[developers] Difference between neg_rel/modifiers and modals
aac10 at cl.cam.ac.uk
Wed May 10 11:11:17 CEST 2017
I think the idea is to represent the contrast between:
1 We could unexpectedly close the window.
either ability to close or actual closure is unexpected
2 We did not unexpectedly close the window.
only the closure (if it had happened) would be unexpected.
I don't think this is actually the best analysis. For instance, for me,
3 Unexpectedly we did not close the window.
has another reading, which we are not capturing in MRS. Claudia
Maiernborn would (perhaps) treat this as a sentential situation rather
than an event modification and it may be that analysis is also available
for 1 instead of the modal modification analysis.
I'm afraid I don't have time to discuss this properly at the moment,
though. I feel such a discussion has taken place, but don't remember
On 10/05/2017 01:13, Emily M. Bender wrote:
> Dear all,
> I'm curious about the different in analysis between neg_rel and
> (other) scopal adverbial
> modifiers on the one hand and modals on the other in the treatment of
> the INDEX:
> In (1) and (2), the INDEX of the whole MRS points to the ARG0 of
> (1) Kim doesn't sleep.
> (2) Kim probably sleeps.
> ... where in (3) and (4) it points to the ARG0 of _can_v_rel and
> _would_v_rel respectively:
> (3) Kim can sleep.
> (4) Kim would sleep.
> I'm wondering what difference we intend to model here. (This question
> comes up now
> because we're looking at negation in my grammar engineering class, and
> the out-of-the-box
> analysis for languages which express negation with an auxiliary has
> neg_rel falling
> in the latter class.)
> Emily M. Bender
> Professor, Department of Linguistics
> Check out CLMS on facebook! http://www.facebook.com/uwclma
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the developers