<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C96-1042">
  <Title>Semantics of Portions and Partitive Nouns for NLP</Title>
  <Section position="3" start_page="243" end_page="245" type="intro">
    <SectionTitle>
3. Portions and Partitive Nouns
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> A portion designs a bounded region within a domain (\[I.AN91\]), hence tile pollion is an individuated entity (even in tile case tile whole be a substance or m,'t,;s).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> The syntactic effect is that, as pointed out in \[VOS94\], the construction which dcnolcs the portion is syntactically countable.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> A portion, an individuated (bounded), object has a shape different from thai of the whole. This information is contribuled to tile conslruclion by tile PN. There are PNs which clearly specify shape (ROI)AJA, lunzp) while others underspecify il (fragment). Ill many cases, PNs, as acljectives do, predicale properties of the portion, specially shape (tile translation of Spanish RODAJA must be lhe paraphrase round slice; a lath of anything is saliently elongated) or size, but also thickness, consislency or others (as in the c;me of MI);NDRUGO, equivalent to portion (of bread) except for lhe fact that entails that Ihe bread is not fi'esh bul stale).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> A portion always conveys a measure wilh relation to tile total magnitude of tile whole. Therefore, nouns such as bucket, ,slice, lump or grain are relalivc quantifiers in tile sense of II~AN91\]: a relative quanttfier is so-called because it specifies a quantity in relation to a reJ?.rence mass; in the de~mlt-case inteJpretation, this reference mass consists of the maximal instantiation of the pertinent categoJy (i.e. its ftdl extension in all conceivable worlds).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> A portion has been oblained by a diflbrent process lhan the whole: a cake has been obtained by baking it, but a slice o1' cake by cutting it off tile cake. The meaning of portions is many times tightly related to such agenlive process -if one has obtained 'slices' it necessarily has been by culling somelhing; there even exists the verb to slice. As pointed out in \[PUS95\], knowledge of 'coming into being' is a property of nominals which has remarkable linguistic consequences since it can account for a reduction of lexical polysemy. I:or instance, tile Spanish phrase IIACER PAN \[to-make bread\] means baking bread, whilst IIACER RI~,BANADAS (DE PAN) \[to-make slices (ofbread)\] means slicing (bread). This way, the very same verb IIACER shows two radically different meanings, which in principle should be listed scpm-alely in the lexicon. Nevertheless, both can be accounted for in a single entry which selects the Agentive Role of the complement.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> More specifically talking about the lexical signs wc call PNs, \[IXO77\] shows that lhey correspond to the classifiers in languages as Tzeltal, Mandarin Chinese or Viemamese. In languages wilh classifiers, these words, semantically strongly similar to deterinincrs and quantifiers, have functions of individuation and enumeration, making surface notions such as sorl of entity, shape or measure. E.g. the Chinese phrase SAN BEN SIIU is translatable by three plane-entity book; three whiskies wotfld be conslructed with a mensural classifier, being the translation paraphrasablc by three unit/doses whisky.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> \[IXO77\] makes notice lhal words such as head (of cattle), sheet (of paper) or lump (of sugar) slaIId for exactly tile same function as classifiers in those languages. Specifically, ltt mp operates simultaneously as both a mensural (meaning conventional dose) and classal (denoting a cerlain type of aggrcgale) classifier.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> Some have assumed Ihat PNs select mass nouns (slice of cake, glass of wine), being mass nouns the way in which substances tipically surface in tile language. Instead, we posit that PNs select both kinds of nouns (count or mass) denoting both kinds of things (individuals or subslances), but in any case, crucially, surl'acing as expressing cumulative l'eli3rence.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8"> Let's consider t~OI)A.IA I)E I.IMON \[round-slice of lemon\]. To assume that \].IMON here is mass entails assuming that it has undergone a dcrivation~d 'grinding' rule which converts countable individuals in masses. Nevertheless, a round-slice of lemon is always a slice of some individual lemon, not a special measure of substance which some time in the past was 'lemon'. In any case, if a 'lemon' weren't an individuated and bounded thing, it couldn't be sliced and tile shape of tile portion wouldn't depend on that of the whole. The confusing point is that I,IMON in tile example, RODAJA DI: LIMON, surfaces grammatically as substances usually do -namely, zerodelermined. Bul zero-detcrlninalion is not exclusively a ressource to refer to substances, it is the way of expressing cumulative rclcrence. Both individuals and substances may be refered to cumulatively, that is, bc construed as an indiffercntiated ~unassment. This surfaces in the language as a zero-determiner plus tile  noun in singular in the case of substances (a glass of wine), and either in singular or plural in the case of individuals (a slice of lemon, a basket of lemons).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="9"> St), in our poinl of view PNs lipically select the nOllll of the whole as it surfaces when conSll'uing cumulative reference -bul this doesn't compulsorily enlails neither lhe referent is a substance nor it is refcred to by lliOallS of a lll}lSS llOHll, ht lhe case of individuals, referenls still are bounded things, hence both they can be sliced and the shape of lheir portions still can depend on that of the original whole. We can't go further with Ihe issue here but, at last, what the discussion above stands for is that human conceptualisation is c(mside,'ed as Ihe cause, and the mass-count distinction, as tb.e surface effect.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="10"> PNs are not straightforwardly referential, as they predicate wilh reference Io another entity. This may Ix: noticed considering sentences such as '??.h;hn rite a slice or ??I dt-attgllt three CUl)S. They arc semantically tmcomplele as they don't allow the hearer to relricve fl'om Ihem the information the speaker wanls Io convey, l:urlher information as in ,lohn ate a slice of cake or It was an excellent cq\[lee. I draught three cups is needed to do the task. When appearing in the discourse, PNs need of further specificalion of the referent, either via of-compleinenlalion or via ellipsis or anaphora. Consequetltly, they can not bc tnnary bul relational predicates in Ihe sense of \[I,AN91 l, thai is, terms which are predicates cmly with reference to some other entity.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="11"> A basic linguistic t'ealllre of PNs is lhal they, as relational predicates, bear seleclional restrictions.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="12"> Namely, each kind at: PN Call combine with cerlain relercatial llOtlllS but Call 11o1 combine wilh others, depending on ccrlain fcaltlrcs of tile refcrelllial tlOUXl. These fealures are nlostly linguistic (type, countabilily, singular or plural) bul also can depend on knowledge of the world (physical slale, etc.). We hypothesise that, in general, distinctions belween classes of PNs contcerning selectional restrictions must be due to linguistic reasons, while further specifications within each class would be due to properties of the referent, l:,.g., it could be asstlmed that containers (CUlrV, baskets) select \[-BN items (substances and plurals), and more specifically, cttps  select liquids and baskets non-liquids.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="13"> 4. Sorts of PNs  We are not committed here to represent individuation of groups (temn, committee) or aggregates (cattle, fimfiture), ha our background ontology, which is inlended to represent things in the world as conceplualised by humans (rigA), these conslilute a different class since, in this class of words, speakers' conceptualisalion focuses not on the elemenl entities but in their aggregation, l'lurals are considered as representing an aggregation (Iherefore a -B+t concept) of bounded things (therefore cithcr individuals or groups) by means of a derivative (lexical) rule applied on signs denoting those elements (fig.2) - e.g. cow  Entity-portioning terms have been sorted as fl)llows: Contents (hellceforlh CENT) (a bucket of water, a basket of wheat, a basket of lemons). They are metonymies of containers expressing a conventionalised measure or quantity of a l-B\] entity. Shape is not relevant -a bathtub may contain a bucket o1: water without Ihere being any bucket in it  i,\]lements (\]:d\]l') tUN GAJ() l)li I,IMON \[an 'inncr-preexistent-division-of-some-fiuits'of lemon\], a grain of rice). They are individuations of pre-existing parts of the whole. They select \[+II entities, either individuals or substances. They are not committed to an Agentive process as they may remain attached to the whole.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="14"> Shape and measure, if considered relevant, are inherent to the portion itself.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="15"> Boundaries (BOUND) (the tip of the tongue, the su(~we of the sea, the top of a box). They are idealisations of physical boundaries of the whole.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="16"> Select \[+B\] entities. They are non-Agentive either.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="17"> Their shape is tightly related to Ihat of the whole bt|t one of their dimensions is concepmalised as close to non-existence (\[JAC9 l\]). Analogously, they denote a minimal quantity of the whole.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="18"> Bolh Detached (IY\['CII) (a slice of cake, a slice of lemon) and Modelled (MI)LI)) portions (a lump o.f sugar, a sheet ofpcq?er) have been drawn out of the whole and bear a shape straightforwardly determined by such Agenlive process. The meaning of the former focus on the Agentive, which is a process of cul or fragmentation el' a \[+B solid. The latter focus on shape, which is often conceptualised schematically(sheet: a plane; lump, ingot: brickshaped). The Agenlivc is a process of inodelling of a  DTCHD: \[+B\] entities (=individuated) (a 'detached portion' of a lemon, cake) MDLD: \[-B\] entities (=substances) (a 'shaped mass' of sugar, wheat, paper) With respect to shape, it has to be noticed that while that of ELT and MDLD is inherent to the portion itself (in ELT because the porlion pre-existed as an individual; in MDLD because the whole was an mnorphous mass and it is tile process of portioning what has bounded the new thing), in BOUND and DTCIID shape is somehow relative to the whole.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="19"> This way, a RODAJA is round because it is a cross-cut of either approximately-spherical (lemon)or cylindrical (sausage) objects; a slice of bread will be elliptic or square depending oil whether the 'bread' is the classical lo~ff or tile modem ixflyhedfic-shapcd one; top of a box will show identic~d behaviour.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="20"> Something similar happens with relative quantification. While the measure conveyed by CONT, ELT and MI)LD is absolute, that of BOUND and DTCttl) is relative: a top of a box or a slice of bread will be bigger or smaller depending on tile magnitude of the box or the loaf of bread.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="21"> Composition</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>