[developers] Difference between neg_rel/modifiers and modals

[Ann Copestake]

I think /unexpectedly/ is scopal in at least some circumstances.  
Specifically I would say the semantics of /unexpectedly/ is modal (in a 
broad sense) - e.g., I could treat it in terms of possible worlds that 
I'm considering at some timepoint t - if in only 1% of possible worlds 
does P happen, and P actually happens by t' (where t' > t) then 
unexpected(P).  This is very crude and incomplete, but all I'm trying to 
do here is convey the modal intuition.

Under this interpretation:

   unexpected(not(win(Kim)))

means that at time t I thought not(win(Kim)) had 1% chance, but at t' 
not(win(Kim)) has come to pass

this isn't the same as:

   not(unexpected(win(Kim)))

which means it-is-not-the-case that [ at time t I thought win(Kim) had 
1% chance and at t' win(Kim) has come to pass ]  i.e., either I expected 
Kim to win all along or Kim actually didn't win

> Also, in (3), unexpectedly could be a sentence-initial discourse
> adverb (scopal?) or an adverb extracted from lower in the clause...

As I remember it, the discussion about possible sentence situation 
meaning is a semantic one rather than depending on whether there's 
extraction or not.

All best,

Ann

On 11/05/2017 21:13, Emily M. Bender wrote:
> Thanks, Ann, for the quick reply!  This connects to other things I've 
> been
> curious about recently, including how we decide if something like 
> "unexpectedly"
> is scopal or not. Also, in (3), unexpectedly could be a 
> sentence-initial discourse
> adverb (scopal?) or an adverb extracted from lower in the clause...
>
> Emily
>
> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 2:11 AM, Ann Copestake <aac10 at cl.cam.ac.uk 
> <mailto:aac10 at cl.cam.ac.uk>> wrote:
>
>     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 the venue.
>
>     All best,
>
>     Ann
>
>
>
>     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
>>     _sleep_v_rel:
>>
>>     (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.)
>>
>>     Thanks,
>>     Emily
>>
>>
>>     -- 
>>     Emily M. Bender
>>     Professor, Department of Linguistics
>>     Check out CLMS on facebook! http://www.facebook.com/uwclma
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Emily M. Bender
> Professor, Department of Linguistics
> Check out CLMS on facebook! http://www.facebook.com/uwclma

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.delph-in.net/archives/developers/attachments/20170511/c7be8ae5/attachment.html>