<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">I agree, but the literature on
underspecification does not address reference resolution, such as
in the case of "do so" which spawned this thread (at least not
that I am aware of, and if it does I would appreciate such a
reference).<br>
<br>
Also, perhaps MRS is too underspecified with regard to
quantification and reference, as in "each man lifted each
crate". In this case, it is implicit that there are set of men
and a set of crates which is not reflected in the ERG / MRS.<br>
<br>
Furthermore, the semantics of quantification may vary with lexical
entry. In "the men died", it occurs to each of them individually,
no doubt, unlike in "the men lifted the crates". Thus, the
lexical entry for "die" could include semantics that indicate the
event "occurs to" its subject(s) individually, while "lift" could
be underspecified with regard to such argument feature. Also
consider the case of the unary "different" which requires a
plurality as its single argument. I'm not sure there is provision
for such semantics in the ERG.<br>
<br>
Such semantic features might arguably improve the adverbial "so"
in which the event lacks a quantifier, which if it existed would
be explicit / definite rather than completely underspecified.<br>
<br>
Just saying... this can also be relegated to a further stage of
processing, as you suggest, but the input lacks valuable
information in such cases.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 10/26/2013 9:14 AM, Emily M. Bender wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAMype6f2z+Da2Qkz2gMYZdjmiz8RPS700hwpWstkTeReA2TTcA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">I believe this is intentional underspecification
from the point of view of the ERG. If there is no syntactic
configuration that can disambiguate among the possibilities,
then there is nothing to be gained by enumerating them in
different MRSs output by the grammar. That does, of course,
leave the problem of enumerating and disambiguating to a further
stage of processing, though.
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>Emily</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 4:59 AM, Paul
Haley <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paul@haleyai.com" target="_blank">paul@haleyai.com</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">
<div>With regard to "the men lifted the crates", and the
general representation of resolved references in more
fully specified semantics:<br>
<br>
The classic problem is that any of the following
interpretations is valid:<br>
<br>
1. all the men together lifted all the crates at once.<br>
2. each crate was lifted by some of the men<br>
3. each crate was lifted by one of the men<br>
4. ...<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
I'll table "substances cross the plasma membrane at
different rates", because there are multiple issues with
the intended meaning<br>
<br>
<ul>
<li> for each pair of distinct substances that cross
the plasma membrane the pair does so at different
rates</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>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<br>
</li>
</ul>
vs. the ERG representation, as below:<br>
<br>
<img src="cid:part2.00070709.00080502@haleyai.com"
alt=""><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
<br>
Paul </font></span>
<div>
<div class="h5"> On 10/25/2013 4:23 PM, Emily M.
Bender wrote:<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="h5">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Yes, I would expect the do_so
relation to show up for "and so did Sandy", at
least as one alternative parse.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'm not sure what you mean by "<span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">the
classic "the men lifted the crates" or
"substances cross the plasma membrane at
different rates"."</span></div>
<div><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Emily</span></div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote"> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at
10:19 AM, Paul Haley <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paul@haleyai.com"
target="_blank">paul@haleyai.com</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">
<div>Perhaps I'm beginning to follow your
perspective... thanks for asking.<br>
<br>
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"!<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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".<br>
<br>
I still think an issue lurks here,
however, as shown in the following
examples. <br>
<br>
<img
src="cid:part4.07020807.02010802@haleyai.com"
alt=""><br>
<br>
<img
src="cid:part5.07040307.07070209@haleyai.com"
alt=""><span><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
Paul</font></span>
<div>
<div><br>
<br>
<br>
On 10/24/2013 7:31 PM, Emily M. Bender
wrote:<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Dear Paul,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Why doesn't the ARG0 of the
do_so relation suffice for the
variable/argument that you are
looking for?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Emily</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Oct
22, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Paul Haley <span
dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paul@haleyai.com"
target="_blank">paul@haleyai.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex"> Thanks
Dan.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.
<div>
<div><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 10/22/2013 1:57 PM, Dan
Flickinger wrote:<br>
<blockquote
class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hi Paul -<br>
<br>
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:<br>
"Kim bought a car. Mary
did so, too."<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Dan<br>
<br>
----- Original Message
-----<br>
From: "Paul Haley" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paul@haleyai.com"
target="_blank">paul@haleyai.com</a>><br>
To: "Emily M. Bender" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ebender@uw.edu"
target="_blank">ebender@uw.edu</a>>,
"erg" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:erg@delph-in.net"
target="_blank">erg@delph-in.net</a>><br>
Sent: Monday, October 21,
2013 7:39:03 AM<br>
Subject: Re: [erg]
semantics of "so" as in
"do so"<br>
<br>
What logical semantics is
appropriate for "kim left
and sandy did so, too"?<br>
<br>
They may have left
together or at different
times or independently at<br>
the same time.<br>
<br>
In theory, all of these
logical/semantic
interpretations should be<br>
consistent with the
resulting underspecified
semantics.<br>
<br>
The MRS below corresponds,
roughly to:<br>
<br>
exists(e10,e14,x6,x17){leave(e10,x6),named(x6,Kim),do_so(e14,x17),named(x17,Sandy)}<br>
<br>
If e14 co-references e10,
this implies there is one
leaving event<br>
"performed by" both Kim
and Sandy, which may or
may not be the<br>
appropriate logical
interpretation.<br>
<br>
If not, how is e14 to
understood as a leaving?<br>
<br>
One resolution of this
would be to have an
argument, such as follows:<br>
<br>
exists(e10,e14,x6,x17){leave(e10,x6),named(x6,Kim),do(e14,e10,x17),named(x17,Sandy)}<br>
<br>
This representation would
allow either semantics to
result from further<br>
(logical) disambiguation.<br>
<br>
I submit that the MRS
resulting now is
insufficient to represent
the<br>
underspecified semantics.<br>
<br>
Alternatively, I suppose,
one could introduce an
underspecified form of<br>
co-reference in which e14
references e10 other than
as logically<br>
equivalent, but that
raises issues not
previously addressed (in
any<br>
literature that I have
seen) with regard to the
relationship between<br>
underspecified
representation and logical
axioms.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 10/15/2013 11:29 AM,
Emily M. Bender wrote:<br>
<blockquote
class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px
#ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex">
[Keeping this on-list]<br>
<br>
Hi Paul,<br>
<br>
The analysis in the ERG
is that do+so is a
pro-verb, the whole
thing<br>
stands in for the event.
The point of my
examples was that that
event<br>
might have any number of
participants, and so
looking for an ARG2<br>
specifically seems
misguided.<br>
<br>
Emily<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at
2:56 AM, Paul Haley <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paul@haleyai.com" target="_blank">paul@haleyai.com</a><br>
<mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paul@haleyai.com" target="_blank">paul@haleyai.com</a>>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
But in the MRS
there is nothing that
relates the doing to the<br>
leaving or
betting!? That's the
problem. The semantics
is wrong.<br>
<br>
Worse, "it" is
frequently
interchangeable with
"so" in such<br>
constructions, as
shown below (as in the
case of my first example<br>
further below).
The pronoun refers to
the event, of course.
That<br>
reference is
missing in the semantics
for "so".<br>
<br>
Seems to me that
"so" in this
construction is an 'e'
pronoun<br>
(where "it" is a
'x' pronoun below, which
could also be a bug,
imo.)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 10/10/2013 7:28
PM, Emily M. Bender
wrote:<br>
<blockquote
class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px
#ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex">
But "so" in "do
so" doesn't actually
stand in for the ARG2:<br>
<br>
Kim left, and
Sandy did so too.<br>
Kim bet Pat $500
that the Giants would
win, and Sandy did so
too.<br>
<br>
Emily<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Wed, Oct 9,
2013 at 5:42 AM, Paul
Haley <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paul@haleyai.com" target="_blank">paul@haleyai.com</a><br>
<mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paul@haleyai.com" target="_blank">paul@haleyai.com</a>>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
Apologies for
a couple of typos
below, and one
clarification.<br>
<br>
It's not
really important
whether "so" is
treated as a<br>
pronoun or
do-so as a proto-verb
but by "direct object"
I<br>
meant an ARG2
in the predication for
do_v_so corresponding
to<br>
whatever "so"
references or
introduces or
substitutes for.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 10/9/2013
8:34 AM, Paul Haley
wrote:<br>
<blockquote
class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px
#ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hi Emily!<br>
<br>
Yes, but
I'm suggest that
"pro-" is
"pronomial" not<br>
"proto"!-)
Generally, don't we
want elipsis to be
reflected<br>
in the
semantics? That is,
in the "u" and "i"
type<br>
variables
in the MRS (or
unresolved
pronouns)?<br>
<br>
Shouldn't
the MRS for for that
doing have an
argument to be<br>
resolved
against the
situational argument
for the moving?<br>
That
argument would be
"so" treated as a
pronoun, which<br>
seems the
proper semantics
since the "so"<br>
actually/semantically
references some
event/situation, no?<br>
That is, if
pronomial "so" was
the direct object of
"do"<br>
here, I
think all would be
well.<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On
10/8/2013 9:14 PM,
Emily M. Bender
wrote:<br>
<blockquote
class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0
0
.8ex;border-left:1px
#ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hello
Paul,<br>
<br>
It looks
like "do so" is
being treated as a
"pro-verb", and<br>
that
seems appropriate
to me. Proverbs
(like ellipsis)<br>
take
their
interpretation
from context. So
this says<br>
basically
that<br>
x6 is
doing something,
but what that
something is needs
to<br>
be
resolved.<br>
<br>
Emily<br>
<br>
<br>
On Tue,
Oct 8, 2013 at
9:33 AM, Paul
Haley<br>
<<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paul@haleyai.com" target="_blank">paul@haleyai.com</a>
<mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paul@haleyai.com" target="_blank">paul@haleyai.com</a>>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
Hi
All,<br>
<br>
In
the following, it
seems that "so" is
more of a<br>
pronoun than a
preposition (at
least it seems
"so" to me!).<br>
<br>
I
would appreciate
your thoughts on
getting reasonable<br>
logic
from the ERG for
this sentence,
which is quite<br>
interesting when
you also consider
quantification...<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Thank
you and best
regards,<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Emily M.
Bender<br>
Associate
Professor<br>
Department of
Linguistics<br>
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>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Emily M. Bender<br>
Associate
Professor<br>
Department of
Linguistics<br>
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>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Emily M. Bender<br>
Associate Professor<br>
Department of
Linguistics<br>
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>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
Emily M. Bender<br>
Associate Professor<br>
Department of Linguistics<br>
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>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
Emily M. Bender<br>
Associate Professor<br>
Department of Linguistics<br>
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>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
Emily M. Bender<br>
Associate Professor<br>
Department of Linguistics<br>
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>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>