[erg] semantics of "so" as in "do so"

Paul Haley paul at haleyai.com
Sat Oct 26 13:59:45 CEST 2013


With regard to "the men lifted the crates", and the general 
representation of resolved references in more fully specified semantics:

The classic problem is that any of the following interpretations is valid:

1. all the men together lifted all the crates at once.
2. each crate was lifted by some of the men
3. each crate was lifted by one of the men
4. ...

The type of reference is more than just collective versus distributive 
reference since some of the crates may have been lifted by several of 
the men lifting together.

I'll table  "substances cross the plasma membrane at different rates", 
because there are multiple issues with the intended meaning

  * for each pair of distinct substances that cross the plasma membrane
    the pair does so at different rates

  * for each type of substance that crosses the plasma membrane for
    every other type of substance that crosses the plasma membrane the
    rate at which the first substance crosses the plasma membrane is
    different than the rate at which the second substance crosses the
    plasma membrane

vs. the ERG representation, as below:




Paul

On 10/25/2013 4:23 PM, Emily M. Bender wrote:
> Yes, I would expect the do_so relation to show up for "and so did 
> Sandy", at least as one alternative parse.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "the classic "the men lifted the crates" 
> or "substances cross the plasma membrane at different rates"."
>
> Emily
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Paul Haley <paul at haleyai.com 
> <mailto:paul at haleyai.com>> wrote:
>
>     Perhaps I'm beginning to follow your perspective... thanks for asking.
>
>     If, instead of resolving that ARG0 to the "leaving", which Dan and
>     I agree would be inappropriate for some potentially intended
>     semantics, there was a form of co-reference other than
>     (in)equality, such as the "same type" I suggested below, I guess
>     you would not need the additional argument for "so/it"!
>
>     Until now, I had no need to introduce additional predicates into
>     the semantics, but to do so seems appropriate after the discussion
>     , so thanks again for your patient coaching, Dan and Emily.
>
>     Actually, any references on representing the forms of reference as
>     additional predicates in less underspecified logical semantics
>     would be sincerely appreciated.  For example, the classic "the men
>     lifted the crates" or "substances cross the plasma membrane at
>     different rates".
>
>     I still think an issue lurks here, however, as shown in the
>     following examples.
>
>
>
>
>
>     Paul
>
>
>
>     On 10/24/2013 7:31 PM, Emily M. Bender wrote:
>>     Dear Paul,
>>
>>     Why doesn't the ARG0 of the do_so relation suffice for the
>>     variable/argument that you are looking for?
>>
>>     Emily
>>
>>
>>     On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Paul Haley <paul at haleyai.com
>>     <mailto:paul at haleyai.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         Thanks Dan.
>>
>>         No problem agreeing with the first clause of your second
>>         sentence, but I don't think the second clause involves
>>         coercion as much as proper logical semantic structure.  I'm
>>         not suggesting anything more than a semantic argument is missing.
>>
>>         I'm not expecting sentence-oriented processing to do anything
>>         at all in terms of anaphora resolution.  That's how it works
>>         now (i.e., without a resolution mechanism, which is just
>>         fine, imo), but the variable/argument seems critical in any
>>         case.  I don't see how to approach it otherwise.  Inter- vs.
>>         intra-sentential resolution doesn't seem pertinent here.
>>
>>         I didn't know we had ICONSs!  Sounds interesting...  and
>>         potentially combinatoric.  Should be fun.  I'm not sure
>>         additional types of constraints for verbal anaphora are
>>         needed (i.e., we've lived long enough without ICONSs) but if
>>         there is a linguistic distinction between such reference to
>>         an instance versus a type of event, that would be appropriate
>>         too.  Without them, the semantics is just more
>>         underspecified, which is fine as long as it covers the
>>         intended meaning.  It seems clear that the representation we
>>         have now does not in the cases at issue here.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>         On 10/22/2013 1:57 PM, Dan Flickinger wrote:
>>
>>             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.
>>
>>               Dan
>>
>>             ----- Original Message -----
>>             From: "Paul Haley" <paul at haleyai.com
>>             <mailto:paul at haleyai.com>>
>>             To: "Emily M. Bender" <ebender at uw.edu
>>             <mailto:ebender at uw.edu>>, "erg" <erg at delph-in.net
>>             <mailto: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:
>>
>>             exists(e10,e14,x6,x17){leave(e10,x6),named(x6,Kim),do_so(e14,x17),named(x17,Sandy)}
>>
>>             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:
>>
>>             exists(e10,e14,x6,x17){leave(e10,x6),named(x6,Kim),do(e14,e10,x17),named(x17,Sandy)}
>>
>>             This representation would allow either semantics to
>>             result from further
>>             (logical) disambiguation.
>>
>>             I submit that the MRS resulting now is insufficient to
>>             represent the
>>             underspecified semantics.
>>
>>             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.
>>
>>                 Emily
>>
>>
>>
>>                 On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 2:56 AM, Paul Haley
>>                 <paul at haleyai.com <mailto:paul at haleyai.com>
>>                 <mailto: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.
>>
>>                          Emily
>>
>>
>>
>>                          On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 5:42 AM, Paul Haley
>>                     <paul at haleyai.com <mailto:paul at haleyai.com>
>>                          <mailto: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.
>>
>>                                  Paul
>>
>>
>>
>>                                  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.
>>
>>                                      Emily
>>
>>
>>                                      On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 9:33 AM,
>>                             Paul Haley
>>                                      <paul at haleyai.com
>>                             <mailto:paul at haleyai.com>
>>                             <mailto: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,
>>                                          Paul
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>                                      --
>>                                      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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     -- 
>>     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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.delph-in.net/archives/erg/attachments/20131026/ba7b1fe4/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: gbhajbid.png
Type: image/png
Size: 19838 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.delph-in.net/archives/erg/attachments/20131026/ba7b1fe4/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.delph-in.net/archives/erg/attachments/20131026/ba7b1fe4/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 59305 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.delph-in.net/archives/erg/attachments/20131026/ba7b1fe4/attachment-0003.png>


More information about the erg mailing list