[developers] `fragmented' scoping MRSs

[Ann Copestake]

Having a RSTR value specified by semantic composition is fairly basic
to the way I've understood generalised quantifiers, but people with
more expertise might be able to point at counterexamples.  More
concretely, if there's an empty RSTR value, then all that the scoping
code would be able to do with quantifiers would be to produce variants
with different distributions of the EPs between the RSTR and the BODY.
e.g., it would be like saying there's a language where you can have
{teach sleep every} and get the readings `every teacher sleeps' and
`every sleeper teaches' (or whatever).  Would this be the desired
behaviour?  If it only happens with cases where the RSTR/SCOPE
distinction is irrelevant to the models (like `some' under the
non-zero set interesection interpretation), this would also be an
interesting finding.  

Best,

Ann

> Thanks, Ann.  I did notice that the scoping code requires the
> RSTR value of a quantifier to be related to something (not
> currently the case always in the Wambaya grammar...).  Is
> this a deep requirement?  That is, is it bad to have an empty
> RSTR value?
> 
> Emily
> 
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 6:18 AM, Ann Copestake
> <Ann.Copestake at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> > yes, I've seen this when playing around with grammars.  (I would also expect
> > to see non-frag MRSs that don't scope.) I believe the test for fragmentation
> > is checking for explicit label/hole relationships between all the EPs (either
> > label equality or qeq), though I haven't seen a spec, so I might be wrong
> > about this.  The scoping code in the LKB doesn't require that qeqs are there -
> > it just ensures they are obeyed if they are present.
> >
> > Ann
> >
> >
> >