AND VERB FORM SEMANTICS Frank v~n Eynoe... Compare ~2~ he is drinking coffee 12] he drinks coffee 22, can Oenote a single instance of drinking as wei" as a recent habit of him to drink::
Trang 1AND VERB FORM SEMANTICS
Frank v~n Eynoe
U n i v e r s i t y oi Leuven
M a r = a - T h e r e s i a s t r a a t , 21
3 0 0 0 Leuven Belgium
ABSTRACT
The veto f o r m s are o 4 t e n c l a i m e o to c o n v e y two
; i n d s o+ i n f o r m a t i o n :
I w~et'~er the e v e n t O e e c r i b e d in a s e n t e n c e is
p r e s e n t , past or f u t u r e (= o e i c t i c i n f o r m a t i o n
2 whether the event described in a sentence i s
oresente~ as completed, going on, j u s t s t a r t i n g
or being , i n i s h e d (= espectual i n f o r m a t i o n )
[ t w i l l be ~emonstrated in t h i s paper t h a t one
has t l ado a r h i n o component t o the a n a l y s i s of
verb ~orm m e a n i n g s , n a m e l y w ~ e ~ n e r or no~ t h e y
e>press h a b l t u a l i t v
The 4ramewor~ 04 the a n a l y s i s i s mo~el-
t h e o r e t i c semantics
BACKGROUND
The a n a l w l s of i t e r a t i o n and h a ~ i t u a l i t y in
t h i s ~aper is p a r t of a comprehensive semantic
a r ~ I v s i s of temporal e x p r e s s i o n s in n a t u r a l
kanguage The research on t h i s t o p i c i s c a r r i e d
ob~ in ~he framework of EUROTRA, the MT p r o j e c t o4
the European Community It i s r e p o r t e o on
e, t e n s i ~ , e i v in Van Eynde ( l q B T )
The o r i g i n a l motive f o r s ~ a r t i n g t h i s research
~as the fact that verbal t e n s e s ann t e m p o r a l
a , : ~ : i l i ~ r i e s do not corresponO o n e - t o - o n e in toe
ienguages t h a t EUROTRA has to deal w i t h Compare
for i n ~ t a q c e
, i EN ne has l i v e d in Copenhagen f o r 20 years
,Z, Dk nan nan boer i KmOenhavn i 20 ~r
~ i t ~ t n e l r e q u l v a i e n t s in the f o k i o w l n g languages
• S~ DE er wonnt s e i t 20 Jahren in Kopenhaoen
~ i FR i i haDite ~ Copenhaoue Oepuis 20 ans
~5, NL n i j woont sinds t w i n t l g j a a r in Kopenhagen
When t r a n s l a t i n g from E n g l i e h or Danish to German,
D i & ~ e r e r c e s like t h e s e can be h a n d l e d In o n e o; two e a V s e i t h e r by O e f i n l n g c o m p l e x m a p p i n g s from source language t o t a r g e t language forms in
t r a n s f e r or Oy O e f l n l n g mappings Oetween language
s p e c i f i c forms and I n t e r l i n g u a l meanings in the monolingual components
complex mmpc~ngs
,[ i d e n t i t y I
Because c* EUROTR~ s ao~erence t o the p r i n c i p l e o~ " s i m P l e t ~ a n s f e ~" it was q u i t e O O V l O U S ~rom the
s t a r t t h a t the interlingual a p p r o a ~ was the one
t o opt ~or I t w i l l , hence, be adopted in t h l s paper a~ w e l l
The p a p e r c o n s i s t s of t~ree p a r t s
In ths f l r s t I will p r e s e n t a f o r m a l i s m for the
r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of time m e a n i n g s , t o g e t h e r w i t h mooel for the i n t e r p r ~ t a t l o n o~ t h o s e
r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s In the seconp t h i s forma|ism w i i l
be extenOeO so t h a t i t can also Pe use~ f o r the
a n a ] ~ s l S o~ i t e r a t i o n an¢ habitL, alit~ Ann In th~
t h i r d p e r t I ~ i ~ i show how the extendeo f o r m a l i s ~ can be l,~' ~or a~ ! n [ e r l l n o u a ~ a ~ a l v s i s O~ the ver~ fo~.S,
THE CORE FORMALISM
A Temporal Model
T~e f o r m a l i s t tha: ~ill oe use: here has oee~
Trang 2The model C O n S I S t S of a s e t o f l i n e a r l y o r o e r e p
i r t s r v a l s
An i n t e r v a l ~s a c o n t i n u o u s set of time p o i n t s
on the time a x i s :
I
A l a l i m i t e i t might c o n s i s t of one moment o6
t l m e :
I
For an~ p a i r of ~ n t e r v a i e one can Oeflne t n e l r
the'/ s h a r e :
I n j Tn~s set m~g~t also be empty, as in
it I s , f u r t h e r m o r e , p o s s i b l e t o d e f i n e some
b~narv r e l a t i o n s between i n t e r v a i s , such ae
l
preceoence ' , , ~} I be4ore O ( ~i,J:
O J a f t e r i ; ~ J , i ;
I
~ d e n t ~ t y " t I ) I simui ] = ( l , a )
O
I
c o n t a i n , , ' ) I p a r t - o f J c~I,J.,
d 0 c o n t a i n I ~ ( J , I ;
I
o v e r l a p ' , ~ , ) I l e f t o v e r J ~ < ( I , J )
O J r i g h t o v e r I >>(O,l) T~ese r e l a t i o n s are also useO i n Bruce (1972)
A Format f o r R e p r e s e n t a t i o n
For the semantic a n a l y s i s of the temporal
expressions i w i l i s t a r t from tne assumption t ~ a t
every sentence can be analvseo in two p a r t s : the
temporal i n f o r m a l : o n expressa~ by the tenses
a u x i l i a r i e s anO a o ~ e r b i a l s on t~e one hano anp
~as~o atempora! p r o p o s i t i o n on the o t ~ e r hand
w ~ i f o r i n s t a n c e , be analyseo in a basic
p r o p o s i t i o n " t h e cat s i t on the met" and the
~n~ormation conveyed Dv the past tense
The r e l a t i o n between both i s e s t a b l i s h e d in two steps : the basic p r o p o s i t i o n i s f i r s t r e l a t e O t o the i n t e r v a l ~or whicn i t i s said t o be t r u e , the
s o c a l l e d time of event (E), and then t h i s i n t e r v a l
i s r e l a t e d to the time Of speech ~S) :
3 E : , E , S ) ~ AT(E,the cat s i t on the mat)3 This formula s t a t e s t h a t " t h e cat s i t on the mat" i~ t r u e at an i n t e r v a l E which precedes the tlme
of speech S
F o l l o w i n g Reichenbach (1947) I w i l l f u r t h e r m o r e
a s s u m e that the r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n the t i m e of e v e n t and the time of speech i s mediated by a t h i r o kind o~ i n t e r v a l , namely the time of r e f e r e n c e (R), So,
i n s t e a d of the simple ReI(E,S) we w111 have a composite ReI~E,R) & RefeR,S)
Ne.t to t h l s r e l a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n tn~ tempore: e x p r e e s l o n s can also g i v e s p e c i f i c
i n f o r m a t l o n about the i o c a t l o n or the l e n g t h of the r e i e ~ a n t i n t e r v a l s This i s t y p i c a l l y Oone by means o~ t:me a O v e r b i a i s , such as " n e x t y e a r " , " i n
t h e s p r i n g ' : , " f o r t~o y e a r s " , " t i l l C h r i s t m a s " ,
e t c T~is in~ormatlon w i l l be r e p r e s e n t e d bY means o~ one-place preOicates over i n t e r v s l s : Freo(E) and P r e d ~ ) ,
~n e x c e p t i o n ~s t c be ~ade here +or the time o, speec~ ~nose p r e c i s e l o c a t i o n or l e n g t h i s never
s p e c ~ f l e o b , i i n Q o ~ s t i c means, bu[ r a t h e r bv pragmatic f a c t o r s A p o s s i b l e way to r e e l e c t tn~s-
In the &oc~,allsm i s t o t r e s t i t as an unbouno
v a r i a b l e
In sum, the general format f o r the
r e p r e s e n t a t l o n of temporal i n f o r m a t i o n looks as
f o l l o w s :
3 R,E [Rei(R.S) ~ Pred~R; & ~eI(E,R) ~ Prep(E)
A T ( E , p ) ] where p i s a basic atemporal p r o p o s i t i o n
An example ;
~T we w i l l v i e l t Moscow next year
3 P,E [,~R,S~ & ne~t vear~R) ~ =~E,R) &
A ~ E,we v i s i t Moscowi]
Trang 3f o ~ the ~ e p r e s e n t a t l o n of sentences l i k e
(8~ last year t h e y p l a y e d chess e v e r y w e e k
(e~ he was a l w a y s l a t e
The basic p r o p o e ~ t i o n s " t h e y p l a y chess" and
"he oe l a t e " do not hold f o r one p a r t i c u l a r time
of event E, but r a t h e r f o r a set of i n t e r v a l s
wnicn are spread in time i n some way s p e c i f i e o by
" e v e r y week" in (8) and "always" in ( 9 )
In the f o l l o w i n g p a r t I w i l l i n t r o d u c e an
exter.oeO formalism which can OeaI w i t h these t y p o s
04 i t e r a t i o n
THE EXTENDED FORMALISM
C y c l i c Iteration
C y c l i c i t e r a t i o n i s marked by a o v e r p i a l s l i k e
" c a i i v " , " e v e r y Monday", "each y e a r " , e t c In
~ v i r k e a (1972) t h e y are c a l l a o p e r i o d i c
For the a n a l y s i s of these a d v e r b i a l s I f i r s t
IntroOuce the n o t i o n Crams t i m e The frame time i e
the i n t e r v a l which c o n t a i n s a l l the i n s t a n c e s of
the event describeo in the basic p r o p o s i t i o n In
(8~ l a s t year they played chess e v e r y week
t~e ~rame time i s l a s t y e a r In the general forma~
t e frame time occupies the same place as the time
c~ event in n o n - i t e r a t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s (= the
E - i ~ t e r v a i ~ ,
~ e x t , I de~ine a set of d i s t i n c t , non-
o v e r l a p p i n g s u b i n t e r v a l s ~I~ which are a l l p a r t o+
the frame time In (8~, these i n t e r v a l s have a
l e n g t h of one week each This g i v e s the f o l l o w i n g
, p r e l i m i n a r y ) r e p r e s e n t a t i o n :
5 R,E [ (R,S) & l a s t year(R~ & =(E,R) &
I [ c ' i , E ) & n I : ~ & w e e k , i ) - - - x
A T ~ i , t h e y p l a y c h e s s ; ] ]
s i m i l a r a n a l y s i s can be found in Stump (198i
where t~e a o v e r b i a l f r e q u e n c y a d ~ e c t l v e e (P) ere
given the f o l l o w i n g t r u t h c o n d i t i o n :
i~4 , ~ m is t r u e in w at n o n - o v e r l a p p i n g
s u b i n t e r v a l s o$ i d i s t r i O u t e O t h r o u g h o u t i
~t perioOs of a s p e c i $ i e o length I "
[Stump 1981, 226]
5t~mp s i - i n t e r v a l c o r r e s p o n d s to my f r a m e time and his n o n - o v e r l a p p l n g s u b i n t e r v a l s correspond t o my I - i n t e r v a l s
As a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of (B) t h i s f o r m u l a i s not
s u f f i c i e n t , though, since the i n s t a n c e s of chess
p l a ~ i n g do not have t o take a whole week f o r (B~
to be t r u e A more adequate paraphrase i s t o say
t h a t e v e r y week c o n t a i n e d at l e a s t one s u b i n t e r v a l (e~ d u r i n g which t h e y played chess :
, o
l [ c ( l , E ~ & nl=~ & w e e k ! i ) - - - >
e [ c ~ e , l ) & AT(e, t h e y p l a y c n e s s ) ] ]
An argument in f a v o r of t h i s r e f i n e m e n t i s t h a t languages have s p e c i a l means f o r s p e c i f y i n g the e-
t i m e s In
~I(' last year she a r r i v e d at ~ c c l o c k e v e r y da~
the a o v e r b i a 2 "at eight o ¢ioc~" denotes the
l o c a t l O n 04 t~e e - i n t e r v a i ;
B
N o t i c e tha~ the p r o ~ a r t l e e of e are c o n s t a n t
w i t h i n 'the 4tame time : the a o v e r D i a l " s t e i g h t
o c l o t ! " s p e c i t i e s t~e time of each o¢ her
a r r l v a l s cf last year
The general format f o r the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of
c y c l i c i t e r a t i o n is, h e n c e ~
3 R,E [ReI~R,S) & PreO~R~ & Rei(E,Ri & Pred~E} &
I [ c ( l E ~ & ni=O & P(1) - - -
e ~:~e~I~ ~ M(e) - - - 2 A T ~ e , p ; ] ] ]
w h e r e P is r e p l a c e c ov the h e a d o4 a p e r i o o i c
~ r e q u e n c v a o v e r b i a l , s p e c i f y i n g the
l o c a t i o n or t h e i e n g t n o~ I
Io - o p t l o n a } l ~ i r e p l a c e d ov ~ ti~,a
a d v e r o ~ 6 i , s P e c i f Y i n ~ the l e n g t h cr the
i g c a t l o n C.f e
~n i m [ , o r t a r ~ t p r o p e r t y of t h i s f o r m a t is it ~
c h a i n - l i k e s t r u c t u r e :
Trang 4R i s oef~neo w i t h r e s p e c t t o S : ReI~R,S~
E as d e f i n e d w i t h r e s p e c t t o R : ReI(E,R~
I i s d e f i n e o w~th r e s p e c t t o E : ~ ( I , E )
and e i s o e f i n e o w i t h respect t o I : c ( e I ~
As it stands, the format does not p r o v i o e any
means f o r s t a t i n g a d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p between
the i n t e r v a l s i n s i d e the frame time ~I and e~ ano
the i n t e r v a l s o u t s i d e the frame time (S anO R~ As
consequence, the formal~sm p r e d i c t s t h a t
temporal a d v e r b i a l s w~ich are in the scope o~ a
frequency a d v e r b i a l ( : the e - s p e c i f i e r s ~ cannot
r e f e r ba~K t o the speech t~me or the eeference
time: * Rei(e,S) and * Rel(e,R~,
gooo p;ece of evidence f o r t h i s h y p o t h e s i s ~s
p r ~ i o e d by the WHEN-aoveroiais In general one
can d i s t i n g u i s h two kinde of those a d v e r b i a l s :
t~e r e l a t i o n a l ones, which express a r e l a t i o n
Oetween the r e f e r e n c e time and the speech t i m e ,
such as " ~ e s t e r d a y " a'nd " t o m o r r o w " , and the non-
r e l a t i o n a l ones, which i d e n t i f y the l o c a t i o n o~ an
: n t e r v a l w i t h o u t any r e f e r e n c e t o the speech t~me,
suc~ as "between 8 and 9" and " a t two o c l o c k "
The i n t e r e s t i n g t h i n g now i s t ~ a t o n l y the
l a t t e r a d v e r b i a l s can occur i n the scope of a
frequency a d v e r b i a l Compare
:iI~ she a r r i v e d every day between 8 anq 9
e
*(12~ she a r r i v e d every day y e s t e r d a y
e
The f a c t t h a t the r e l a t i o n a l WHEN-adverbials
cannot occur in the scope of a f r e q u e n c y aoverb~al
prcviOes some p o s i t i v e evioence ~or not i n c i u o l n §
d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s between e ano S in the formal~em
The c h a l n - l i k e s t r u c t u r e of the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n
format I s , hence, i ~ n g u i s t i c a l l y m o t i v a t e d
Temporal Quantifiers
The format Oeveloped f o r the a n a l y s i s of c v c l i c
i t e r a t l o n can also be useo f o r the a n a l y s i s o~ the
temporal ~uantifier$, such as " m i w a y ~ " ,
"scmetlmes", " n e v e r " , "seldom" ano " o f t e n " The
~ r m e t i o n they proviOe i s less s p e c i f i c than the
ona p~ovioed by the p e r i o d f r e q u e n c y aOverb~ais,
ar, d t ~ s should be r e f i e c t e O in t h e i r
r e p r e s e n t a t i o n
As a s t a r t i n g p o i n t I take the general ~ormat
~or the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o~ s e n t e n c e s w~th a
p e r i o d i c frequency a d v e r b i a l :
~ i [ c ( l E ~ & nI=~ & P ( l i - - - >
3 e [ c i e , l i & M i e ) & A T ( e , p ) ] ]
q u a n t i f l e r s t h i s format has t o be g e n e r a l i e e o The most i m p o r t a n t change i s the replacement of the u n i v e r s a l o u a n t i ; i e r bv a v a r i a b l e :
Q I C=(I,E) where Q can be any of the f o l l o ~ i n g q u a n t i f l e r s
always
3 eometimes
-3 n e v e r Few selOom, r a r e l y , now ano then Many o~ten, f r e q u e n t l y
Most u s u a l l v , m o s t l y , g e n e r a l l y .=,is s i x f o l d d z v i s : o n i s taken beer from Lewis
~1975)
This a n a l y s i s account~ f o r the anomaly of sentences l i k e
o ,13} we sometimes played chess e v e r y wee~
3
? (141 they o f t e n met e v e r y month
Many (15p we always plaveO chess every week
9
T h e s e s e n t e n c e s are e e m a n t l c e i i y a n o m a l o u s oecauee t~e sa~e ~ino o* I n * o r m a t i o n namely the v~iue o~ ~ i s e p e c ~ l e c t w i c e This leaps to :~cons~etenc~ ~ ~13) and (14} where the Q-
v e ~ i a ~ i e IB s~l~ t o be both u n i v e r s a l anO non-
~ r ; v e r s ~ i at tme same t i m e , a n d i t leaos to pleonasm in ( 1 5 ~ where the Q - v a r i a b l e i s t w i c e sago t o Oe u ~ , i v e r s a l
The ne, t q u e s t i o n i s whethe," thP temporal
q u a n t ! ~ i e r s i n t r o d u c e any e x t r a - c o n q i t i o n s on those I n t e r v a l s , o u c h ms c ~ l , E ) , ~I=~ and P~i~ The f ~ r s t of t~ese c o n d i t i o n s appears t o Pe
r e l e v a n t : the temporal q u a n t i f i e r s are ~ndeeo
i n t e r p r e t e O w i ~ r e s p e c t to some given frame time
In
~ x he was a l ~ a y s late
" a l w a y s " ooesnot oenote AL~ p o s s i b l e i n t e r v a l s but onl~ a l l p o s s i b i e i n t e r v a l s ~n the p a s t The conoit~on t h a t the s u b i n t e r v a l s may no~
o v e r l a p does not seem t o be r e l e v a n t , though, in (16, quaOratlc equations are aIweye s~mple
Trang 5~imple" are t r u e are no~ t e m p o r a l l y ordereo at
all it, is m~gnt i n d i c a t e , Ov the way, that the i-
o b j e c t s ~re not n e c e s s a r i l y i n t e r v a l s , but r a t h e r
cases or occasions wnlcn can but need no: be given
m temporal i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ( o f Lewis 1975i
The t h i r d c o n O i t i o n concerns the p r o p e r t i e s of
t~e I - o b j e c t s In the case of the p e r i o d i c
• ,equency a O v e r b l a l s the r e l e v a n t p r o p e r t i e s
concern the l o c a t i o n or the l e n g t h of the
i n t e r v a l In the case of the temporal g u a n t i f l e r s
one could t h i n k of s p e c i f y i n g a r e l e v a n c e
c o n o i t i c n ~ f o r a sentence l i k e
~ he was always late
ones not mea= t h a t he was l a t e at any p o s s i b l e
occasion in the p a s t , Put r a t h e r t h a t he was l a t e
on a l l occasions on which h i s being l a t e or t i m e l ~
could nave mattered
in Aqv~st, Hoepelman & Rohrer (1980) one can
~ind a proposal t o i n c o r p o r a t e t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n in
the semantic r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , but I w i l l not adopt
t ~ i s proposal h e r e , since the c o n d i t i o n s o~ the
, n o n ) r e l e v a n c e of the o c c a s i o n s are t y p i c a l i v
determined O~ pragmatic f a c t o r s , in
~:" he always leaves o~-~ t w e l v e
the r e l e v a n t occasions (1) could j u s t as w e l l oe
all occasions on which he leaves as a l l occasions
on W n l c h ne l e a v e s f o r work as a!i o c c a s i o n s on
~ h i s h he l e a v e s for w a t c h i n g the h o m e g a m e of nls
~ a v o u r l t e f o o t O a i i team
As a r e s u l t of the f o r e g o i n g r e d u c t i o n s ar~o
changes the general format f o r a n a l y s i n g tempo, al
c u a n t i f i e r s looks as f o l l o w s :
3 ~,E [ReI(R,S) & Pred(R) & ReI(E,R) & F'reoiE) &
Q I [ c ( l ~ E ) - - - > / &
3 e [ c ~ e , I ; & M~ei & A T ( e , p ! ] ] ]
, h e r e O i s replaced by any of {V, 3, "3, Most,
Few, Many}
M is r e p l a c e d by some time a d v e r b i a l
which s p e c i f i e s the l o c a t i o n or the
l e n g t h of e ( i f t h e r e i s anv~
The sentences oiscusse~ so f a r a l l c o n t a i n an
e x p l i c i t i n d i c a t i o n of i t e r a t i o n !he presence of SL~Ch an I n d l C a t l O n I s , however, not necessary for
d e r i v i n g an i t e r a t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n Take, ÷or
i n s t a n c e , (in~ he leaves at twel~e This sentence cannot o n l y mean t n a t he w i l l leave at t w e l v e , but also t h a t he has the h a b i t of
l e a v i n g ~-* t w e l v e
in the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n the time a d v e r b i a l
s p e c i f i s s the t~me of r e f e r e n c e :
the former
" a t t w e l v e '
3 ~,E [ : ( R , S ) & at t w e l v e ( R ) & : ( E , R ) &
AT(E he l e a v e ~ ]
E
in the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of tne h a b i t u a l
i ~ t e r p r e t a t i o n ~ on tne o t h e r hand, tne time
a d v e r o l a l shouls be tal~en t o s p e c i f y the m u l t i p l e
e - t l m e , f o r the s e n t e n c e Ooes no~ r e p o r t on one o~
h i s ieavzngs at t w e l v e , out r a t h e r on s e v e r a l of
s o c n : e a , e s As a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h i s
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n I propose :
~,=st ; [ ~I.fJ - - - , _ e L c ~ e , I ) ,~ at twelve~e & AT~e, he leave, l]
R (19~ he leaves at t w e l v e
i s t - e a t e n as synonymous w i t h (20, he u s u a l l y leaves at t w e l v e
I f t h i s i s f e l t t o be u n d e s i r a b l e , one cam introGuce a s p e c i a l q u a n t i f i e r f o r marking
h a b i t u a i i t v , but at t h i s moment ~ do not see an~
r e a s o n f o r SUCh a move
Trang 6habitual ~nterpretat~one I s , hence,
3 R,E [ReI(R,S) ~ Pred(R) & Rel~E.R> ~ Preo(E)
Most i [c~I,E) - - - >
3 e [ c ~ e , I ) ~ Pred(e) & AT~e,p)]]]
The Assignment of Representations to Sentences
On t ~ e basis of the given analyses one
O:stinguls~ three kinds of sentence meanings :
no i t e r a t i o n
no ~ i [ l / p e r i o d i c
c y c l i c
i ~ e r a t i o n \
Q I [ ] \ i n d e f i - , t e
c a n
is specified
F is not specified
Q i s any of {~,3,
"3,~ost,Manv,Few}
The assl~nment of these meanings to p a r t i c u i a r
sentences is f a i r l y s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d when the
sentence contains a frequency adverOial or a
temporal q u a n t i f i e r , but i f there is none o~
those~ then the sentence is amOiguous Oetween a
n o n - l t e r a t i v e and an habitual i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ~cf
the two i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of "he leaves at tweive"~
It, p r a c t i c e there are some oisambiguatlng
~ I* the basic proposition (p) denotes a s t a t e ,
~r er, the sentence can not have an habitual
ir~erpreta~ior~ Compare
:i;~ ne leaves at twelve
,21 ne is in j e i !
~1~ can be i n t e r p r e t e d a s meaning that he has
the naPlt of leaving at twelve, bu~ (21i cannot Oe
i n t e r p r e t e d ms meaning that he has the habit of
bel=g in jail
~, Certain verb forms can biock the Oerivation o~
one of t~s two possiole i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s Compare
~2~ he is drinking coffee
12]) he drinks coffee
(22, can Oenote a single instance of drinking as
wei" as a recent habit of him to drink:: coffee ~cf
in the sense of "he is drinklng coffee nowadays")
( 2 ; , , on the other hand, can only denote a h a b i t ;
i t cmnnot be used to report on a single instance
o~ drinking
This demonstrates the need to distingulsn
o i 4 f e r e n t types of verb forms : the ones that w i l l aiways e l i c i t an habitual i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , the ones that block the d e r i v a t i o n o~ an habitual
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , and the ones t h a t admit both kinds
of i n t e r p r e t m t i o n s The f i r s ~ are unequivocall~ [ + h a b i t u a l ] , the second C-habitual[ and the l a s t
w i l l be given the f e a t u r e [ + / - h a b i t u a l ]
THE INTERLINSUAL ANALYSIS OF THE VERB FORMS
The Meanings of the Verb Forme
In the previous parts i h a v e presente¢ a formaliem f o r the representation of temporal information in sentences This formallsm is
e s p e c i a l l y deeigned f o r the anaiyeis of natural language, but not f o r the analysis o~ any
p a r t i c u l a r natural language, such ae English, Dutch or K i s w a h i l i
I t s mmin purpose is to provide a conceptuall~
w e l l - d e f i n e d language f o r de;ining and comparln~ the ~eanings of te~poral expressions in d i f f e r e n t natural l~nguagee In order to serve t h i s purpose
i t is not s ~ f f i c l e n t ~o have a formalism, ~nouon What is also needed is a general s p e c i f i c a t i o n o4 now the semmntic representations r e l a t e to t n e l r imnguage s p e c i f i c co~nterpmrts, i e the tenses, the temporal a u x l i : r i e s and t~e time a o v e r o i a l s The ÷orme~ two w i i l furcner de caileO veto forms,
For c { ' i s ~ ~ n ~ , those verb forms are summec up in the f o l l o w l n g rL~ie :
Vero form -~ [+/-F'ast] (wi11+ir.f)
(have+EP) ( { b e + i N S t o + f r i l l )
~e going
T, hi_'¢ rule y l e l d s 24 (=2x2x2x3) 'verb forms Their r o l e in the semantic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of sentences :an e a s i l y de expressed in terms of the given formalism They specify
i the r e l a t i o n Petween reference time anO speech time : ~eI(R,S) (= o e i c t i c information)
2 the r e l a t i o n between event time and reference time : ReI,E,R) (= aspectual information~
5 whether the sentence has an habitual and!or ;
n o n - i t e r a t i v e ~nterpretaZlon
Trang 7The meaning of a verb form can, hence, be
representeO as a t r i p l e ~ x , y , z > where x and v are
substi~uteO f o r one of the possible d i n a r ,
- e l a t i o n s oe~ween i n t e r v a l s , and where z is one of
the three poesible h a b i t u a l i ~ y values
The aame v e r b ~orm c a n , o f c o u r s e , h a v e
oifferent m e a n i n g s and will, hence, Oe assoclateO
~ t h a set of such t r i p l e s
The d e t a i l s o~ t h i s association h a v e been
discL:ssed elsewhere~ at ]east f o r the x ann ¥
values ~cf Van Eynde, des Tombe & Maes 1985i In
t n l s paper I w i l l only discuss the z values in
some d e t a i l
The M a b i t u a l i t y Value
A g o o d s t a r t i n g p o i n t f o r demonstrating the
r e l e v a n c e of the h a b i t u a l i t y value is provided by
the f o l l o w i n g i i s t of sentences T h e y are taken
from hess (1985)
~ ) a t e x t e d i t o r makes m o d i f i c a t i o n s to a t e x t
f i l e
~25) a t e x t e d i t o r is makin~ m o d i f i c a t i o n s to a
t e x t f i l e
~26) a t e x t e d i t o r made m o o i f l c a t i o n e to a t e x t
f i l e
• 27~ a t e x t e d i t o r has made m o d i f i c a t i o n s to a
t e x t f i l e
In L24) i t is said " t h a t a t e x t e d i t o r ma~es
m o d i f i c a t i o n s t o a t e x t f i l e in general, almost by
O e f i n i t i o n We might read t h i s sentence in a
re~erence manual" (Hess 1985, 10)
In (25-27), on the other hand, i t i s said " t h a t
there i s , or was, a case of a t e x t e d i t o r mankind
m o d i f i c a t i o n s to a t e x t f i l e These remarks might
~e made by a system o p e r a t o r , watcnlng ~is screen'
(lb.)
Hess c o n c l u d e s from these o b s e r v a t i o n s that the
q u a n t i f i e r of the subject is u n i v e r s a l in (24) and
e~:isten~ial in (25-27), However~ t h i s conclusion
does not f o l i o w a u t o m a t i c a l l y In terms of t h e
formalism presented in t h i s paper one could sa~
t h a t ( 2 4 ) has an h a b i t u a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , whereas
the other sentences h a v e a n o n - i t e r a t i v e
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , In the former case the e x i s t e n t i a l
q u a n t i f i e r of the subject w i l l be in the scope o~
the M o s t - q u a n t i f i e r , whereas in the l a t t e r case i t
w l i i not be in the scope of any n o n - e x i s t e n t i a l
q u a n t i f i e r , and t h i s accounts f o r the d i f f e r e n c e
in i n t e r p r e t a t i o n without havinq to p o s t u l a t e two
possiole meanings f o r the i n d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e
useful context,
t~ough, because they c l e a r l y i l l u s t r a t e the r o i e
of the vend for~ in the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n Since i t
is the only v a r i a b l e part in the sentences, the
~ i f f e r e n c e s in i n t e r p r e t a t i o n can only be ascribeo
to t h e m , more s p e c i f i c a l l y to t h e i r h a b l t u a i i t y value
; o r the assignment of an h a b l t u a l i t y value to a
given verb form one has to t e s t whether i t can or cannot e l i c i t an h a b i t u a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n in some given c o n t e x t In t e s t i n g t h i s one should
i always use sentences w i t h a n o n - s t a t i v e basic
p r o p o s i t i o n , f o r i~ the l a t t e r i s s t a t i v e the sentence can never be h a b i t u a l ( o f supra) ;
2 pay a t t e n t i o n to the other i n t e r i l n g u a l values
of the verb form The English simple present
f o r instance, is u n e o u i v o c a l l y [ + h a b i t u a l ] in
i t s sim~Itaneoue meaning, but in i t s p o s t e r i o r meaning i t can be [ - n a o i t u a l ] too ( o f the
n o n - i t e r a t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of "he leaves at
t w e l v e " ~ The relevance of the [ + / - H a b i t u a l i t v ] -
d i s t i n c t i o n has so f a r only been demonstrated from
a monolln~ual semantic p o i n t of view I t i s , however, possible to g i v e some t r a n s l a t i o n a l
evidence f o r t h i s o l e t i n c t l o = as w e l l
The r e l e v a n t c a s ~ s are tne o n e s w h e r e the corresponding verb forms h a v e Oi~ferent
h a b i : ~ a l l t y values A good example of t h i s is the
t r a n s l a t i o n of the D u t c h simple present in En~ilsh
The Dutch simple present can be both habitua} and ~ o n - h a c i t u a l in It~ s i m u l t a n e o u s m e a n i n g :
28; hi~ o,'inxt aileen whisky < s i m u i , y , ~ h a O i t u a l ~
" h e d r i n k s only whisky'
29, Liji~, h i j dr!nit k ~ 4 i e , s i m u l , / , - h a b l t u a i >
" l o o k , he Orinks c o , f e e "
The English simple present, on the other hand,
s always h a b i t u a l in i t s simultaneous meaning unless in sentences Oee:ribing s t a t e s , of c o u r s e (~0~ he only d r i n k s whisky < s l m u i , y , + h a b i t u a ~
*~31) iooi:, he d r i n k s ~o~fee < s i m u l , y , - h a ~ i t u a l Pot the expression of slmul~aneous non-
i t e r a t i v i t y one has to use She progressive : 32) look, De is c r i n k i n g coffee
As a conseoue~ce ~ e mapping of (29) to ~32) in~ol~es a n o n - ~ r i v i a i tense replacement, and i t
i l o~e of the merits o~ the given formaliem t h a t
i t car handle t h i s i r an l n t e r i i n g u a l way
Trang 8REFERENCES
~qviet Lennart, Hoepelman Jaap & Rohre? Ch~-istiah (19BO~, "Adverbs of frequency:, in Rohr~r (ed.), Time~ tense and quantifiere Niemever T~oingen, 1-17
Bruce Bertram (1972), "A model for temporal reference and i t s application in a question- answering p r o g r a m " , in A r t i f i c i a l I n t e l l i g e n c e
3, 1-25
Hess M~chael (I~B5), "How does natural language quantify ?" in Proceedings of the Secono Cmnferenc~ of the European Cnapter of the ACL, Geneva, B-15
Lemis David ~1975~ "Adverbs of o u a n t i f i c a t i o n " ,
in Keenan (ed.), Formal semantics of natural
language C a m b r i o g e University Press, Cambridge, ~-15
~ u ! r k Randolph, Greenbaum Sioney, Leech Geoffrey Svartvik Jan (1972J, A grammar of contemporar~ English Longman~ London
Relcnenoach Hans ( 1 9 4 7 ~ E l e m e n t s of s y m D o l l c
logic University of California Press,
Berkeley
Stump G r e g o r ~19BI~, "The I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of
f r e q u e n c ~ ~ a d j e c t i v e s " , In L ~ n g u i s t i c s ant
~nilosophy 4 221-257
Van Eynde Frank~ des Tombe Louis & Maes Fons
~1985)~ "The s p e c i f i c a t i o n of time meaning ~or machine t r a n s l a t i o n " , In Proceedings of the Second Conference of the European chapter of the ACL, Geneva, 35-40
Van Eynde Frank (1987), Time A unified theory of tense, a s o e c t and Aktionsart, An internal Eurotra Ooeument (78 pages) Leuven