[erg] semantics of "so" as in "do so"
danf at stanford.edu
Tue Oct 22 19:57:19 CEST 2013
Hi Paul -
I agree that we don't want to identify the two events as the only possible interpretation. But we have to allow anaphora resolution to perform its magic quite generally, and it is I think misguided to try to coerce the sentence-level semantic composition to do too much. If the text to be parsed were two separate sentences, I hope you would agree that our sentence-oriented processing could not be expected to constrain the elided event via unification:
"Kim bought a car. Mary did so, too."
So we have to be content in the grammar to set the stage for a currently unimplemented resolution engine separate from the current grammar that will bind these anaphoric elements both sentence-internally and across discourse. This underspecification is very much the same as the approach we take to ordinary pronoun binding, though we do expect to enrich the grammar's MRSs for sentence with pronouns a little more, now that we have a place to assert structurally derived constraints on equality and inequality of individuals, as ICONSs. But I don't know of analogous structural constraints (such as c-command) for verbal anaphora, and in any case these would again be only sentence-internal.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Haley" <paul at haleyai.com>
To: "Emily M. Bender" <ebender at uw.edu>, "erg" <erg at delph-in.net>
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 7:39:03 AM
Subject: Re: [erg] semantics of "so" as in "do so"
What logical semantics is appropriate for "kim left and sandy did so, too"?
They may have left together or at different times or independently at
the same time.
In theory, all of these logical/semantic interpretations should be
consistent with the resulting underspecified semantics.
The MRS below corresponds, roughly to:
If e14 co-references e10, this implies there is one leaving event
"performed by" both Kim and Sandy, which may or may not be the
appropriate logical interpretation.
If not, how is e14 to understood as a leaving?
One resolution of this would be to have an argument, such as follows:
This representation would allow either semantics to result from further
I submit that the MRS resulting now is insufficient to represent the
Alternatively, I suppose, one could introduce an underspecified form of
co-reference in which e14 references e10 other than as logically
equivalent, but that raises issues not previously addressed (in any
literature that I have seen) with regard to the relationship between
underspecified representation and logical axioms.
On 10/15/2013 11:29 AM, Emily M. Bender wrote:
> [Keeping this on-list]
> Hi Paul,
> The analysis in the ERG is that do+so is a pro-verb, the whole thing
> stands in for the event. The point of my examples was that that event
> might have any number of participants, and so looking for an ARG2
> specifically seems misguided.
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 2:56 AM, Paul Haley <paul at haleyai.com
> <mailto:paul at haleyai.com>> wrote:
> But in the MRS there is nothing that relates the doing to the
> leaving or betting!? That's the problem. The semantics is wrong.
> Worse, "it" is frequently interchangeable with "so" in such
> constructions, as shown below (as in the case of my first example
> further below). The pronoun refers to the event, of course. That
> reference is missing in the semantics for "so".
> Seems to me that "so" in this construction is an 'e' pronoun
> (where "it" is a 'x' pronoun below, which could also be a bug, imo.)
> On 10/10/2013 7:28 PM, Emily M. Bender wrote:
>> But "so" in "do so" doesn't actually stand in for the ARG2:
>> Kim left, and Sandy did so too.
>> Kim bet Pat $500 that the Giants would win, and Sandy did so too.
>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 5:42 AM, Paul Haley <paul at haleyai.com
>> <mailto:paul at haleyai.com>> wrote:
>> Apologies for a couple of typos below, and one clarification.
>> It's not really important whether "so" is treated as a
>> pronoun or do-so as a proto-verb but by "direct object" I
>> meant an ARG2 in the predication for do_v_so corresponding to
>> whatever "so" references or introduces or substitutes for.
>> On 10/9/2013 8:34 AM, Paul Haley wrote:
>>> Hi Emily!
>>> Yes, but I'm suggest that "pro-" is "pronomial" not
>>> "proto"!-) Generally, don't we want elipsis to be reflected
>>> in the semantics? That is, in the "u" and "i" type
>>> variables in the MRS (or unresolved pronouns)?
>>> Shouldn't the MRS for for that doing have an argument to be
>>> resolved against the situational argument for the moving?
>>> That argument would be "so" treated as a pronoun, which
>>> seems the proper semantics since the "so"
>>> actually/semantically references some event/situation, no?
>>> That is, if pronomial "so" was the direct object of "do"
>>> here, I think all would be well.
>>> On 10/8/2013 9:14 PM, Emily M. Bender wrote:
>>>> Hello Paul,
>>>> It looks like "do so" is being treated as a "pro-verb", and
>>>> that seems appropriate to me. Proverbs (like ellipsis)
>>>> take their interpretation from context. So this says
>>>> basically that
>>>> x6 is doing something, but what that something is needs to
>>>> be resolved.
>>>> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Paul Haley
>>>> <paul at haleyai.com <mailto:paul at haleyai.com>> wrote:
>>>> Hi All,
>>>> In the following, it seems that "so" is more of a
>>>> pronoun than a preposition (at least it seems "so" to me!).
>>>> I would appreciate your thoughts on getting reasonable
>>>> logic from the ERG for this sentence, which is quite
>>>> interesting when you also consider quantification...
>>>> Thank you and best regards,
>>>> Emily M. Bender
>>>> Associate Professor
>>>> Department of Linguistics
>>>> Check out CLMS on facebook! http://www.facebook.com/uwclma
>> Emily M. Bender
>> Associate Professor
>> Department of Linguistics
>> Check out CLMS on facebook! http://www.facebook.com/uwclma
> Emily M. Bender
> Associate Professor
> Department of Linguistics
> Check out CLMS on facebook! http://www.facebook.com/uwclma
More information about the erg