Cover not available
Part of
Weak Referentiality
Edited by Ana Aguilar-Guevara, Bert Le Bruyn and Joost Zwarts
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 219] 2014
► pp. 73–100

Antonymic prepositions and weak referentiality

Analyses that treat determiner omission in terms of weak referentiality have recently been adopted for determinerless PPs. A missing discourse referent is involved in both cases (Farkas & de Swart 2003; Espinal & McNally 2011; de Swart 2012). With regard to the German prepositions mit and ohne, we will show that the former accepts the determiner omission reluctantly, while determiner omission is almost the rule for the latter. This conclusion is reached through the application of annotation mining to derive multiple factors that influence the omission or realisation of a determiner. We argue that the semantics of the P, the sense of the PP in the context, and lexical influences of the nouns play a major role. As the distributions of mit and ohne are highly distinct, we conclude that they should not be analysed in a unified way.

Published online: 3 December 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.219.04kis
References
Alexandropoulou, S., Schulpen, M. & de Swart, H
2013 Modification of bare nominals across languages and constructions. Ms, Workshop on the Syntax and Semantics of Pseudo-Incorporation, Potsdam, 14 March.
Chiarcos, C., Dipper, S., Götze, M., Leser, U., Lüdeling, A., Ritz, J. & Stede, M
2008 A flexible framework for integrating annotations from different tools and tagsets. Traitement Automatique des Langues 49(2): 217–246.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G
1998 Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6: 339–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Swart, H
2012 Constructions with and without articles. Ms, Paris 15 March 2012, [URL] (2 December 2013).
Dömges, F., Kiss, T., Müller, A. & Roch, C
2007 Measuring the Productivity of Determinerless PPs. In Proceedings of the 4th ACL-SIGSEM Workshop on Prepositions at ACL-2007 , 31–37, Prague.
Espinal, T. & McNally, L
2011 Bare nominals and incorporating verbs in Spanish and Catalan. Journal of Linguistics 47(1): 87–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farkas, D.F. & de Swart, H
2003 The Semantics of Incorporation. From Argument Structure to Discourse Transparency. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Geurts, B
2011 Accessibility and anaphora. In Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, Vol. 2, K. von Heusinger, C. Maienborn & P. Portner (eds), 1988–2011. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Harrell, F.E
2001 Regression Modeling Strategies: With Applications to Linear Models, Logistic Regression, and Survival Analysis. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, N
1998 Regularity in irregularity: Article use in adpositional phrases. Linguistic Typology 2: 315–353. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kamp, H. & Reyle, U
1993 From Discourse to Logic. Introduction to Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic, and Discourse Representation Theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Kaup, B
2001 Negation and its impact on the accessibility of text information. Memory & Cognition 29(7): 960–967. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiss, T., Keßelmeier, K., Müller, A., Roch, C., Stadtfeld, T. & Strunk, J
2010 A logistic regression model of determiner omission in PPs. Paper for Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Coling 2010) , 561–569, Beijing, China.
Kiss, T., M�ller, A., Roch, C., Stadtfeld, T., B�rner, K. & Duzy, M
2014 Ein Handbuch f�r die Bestimmung und Annotation von Pr�positionsbedeutungen im Deutschen. In Bochumer Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 14. Bochum, Germany.Google Scholar
Kleinbaum, D.G. & Klein, M
2010 Logistic Regression. A Self-Learning Text. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kunze, C. & Lemnitzer, L
2002 GermaNet - representation, visualization, application. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2002) , 1485–1491, Las Palmas, Canary Islands, Spain.
Miller, G.A
1998 Nouns in WordNet. In WordNet: an electronic lexical database, C. Fellbaum (ed.), 23–46. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Müller, A., Hülscher, O., Roch, C., Keßelmeier, K., Stadtfeld, T., Strunk, J. & Kiss, T
2010 An annotation schema for preposition senses in German. In Proceedings of the ACL Linguistic Annotation Workshop (LAW IV), 177–181, Uppsala, Sweden.
Müller, A., Roch, C., Stadtfeld, T. & Kiss, T
2011 Annotating spatial interpretations of German prepositions. In Proceedings of the 5th IEEE International Conference on Semantic Computing, L. O’Connor (ed.), 459–466, Stanford CA.Google Scholar
2012 The annotation of preposition senses in German. In Empirical Approaches to Linguistic Theory: Studies in Meaning and Structure, B. Stolterfoht & S. Featherston (eds), 63–82, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nivre, J
2006 Inductive Dependency Parsing [Text, Speech, and Language Technology 34]. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H
1995 Improvements in part-of-speech tagging with an application to German. In Proceedings of the EACL SIGDAT Workshop , Dublin.
Schmid, H., Fitschen, A. & Heid, U
2004 SMOR: A German computational morphology covering derivation, composition, and inflection. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2004), 1263–1266, Lissabon.
Seuren, P.A.M
2010 Language from Within, Vol. 2: The Logic of Language. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Stvan, L.S
1998 The Semantics and Pragmatics of Bare Singular Noun Phrases. PhD dissertation, Northwestern University.
Zuur, A.F., Ieno, E.N., Walker, N., Saveilev, A. & Smith, G.M
2009 Mixed Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology with R. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar