<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Sorry I don't have time to properly engage with this. <br>
</p>
<p>I just wanted to say that, at a DMRS level, the problem is just
about making sure that the compositionality rules can give you the
right readings without over-constraining. What the DMRS
post-slash constraints give you is information about the scopal
relationships - you can interpret /= with events, as we usually do
in ERS, but you can also interpret it with no events at all, as in
non-Davidsonian accounts. <br>
</p>
<p>so:<br>
</p>
<p>not ---------> talk <----------- for-three-hours <br>
</p>
<p> ARG1/H ARG1/=</p>
<p>just guarantees that `talk' and `for three hours' are under the
scope of `not' and you could interpret the = in different ways
depending on whether or not you're using events. In this view<br>
</p>
<p>for-three-hours ---------> not ----------------> talk<br>
</p>
<p> ARG1/= ARG1/H</p>
<p>is a perfectly good DMRS as long as one isn't using an
event-based representation to show what the = means, because that
forces one into having `not events'.<br>
</p>
<p>Conventional notation is not very helpful here, because it forces
one to write something that looks like there's a scopal
relationship if one doesn't use events, but that's actually a
notational issue, not a genuine semantic one. For instance, I can
perfectly well express what the two alternatives mean with a
temporal logic without events. <br>
</p>
<p>Anyway, this is just a brief indication of what the situation is
from my own current perspective. I can try and help work things
out from an event-based point of view, but I can't say my heart is
in it!</p>
<p>All best,</p>
<p>Ann<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 19/05/2017 21:16, Guy Emerson wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CADPj3xGfQ=_q26hnZAtgk-T555cgJ3dsZeF9LnoOZ030C+Htqw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">So with the modals and attitude, we're saying that
there's a state, which bears some relation to the embedded
event, and both the state and embedded event can be modified.<br>
<div><br>
I think this kind of situation can also happen with habituals,
without introducing an extra predicate:<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>"I didn't used to brush my teeth for long enough, but for
the past year, I've been brushing for two minutes"<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>In terms of the denotation, we have many brushing events
lasting two minutes, and a habitual state lasting a year. A
more minimal example:<br>
<br>
"Kim brushed for two minutes for a year"<br>
<br>
Some word orders seem weird (but maybe okay with the right
intonation):<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>?"Kim brushed for a year for two minutes"<br>
</div>
<div>"For a year, Kim brushed for two minutes"<br>
</div>
<div>?"For two minutes, Kim brushed for a year"<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>So if want to introduce an extra event variable for modals,
it seems to me that we might want do the same for habituals,
too, even though they can be unmarked in English.<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>For (2a) and (2b), I think we can capture the difference
without necessarily referring to the neg "event", by using
label sharing to control whether the adverbial scopes above or
below negation (my "option 2" below). So for (2b), the claim
would be that fronted adverbials have to take high scope, i.e.
share a label with the LTOP rather than the INDEX. In MRS,
this would be immediate, since the INDEX's label is no longer
available. In DMRS, it would have to be a syntactic
constraint (you know, maybe this reading is fine in Turkish).<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>In this analysis, the negation has to act on an expression
with a free variable (the event), rather than a proposition,
so that the event is still available for the adverbial when it
takes high scope. Negation is still easy to define, but
rather than inverting truth values, it's inverting
truth-conditional functions. (In type-theoretic terms, it's
of the form <<e,t>,<e,t>>.)<br>
<br>
That is, rather than not(speak(e)), we have not(speak)(e), so
that we can write not(speak)(e)&for-a-long-time(e), which
would contrast with the other reading
not(speak&for-a-long-time)(e). But then I don't think it
really matters whether "not" or "speak" is introducing this
"e". If we say that "not" is introducing an event, it's
effectively just wrapping the event from "speak", anyway.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
If we're happy to do that, then we could perhaps extend this
approach to modals - can(close) takes a truth-conditional
function that's true of closing events, and returns a
truth-conditional function that's true of able-to-close
states. The embedded verb's event never gets quantified,
which is perhaps reasonable - "Kim can close the window" can
be true even if Kim never closes the window.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>This would make negation and modals look formally very
similar, even though the modal states look very different from
the embedded verb events.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>So maybe these events aren't so problematic after all? And
I'm sure there's a literature on this that I should read.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2017-05-19 1:45 GMT-07:00 Ann Copestake
<span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:aac10@cl.cam.ac.uk" target="_blank">aac10@cl.cam.ac.uk</a>></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>my intuition is that events (eventualities) with modals
make some sense in an object language: <br>
</p>
<p>Kim can close the window.</p>
<p>can(e,k,close(e',k,w))<br>
</p>
e refers to the state of Kim having the ability, much as
in<br>
<br>
Kim believes Sandy slept.<br>
<br>
believe(e,k,sleep(e',s))<br>
<br>
we can talk about the state of Kim having the belief.<br>
<br>
Kim could close the window for an hour.<br>
<br>
has a reading where it's Kim's ability that lasts for an
hour (e.g., follow up with "and then was too weak") - that
seems OK in terms of eventuality modification.<br>
<br>
Originally event semantics didn't include states and
people argued both ways, and off the top of my head, I
can't remember who ... Still, states make a certain
amount of sense in terms of a collection of properties or
potentialities associated with a spatio-temporal location,
in a way that the not "event" and the probably "event"
don't. I think one might find discussion of why not
events don't make sense in some of the situation semantics
literature.<br>
<br>
Decomposed events have been proposed in a number of
contexts where the adverbial seems to refer to a
preparatory state or whatever. Higginbotham and various
Generative Lexicon people (Pustejovsky et al), for
instance. e.g.,<br>
<br>
(13) Mary came in an hour for an hour.<br>
<br>
from a paper that talks about the event decomposition idea
(which I just found with an extremely cursory search, so
don't take it as a proper citation)
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="m_-8837310576754914894moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.ucl.ac.uk/pals/research/linguistics/publications/wpl/96papers/evans"
target="_blank">https://www.ucl.ac.uk/pals/<wbr>research/linguistics/<wbr>publications/wpl/96papers/<wbr>evans</a><br>
<br>
So the idea that one can say that there's a preparatory
state of not talking in:<span class=""><br>
<br>
(2a) Kim didn't speak for a long time. <br>
<br>
</span> is perhaps sort of plausible. i.e., one could
claim that the single event allows an underspecification
of the two readings.<br>
But then <br>
<span class=""> <br>
<div>(2b) For a long time, Kim didn't speak. ;;; Kim was
silent for a long time</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</span> is problematic in that it only has the one
reading. One could stipulate that, of course, but it's
not pretty.<br>
<br>
Maybe I'm wrong to be so worried and someone has seriously
proposed not events. Ask Alex? What one's looking for (in
terms of the object language) is a literature where the
denotation is discussed - not simply an argument from
ambiguity / readings. <br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Ann
<div>
<div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="m_-8837310576754914894moz-cite-prefix">On
19/05/2017 04:17, Emily M. Bender wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Right---I'm trying to understand why
it is that we give different representations
<div>for not v. other modal operators wrt which
event variable is exposed, with the</div>
<div>longer range goal of getting to tests that
could in principle be applied in other languages</div>
<div>too, so we could find out if the
representation we pick for sentential negation</div>
<div>works across languages. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Collecting the data that has come up so far
in this thread:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>(1a) <span style="font-size:12.8px">We could
unexpectedly close the window. ;;;
could(unexpectedly(close)) /
unexpectedly(could(close))</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:12.8px">(1b) </span><span
style="font-size:12.8px">We did not
unexpectedly close the window. ;;;
not(unexpectedly(close))</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:12.8px">(1c) </span><span
style="font-size:12.8px">Unexpectedly we did
not close the window. ;;;
unexpectedly(not(close))</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:12.8px">[Aside: The
reason I was asking about extraction is that
we do have a construction that</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:12.8px">allows an
adverb to attach low in the semantics but
appear at the left edge of the clause.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:12.8px">That would
predict not(unexpectedly(close)) for (1c),
which I think isn't available.]</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br>
</span></div>
<div>(2a) Kim didn't speak for a long time. ;;;
Kim spoke for only a short time / Kim was silent
for a long time<br>
</div>
<div>(2b) For a long time, Kim didn't speak. ;;;
Kim was silent for a long time</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If (1a) is really ambiguous, is that meant to
be an argument that 'could' has its</div>
<div>own event that can be modified? Why is it
less problematic for a modal operator like</div>
<div>'could' to introduce an event (in terms of
the underlying semantics) than something</div>
<div>like 'probably' or 'not'? Do the readings of
(1b) and (1c) correspond to the two readings of
(1a)? </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Just now it seems to me that the two readings
of (1a) and the pair (1b)/(1c) aren't really</div>
<div>relevant to the question of which INDEX is
propagated, because in any case the ARG1 of</div>
<div>unexpectedly or not is handle-valued. But,
we'd consider 'for a long time' to be a
non-scopal </div>
<div>modifier in (2), right? So what do we want
'for' to take as its ARG in (2b)/the second</div>
<div>reading of (2a)?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Emily</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span style="font-size:12.8px"></span></div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 18, 2017 at
6:55 PM, Guy Emerson <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gete2@cam.ac.uk"
target="_blank">gete2@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 dir="ltr">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.<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="m_-8837310576754914894HOEnZb">
<div class="m_-8837310576754914894h5">
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2017-05-18 8:01
GMT-07:00 Ann Copestake <span
dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:aac10@cl.cam.ac.uk"
target="_blank">aac10@cl.cam.ac.uk</a>></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'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.<br>
</p>
<p>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. <br>
</p>
<p>All best,</p>
<p>Ann<br>
</p>
<div>
<div
class="m_-8837310576754914894m_-8265124334523577790h5">
<br>
<div
class="m_-8837310576754914894m_-8265124334523577790m_-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's question, I can
think of two ways that
we might represent the
"silent for a long time"
reading:<br>
<br>
</div>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<div>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).<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'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.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>That's the main thing
I wanted to say - but
Re: Robin Hood:<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I've found Ivan Sag's
discussion of the
jailing Robin Hood
examples (<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.academia.edu/2798317/Adjunct_scope" target="_blank">https://www.academia.edu/2798<wbr>317/Adjunct_scope</a>),
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":<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&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.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.<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"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:aac10@cl.cam.ac.uk" target="_blank">aac10@cl.cam.ac.uk</a>></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't
speak.<br>
</p>
only has your
reading 2.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
for negation there's
an extensive
literature - I'd
recommend Horn's
book.<br>
<br>
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.<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'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' to
give two
structurally
different readings,
but that's a
somewhat different
issue.<br>
<br>
All best,<br>
<br>
Ann
<div>
<div
class="m_-8837310576754914894m_-8265124334523577790m_-6591178192211473240h5"><br>
<br>
<div
class="m_-8837310576754914894m_-8265124334523577790m_-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'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's
variable, or
the modal's
variable<br>
<br>
</div>
But then, what
about "Kim
didn't speak
for a long
time", 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"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:aac10@cl.cam.ac.uk" target="_blank">aac10@cl.cam.ac.uk</a>></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'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.<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'
not(win(Kim))
has come to
pass</p>
<p>this isn'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' win(Kim)
has come to
pass ] i.e.,
either I
expected Kim
to win all
along or Kim
actually
didn'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's
extraction or
not. <br>
<br>
All best,<br>
<br>
Ann
<div>
<div
class="m_-8837310576754914894m_-8265124334523577790m_-6591178192211473240m_-8944700136553354417m_-310726251724269823h5"><br>
<br>
<div
class="m_-8837310576754914894m_-8265124334523577790m_-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'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
moz-do-not-send="true" 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="m_-8837310576754914894m_-8265124334523577790m_-6591178192211473240m_-8944700136553354417m_-310726251724269823m_-1602240225619716942h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
<div
class="m_-8837310576754914894m_-8265124334523577790m_-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'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_-8837310576754914894m_-8265124334523577790m_-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
moz-do-not-send="true" 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_-8837310576754914894m_-8265124334523577790m_-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
moz-do-not-send="true" 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>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div class="m_-8837310576754914894gmail_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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>