<div dir="ltr">I think  Emily&#39;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&#39;s there in the MRS.<br><br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2017-05-18 8:01 GMT-07:00 Ann Copestake <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:aac10@cl.cam.ac.uk" target="_blank">aac10@cl.cam.ac.uk</a>&gt;</span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
  
    
  
  <div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    <p>I do think it&#39;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&#39;t necessarily fit with other things
      we&#39;re doing) - but one can&#39;t simply write e.g., not(e,P) and
      assume it&#39;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.<br>
    </p>
    <p>Alternatively, you&#39;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.  <br>
    </p>
    <p>All best,</p>
    <p>Ann<br>
    </p><div><div class="h5">
    <br>
    <div class="m_-6591178192211473240moz-cite-prefix">On 17/05/17 21:14, Guy Emerson wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div>To bring this back to Emily&#39;s question, I can think of two
          ways that we might represent the &quot;silent for a long time&quot;
          reading:<br>
          <br>
        </div>
        Option 1. &quot;for a long time&quot; takes the neg_rel&#39;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.<br>
        <br>
        On the downside, if we push the INDEX up to the neg_rel, we
        can&#39;t get hold of _speak_v_rel any more - which we need if we&#39;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 &quot;speak&quot;), 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.<br>
        <br>
        <div>Option 2. &quot;for a long time&quot; shares a label with the
          neg_rel, but still takes _speak_v_rel as an argument.  So then
          &quot;for a long time&quot; 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).<br>
          <br>
        </div>
        <div>If we take this approach, then we can treat modals as
          scopal modifiers and still get two readings.  So this doesn&#39;t
          directly answer Emily&#39;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.<br>
        </div>
        <div><br>
          <br>
          <br>
        </div>
        <div>That&#39;s the main thing I wanted to say - but Re: Robin Hood:<br>
        </div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>I&#39;ve found Ivan Sag&#39;s discussion of the jailing Robin Hood
          examples (<a href="https://www.academia.edu/2798317/Adjunct_scope" target="_blank">https://www.academia.edu/<wbr>2798317/Adjunct_scope</a>),
          apparently discussed by Dowty (1979).  I can see the
          relevance, in that &quot;for three years&quot; could refer to the time
          in jail, or the time spent putting him in jail.  But I&#39;m not
          convinced by the argument that we should decompose this as a
          causative - otherwise, the verb &quot;sentence&quot; also seems like it
          could be decomposed into something like cause(be-in-jail), but
          it doesn&#39;t pattern like &quot;jail&quot;:<br>
          <br>
          The Sheriff of Nottingham jailed Robin Hood for three years.<br>
          *The Sheriff of Nottingham jailed Robin Hood to three years.<br>
          The Sheriff of Nottingham sentenced Robin Hood for three
          years. (repeated jailing reading)<br>
          The Sheriff of Nottingham sentenced Robin Hood to three years.
          (single jailing reading)<br>
          <br>
        </div>
        <div>In any case, we can get different readings for verbs
          without an obvious lexical decomposition:<br>
          <br>
        </div>
        <div>I ate meat for a year (but then became vegetarian)<br>
        </div>
        <div>I ate meat for an hour (and then I was very full)<br>
          <br>
        </div>
        <div>Bouma&amp;Malouf&amp;Sag also discuss &quot;open again&quot;, but
          similarly, &quot;Kim bought X and sold it again&quot; has a reading
          where this is the first time Kim sold it.  And explicitly
          representing that reading by decomposing &quot;sell&quot; would require
          something like cause(be-sold).  This seems dubious to me.  I&#39;m
          much more tempted to say that &quot;again&quot; has a fuzzier meaning
          than Dowty assumes.<br>
        </div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>I couldn&#39;t find any examples which convinced me that
          there&#39;s an interaction with the morphosyntax, so I feel like
          this is all something that we can safely leave out of the MRS.<br>
        </div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
      </div>
      <div class="gmail_extra"><br>
        <div class="gmail_quote">2017-05-17 3:57 GMT-07:00 Ann Copestake
          <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:aac10@cl.cam.ac.uk" target="_blank">aac10@cl.cam.ac.uk</a>&gt;</span>:<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 get those readings but note:<br>
              </p>
              <p>3. For a long time, Kim didn&#39;t speak.<br>
              </p>
              only has your reading 2.<br>
              <br>
              so although I&#39;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.<br>
              <br>
              for negation there&#39;s an extensive literature - I&#39;d
              recommend Horn&#39;s book.<br>
              <br>
              For some of these type of examples, I&#39;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.<br>
              <br>
              Incidentally, Ivan Sag (somewhere) had a discussion of
              examples like:<br>
              <br>
                The Sheriff of Nottingham jailed Robin Hood for three
              years.<br>
              <br>
              which may be relevant - I honestly can&#39;t remember.<br>
              <br>
              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&#39; to give two
              structurally different readings, but that&#39;s a somewhat
              different issue.<br>
              <br>
              All best,<br>
              <br>
              Ann
              <div>
                <div class="m_-6591178192211473240h5"><br>
                  <br>
                  <div class="m_-6591178192211473240m_-8944700136553354417moz-cite-prefix">On
                    17/05/17 02:08, Guy Emerson wrote:<br>
                  </div>
                  <blockquote type="cite">
                    <div dir="ltr">
                      <div>
                        <div>
                          <div>
                            <div>So, if I&#39;ve understood correctly:<br>
                              <br>
                              - using a scopal modifier for negation
                              only leaves one variable for non-scopal
                              modifiers<br>
                            </div>
                            - using a modal for negation would allow
                            non-scopal modifiers to take either the main
                            verb&#39;s variable, or the modal&#39;s variable<br>
                            <br>
                          </div>
                          But then, what about &quot;Kim didn&#39;t speak for a
                          long time&quot;, which I think can have two
                          readings:<br>
                          <br>
                        </div>
                        1. Kim spoke for only a short time<br>
                      </div>
                      <div>2. Kim was silent for a long time<br>
                        <br>
                      </div>
                      <div>It looks like the ERG just gets the first
                        reading.<br>
                      </div>
                      <div>
                        <div>
                          <div>
                            <div>
                              <div><br>
                                <br>
                              </div>
                            </div>
                          </div>
                        </div>
                      </div>
                      <div class="gmail_extra"><br>
                        <div class="gmail_quote">2017-05-11 13:55
                          GMT-07:00 Ann Copestake <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:aac10@cl.cam.ac.uk" target="_blank">aac10@cl.cam.ac.uk</a>&gt;</span>:<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 <i>unexpectedly</i> is scopal
                                in at least some circumstances. 
                                Specifically I would say the semantics
                                of <i>unexpectedly</i> is modal (in a
                                broad sense) - e.g., I could treat it in
                                terms of possible worlds that I&#39;m
                                considering at some timepoint t - if in
                                only 1% of possible worlds does P
                                happen, and P actually happens by t&#39;
                                (where t&#39; &gt; t) then unexpected(P). 
                                This is very crude and incomplete, but
                                all I&#39;m trying to do here is convey the
                                modal intuition.<br>
                              </p>
                              <p> Under this interpretation:<br>
                              </p>
                              <p>  unexpected(not(win(Kim))) <br>
                              </p>
                              <p>means that at time t I thought
                                not(win(Kim)) had 1% chance, but at t&#39;
                                not(win(Kim)) has come to pass</p>
                              <p>this isn&#39;t the same as:<br>
                              </p>
                              <p>  not(unexpected(win(Kim)))<br>
                              </p>
                              which means it-is-not-the-case that [ at
                              time t I thought win(Kim) had 1% chance
                              and at t&#39; win(Kim) has come to pass ] 
                              i.e., either I expected Kim to win all
                              along or Kim actually didn&#39;t win<span><br>
                                <br>
                                <blockquote type="cite">Also, in (3),
                                  unexpectedly could be a
                                  sentence-initial discourse
                                  <div>adverb (scopal?) or an adverb
                                    extracted from lower in the
                                    clause...</div>
                                </blockquote>
                                <br>
                              </span> As I remember it, the discussion
                              about possible sentence situation meaning
                              is a semantic one rather than depending on
                              whether there&#39;s extraction or not.  <br>
                              <br>
                              All best,<br>
                              <br>
                              Ann
                              <div>
                                <div class="m_-6591178192211473240m_-8944700136553354417m_-310726251724269823h5"><br>
                                  <br>
                                  <div class="m_-6591178192211473240m_-8944700136553354417m_-310726251724269823m_-1602240225619716942moz-cite-prefix">On
                                    11/05/2017 21:13, Emily M. Bender
                                    wrote:<br>
                                  </div>
                                  <blockquote type="cite">
                                    <div dir="ltr">Thanks, Ann, for the
                                      quick reply!  This connects to
                                      other things I&#39;ve been
                                      <div>curious about recently,
                                        including how we decide if
                                        something like &quot;unexpectedly&quot;</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">&lt;<a href="mailto:aac10@cl.cam.ac.uk" target="_blank">aac10@cl.cam.ac.uk</a>&gt;</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&#39;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&#39;m afraid I don&#39;t have time
                                            to discuss this properly at
                                            the moment, though.  I feel
                                            such a discussion has taken
                                            place, but don&#39;t remember
                                            the venue.<br>
                                            <br>
                                            All best,<br>
                                            <br>
                                            Ann
                                            <div>
                                              <div class="m_-6591178192211473240m_-8944700136553354417m_-310726251724269823m_-1602240225619716942h5"><br>
                                                <br>
                                                <br>
                                                <div class="m_-6591178192211473240m_-8944700136553354417m_-310726251724269823m_-1602240225619716942m_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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;m wondering
                                                      what difference we
                                                      intend to model
                                                      here.  (This
                                                      question comes up
                                                      now</div>
                                                    <div>because we&#39;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_-6591178192211473240m_-8944700136553354417m_-310726251724269823m_-1602240225619716942m_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="m_-6591178192211473240m_-8944700136553354417m_-310726251724269823m_-1602240225619716942gmail_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>
                                  </blockquote>
                                  <br>
                                </div>
                              </div>
                            </div>
                          </blockquote>
                        </div>
                        <br>
                      </div>
                    </div>
                  </blockquote>
                  <br>
                </div>
              </div>
            </div>
          </blockquote>
        </div>
        <br>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </div></div></div>

</blockquote></div><br></div>