Documentation

Studies.ParteeBorschev2003

Partee and Borschev (2003): Genitives, Relational Nouns, and Argument-Modifier Ambiguity #

Partee and Borschev compare two analyses of the genitive. On the split analysis they defend, a genitive is either the argument of a relational noun, teacher of John's, or a modifier of a sortal noun carrying a free contextual relation, team of John's; on Jensen and Vikner's uniform analysis every genitive is an argument, a sortal noun being coerced to a relational one. For a coerced sortal noun the two assemble the same predicate and differ only in where the free relation enters. They come apart under former (§4.3): Mary's former mansion has a reading on which the building is a former mansion now Mary's and one on which it was formerly Mary's mansion, the free relation outside or inside the scope of former. The split analysis derives only the first, since the relation enters with the genitive after former has combined with the noun, and coercion derives both.

Main statements #

Implementation notes #

former is modelled against a fixed past time. The paper's compositional tree for the split analysis and its discussion of the Russian genitive are not represented.

References #

Convergence (15), (16) #

source
theorem ParteeBorschev2003.convergence {E : Type u_1} {S : Type u_2} (N : E → S → Prop) (R : E → E → S → Prop) (y : E) :
Possession.π N R y = N ⊓ R y

The coerced noun π N R taken as the genitive's argument is the noun modified by the bare predicate possessive R y, so the accounts differ only in where the free relation enters.

Divergence under former (17), (18) #

source
def ParteeBorschev2003.former {E : Type u_1} {S : Type u_2} (past : S) (P : E → S → Prop) :
E → S → Prop

former on a noun holds of what satisfied the noun at the past time and no longer does.

Equations
Instances For
    source
    def ParteeBorschev2003.formerRel {E : Type u_1} {S : Type u_2} (past : S) (Rel : E → E → S → Prop) :
    E → E → S → Prop

    former on a relation, the shifted modifier of former owner.

    Equations
    Instances For
      source
      def ParteeBorschev2003.readingA {E : Type u_1} {S : Type u_2} (past : S) (N : E → S → Prop) (R : E → E → S → Prop) (y : E) :
      E → S → Prop

      Reading A has the free relation outside the scope of former, a former mansion that is now Mary's.

      Equations
      Instances For
        source
        def ParteeBorschev2003.readingB {E : Type u_1} {S : Type u_2} (past : S) (N : E → S → Prop) (R : E → E → S → Prop) (y : E) :
        E → S → Prop

        Reading B has the free relation inside the scope of former, something that was formerly Mary's mansion.

        Equations
        Instances For
          source
          theorem ParteeBorschev2003.readingA_eq_readingB_of_constant {E : Type u_1} {S : Type u_2} (past : S) (N : E → S → Prop) (R : E → E → S → Prop) (y : E) (hR : ∀ (x : E) (s : S), R y x s ↔ R y x past) :
          readingA past N R y = readingB past N R y

          When the free relation does not change over time the two readings coincide, so the position of the relation is undetectable.

          source
          theorem ParteeBorschev2003.readingB_not_readingA_iff {E : Type u_1} {S : Type u_2} (past : S) (N : E → S → Prop) (R : E → E → S → Prop) (y x : E) (s : S) :
          readingB past N R y x s ∧ ¬readingA past N R y x s ↔ N x past ∧ R y x past ∧ ¬R y x s

          Reading B holds and reading A fails of exactly what was the possessor's N and is no longer the possessor's, whether or not it is still an N: the building that is still a mansion but no longer Mary's.

          source
          theorem ParteeBorschev2003.readingA_not_readingB_iff {E : Type u_1} {S : Type u_2} (past : S) (N : E → S → Prop) (R : E → E → S → Prop) (y x : E) (s : S) :
          readingA past N R y x s ∧ ¬readingB past N R y x s ↔ N x past ∧ ¬N x s ∧ R y x s ∧ ¬R y x past

          Reading A holds and reading B fails of exactly a former N that is the possessor's now and was not when it was an N: a ruin Mary has acquired since.