Excursus J MULTINET — SENTENCES FROM CHAPTER 8

The simplest correspondences.  
It may be instructive to see the ways that simple sentences could be represented with a semantic net using some of the conventions of MultiNet. Some of the following diagrams include red elements which abbreviate some of the ways to relate to a real world mathematical model. For the most part, however, we will eventially leave out extensionality and other considerations of the sort (temporality as a model). Here are some possible analyses for the sentences of chapter 8.

Figure 2-1 — The people waited.

Helbig suggests that the subject of sentences like the first one above be related to the situation expressed by the verb using two C-roles: TOLATIVE, and AGENTIVE. Normally the TOLATIVE is used when the object is solely responsible for sustaining the state expressed by the situation. Such an experiencer is usually not changed at all by the situation, in which case it would be AFFECTIVE. However, as in this case it may actively bring the state of affairs into being and be in control of its being broken off. This control is the reason that we give it the AGENTIVE role.

Figure 2-2 — John was my friend.

The second sentence involves the predication of the ATTRIBUTE relation. Predication is how attributes are assigned to objects. The relation of ATTACHMENT is MultiNet’s way of referring to family and social relationships.

Figure 2-3 — The flowers were beautiful.

Similarly the third sentence assigns a property to an object by predicating the PROPERTY relation. I have also indicated the connotation of one of the words of this sentence by showing its morphology with dashed lines describing the derivation of a property from an abstract object. The contents of such dashed elements are not really a part of the explicit expression of the sentence. I believe, however, that because these elements can play a part in the communicant’s grammatical knowledge they also play a part in our interpretation.

Figure 2-4 — The boy hit the ball.

The subject of the fourth sentence is related to the situation expressed by the verb using the C-role of AGENTIVE. The action is understood to have been done with intention by an object exercising its agency. There is also a second object, one standing in the C-role of AFFECTIVE. The ball is assumed to be moveable and undergoes a change of position when acted upon.

Figure 2-5 — There are books on the table.

MultiNet does not specify a relation of bare EXISTENCE that can be asserted above the pre-exstensional level. The fifth sentence involves such a predication with the use of a so called expletive, a word without content that in this case fills a locality slot. This sentence seems to involve the predication of the LOCALITY relation as in the sentence, “Books are on the table.” I have used a dashed line to draw this arc as part of the implicit message of the sentence. The idea is that the work of the expletive is to extend the predication to the locality relation.

Figure 2-6 — She is in my class.

The sixth sentence predicates locality of the subject explicitly. The pronoun “I” also appears as a possessive, but there is no possession in the normal interpretation of this sentence. The relation of PARTITIVE is MultiNet’s way of referring to the part-whole and containment relationships.

Less direct correspondences.  
The simple sentences which are more difficult to relate to an underlying proposition are also difficult with MultiNet.

Figure 3-1 — There are two exceptions.

The first sentence predicates the existence of items without a locality being mentioned. Here it seems that the work of the expletive is to relate the predication to the object’s reference to a specific number of individuals. Notice also that the name of the conceptual object that is serving as the logical subject is an example of a very common derivation from a verb signifying a process.

Figure 3-2 — It is significant that he came.

In the second sentence there is a place-holder in the subject position standing for the proposition of his coming. For this we have posited a functor to create the subordinate propostion from the abstract (dynamic) reference to it. I have chosen to make the verb come related to its subject as AGENTIVE. Admittedly, under certain conditions, the subject may not be exercising agency and thus be interpreted as EXPERIENTIAL. This is simply evidence that C-roles are really part of knowledge representation.

Figure 3-3 — It snowed very hard.

In this sentence the it in subject position cannot easily stand for anything with agency, except perhaps a personified “Mother Nature” We can with some certainty understand that a change is occurring by the action of the verb, so the best we can do is make the subject the thing affected (AFFECTIVE). The two types of modal adverbs are MANNER and MEANS. The one is regularly gradable by degree, while the other is not.

Figure 3-4 — He has had trouble with the police.

This sentence has the additional complication of perfect aspect. The subject stands in the same relationship of ATTRIBUTE whether the aspect has been built or not. The perfect is built using the past participle as an adjective to describe a PROPERTY. We have chosen the relation of ASSOCIATIVE to characterize “police trouble” making it like “physical trauma” or “polar bear.” Unlike these examples it is structured as a complement using with rather than a specifier.

The phenomena of metaphor and idiom are a matter of course to express certain states and relationships. The idiom in (4) illustrates this situation. It does seem rather difficult to relate the translation into logic directly to the meanings of the individual parts. What does this mean for the linguist who is trying to build a logical grammar of English? Metaphor is spontaneous and idiom is metaphor that has become conventional. These figures of speech are by nature idiosyncratic. It appears that the logician-linguist has to relate the respective logical and syntactic predicates by individual idiosyncratic transformations. Perhaps it is possible then at least to classify the various spontaneous occurrences of metaphor by the form of the particular transformations required to describe them. This is akin to that of the highly successful tree adjoining grammar (TAG). The TAG approach is to associate a syntactic structure to such lexical items as are idiosyncratic in this way. Our approach has been to ignore the process of lexical insertion so as to make mophemes, words, and phrases all subject to syntactic analysis.

Components of an argument.  
Perhaps the most common way to express an argument (as the subject of a sentence or any objects and certain complements in it) is by means of a noun phrase (NP).

Figure 4-1 — The boy went shopping.

The following sentences will be built on the first sentence by expanding the noun phrase subject. The predicate, which is not under discussion at this point, consists of a common idiom being a verb complemented with a gerund.

A noun phrase as argument (subject or other part of the sentence) may possibly have an associated non-restrictive adjective clause (CL) in which the language user may express some additional qualifying characteristic of the argument.

Figure 4-2 — The curly haired boy, who had twenty dollars to spend, went shopping.

In MultiNet we have separated the proposition of the clause using a blue description functor. The non-restrictive nature of the clause excludes the use of PROPERTY to relate it to the modified object. The semantic relation seems to be one of conjunction, which is not symbolized at the clausal level by MultiNet. As with preceeding diagrams, the dashed line indicates the presence of a morphological derivation that seems retain a living semantic association between the words.

The second way to express an argument is with a noun clause (CL) marked with a conjunction (C). In the following example I have connected it to the subject of the sentence with a proposition functor, and made it a conceptual object with the factive feature. The conjunction that seems to be related as the subject by the other that which is regularly used to refer deictically. The whole assertion is hypothetical in nature with the situation being marked with the auxiliary may, which auxiliary requires a syntactic construction with an infinitive form of the main verb.

Figure 4-3 — That he had twenty dollars to spend may be significant.

It is also possible for there to be a non-restrictive adjective clause associated with the noun clause. Here the description clause is connected to the conceptual object of the subject.

Figure 4-4 — That he had twenty dollars to spend, which is debatable, may be significant.

Instead of a noun clause the object of a sentence may be a simple quote of another sentence.

Figure 4-5 — 'I have twenty dollars to spend,' said the boy.

Works of Wonder | Paraphrastic Grammar Contents