<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="W02-0803">
  <Title>Under-specification and contextual variability of abstract prepositions: a case study</Title>
  <Section position="9" start_page="1" end_page="1" type="concl">
    <SectionTitle>
VALUES
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> dThe potential for the eventuality in which X (or Y) is involved to influence (or have influenced) the eventuality in which Y (or X) is involved.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> eThe potential for the eventuality in which Y is involved to influence the way in which X controls the eventuality in which is involved.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> zThe potential for the eventuality described by the PP to influence the eventuality described in the main proposition.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> eThe spatio-temporal trace of Y is accessible from X, without the intervention of entities exteriors to the ones described in the sentence.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> thThe description of the eventuality in which X is acting implies the entity denoted by Y in its same spatio-temporal trace.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> The comitativity meaning belongs to the influence family. The meanings instantiating the spatio-temporal trace notion can be described as signaling a channel as well, and do not have to be confused with spatio-temporal juxtaposition.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> The regulation of spatio-temporal traces can take different forms according to the possible meanings: instrumental, manner of part-whole relation.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> In the case of instrumental, the regulation of the spatio-temporal traces takes the form of a control of X over Y. In the following scenario, John &amp;quot;reads&amp;quot; the manual: (14) Jean apprend l'histoire avec un nouveau manuel / John learns history with a new manual For manner, the regulation takes the form of the relation source / feeling: John is the source of the joy: (15) Jean parle a Marie avec joie / John talks to Mary with joy Finally, for the part-whole relation, the regulation of the spatio-temporal traces of the entities linked by avec is inscribed at the referent level: (16) Une maison avec une terrasse / A house with a terrace</Paragraph>
    <Section position="1" start_page="1" end_page="1" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
5.1 Prediction and pragmatic inference
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> Given this configuration of senses and meanings, we can now come back to the more general and speculative discussion. Avec shows a clear variability on the horizontal axis, and a complex organisation on the vertical axis. First of all, the distinction between notions and values roughly corresponds to the sense / meaning. The term notion, clearly implies that the definition has a cognitive reality and is probably learned and stored as such.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> On the vertical level there is a difference in nature between notions and values: notions can be considered as models for values. The overall abstract notion defined in (12) is a model for avec.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> The issue related to the predictive power of our model is still open.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3"> To affirm that a model is predictive means to recognize that it is possible to generate all and only the observed meanings by an appropriate rule system. In spite of the fact that we have reconstructed an under-specified and general model for avec, we must recognize that it is impossible by virtue of the definition in (12) to generate all (and only) its meanings.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="4"> The main reason is philosophically evident: to generate such meanings one should previously know them and because we do not have an access to all the existing corpora, it is impossible to affirm that the model generates all the possible meanings. This argument has been well known since Wittgenstein (1953/1961).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="5"> Nevertheless, we believe that we can find more than pure family resemblances. First of all, even if very abstract, the polysemous domain of prepositions seems well structured: the definitions of the notions that we have inductively found show that it is possible to identify with a certain precision the semantic domain of avec. Moreover, our model constrains the licit interpretations.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="6"> It follows that in spite of being predictive, our model allows to formulate inferences.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="7"> Consider the interface between semantics and pragmatics. On a semantic level we have admitted that avec creates a scenario that can be described in terms of a distributed system regularly linking the properties of two or more entities / events. On a pragmatic level we can conclude that when using avec, the speaker wants to signal the existence of such a correlation. The hearer will then infer that a regular association exists between the entities / events linked by avec in the sentence uttered by the speaker, and that such an association must be sought. Let us look at an example.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="8"> (17) Avec les stylos dans le verre, la police donne des PV / With the pens in the glass the police give parking tickets Consider a situation where a speaker and a hearer trust each other, that is to say, a situation where pragmatic irrelevance is not a matter. If the speaker utters a sentence such as (18), the hearer will be looking for a non accidental association between the events (as kind of entities) associated by avec: namely the fact that the pens are in the glass and that the police give tickets.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="9"> This is exactly what the model we have built for avec allows us to infer: the two events of the pens being in the glass and the police giving parking tickets are thought, said and interpreted as regularly (vs. non accidentally) associated.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="10"> This is the case for many familiar examples, occurring in different syntactic environments: (18) Avec la pluie, je suis de mauvais humeur / With this rain, I am in a bad mood (19) J'ai mis les verres avec les carafes / I put the glasses with the pitchers This observation leads us to conclude that the model is expressive enough to be generalized and to constrain the interpretations of apparently very different meanings. A clearer formalization of these speculative conclusions on the contextual interpretation of under-specified representations is currently under construction.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="11"> Acknowledgments Many thanks to Patrick Saint-Dizier and Jacques Jayez for their careful readings and useful suggestions.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>