Kay and Michaelis (2019): Constructional Meaning and Compositionality #
This file formalizes the two formal claims of Kay and Michaelis's survey chapter. First,
rules of semantic combination are construction-relative: a construction specifies how the
semantics of the daughters combine into the semantics of the mother and what the construction
itself adds (Sections 1 and 4). CompositionRule and interps
give that architecture content over the licensing layer's local trees, a token's readings being
whatever the syntactically matching constructions' rules produce from its daughters' readings;
the chapter's opening contrast, purple plum composed by intersection and alleged thief by
operator application under one syntactic configuration, falls out as two constructions sharing
a typed form whose rules accept disjoint daughter denotations, so that each token gets exactly
one reading (purple_plum_intersective, alleged_thief_operator). Second, the kinds of
meaning a construction contributes, truth-conditional content, argument structure, conventional
implicature, illocutionary force, metalinguistic comment and information flow (Sections 3 and
9), are MeaningKind, instantiated on the chapter's own cases already in the library: caused
motion, let alone and the incredulity response.
References #
§3: kinds of constructional meaning #
The chapter's classification, offered as "neither definitive nor
exhaustive"; informationFlow is §9's strand.
A MeaningKind is a kind of meaning a construction contributes ([KM19]
§3, §9).
- literal : MeaningKind
- argumentStructure : MeaningKind
- conventionalImplicature : MeaningKind
- illocutionaryForce : MeaningKind
- metalinguistic : MeaningKind
- informationFlow : MeaningKind
Instances For
Equations
- KayMichaelis2019.instDecidableEqMeaningKind x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
§4: construction-relative composition #
"The construction also specifies how the semantics of the daughters are
combined to produce the semantics of the mother, and what additional
semantics, if any, is contributed by the construction itself" — the
CompositionRule architecture of
ConstructionGrammar.Composition, instantiated below.
§1: purple plum vs. alleged thief #
"A purple plum is a member of the set of purple things and a member of the set of plums. But an alleged thief is not a member of the intersection of the set of thieves and the set of alleged things." Two modification constructions share one syntactic form; their rules accept disjoint daughter shapes, so each token composes exactly one way.
The intersective rule maps two predicate daughters to their intersection (purple plum).
Equations
- KayMichaelis2019.intersectiveRule E [KayMichaelis2019.Den.pred a, KayMichaelis2019.Den.pred n] = some (KayMichaelis2019.Den.pred fun (x : E) => a x ∧ n x)
- KayMichaelis2019.intersectiveRule E x✝ = none
Instances For
The operator rule applies the adjective's predicate operator to the head's predicate (alleged thief).
Equations
- KayMichaelis2019.operatorRule E [KayMichaelis2019.Den.op f, KayMichaelis2019.Den.pred n] = some (KayMichaelis2019.Den.pred (f n))
- KayMichaelis2019.operatorRule E x✝ = none
Instances For
modificationForm is the prenominal-modification form the two constructions share.
Equations
- KayMichaelis2019.modificationForm = [{ filler := ConstructionGrammar.SlotFiller.open_ UD.UPOS.ADJ }, { filler := ConstructionGrammar.SlotFiller.open_ UD.UPOS.NOUN, isHead := true }]
Instances For
Intersective Adj+N modification has the intersective rule as its meaning.
Equations
- KayMichaelis2019.intersectiveModification E = { form := KayMichaelis2019.modificationForm, meaning := KayMichaelis2019.intersectiveRule E }
Instances For
Operator Adj+N modification has the operator rule as its meaning.
Equations
- KayMichaelis2019.operatorModification E = { form := KayMichaelis2019.modificationForm, meaning := KayMichaelis2019.operatorRule E }
Instances For
The two constructions share their form, one rule of syntactic formation with two semantic specifications (§1).
demoCx is the inventory of the two modification constructions.
Equations
Instances For
demoLex gives purple, plum and thief predicates and alleged an operator.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
purplePlum is purple plum, two words tagged for part of speech.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
allegedThief is alleged thief, two words tagged for part of speech.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Purple plum has exactly one reading, the intersection, since the operator construction matches the form but its rule rejects two predicate daughters.
Alleged thief has exactly one reading, the operator applied to the head predicate, and no intersective one.
With only the intersective construction, alleged thief has no reading at all: the chapter's point that intersection cannot be the single rule of adjectival modification.
§§5–7 instantiated #
The chapter's cases that the library already formalizes, with the kind of meaning each contributes.
chapterCases pairs the chapter's example constructions with their kinds of meaning: caused
motion (§5, exx. 19–22, Frank sneezed the tissue off the table), let alone (§6, ex. 32), and
the incredulity type (§7, ex. 14, Him get first prize?!).
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.