[developers] Subordinating Pairs Analysis

Wed Jun 21 00:25:43 CEST 2017

Thanks Ann. That makes sense. I'll work it into my implementation for cases
where it's optional.

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 1:07 AM, Ann Copestake <aac10 at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:

> So the reason why the optionality is an issue, if the semantics is the
> same when it's present or absent, is the desire to make sentences which are
> direct paraphrases of each other have the same MRS.  Since that's not
> achievable in general, and since there often seem to be subtle distinctions
> between different phrasings, it shouldn't be an absolute principle.
>
> If it's not optional, but the semantics can be entirely captured by the
> "although" part, there's an argument from simplicity to just have the
> "although".  Again, that's not absolute, so if the "but" part can occur
> independently, I wouldn't think it's worth spending a lot of effort making
> the "but" disappear.  On the other hand, if it really just occurs in that
> construction, I would feel inclined not to give it its own semantics.
>
> All best,
>
> Ann
>
> On 19/06/2017 20:55, Kristen Howell wrote:
>
> Thanks Ann and Emily. I think in many cases it is not optional to omit the
> adverb in the main clause. If "although" or "if" is present in the
> subordinate clause "but" or "if" is required in the main clause. Ann, I you
> are suggesting that optionality would be a reason for omitting "but", so if
> it's not optional, it does require its own EP? Am I interpreting that
> right? I'm inclined to think that if it's required, it's meaning can be
> captured by the EP for "although", but if it's optional, giving "but" its
> own EP allows us to capture the distinction between cases when it is
> present or absent.
>
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Ann Copestake <aac10 at cl.cam.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> So the question is whether the "but" should be part of the semantics?  I
>> think the "although" part clearly has to be there.
>>
>> Reasoning along the same lines as English "if ... then", the "then" is
>> optional and doesn't seem to convey additional meaning, so if the analogous
>> situation held, there would be an argument for omitting the "but".
>>
>> That said, I do see a contrast between:
>>
>> If they win, I'll regret saying the manager was an idiot.
>>
>> If they win, THEN I'll regret saying the manager was an idiot.
>> I can imagine that not having anything in the MRS corresponding to `then'
>> might make accounting for that more difficult.  I'm not suggesting a change
>> in the ERG, just thinking it has some possible downsides and shouldn't
>> necessarily be taken as determining what's done in other grammars in this
>> respect.
>>
>> All best,
>>
>> Ann
>>
>>
>>
>> On 19/06/2017 18:06, Emily M. Bender wrote:
>>
>> Thank you, Ann.  I think one of our questions is whether we should ever
>> treat the adverbs
>> as contentful, and if so what that looks like.  Mandarin gives us several
>> examples of these,
>> including pairs like"虽然 ... 但是" ('although ... but'; I'm not at the
>> office today, so I can't
>> look through my grammar books).  It seems like rather than treating one
>> (or both) as semantically
>> empty, we might want something like:
>>
>> h1:although(h2,h3)
>> h2:but(h4)
>> h5:main-clause-ltop
>> h6:subord-clause-ltop
>>
>> h4 qeq h5, h3 qeq h6
>>
>> Does that sound sensible?
>>
>> Emily
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 5:25 AM, Ann Copestake <aac10 at cl.cam.ac.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Kristen,
>>>
>>> I can discuss the way the MRS might look, though not the details of how
>>> you get there.
>>>
>>> If there's a semantic relationship between the two clauses, then there
>>> needs to be some sort of two-place predicate taking the LTOP of each clause
>>> as an argument (usually via a qeq).   If the two elements of the pair
>>> always go together, and there is a restricted range of options, this
>>> two-place predicate might be the only element of the semantics.  If both
>>> elements are adverbial, the semantics might have to be associated with the
>>> construction rather than trying to do it via unusual semantics for an
>>> adverb.
>>>
>>> Looking at the ERG demo and delphin-viz, it seems that if_x_then is used
>>> for a range of situations, including ones without any lexical marking -
>>> e.g.,
>>>
>>> "Had I slept, it rained." (actually I find that ungrammatical, but never
>>> mind ...  "Had I slept, it would have rained." is fine)
>>>
>>> In terms of the actual semantics, one could say there are two things
>>> going on with if_x_then - one is a causality relationship and the other is
>>> a hypotheticality marking.
>>>
>>> "I slept, so it rained."
>>>
>>> is just causality.   So one could analyse
>>>
>>> if X then Y.
>>>
>>> as (schematically)
>>>
>>> cause(hyp(X),hyp(Y))
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> X so Y
>>>
>>> as
>>>
>>> cause(X,Y)
>>>
>>> I don't think this would be a good idea for English (too much
>>> decomposition, so it probably doesn't capture the nuances), but it might be
>>> more convenient for other languages.
>>>
>>> It is not the case that we can always capture the meaning directly for
>>> English.  For instance:
>>>
>>> "I slept and, as a consequence, it rained."
>>>
>>> implies causality, but we won't capture that directly in the MRS.  I'd
>>> say that what's going on is that `and' gives a two place relationship of
>>> the right form, but highly underspecified.  "as a consequence" means it has
>>> to be interpreted causally.
>>>
>>> In context:
>>>
>>> "I slept and it rained."
>>>
>>> can do the same thing.
>>>
>>> To sum up, what I'm saying is that I think you'll always want some type
>>> of two-place clausal connective, but it might be underspecified to some
>>> extent with additional meaning conveyed via additional predications on
>>> individual clauses.
>>>
>>> All best,
>>>
>>> Ann
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Emily M. Bender
>> Professor, Department of Linguistics
>> Check out CLMS on facebook! http://www.facebook.com/uwclma
>>
>>
>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Virus-free.
>> www.avg.com
>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>> <#m_-6729882833019005880_m_-7103727554260378422_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.delph-in.net/archives/developers/attachments/20170620/6057a0f5/attachment.html>