<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C96-1042">
  <Title>Semantics of Portions and Partitive Nouns for NLP</Title>
  <Section position="4" start_page="245" end_page="247" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
5. Representation
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> To represent PNs in the LKB we have made some interpretations for FORMAL aud CONST Quales of the QUALIA.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> We assume that the minimal and most basic FORMAL distinction among entities (as conceptualised by speakers) is that of their bouudedness or not in terms of \[JAC91\]. Therefore, this Quale will be a~signed to one of both types (or a coherent subtype). Similarly, the miuimal constitutive distinction to be done is assumed to be that of entaihnent or not about internal structure of  things. Therefl)re, the CONST role will be assigned to one of both \[_+I\] types (i str true/i str false). In this way, selectional restrictions of PNs will be basically defined as selection of signs hearing appropriate types lot their FORMAL mid CONST Quales.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> As defined ill \[PUS951, SltAPE ~md magnitude (MAGN) are features of the FORMAL Role. Their values cml be, as discussed above, either absolute or relative, depending on tile kind of portion. In the latter cases, SIIAPE and MAGN of portions will be a function of file corresponding values of file QUALIA of tile whole 2. This interpretation of the MAGN feature accounts for the nature of relative quantifiers of PNs.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> At their turn, \[+I\] CONSTs be~ the feature ELTS e.g. riee:QUALIA:CONST:ELTS:grain. (vid.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> \[\]ACgll, ,also \[CO1x)21).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> \[PUS95\] (assuming \[VIK94\] interpretation) attributes the CONST Role the function of representing the predicative relation Part-Of.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> Coherently, we assume CONST as encoding a relational predicate R(x,y), being R a type taxonomically daughter of Part-Of. In the default case, R will be 'Portion' and in more fine-grained cases, a daughter type of it -e.g. 'Slice'.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> The Logical Semantics of PNs (SEM) will account for their both pm'titive and relational nature by adopting as predicate-,'ugulnent structure that of their CONST Role. For the sake of unification, in the LKB, SEM will be the conjunction of this predicate and the SEM value of the sign deuoting the whole. qhis way (vid.fig.3), that of 'slice of cake' will result in SLICE(x,y) &amp; CAKE(y) -thus accounting /'or the logics of John eats a slice of cake as EAT(e,John,x) &amp; SLICE(x,y) &amp; CAKE(y) versus that of John eats cake as EAT(e,John,x) &amp; CAKE(x).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8"> 2 \[JAC9I\] develops a method to formalise relative shapes including judgements about dimensionality.  For ease of exposition, the syutax (CAT) of PNs is represented here as the colnplex category N/NP_sigu, where the NP_sign is app!'opriately lex-poriion-sign  speeilied to account for selectional reslrictions and transitivity of properlies between the whole and the porlion via feature reeiitraucies. This way, the eoinlx)sition of slice (N/NP) alld cake (NP) will restlll iu au N (slice of cake). This accotulls fof the fact thai partitive constructions (e.g. slice qf cake) do bern&amp;quot; the combinatorial possibilities of nouns, while those of PNs are distinct and specific. The pleposiliou (oJ) is omitted here -not in the LKB implelneimltiou- since it is unrelewmt its it lacks senianlie COllteilt. We assume so \[CI IO81\] aualysis which cousiders of in lhis kiud of COllSlrtlclious a lnere surface case-marker. This view is confinned by data of Spauish (tIN VASe VINe =: UN VASe )\].~._VINO, \[IN &amp;quot;I'ROZO PAN : I 1N 'I'I{OZO PAN) \['a glass witie' = 'a glass o1__~ wine', 'a portioli bread' = 'a porlion of bread'\] in which the preposition is elidible -soinelhiug which is not possible in the case of couleutful prepositions (VENGO 1) I{ BARCELONA-&gt; *VF, NGO BARCEI,ONA) \['l-come from Barcelolm'-&gt; *'I-colne Barcelona'l.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="9"> Moreover, CAT bears the feature COUNT slaildiug, as well for ease of exposition, for the range of (surface) gramlnalical belmviour of lexical signs usually refened to as couulability/uncounlability (see discussiou alxwe).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="10">  Provided all which has boon discussed up to here, the general lex-PORTION-sign is defined as in fig.4; that is, as selecting NPs and resultiug in FORMAL:\[+B\] entity-denoting signs (lherefore individuated and syntactically couutable) where the only QUALIA feature which percolale from the whole is the TELIC Role -the rest of Quales may be oveiTiddeu by that of the PN.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="11"> Specific sub-types are shown in figs. 5 to 9.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="12"> BOIINI) PNs (fig.5) select \[+B\] entities (Iherefore individuated and countable) (the tip of the tongue). Being \[+B\], such wholes bear definite shape and magnitude; therefore such values for the portiou will be fuiictious of those of the whole. MAGN, specifically, is assumed to be conceptualised as solnehow ininiln~d, therefore notated 'e' (\[JAC91\]).  What is more remarkable in MDLD PNs (fig.7) it that the CONST type of the whole (thelelore its value for CONST:I{LTS) is iuherited by the portion -e.g., if 'sugm + 'is \[+1\] and consists of grains, a lump of sugar so; if 'paper 'has no entailment about internal structure, a sheet of paper has not either. MAGN is absolute (i.e., not related to that of the whole, since that is l-B\]; e.g., in broad outline, ',all the sugm'/paper of the world'). SHAPE is assumed to be schematic (vid. SS4).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="13"> SIIAPE and MAGN of ELT portions (fig.8) me also nou-relative. These PNs select \[+I\] eutities, usually substances ('wheat', 'rice') but also possibly individuals ('lelnou', as conventioualised in Spanish as internally-structured in GAJOS). The value for CONST:ELTS of the whole will be the CONST  predicate of the portion, titus its SEM predicate -e.g.  Last, CONT PNs (fig,9) select \[-B\] items (therelbre substances but also plurals) 3. The portion retains the constitution o1' the whole. As discussed above, SIIAPE is not relevant, measure (MAGN) is. AGENT1VI{, if cousidercd relevant, will be a process of filling the container.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="5" start_page="247" end_page="247" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
6. Concluding Remarks
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> In lhis paper we presented a system of representation of relational nouns denoting per'lions, segments and relative quanlities of entities according Io the Theory of Qualia (\[PUS95\]), which has been parlially re-interpreted and adapted to the insights of Conceptmd Semantics (\[JAC91\]). This syslem accounts for a range of linguistic facts, being the most remm'kable  the following: 1. Portions m'e mainly encoded in the language by means of constructions inslead of by single lexical units 2. Portions are both bounded entities aml relative measures of the wholes of reference 3. Portions inherit li'om their wholes their purpose  or function, but, on the contrary, they show distinctive shape, mafimlude and origin</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="6" start_page="247" end_page="247" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
3 Possibly also \[-B\] collections (groups) (a wagon of
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> cattle), but, as said before, we're not commited here to discuss individuation of collections.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>