The Syntax-Semantics Interface

Publisher Summary This chapter presents a discussion on the syntax–semantics interface. The task of a theory of semantic interpretation is to characterize how elements in a syntactic string semantically relate to one another. Clearly, this depends on how one conceptualizes the meaning of the elementary building blocks—that is, the terminal nodes of a syntactic tree. Interpreting an expression typically requires integrating it into an evolving discourse model. Frequently, this requires resolving ambiguities at conceptually distinct levels, fixing reference, and drawing inferences to align local and global aspects of the discourse. To fully accomplish this task, it is uncontroversial that, in addition to lexical and syntactic constraints, comprehenders must draw upon pragmatic knowledge. The importance of high-level constraints has been illustrated by the finding that comprehenders sometimes adopt a pragmatically plausible interpretation even if it is incongruent with lexical and syntactic constraints.

[1]  Markus Egg,et al.  Beginning Novels and Finishing Hamburgers: Remarks on the Semantics of to begin , 2003, J. Semant..

[2]  Pauline Jacobson Towards a Variable-Free Semantics , 1999 .

[3]  Simon P Liversedge,et al.  Thematic processing of adjuncts: Evidence from an eye-tracking experiment , 2003, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[4]  Martin J. Pickering,et al.  Deferred Interpretations: Why Starting Dickens is Taxing but Reading Dickens Isn't , 2006, Cogn. Sci..

[5]  Julie C. Sedivy,et al.  Resolving attachment ambiguities with multiple constraints , 1995, Cognition.

[6]  M. Pickering,et al.  Plausibility and recovery from garden paths: An eye-tracking study , 1998 .

[7]  Martin J. Pickering,et al.  Coercion in sentence processing: evidence from eye-movements and self-paced reading , 2002 .

[8]  Susan M. Garnsey,et al.  Evidence for the immediate use of verb control information in sentence processing , 1990 .

[9]  M. Pickering,et al.  Plausibility and the Processing of Unbounded Dependencies:An Eye-Tracking Study , 1996 .

[10]  K. Rayner,et al.  Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

[11]  Susanne Lynn Tunstall,et al.  The interpretation of quantifiers : semantics & processing , 1998 .

[12]  Jacob Hoeksema,et al.  TOPICS IN THE SYNTAX AND SEMANTICS OF INFINITIVES AND GERUNDS - CHIERCHIA,G , 1991 .

[13]  Steven P. Abney,et al.  Parsing arguments: Phrase structure and argument structure as determinants of initial parsing decisions. , 1991 .

[14]  Mark Steedman,et al.  Interaction with context during human sentence processing , 1988, Cognition.

[15]  James Pustejovsky,et al.  Events as grammatical objects , 2000 .

[16]  Mirella Lapata,et al.  The Cost of Enriched Composition: Eye-Movement Evidence from German , 2004 .

[17]  Georgette Ioup,et al.  Some universals for quantifier scope , 1975 .

[18]  Martin J. Pickering,et al.  Context effects in coercion: Evidence from eye movements , 2005 .

[19]  J. Dölling Ontological domains , semantic sorts and systematic ambiguity , 1995 .

[20]  Martin J. Pickering,et al.  A time course analysis of enriched composition , 2006, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[21]  Ted Briscoe,et al.  Enjoy the Paper: Lexicology , 1990, COLING.

[22]  Steven Abney,et al.  A computational model of human parsing , 1989 .

[23]  Christoph Schwarze,et al.  Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language , 1983 .

[24]  Martin J. Pickering,et al.  The difficulty of coercion: A response to de Almeida , 2005, Brain and Language.

[25]  M J Pickering,et al.  The processing of metonymy: evidence from eye movements. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[26]  H. Kamp,et al.  Prototype theory and compositionality , 1995, Cognition.

[27]  P. Hagoort,et al.  Integration of Word Meaning and World Knowledge in Language Comprehension , 2004, Science.

[28]  E. Rolls The functions of the orbitofrontal cortex , 1999, Brain and Cognition.

[29]  M. Pickering,et al.  Obtaining a Figurative Interpretation of a Word: Support for Underspecification , 2001 .

[30]  Edward Gibson,et al.  Argumenthood and English Prepositional Phrase Attachment , 1999 .

[31]  László Dezsö,et al.  Universal Grammar , 1981, Certainty in Action.

[32]  Gail McKoon,et al.  Event templates in the lexical representations of verbs , 2002, Cognitive Psychology.

[33]  B. McElree,et al.  Multi-dimensional contributions to garden path strength: Dissociating phrase structure from case marking , 2004 .

[34]  Alex Lascarides,et al.  Pragmatics and word meaning , 1998, Journal of Linguistics.

[35]  Ray Jackendoff,et al.  The Architecture of the Language Faculty , 1996 .

[36]  R. Hursthouse THE LOGIC OF DECISION AND ACTION , 1969 .

[37]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  Taking on semantic commitments: Processing multiple meanings vs. multiple senses ☆ , 1990 .

[38]  A. M. Ramer Mathematical Methods in Linguistics , 1992 .

[39]  Martin J. Pickering,et al.  Eye movements and semantic composition , 2004 .

[40]  Janet Dean Fodor,et al.  The Mental Representation of Quantifiers , 1982 .

[41]  Karl G. D. Bailey,et al.  Good-Enough Representations in Language Comprehension , 2002 .

[42]  C. Barker Continuations and the Nature of Quantification , 2002 .

[43]  Shelia M Kenniso Comprehending noun phrase arguments and adjuncts. , 2002, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[44]  Johannes Dölling,et al.  Aspectual (re-)interpretation: Structural representation and processing , 2003 .

[45]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  On Sentence Interpretation , 1999 .

[46]  Robin K. Morris,et al.  Eye movements and lexical ambiguity resolution: effects of prior encounter and discourse topic. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[47]  Julie C. Sedivy,et al.  Achieving incremental semantic interpretation through contextual representation , 1999, Cognition.

[48]  Christopher T. Kello,et al.  Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[49]  Robert Frank,et al.  Aspectual Coercion and the Online Computation of Sentential Aspect , 2000 .

[50]  Liina Pylkkänen,et al.  An MEG Study of Silent Meaning , 2007, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[51]  M. Pickering,et al.  Processing ambiguous verbs: evidence from eye movements. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[52]  Beatrice Santorini,et al.  Building a Large Annotated Corpus of English: The Penn Treebank , 1993, CL.

[53]  Liina Pylkkänen,et al.  Distinct effects of semantic plausibility and semantic composition in MEG , 2004 .

[54]  Michael K. Tanenhaus,et al.  Implicit Arguments in Sentence Processing , 1995 .

[55]  S. Glucksberg Understanding figurative language : from metaphors to idioms , 2001 .

[56]  Holly P. Branigan,et al.  Processing arguments and adjuncts in isolation and context : The case of by-phrase ambiguities in passives , 1998 .

[57]  David L. Davidson,et al.  The Logical Form of Action Sentences , 2001 .

[58]  Z. Harris,et al.  Foundations of Language , 1940 .

[59]  Susan Rothstein Events and Grammar , 2001 .

[60]  Julie E. Boland,et al.  Lexical constraints and prepositional phrase attachment , 1998 .

[61]  A. Kratzer Severing the External Argument from its Verb , 1996 .

[62]  C. Clifton,et al.  The On-line Study of Sentence Comprehension: Eyetracking, ERPs and Beyond , 2004 .

[63]  Frank Keller,et al.  Intra-sentential context effects on the interpretation of logical metonymy , 2003, Cogn. Sci..

[64]  Mirella Lapata,et al.  A Probabilistic Account of Logical Metonymy , 2003, CL.

[65]  James Pustejovsky,et al.  The Generative Lexicon , 1995, CL.

[66]  C. Clifton,et al.  Plausibility and argument structure in sentence comprehension , 1998, Memory & cognition.

[67]  Michael K. Tanenhaus,et al.  Thematic roles and language comprehension , 1988 .

[68]  Glyn W. Humphreys,et al.  Visual marking inhibits singleton capture , 2003, Cognitive Psychology.

[69]  S. Blumstein,et al.  Semantic Facutation in Aphasia: Effects of Time and Expectancy , 1995, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[70]  G. McKoon,et al.  Externally and Internally Caused Change of State Verbs. , 2000 .

[71]  K. Paterson,et al.  Processing doubly quantified sentences: Evidence from eye movements , 2004, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[72]  Terence Parsons,et al.  Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics , 1990 .

[73]  Z. Harris,et al.  Foundations of language , 1941 .

[74]  K. Rayner,et al.  Effects of contextual constraint on eye movements in reading: A further examination , 1996, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[75]  C. Clifton,et al.  Thematic roles in sentence parsing. , 1993, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[76]  G. Frege Über Sinn und Bedeutung , 1892 .

[77]  J. Whitman,et al.  Syntax–Semantics Interface , 2019, Korean.

[78]  Maryellen C. MacDonald,et al.  Resolution of quantifier scope ambiguities , 1993, Cognition.

[79]  David Poeppel,et al.  Processing correlates of lexical semantic complexity , 2003, Cognition.

[80]  D. Natsopoulos,et al.  A verbal illusion in two languages , 1985 .

[81]  James Pustejovsky,et al.  The syntax of event structure , 1991, Cognition.

[82]  Irene Heim,et al.  Semantics in generative grammar , 1998 .

[83]  Gregory L. Murphy,et al.  Noun phrase interpretation and conceptual combination , 1990 .

[84]  J. Dölling,et al.  Commonsense ontology and semantics of natural language , 1993 .

[85]  Shelia M. Kennison Processing Agentive By-Phrases in Complex Event and Nonevent Nominals , 1999, Linguistic Inquiry.

[86]  P C Wason,et al.  A Verbal Illusion , 1979, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[87]  Maria Mercedes Piñango,et al.  Semantic Operations in Aphasic Comprehension: Implications for the Cortical Organization of Language , 2001, Brain and Language.

[88]  B. McElree,et al.  Literal and figurative interpretations are computed in equal time , 1999, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[89]  G. Murphy,et al.  The Big Book of Concepts , 2002 .

[90]  Brian McElree,et al.  Reading time evidence for enriched composition , 2001, Cognition.

[91]  Holly P. Branigan,et al.  Processing arguments and adjuncts in isolation and context:: The case of by-phrases in passives. , 1998 .

[92]  M M Piñango,et al.  Real-Time Processing Implications of Enriched Composition at the Syntax–Semantics Interface , 1999, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[93]  Ernest Lepore,et al.  The compositionality papers , 2002 .

[94]  Kathryn Gillen The comprehension of doubly quantified sentences , 1991 .

[95]  Fernanda Ferreira,et al.  The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences , 2003, Cognitive Psychology.

[96]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  Taking on semantic commitments, II: collective versus distributive readings , 1999, Cognition.

[97]  Ewan Klein,et al.  Type-driven translation , 1985 .

[98]  L. Obler,et al.  Inhibition and auditory comprehension in Wernicke's aphasia , 2004 .

[99]  Mats Rooth,et al.  Generalized Conjunction and Type Ambiguity , 2008 .

[100]  David J. Hess,et al.  Effects of global and local context on lexical processing during language comprehension , 1995 .

[101]  Julie E. Boland Visual arguments , 2005, Cognition.

[102]  B. McElree,et al.  The locus of lexical preference effects in sentence comprehension , 1993 .

[103]  Michael K. Tanenhaus,et al.  Verb Argument Structure in Parsing and Interpretation: Evidence from wh-Questions , 1995 .

[104]  Martin J. Pickering,et al.  Underspecification and Aspectual Coercion , 2006 .

[105]  Semantic Form and Abductive Fixation of Parameters 1 Introduction , 2003 .

[106]  Peter W. Foltz,et al.  An introduction to latent semantic analysis , 1998 .

[107]  B. Levin Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface , 1994 .

[108]  A. Sanford,et al.  Depth of processing in language comprehension: not noticing the evidence , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.