1 Yoad Winter – Technion/Utrecht (Joint work with Sela Mador-Haim – Technion/UPenn) Spatial Meaning and Quantification SALT paper downloadable at: winter.

1

Yoad Winter – Technion/Utrecht(Joint work with Sela Mador-Haim – Technion/UPenn)

Spatial Meaning and Quantification

SALT paper downloadable at: www.cs.technion.ac.il/~winter

April 8, 2008 – Frankfurt

2

""

252km

137km

68km

""We're far from a gas station.

2km

We're close to a gas station.

Introduction (1): singular indefinites

3

""

""The circle is outside the rectangles.

The circle is inside the rectangles.

Introduction (2): plural definites

4

""""

The Bronx borders on the industrial zone.

The Bronx contains the industrial zone.

(part of the zone)

(the whole zone)

Introduction (3): singular definites

5

""""The house is far from lakes.

The house is close to lakes.

Introduction (4): bare plurals

6

The identity of the spatial preposition

affects (pseudo)-quantificational effects

with:

- Singular indfinites

- Bare plurals

- Singular and plural definites

Empirical conclusion

Which mechanisms govern this behavior?

7

[[ outside(the lake) ]] =

area outside the eigenspace of the lake

Mechanism 1: Spatial Meaning of Preposition

eigenspace of the lake outside the lake

8

inside the rectangles = eigenspace of the rectangles

insideThe circle is the rectangles

Mechanism 1: Spatial Meaning of Preposition

9

outside the rectangles

outsideThe circle is the rectangles

Mechanism 1: Spatial Meaning of Preposition

10

eigenspace of “a lake” outside a lake

[[ outside(a lake) ]] =

area outside the eigenspace of the property for a lake

Mechanism 2: Semantic Incorporation

11

Concentrating on singular indefinites:

There exists a lake X such that the house is close to X

For every lake X the house is far from X

The house is close to a lake

/less than 20km from a lake

)1( The house is far from a lake

/more than 20km from a lake

)2(

12

Questions Which prepositions display non-existential

effects with singular indefinites?Locative and temporalNot upward monotone

Which singular indefinites?Predicative indefinites (a vs. some)

What’s “Semantic Incorporation”?Zimmermann, McNally, Van Geenhoven, and

others: a mechanism that allows predicative (property denoting) indefinites to become arguments of other predicates.

13

More non-existential effects

(3) The bird is more than 20m above a cloud

20m

20m

20m

20m

For every cloud X that is below the bird, X should be more than 20m from the bird

Don’t care… Not truly universal

14

More effects (cont.)(4) The dog is less than 5m outside a doghouse

5m

There is a doghouse X such that the dog is less than 5m from X

and for every doghouse Y the dog is outside Y

Hence it is not truly existential

15

More effects (cont.)(5) The house is (exactly) 100m from a lake

100m

There is a lake X such that the house is exactly 100m from X

and for every lake Y the house is at least 100m from Y

16

Conclusion from examples

There is a broad spectrum of quantificational effects that are sensitive to the prepositional structure in use

(1) The house is close to a lake (existential)

(2) The house is far from a lake (universal)

(3) The bird is more than 20m above a cloud (semi-universal)

(4) The dog is less than 5m outside a doghouse (semi-existential)

(5) The house is (exactly) 100m from a lake (combination)

What kind of mechanism can account for the different quantificational effects in (1)-(5)?

17

Proposed solution

A predicative denotation of the indefinite A building: x. building(x)

Locatives take such predicates as arguments semantic incorporation

18

Semantic incorporation Motivation: narrow scope of indefinites Obligatory narrow scope:

There sentences (McNally 1992,1998): There isn't a cloud in the sky

Transitive constructions in West-Greenlandic (Van Geenhoven 1998):

John fish-buy-NEG-IND-[tr]-3sg ( / *)

Optional narrow scope as opposed to other NPs (Zimmermann 1993, Van Geenhoven and McNally 2005) John is looking for a dog/every dog

Claim: Also in PPs, non-existential indefinites appear due to narrow scope via incorporation

19

Eigenspace semantics (Zwarts & Winter 2000)

Example:outside the lake

loc(the lake)

outside(loc(the lake))

loc-1(outside(loc(the lake)))

loc-1(P(loc(Ce)))

entity

eigenspace function: entities to regions

spatial function :regions to regionsregions to

sets of entities

[ P NPe ]et

20

Semantic incorporation of PPs

loc-1(P(loc(Ce)))

Predicative: The house is far from a lakeThe airplane is more than 20m from mountains

loc'(Cet) =

xCloc(x)

Entity denoting (Zwarts and Winter):The house is far from some lakeThe bird is more than 50 above every cloud

loc-1(P(loc'(Cet)))

21

Incorporation of PPs (cont.)

Example: outside a lake

a lake = {a,b,c}

a

b

c

loc’(a lake)outside(loc’(a lake))

loc-1(outside(loc’(a lake)))

22

Quantificational variability

The house is close to a lake The house is close to a lake iff it is close to the

union of the eigenspaces of all lakes It is sufficient that the house is close to some point in some

lake (existential)

23

Quantificiational variability (cont.)

The house is far from a lake

The house is far from a lake iff it is far from the union of the eigenspaces of all lakes

The house needs to be far from all points in the lakes (universal)

24

Quantificiational variability (cont.)The house is exactly 100m from a lake

Measure phrases in Zwarts and Winter (2000) take distance from the closest point. This entails that there is a point in the union of the lakes which is 100m from the house, and that it is among the closest points to the house.

25

Quantificiational variability (cont.)

The dog is less than 5m outside a doghouse Less than 5m from the union of the eigenspaces of

the doghouses, and not in that area

26

Point monotonicity (Zwarts and Winter)

Which prepositions support existential quantification?

Only upward monotone Ps!P is upward monotone if for all eigenspaces

A,B s.t. A B: x P A x P B.Examples: inside, close to

Similarly, only prepositions that are downward monotone lead to universal interpretationExamples: outside, far from

B

A

x

27

Downward Monotonicity – standard tests

Downward/Upward entailing environments:

The house is far from a lake

The house is far from a small lake

The house is close to a lake

The house is close to a small lake

NPI licensing(6) The house is far from/*close to any

lake

Not accounted for if PPs take entity arguments!

28

Other PPs Analogous effects with temporal PPs:

(6) This shelter was built less than 2 years after a war

(7) This shelter was built more than 2 years after a war

NPI licensing: before/*after any war Conclusion: temporal PPs can likewise incorporate

their complement Directional PPs do not incorporate (thanks to J.

Zwarts):(8) We went around a lake - (existential only)

Existential

Semi-universal: similar to more than 2 meters above a cloud

29

Summary and conclusions

Prepositions with indefinite complements exhibit a wide spectrum of quantificational variability

A result of incorporation between predicative indefinites and prepositions

Preposition monotonicity governs existential-universal variability

Monotonicity is also verified by standard tests (NPI licensing, entailment)

Incorporation – a general process with both locative and temporal prepositions

30

ReferencesMcNally, L. 1992. An Interpretation for the English Existential Construction. Ph.D. Diss., UCSC. Published 1997. Garland, New York

McNally, L. 1998. Existential sentences without existential quantification. Linguistics and Philosophy 21, 353-392

McNally, L. and V. Van Geenhoven 2005. On the property analysis of opaque complements. Lingua 115, 885-914.

Van Geenhoven, V. 1998. Semantic Incorporation and Indefinite Descriptions. CSLI Publications.

Zimmermann, T.E. 1993. On the proper treatment of opacity in certain verbs. Natural Language Semantics 1, 149-179.

Zwarts, J. and Y. Winter 2000. Vector space semantics. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 171-213.