[developers] Difference between neg_rel/modifiers and modals

Fri May 19 03:55:10 CEST 2017

I think Emily's goal was to figure out what representation we should use,
and whether we need to have different representations
cross-linguistically.  (Emily, is that a fair summary?)  I can see that a
negated event could be problematic, but I was going off the ERG semantics,
where neg_rel has two arguments, so it looks like we do have not(e,P).  In
DMRS, we can avoid saying whether there is an event, but it's there in the
MRS.

2017-05-18 8:01 GMT-07:00 Ann Copestake <aac10 at cl.cam.ac.uk>:

> I do think it's really important to be clear what the goals are.  Are you
> trying to figure out what the representation should be in terms of the
> underlying semantics?  Because then talking about negation events could
> well be problematic.  There are moves one can make which might work - e.g.,
> situations in Barwise and Perry terms (but then that doesn't necessarily
> fit with other things we're doing) - but one can't simply write e.g.,
> not(e,P) and assume it's meaningful.  I mean, maybe you want e to refer to
> the period of time when not(P) holds.  But I guess you can see that this is
> not something that is obviously OK.
>
> Alternatively, you're essentially leaving the object language up to
> someone else and trying to come up with a representation which captures the
> right things about the syntax/semantics interface.  But I still think you
> have to know something about plausible target object languages.
>
> All best,
>
> Ann
>
> On 17/05/17 21:14, Guy Emerson wrote:
>
> To bring this back to Emily's question, I can think of two ways that we
> might represent the "silent for a long time" reading:
>
> Option 1. "for a long time" takes the neg_rel's variable as an argument.
> This could be constructed compositionally using the negation-as-a-modal
> analysis that Emily mentioned.  This would then allow neg_rel to have a
> consistent semantics in the Grammar Matrix.
>
> On the downside, if we push the INDEX up to the neg_rel, we can't get hold
> of _speak_v_rel any more - which we need if we're going to model adverbs
> attaching after negation but scoping underneath negation.  With DMRS
> composition, we can construct it compositionally even if we stick with the
> scopal modifier approach (so the INDEX is still "speak"), and then connect
> an ARG/EQ link to the LTOP.  This would, however, mean relaxing the
> constraints in the proposed DMRS algebra, since we have an /EQ link
> selecting the LTOP, not the INDEX.
>
> Option 2. "for a long time" shares a label with the neg_rel, but still
> takes _speak_v_rel as an argument.  So then "for a long time" is outside
> the scope of negation.  To construct this compositionally, we want
> _speak_v_rel to be the INDEX (for both MRS and DMRS composition).
>
> If we take this approach, then we can treat modals as scopal modifiers and
> still get two readings.  So this doesn't directly answer Emily's question,
> because now there are two different ways of getting two readings.  But it
> would at least suggest that we can treat modals as scopal modifiers, which
> would allow a more consistent semantics of negation in the Grammar Matrix.
>
>
>
> That's the main thing I wanted to say - but Re: Robin Hood:
>
> I've found Ivan Sag's discussion of the jailing Robin Hood examples (
> https://www.academia.edu/2798317/Adjunct_scope), apparently discussed by
> Dowty (1979).  I can see the relevance, in that "for three years" could
> refer to the time in jail, or the time spent putting him in jail.  But I'm
> not convinced by the argument that we should decompose this as a causative
> - otherwise, the verb "sentence" also seems like it could be decomposed
> into something like cause(be-in-jail), but it doesn't pattern like "jail":
>
> The Sheriff of Nottingham jailed Robin Hood for three years.
> *The Sheriff of Nottingham jailed Robin Hood to three years.
> The Sheriff of Nottingham sentenced Robin Hood for three years. (repeated
> jailing reading)
> The Sheriff of Nottingham sentenced Robin Hood to three years. (single
> jailing reading)
>
> In any case, we can get different readings for verbs without an obvious
> lexical decomposition:
>
> I ate meat for a year (but then became vegetarian)
> I ate meat for an hour (and then I was very full)
>
> Bouma&Malouf&Sag also discuss "open again", but similarly, "Kim bought X
> and sold it again" has a reading where this is the first time Kim sold it.
> And explicitly representing that reading by decomposing "sell" would
> require something like cause(be-sold).  This seems dubious to me.  I'm much
> more tempted to say that "again" has a fuzzier meaning than Dowty assumes.
>
> I couldn't find any examples which convinced me that there's an
> interaction with the morphosyntax, so I feel like this is all something
> that we can safely leave out of the MRS.
>
>
> 2017-05-17 3:57 GMT-07:00 Ann Copestake <aac10 at cl.cam.ac.uk>:
>
>> I get those readings but note:
>>
>> 3. For a long time, Kim didn't speak.
>> only has your reading 2.
>>
>> so although I'd want to try and give an underspecified semantics for your
>> sentence, one would have to do that in a way that recognised this has a
>> different semantics.
>>
>> for negation there's an extensive literature - I'd recommend Horn's book.
>>
>> For some of these type of examples, I've played around with an account
>> that decomposes the event variable so that one might claim that the
>> negation was operating over different parts of a complex event structure in
>> standard MRS.  But that only allows for 3 in a very stipulative way, if it
>> works at all.  Negated events are complicated.
>>
>> Incidentally, Ivan Sag (somewhere) had a discussion of examples like:
>>
>>   The Sheriff of Nottingham jailed Robin Hood for three years.
>>
>> which may be relevant - I honestly can't remember.
>>
>> Anyway - I was trying to answer a slightly different type of question,
>> which was what the semantics of unexpected_rel might be.  I was just trying
>> to convey the modal flavour - not talking about the different readings the
>> English sentence might have.  It may be that with some sort of account that
>> did the negation examples, one could also get a non-scopal `unexpectedly'
>> to give two structurally different readings, but that's a somewhat
>> different issue.
>>
>> All best,
>>
>> Ann
>>
>>
>> On 17/05/17 02:08, Guy Emerson wrote:
>>
>> So, if I've understood correctly:
>>
>> - using a scopal modifier for negation only leaves one variable for
>> non-scopal modifiers
>> - using a modal for negation would allow non-scopal modifiers to take
>> either the main verb's variable, or the modal's variable
>>
>> But then, what about "Kim didn't speak for a long time", which I think
>> can have two readings:
>>
>> 1. Kim spoke for only a short time
>> 2. Kim was silent for a long time
>>
>> It looks like the ERG just gets the first reading.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2017-05-11 13:55 GMT-07:00 Ann Copestake <aac10 at cl.cam.ac.uk>:
>>
>>> 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>
>>> 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/20170518/74f2005f/attachment-0001.html>