Computational Semantics of Time/Negation Interaction

Computational Semantics of Time/Negation Interaction Pascal Amsili IR]7.1', tJnivmsit(~ P;ml SMmtim' 118, route de Nm'bonn(! 1,'-31062 Toulouse Cedcx, 1,5:a,nce mnsili@irit, fr Nabil Hathout 1NaLF CNRS (Jhgl;(~a, ll dll Mont,et, rue (lit Doyen ]toutmult F-54500 Van&mlw'e-16s-Nancy, Fl'allt:(,, hathout@ciril, fr Abstract The pm'l)OSC of l;his papc, r is to study the interaction of l;iIn(; and m'~gation in nat;- ural la.nSm~gc, from a, synt;ax/,qemanl;ics interfac(; point of view. This requires the definition of linguistically grounded semanl;ic and synl;acl;i(: r(;1)res(ml;al;ions. This is what we prest;lfl; hi this tmlmr; we show how t;he |,wo rel)restml;;~tions wc t)rol)oS( ' lit; l;ogel;her in a. comput;ationaJly s;I,t;is(ying (:onsl;rut;l;ion l)rocedure. 1 Introduction We are concerned in this Impcr with the inl;erac- tion ])etwe.en time nnd neg;~tion in formal s(unan- tics, more t)recisely in t;he ])ist;ourse ]h;l)i'('~s(;nl;a,- tion Theory fi'mncwork (Kmnp ;~tl(1 lh'.yle, 1993). We are intercstc'd hc'rc in the COml>ositiolml con- Sl;rll(:tioll Of S(un~ulti(: represcn|4dfions. We want to show, through linguistic a rgmnents, that the best semantic rcl~resentation (~LI; least for sentential ncga.tion) giw~s negation a wide scope over events or states, and that the syntactic results correspond with the semantic ones. 2 Semantic representation I)l/~l' halt(lies ('.vents as objects in the la.nguag(;. Thus, each simple sentence introduces into the r(,.1)resentation (at least) one discourse referent, either an cv(~Ili; or ;I, stat;(% corresponding to tim (;vent;u&lit;y denoted by l,h('. VP. With this in mind, negation can either be seen as an operal;or always having a with' scope, over c.vents/statcs, or &s a kind of t~st)('x;tlta.l opcra.- I;or. According t:o t;he tirst vie.w, ncg~tl;iOll Wollld semanl;i(:ally (;onvcy only n(;gativ(! informatioil ("such an (.wentuality a: didn't oc(:ur"). A(:(:or(1- ing to the secon([ view, negativ(, SCIl|;(}iic(}s co[ivcy some kind of posil;ivc information, at; the semantic level: they denoi;e a certMn kind of eventuality. We want to address this probh;m here, with a focus on sentontial negation in French. 2.1. The problem As we ha.ve already said, the two al)tnoaches t;o senl;entiM negai;ion differ with rt;st)t'ct I;o the scope they assign i;() the negation Ol)(;r~rtor. To help illusl;rate this, we shall use the following exam-- ph% where wc assume that (lb) is the (scntential) negro;ion of (la). A "standard" repres(,nl;atitm of (la) is K,., (it) a...h;an s'arr&a.. (,I,a:,, .stop'p(ed.) l)..hum ne s'arrC;t~ pas. (,lea'n, didn't stop.) J,,,~,~(x) t < n C. e C[ t (!: ~x .'4 ' }1. l'l'{] |.(, I" I K 1. What 1(1, says is that l;her(; is ml x, which is ,)ca.n, an evenl~ e, and ;t locatiol~ time t, such that e is the ev(mt of .h~a.n st;opt)ing , (; is inchlded in 1;he location time t, which is itself located in the past ,,r the,, (11,) ,:,.,.ld t;h,,,, t,,, repr,c~sented either I:,y K ll, or by K'u. (2) Jean(x) | t<n / [ ": I x '-'q I I( I b n (, x i! ,Jea.(x) t; < n {} (- 1, ~: ~ e C t <7 Elb sl;atcs somct;hing like "there is no evcnl; of Jean's stot)ping al l;he time t." K'lb introduces a. …

Content truncated to 500 words