Event Orientated Adnominals and Compositionality Yoad Winter Joost Zwarts

1. Event Orientated Adnominals and Compositionality • Yoad Winter Joost Zwarts • Workshop Syntax and Semantics of the Nominal Domain • February 4-5, 2016 • Frankfurt University

2. Types of Arguments • Syntactic Arguments • Semantic Arguments • Referential • Thematic • Expletive • John surprised us • dog: <e,t> • It rained • Hypothesis: no other types of arguments. • John ate (it) • Fido is a dog • the dog

3. Orientation of Intersective Modifiers • Generalization: intersective modifiers are orientated to the referential argument. • [[blue door]] = λx.x is a door & x is blue • [[short giraffe]] = λx.x is a giraffe & x is short • (relative to giraffes) • [[sang loudly]] = λe.e is a singing event & e is loud • (relative to singing) • Witness: • This is a blue door  This door is blue • This is a short giraffe  This giraffe is short • John sang loudly  John's singing was loud

4. The Puzzle of -er Nominals • Bolinger 1967, Larson 1998: • John is a heavy smoker • John is heavy •  •  John smokes heavily • Hebrew: • ha-potrim nexona • the-solver-PL correctly-ADV • hem potrim nexona • they solve correctly • Hebrew’s so-called Beynoni (“participle”) form for verbs is ambiguous between a verb and a noun. • Our approach: Hebrew and English are more similar than what overt morpho-syntax reveals, due to the special morpho-syntactic properties of -er nominals.

5. Note on Coercion • Bolinger 1967, Larson 1998: • John is a heavy smoker • John is heavy •  •  John smokes heavily • Pustejovsky 1995: • This Ferrari is a fast car • (i.e. it moves fast) •  This Ferrari is fast • This waltz is a fast dance • (i.e. it has a fast tempo) •  This waltz is fast • Coercion is a lexical phenomenon, independent of the -er puzzle.

6. Modifier Orientation: Preliminaries (1) • Why do adjuncts modify the RA, and • not any thematic argument? • John surprised us enormously • The verb surprise has 2 thematic arguments and a referential argument (RA) – the event argument. • What orientates the modifier to the RA? • x.y.e.surprise(e,y,x) + z.enormous(z) • = x.y.e.surprise(e,y,x)enormous(e) • ≠ x.y.e.surprise(e,y,x)enormous(x) • ≠ x.y.e.surprise(e,y,x)enormous(y)

7. Modifier Orientation: Preliminaries (2) • John’s politefriend The relational noun friend has one thematic argument (the possessor) and one RA (the friend). What orientates the modifier to the RA? x.y.friend(x,y) + z.polite(z) = x.y. friend(x,y)  polite(x) ≠ x.y. friend(x,y)  polite(y)

8. Modifier Orientation: Preliminaries (3) • Why do adjuncts modify the RA, and • not any thematic argument? • Standard answer: Syntax does. • Somehow – the syntax singles out the event argument for adverbial modifiers, the possesed argument for adnominal modifiers in posessives, etc. • How precisely? • W&Z 2011: The new formal theory of Abstract Categorial Grammar (De Groote 2001, Muskens 2003).

9. Event Orientated Adnominals • Adjectives: (Bolinger 1967, Larson 1998, Coppock 2009, Alexeyenko 2011) • beautiful dancer smooth operator • heavy smoker clean fighter • hard worker shallow breather • violent campaigner • PPs: (possibly new) • destroyer of the city in 1735 • killer of JFK in 1963 • founder of Apple in a Silicon Valley garage • defeater of the Armada in 1588 • Restrictions: (Levin/Rappaport 1988,1992, McIntyre 2010) • inducer of protein growth (*with a new technique)

10. Hebrew Participles (Beynoni) • (ha)potrim nexona • (the)solve-PL correctly • maxrivey ha-ir bishnat 1735 • (the) destroy-PL (of the) city in-year 1735 • rokdim yafe • dance-PL beautifully • rocxo shel kenedi be-1963 • kill-he of Kenndy in-1963 • me'aSnim bixvedut • Smoke-PL heavily • meyasda shel epel be-musax • found-she of Apple in-garage • ovdim kashe • work-PL hard • mevisey ha-armada be-1588 • defeat-PL the-Armada in-1588 • mesaxkim bealimut • play-PL violently • nilxamim behaginut • Fight-PL decently • mesoxaxim biydidutiyut • speak-PL amicably

11. Larson’s Proposal • Nominals, including -er nominals, may • have a Davidsonian event argument. • [[dancer]] = λx.λe.x is the agent of dancing event e • [[beautiful dancer]] • λx.λe.x is the beautiful agent of dancing event e • λx.λe.x is the agent of beautiful dancing event e

12. Questions for Larson´s proposal • What specifies the agent as the RA in beautiful dancer? • Thus, why can´t it mean ``a beautiful dancing event´´? • What blocks ambiguity in dance beautifully? • Thus, why can’t it mean “person who dances beautifully”? • These possible problems would appear if non-referential arguments (e.g. events with dancer) can be freely modified as in Larson’s proposal.

14. Revising Larson’s Account • Maintaining the tripartite typology of arguments • Syntactic Arguments • Semantic Arguments • -ER NOMINALS (cf. Williams 2003, Egg 2004): • 1- have verbal projection within NP, • 2- which is low within the NP, • 3- and whose referential arg. is the event • Referential • Thematic • Expletive

15. 1- Verbal Projection • beautifully • dance

16. 1- Verbal Projection • nexona • potrim

17. 2- Low within NP (Hebrew) • ha • ha-nexonim • nexona • potrim

18. 2- Low within NP (English) • the • beautiful • beautiful • dance • er

19. 3- RA is the event (Hebrew) • ha • ha-nexonim • nexona • potrim

20. 3- RA is the event (English) • the • beautiful • beautiful • dance • er

21. Improvements over Larson’s proposal (1) • Questions for Larson: • What specifies the agent as the RA? • What blocks ambiguity in dance beautifully? • Answers: • Only one covert argument at each level – the RA. • Syntax does, as usual with modification and thematic arguments.

22. Improvements over Larson’s proposal (2) • No event modification with non-er nominals: • beautiful dancer ?beautiful ballerina • hard worker ?hard employee • light traveler ?light passenger • just king, stray bullet, fast horse, daily newspaper – • probably coercion • or more complex modification than predication over events

23. Ordering of modifiers • Larson and Takahashi 2007 • Olga is a blonde beautiful dancer. •  Olga is blonde and beautiful •  Olga is blonde and she dances beautifully • Olga is a beautiful blonde dancer. •  Olga is blonde and beautiful • blonde beautiful [NP [NPer [ dancer ]]] • blonde [NPbeautiful [NPer [ dancer ]]] • beautiful blonde [NP [NPer [ dancer ]]] • ?beautiful [NPblonde [NPer [ dancer ]]]

24. Relational Nouns • champion in 1981 • new president • mayor till 2014 • Speculation: Relational nouns always come with an eventuality.

25. Summary • -ER nominals have a verbal layer. • Within this layer, event orientated adnominals act as adverbial modifiers, (only) sometimes disguised under adjectival morphology. • Multiple verbal + nominal layers allow us to maintain the RA hypothesis, without complicating compositional processes. • Event-orientated modification of relational, non-deverbal, nominals, requires further study.