<div dir="ltr">Thanks, Ann, for the quick reply! This connects to other things I've been<div>curious about recently, including how we decide if something like "unexpectedly"</div><div>is scopal or not. Also, in (3), unexpectedly could be a sentence-initial discourse</div><div>adverb (scopal?) or an adverb extracted from lower in the clause...</div><div><br></div><div>Emily</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 2:11 AM, Ann Copestake <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:aac10@cl.cam.ac.uk" target="_blank">aac10@cl.cam.ac.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>I think the idea is to represent the contrast between:<br>
</p>
<p>1 We could unexpectedly close the window.</p>
<p>either ability to close or actual closure is unexpected<br>
</p>
<p>2 We did not unexpectedly close the window.</p>
<p>only the closure (if it had happened) would be unexpected.</p>
<p>I don't think this is actually the best analysis. For instance,
for me,<br>
</p>
<p>3 Unexpectedly we did not close the window.</p>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
All best,<br>
<br>
Ann<div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="m_6920975839983985265moz-cite-prefix">On 10/05/2017 01:13, Emily M. Bender
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Dear all,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'm curious about the different in analysis between neg_rel
and (other) scopal adverbial </div>
<div>modifiers on the one hand and modals on the other in the
treatment of the INDEX:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In (1) and (2), the INDEX of the whole MRS points to the
ARG0 of _sleep_v_rel:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>(1) Kim doesn't sleep.</div>
<div>(2) Kim probably sleeps.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>... where in (3) and (4) it points to the ARG0 of
_can_v_rel and _would_v_rel respectively:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>(3) Kim can sleep.</div>
<div>(4) Kim would sleep.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'm wondering what difference we intend to model here.
(This question comes up now</div>
<div>because we're looking at negation in my grammar engineering
class, and the out-of-the-box</div>
<div>analysis for languages which express negation with an
auxiliary has neg_rel falling</div>
<div>in the latter class.)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks,</div>
<div>Emily</div>
<div><br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div class="m_6920975839983985265gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">Emily M. Bender<br>
Professor, <span style="font-size:12.8px">Department
of Linguistics</span></div>
<div dir="ltr">Check out CLMS on facebook! <a href="http://www.facebook.com/uwclma" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/uwclma</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr">Emily M. Bender<br>Professor, <span style="font-size:12.8px">Department of Linguistics</span></div><div dir="ltr">Check out CLMS on facebook! <a href="http://www.facebook.com/uwclma" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/uwclma</a><br></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</div>