<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 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:part1.09060500.08090406@haleyai.com" alt=""><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
<br>
Paul
</font></span><div><div class="h5"><pre cols="72"></pre>
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 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:part3.01010400.07090308@haleyai.com" alt=""><br>
<br>
<img src="cid:part4.08060508.06060300@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 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 href="mailto:paul@haleyai.com" target="_blank">paul@haleyai.com</a>><br>
To: "Emily M. Bender" <<a href="mailto:ebender@uw.edu" target="_blank">ebender@uw.edu</a>>,
"erg" <<a 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 href="mailto:paul@haleyai.com" target="_blank">paul@haleyai.com</a><br>
<mailto:<a 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 href="mailto:paul@haleyai.com" target="_blank">paul@haleyai.com</a><br>
<mailto:<a 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 href="mailto:paul@haleyai.com" target="_blank">paul@haleyai.com</a>
<mailto:<a 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 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 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 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 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 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 href="http://www.facebook.com/uwclma" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/uwclma</a><br>
</div>