21.04.2013 Views

Eckhard Bick - VISL

Eckhard Bick - VISL

Eckhard Bick - VISL

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

(5b) They [saw(see) [the girl with the pair of binoculars]].<br />

They [[saw(see) the girl] with the pair of binoculars].<br />

They [saw(saw) [the girl with the pair of binoculars]].<br />

They [[saw(saw) the girl] with the pair of binoculars].<br />

The lexical ambiguity of saw together with the functional/attachment ambiguity of the<br />

PP with the pair of binoculars yields 4-fold ambiguity 82 . Note that the flat tag notation<br />

(5a) is capable of elegantly expressing this ambiguity in one string, while a traditional<br />

PSG (5b) would produce four trees or bracketed lines. Leaving aside the question of<br />

notational elegance, I would like to argue that (5) is not at all as ambiguous as it seems,<br />

not even with a mere sentence window, and can be tackled - provided the right tools for<br />

disambiguation. How?<br />

Starting with the PP attachment ambiguity, the (morphological) feature of<br />

definiteness seems to make all the difference:<br />

(6a) They killed the girl with @N< the gun. - What did they do?<br />

(6b) They killed a girl with @N< a gun. - Who did they kill?<br />

(6c) They killed the girl with @

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!