wiggle
John's toe wiggled.
John wiggled his toe (in greeting).

Conclusions

  1. The English causative alternation is productive and is distinct from object-drop in that the subject role changes!
    Object drop
    John ate the pretzel. John is eater
    John ate John is eater
    Causative
    John broke the pretzel. John is breaker
    The pretzel broke. The pretzel is eaten
    Which?
    John turned the statue.  
    John turned.  
    Which?
    John cooked the eggs.  
    The eggs cooked (for 3 minutes).  
    John cooked. (unlike most of his male friends)  
    Which?
    John hammered the nail.  
    John hammered (away).  
  2. Object drop usually gives rise to an existential entailment, but some verbs do object drop with no existential entailment (kick).
  3. The intransitive verbs in the causative alternation generally do NOT have an existential entailment:
    \framebox{
$
\mathrm{\:The\: house \:}\begin{array}[t]{@{}l} \text{burned.} \not
\Rightarrow\\
\text{Someone/thing burned the house.}
\end{array}$}
  4. Passives generally have an existential entailment:
    John ate the pretzels.
    \framebox{
$
\mathrm{\:The\: pretzels \:}\begin{array}[t]{@{}l} \text{were eaten.}
\Rightarrow\\
\text{Someone ate the pretzels.}
\end{array}$}


next up previous contents index
Next: 7.6 Oblique Arguments Up: 7 Relations Previous: 7.4 Existential Entailment II   Contents   Index
Jean Mark Gawron 2009-02-23