Meeting transcript:
speaker: B
text: what things to talk about .
speaker: F
text: I 'm <disfmarker> What ?
speaker: F
text: Really ?
speaker: F
text: Oh , that 's horrible !
speaker: F
text: Disincentive !
speaker: A
text: OK , we 're recording .
speaker: F
text: Hello ?
speaker: B
text: Check check <pause> check check .
speaker: F
text: Hello ?
speaker: D
text: Uh , yeah .
speaker: F
text: Which am I ?
speaker: C
text: Oh right .
speaker: B
text: Alright . Good .
speaker: F
text: Channel fi OK .
speaker: F
text: OK .
speaker: F
text: Are you doing something ?
speaker: F
text: OK , then I guess I 'm doing something .
speaker: F
text: So , um ,
speaker: F
text: So basically the result of m much thinking since the last time we met , um , but not as much writing , um , is a sheet that I have a lot of , like , thoughts and justification of comments on
speaker: F
text: but I 'll just pass out as is right now .
speaker: F
text: So , um ,
speaker: F
text: here .
speaker: F
text: If you could pass this around ?
speaker: F
text: And there 's two things .
speaker: F
text: And so one on one side is <disfmarker> on one side is a sort of the revised sort of updated semantic specification .
speaker: D
text: Um <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: And the other side is , um , sort of a revised construction formalism .
speaker: D
text: The <disfmarker>
speaker: D
text: wait .
speaker: E
text: This is just one sheet , right ?
speaker: D
text: Ah !
speaker: F
text: It 's just one sheet .
speaker: D
text: Just one sheet .
speaker: F
text: It 's just a <disfmarker> Nothing else .
speaker: D
text: OK .
speaker: D
text: Front , back .
speaker: F
text: Um ,
speaker: F
text: Enough to go around ?
speaker: F
text: OK .
speaker: F
text: And in some ways it 's <disfmarker> it 's <disfmarker> it 's very similar to <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: There are very few changes in some ways from what we 've , um , uh , b done before
speaker: F
text: but I don't think everyone here has seen all of this .
speaker: F
text: So , uh , I 'm not sure where to begin .
speaker: F
text: Um , as usual the disclaimers are there are <disfmarker> all these things are <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: it 's only slightly more stable than it was before .
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: And , um , after a little bit more discussion and especially like Keith and I <disfmarker> I have more linguistic things to settle in the next few days , um , it 'll probably change again some more .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: Um , maybe I will <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: let 's start b let 's start on number two actually on the notation ,
speaker: F
text: um , because that 's ,
speaker: F
text: I 'm thinking , possibly a little more familiar to , um <disfmarker> to people .
speaker: F
text: OK , so the top block is just sort of a <disfmarker> sort of abstract nota
speaker: F
text: it 's sort of like , um , listings of the kinds of things that we can have .
speaker: F
text: And certain things that have , um , changed , have changed back to this .
speaker: F
text: There <disfmarker> there 's been a little bit of , um , going back and forth .
speaker: F
text: But basically obviously all constructions have some kind of name .
speaker: F
text: I forgot to include that you could have a type included in this line .
speaker: C
text: What I was gonna <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: So something like , um <disfmarker>
speaker: C
text: Right .
speaker: F
text: Well , there 's an example <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: the textual example at the end has clausal construction .
speaker: F
text: So ,
speaker: F
text: um , just to show it doesn't have to be beautiful
speaker: F
text: It could be , you know , simple old text as well .
speaker: F
text: Um , there are a couple of <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: Uh , these three have various ways of doing certain things .
speaker: F
text: So I 'll just try to go through them .
speaker: F
text: So they could all have a type at the beginning .
speaker: F
text: Um , and then they say the key word construction
speaker: C
text: Oh , I see .
speaker: F
text: and they have some name .
speaker: C
text: So <disfmarker> so the current syntax is if it s if there 's a type it 's before construct
speaker: F
text: Yeah , right .
speaker: C
text: OK , that 's fine .
speaker: F
text: OK , and then it has a block that is constituents .
speaker: F
text: And as usual I guess all the constructions her all the examples here have only , um , tsk <comment> one type of constituent ,
speaker: F
text: that is a constructional constituent .
speaker: F
text: I think that 's actually gonna turn out to m be certainly the most common kind .
speaker: F
text: But in general instead of the word " construct " , th here you might have " meaning " or " form " as well .
speaker: F
text: OK ?
speaker: F
text: So if there 's some element that doesn't <disfmarker> that isn't yet constructional in the sense that it maps form and meaning .
speaker: F
text: OK ,
speaker: F
text: um , the main change with the constructs which <disfmarker> each of which has , um , the key word " construct " and then some name , and then some type specification , is that it 's <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: it 's pro it 's often <disfmarker> sometimes the case in the first case here that you know what kind of construction it is .
speaker: F
text: So for example whatever I have here is gonna be a form of the word " throw " ,
speaker: F
text: or it 's gonna be a form of the word , you know , I don't know , " happy " , or something like that .
speaker: F
text: Or , you know , some it 'll be a specific word
speaker: F
text: or maybe you 'll have the type .
speaker: F
text: You 'll say " I need a p uh spatial relation phrase here "
speaker: F
text: or " I need a directional specifier here " .
speaker: F
text: So - uh you could have a j a actual type here .
speaker: F
text: Um , or you could just say in the second case that you only know the meaning type .
speaker: F
text: So a very common example of this is that , you know , in directed motion , the first person to do something should be an agent of some kind ,
speaker: F
text: often a human .
speaker: F
text: Right ?
speaker: F
text: So if I <disfmarker> you know , the um , uh , run down the street then I <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: I <disfmarker> I run down the street ,
speaker: F
text: it 's typed , uh , " I " ,
speaker: F
text: meaning category is what 's there .
speaker: F
text: The <disfmarker> the new kind is this one that is sort of a pair
speaker: F
text: and , um ,
speaker: F
text: sort of skipping fonts and whatever .
speaker: F
text: The idea is that sometimes there are , um , general constructions that you know , that you 're going to need .
speaker: F
text: It 's <disfmarker> it 's the equivalent of a noun phrase or a prepositional phrase , or something like that there .
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: And usually it has formal um , considerations that will go along with it .
speaker: C
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: And then uh , you might know something much more specific depending on what construction you 're talking about ,
speaker: F
text: about what meaning <disfmarker> what specific meaning you want .
speaker: F
text: So the example again at the bottom , which is directed motion ,
speaker: F
text: you might need a nominal expression to take the place of , you know , um , " the big th " , you you know , " the big <disfmarker> the tall dark man " , you know , " walked into the room " .
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: But because of the nature of this particular construction you know not just that it 's nominal of some kind
speaker: F
text: but in particular , that it 's some kind of animate nominal ,
speaker: F
text: and which will apply just as well to like , you know , a per you know , a simple proper noun
speaker: F
text: or to some complicated expression .
speaker: F
text: Um ,
speaker: F
text: so I don't know if the syntax will hold but something that gives you a way to do both constructional and meaning types .
speaker: F
text: So .
speaker: F
text: OK , then I don't think the , <comment> um <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: at least <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: Yeah . <comment> None of these examples have anything different for formal constraints ?
speaker: F
text: But you can refer to any of the , um , sort of available elements and scope ,
speaker: F
text: right ? which here are the constructs , <comment> to say something about the relation .
speaker: F
text: And I think i if you not if you compare like the top block and the textual block , um , we dropped like the little F subscript .
speaker: F
text: The F subscripts refer to the " form " piece of the construct .
speaker: C
text: Good .
speaker: F
text: And I think that , um , in general it 'll be unambiguous .
speaker: F
text: Like if you were giving a formal constraint then you 're referring to the formal pole of that .
speaker: F
text: So <disfmarker> so by saying <disfmarker> if I just said " Name one " then that means name one formal
speaker: F
text: and we 're talking about formal struc <comment> Which <disfmarker> which makes sense .
speaker: F
text: Uh , there are certain times when we 'll have an exception to that ,
speaker: F
text: in which case you could just indicate " here I mean the meaningful for some reason " .
speaker: F
text: Right ?
speaker: F
text: Or <disfmarker> Actually it 's more often that , only to handle this one special case of , you know , " George and Jerry walk into the room in that order " .
speaker: F
text: So we have a few funny things where something in the meaning might refer to something in the form .
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: But <disfmarker> but s we 're not gonna really worry about that for right now
speaker: F
text: and there are way We can be more specific if we have to later on .
speaker: F
text: OK , and so in terms of the <disfmarker> the relations ,
speaker: F
text: you know , as usual they 're before and ends .
speaker: F
text: I should have put an example in of something that isn't an interval relation
speaker: F
text: but in form you might also have a value binding .
speaker: F
text: You know , you could say that , um , you know , " name - one dot " , t you know , " number equals " , you know , a plural or something like that .
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: There are certain things that are attribute - value , similar to the bindings below
speaker: F
text: but I mean they 're just <disfmarker> us usually they 're going to be value <disfmarker> value fillers , right ?
speaker: F
text: OK , and then again semantic constraints here are just <disfmarker> are just bindings .
speaker: F
text: There was talk of changing the name of that .
speaker: F
text: And Johno and I <disfmarker> I <disfmarker> you <disfmarker> you and I can like fight about that if you like ?
speaker: F
text: but about changing it to " semantic <pause> n effects " ,
speaker: F
text: which I thought was a little bit too order - biased
speaker: B
text: Well <disfmarker>
speaker: B
text: Th
speaker: F
text: and " semantic bindings " ,
speaker: F
text: which I thought might be too restrictive in case we don't have only bindings .
speaker: F
text: And so it was an issue whether constraints <disfmarker> um , there were some linguists who reacted against " constraints " , saying , " oh , if it 's not used for matching , then it shouldn't be called a constraint " .
speaker: F
text: But I think we want to be uncommitted about whether it 's used for matching or not . Right ?
speaker: F
text: Cuz there are <disfmarker> I think we thought of some situations where it would be useful to use whatever the c bindings are , for
speaker: F
text: actual , you know , sort of like modified constraining purposes .
speaker: C
text: Well , you definitely want to de - couple the formalism from the parsing strategy .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: C
text: So that whether or not it 's used for matching or only for verification , I <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: Yeah , yeah .
speaker: F
text: It 's used shouldn't matter , right ?
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: C
text: s For sure .
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: C
text: I mean , I don't know what , uh , term we want to use
speaker: C
text: but we don't want to <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: Yeah , uh , there was one time when <disfmarker> when Hans explained why " constraints " was a misleading word for him .
speaker: C
text: Yep .
speaker: F
text: And I think the reason that he gave was similar to the reason why Johno thought it was a misleading term ,
speaker: F
text: which was just an interesting coincidence .
speaker: F
text: Um , but , uh <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: And so I was like , " OK , well both of you don't like it ?
speaker: F
text: Fine , we can change it " .
speaker: C
text: It 's g it 's gone .
speaker: F
text: But I <disfmarker> I <disfmarker> I 'm starting to like it again .
speaker: F
text: So that that 's why <disfmarker> <comment> That 's why I 'll stick with it .
speaker: B
text: But <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: So <disfmarker>
speaker: A
text: Well , you know what ?
speaker: A
text: If you have an " if - then " phrase , do you know what the " then " phrase is called ?
speaker: C
text: Th
speaker: F
text: What ?
speaker: F
text: Con - uh , a consequent ?
speaker: A
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: Yeah , but it 's not an " if - then " .
speaker: C
text: I know .
speaker: C
text: Anyway , so the other <disfmarker> the other strategy you guys could consider is when you don't know what word to put , you could put no word ,
speaker: A
text: No , but <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: C
text: just meaning .
speaker: C
text: OK ?
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: C
text: And the then let <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: Yeah , that 's true .
speaker: B
text: So that 's why you put semantic constraints up top and meaning bindings down <disfmarker> down here ?
speaker: F
text: Oh , oops !
speaker: F
text: No . That was just a mistake of cut and paste from when I was going with it .
speaker: B
text: OK .
speaker: C
text: OK .
speaker: F
text: So , I 'm sorry .
speaker: F
text: I didn't mean <disfmarker> that one 's an in unintentional .
speaker: B
text: So this should be semantic and <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: Sometimes I 'm intentionally inconsistent
speaker: F
text: cuz I 'm not sure yet .
speaker: F
text: Here , I actually <disfmarker> it was just a mistake .
speaker: B
text: Th - so this definitely should be " semantic constraints " down at the bottom ?
speaker: E
text: Sure .
speaker: F
text: Yeah .
speaker: B
text: OK .
speaker: F
text: Well , unless I go with " meaning "
speaker: F
text: but i I mean , I kind of like " meaning " better than " semantic "
speaker: B
text: Or <disfmarker>
speaker: C
text: Oh , whatever .
speaker: F
text: but I think there 's <pause> vestiges of other people 's biases .
speaker: C
text: Or <disfmarker> wh
speaker: F
text: Like <disfmarker>
speaker: C
text: That - b
speaker: C
text: Right .
speaker: C
text: Minor <disfmarker> min problem <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: Minor point .
speaker: E
text: Extremely .
speaker: C
text: OK .
speaker: F
text: OK , um ,
speaker: F
text: so I think the middle block doesn't really give you any more information , ex than the top block .
speaker: F
text: And the bottom block similarly only just illus you know , all it does is illustrate that you can drop the subscripts and <disfmarker> and that you can drop the , um <disfmarker> uh , that you can give dual types .
speaker: F
text: Oh , one thing I should mention is about " designates " .
speaker: F
text: I think I 'm actually inconsistent across these as well .
speaker: F
text: So , um , strike out the M subscript on the middle block .
speaker: C
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: So basically now , um , this is actually <disfmarker> this little change actually goes along with a big linguistic change ,
speaker: F
text: which is that " designates " isn't only something for the semantics to worry about now .
speaker: C
text: Good .
speaker: F
text: So we want s " designates " to actually know one of the constituents which acts like a head in some respects
speaker: F
text: but is sort of , um , really important for say composition later on .
speaker: F
text: So for instance , if some other construction says , you know , " are you of type <disfmarker> is this part of type whatever " , um , the " designates " tells you which sort of part is the meaning part .
speaker: F
text: OK , so if you have like " the big red ball " , you know , you wanna know if there 's an object or a noun .
speaker: F
text: Well , ball is going to be the designated sort of element of that kind of phrase .
speaker: E
text: Mmm .
speaker: F
text: Um ,
speaker: F
text: there is a slight complication here which is that when we talk about form it 's useful sometimes to talk about , um <disfmarker> to talk about there also being a designated object
speaker: F
text: and we think that that 'll be the same one , right ?
speaker: F
text: So the ball is the head of the phrase ,
speaker: F
text: " the r the <disfmarker> " , um , " big red ball " ,
speaker: F
text: and the entity denoted by the word " ball " is sort of the semantic head in some ways of <disfmarker> of this sort of , um , in interesting larger element .
speaker: C
text: A a and the <disfmarker>
speaker: C
text: Yeah .
speaker: C
text: And there 's <disfmarker> uh there 's ca some cases where the grammar depends on some form property of the head .
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: C
text: And <disfmarker> and this enables you to get that , if I understand you right .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: Right , right .
speaker: E
text: That 's the idea .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: C
text: Yeah yeah .
speaker: F
text: And , uh , you might be able to say things like if the head has to go last in a head - final language , you can refer to the head as a p the , you know <disfmarker> the formal head as opposed to the rest of the form having to be at the end of that decision .
speaker: C
text: Right .
speaker: F
text: So that 's a useful thing
speaker: F
text: so that you can get some internal structural constraints in .
speaker: C
text: OK , so that all looks good .
speaker: C
text: Let me <disfmarker>
speaker: C
text: Oh , w Oh .
speaker: C
text: I don't know .
speaker: C
text: Were you finished ?
speaker: F
text: Um , there was a list of things that isn't included
speaker: F
text: but you <disfmarker> you can <disfmarker> you can ask a question .
speaker: F
text: That might @ @ it .
speaker: C
text: OK .
speaker: C
text: So , i if I understand this the <disfmarker>
speaker: C
text: aside from , uh , construed and all that sort of stuff , the <disfmarker> the differences are mainly that , <vocalsound> we 've gone to the possibility of having form - meaning pairs for a type
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: C
text: or actually gone back to ,
speaker: F
text: Right .
speaker: C
text: if we go back far enough <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: Well , except for their construction meaning ,
speaker: F
text: so it 's not clear that ,
speaker: F
text: uh <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: Well , right now it 's a c uh contr construction type and meaning type .
speaker: F
text: So I don't know what a form type is .
speaker: C
text: Oh , I see .
speaker: C
text: Yeah , yeah , yeah .
speaker: C
text: I 'm sorry ,
speaker: F
text: Yeah .
speaker: C
text: you 're right .
speaker: C
text: A construction type .
speaker: C
text: Uh , that 's fine .
speaker: F
text: Right .
speaker: C
text: But it , um <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: A well , and a previous , um , you know , version of the notation certainly allowed you to single out the meaning bit by it .
speaker: F
text: So you could say " construct of type whatever designates something " .
speaker: C
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: But that was mostly for reference purposes ,
speaker: F
text: just to refer to the meaning pole .
speaker: F
text: I don't think that it was often used to give an extra meaning const type constraint on the meaning ,
speaker: F
text: which is really what we want most of the time I think .
speaker: C
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: Um ,
speaker: F
text: I <disfmarker> I don't know if we 'll ever have a case where we actually h
speaker: F
text: if there is a form category constraint , you could imagine having a triple there that says , you know <disfmarker> that 's kind of weird .
speaker: C
text: No , no , no , I don't think so .
speaker: C
text: I think that you 'll <disfmarker> you 'll do fine .
speaker: E
text: I <disfmarker>
speaker: C
text: In fact , these are , um ,
speaker: C
text: as long as <disfmarker> as Mark isn't around , these are form constraints .
speaker: C
text: So a nominal expression is <disfmarker> uh , the fact that it 's animate , is semantic .
speaker: C
text: The fact that it 's n uh , a nominal expression I would say on most people 's notion of <disfmarker> of f you know , higher form types , this i this is one .
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: Right , right .
speaker: E
text: Yeah , yeah .
speaker: C
text: And I think that 's just fine .
speaker: F
text: Which is fine , yeah .
speaker: E
text: It 's <disfmarker> that now , um , I 'm mentioned this ,
speaker: C
text: Yeah .
speaker: E
text: I <disfmarker> I don't know if I ever explained this
speaker: E
text: but the point of , um ,
speaker: E
text: I mentioned in the last meeting , <comment> the point of having something called " nominal expression " is , um ,
speaker: E
text: because it seems like having the verb subcategorize for , you know , like say taking as its object just some expression which , um , designates an object or designates a thing , or whatever , um , that leads to some syntactic problems basically ?
speaker: E
text: So you wanna , you know <disfmarker> you sort of have this problem like " OK , well , I 'll put the word " , uh , let 's say , the word " dog " ,
speaker: E
text: you know . And that has to come right after the verb
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: E
text: cuz we know verb meets its object .
speaker: E
text: And then we have a construction that says , oh , you can have " the " preceding a noun .
speaker: E
text: And so you 'd have this sort of problem that the verb has to meet the designatum .
speaker: C
text: Right .
speaker: E
text: And you could get , you know , " the kicked dog " or something like that , meaning " kicked the dog " .
speaker: C
text: Right .
speaker: E
text: Um , so you kind of have to let this phrase idea in there
speaker: E
text: but <disfmarker>
speaker: C
text: That I <disfmarker> I have no problem with it at all .
speaker: E
text: It - it
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: Yeah .
speaker: C
text: I think it 's fine .
speaker: F
text: Right , n s
speaker: F
text: you may be <disfmarker> you may not be like everyone else in <disfmarker> in Berkeley ,
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: but that 's OK .
speaker: E
text: I mean , we <disfmarker> we <disfmarker> we sort of thought we were getting away with , uh <disfmarker> with , a p
speaker: F
text: Uh , we don't mind either ,
speaker: F
text: so <disfmarker>
speaker: E
text: I mean , this is not reverting to the X - bar theory of <disfmarker> of phrase structure .
speaker: C
text: Right .
speaker: E
text: But , uh ,
speaker: F
text: Right .
speaker: E
text: I just know that this is <disfmarker> Like , we didn't originally have in mind that , uh <disfmarker> that verbs would subcategorize for a particular sort of form .
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: C
text: But they do .
speaker: E
text: Um ,
speaker: E
text: but they does .
speaker: F
text: Well , there 's an alternative to this
speaker: E
text: At least in English .
speaker: F
text: which is , um <disfmarker> The question was did we want directed motion ,
speaker: C
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: which is an argument structure construction <disfmarker>
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: C
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: did we want it to worry about , um , anything more than the fact that it , you know , has semantic <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: You know , it 's sort of frame - based construction .
speaker: F
text: So one option that , you know , Keith had mentioned also was like , well if you have more abstract constructions such as subject , predicate , basically things like grammatical relations ,
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: those could intersect with these
speaker: F
text: in such a way that subject , predicate , or subject , predicate , subject , verb , ob you know , verb object would require that those things that f fill a subject and object are NOM expressions .
speaker: C
text: Right .
speaker: F
text: And that would be a little bit cleaner in some way .
speaker: F
text: But you know , for now , I mean ,
speaker: C
text: Yeah .
speaker: C
text: But it <disfmarker> y y it 's <disfmarker> yeah , just moving it <disfmarker> moving the c the cons the constraints around .
speaker: F
text: uh , you know .
speaker: F
text: M moving it to another place , right .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: C
text: OK , so that 's <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: But there does <disfmarker> basically , the point is there has to be that constraint somewhere , right ?
speaker: C
text: Right .
speaker: F
text: So ,
speaker: F
text: yeah .
speaker: C
text: And so that was the <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: Robert 's not happy now ?
speaker: A
text: No !
speaker: F
text: Oh , OK .
speaker: C
text: OK , and sort of going with that is that the designatum also now is a pair .
speaker: F
text: Yes .
speaker: C
text: Instead of just the meaning .
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: C
text: And that aside from some terminology , that 's basically it .
speaker: F
text: Right .
speaker: C
text: I just want to b I 'm <disfmarker> I 'm asking .
speaker: F
text: Yep .
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: Yeah ,
speaker: F
text: um , the un sort of the un - addressed questions in this , um , definitely would for instance be semantic constraints we talked about .
speaker: C
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: Here are just bindings
speaker: F
text: but ,
speaker: F
text: right ?
speaker: F
text: we might want to introduce mental spaces <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: You know , there 's all these things that we don't <disfmarker>
speaker: C
text: The whole <disfmarker> the mental space thing is clearly not here .
speaker: F
text: Right ?
speaker: F
text: So there 's going to be some extra <disfmarker> you know , definitely other notation we 'll need for that which we skip for now .
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: C
text: By the way , I do want to get on that as soon as Robert gets back .
speaker: F
text: Uh
speaker: F
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: OK .
speaker: C
text: So , uh , the <disfmarker> the mental space thing .
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: C
text: Um , obviously , <vocalsound> construal is a b is a b is a big component of that
speaker: C
text: so this probably not worth trying to do anything till he gets back .
speaker: C
text: But sort of as soon as he gets back I think um , we ought to <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: E
text: So what 's the <disfmarker> what 's the time frame ?
speaker: E
text: I forgot again when
speaker: E
text: you 're going away for how long ?
speaker: A
text: Just , uh , as a <disfmarker> sort of a mental bridge , I 'm not <disfmarker> I 'm skipping fourth of July .
speaker: E
text: OK .
speaker: A
text: So , uh , <vocalsound> right afterwards I 'm back .
speaker: E
text: OK .
speaker: F
text: What ?
speaker: F
text: You 're missing like the premier American holiday ?
speaker: F
text: What 's the point of spending a year here ?
speaker: A
text: Uh , I 've had it often enough .
speaker: F
text: So , anyway .
speaker: B
text: Well he w he went to college here .
speaker: F
text: Oh , yeah , I forgot .
speaker: F
text: Oops . <comment> Sorry .
speaker: C
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: OK .
speaker: C
text: And furthermore it 's well worth missing .
speaker: F
text: Not in California .
speaker: F
text: Yeah , that 's true .
speaker: E
text: Yes .
speaker: F
text: I like <disfmarker> I <disfmarker> I like spending fourth of July in other countries , <vocalsound> whenever I can .
speaker: C
text: Right .
speaker: F
text: Um <disfmarker>
speaker: C
text: OK , so that 's great .
speaker: F
text: Construal ,
speaker: F
text: OK , so <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: Oh , so there was one question that came out .
speaker: F
text: I hate this thing .
speaker: F
text: Sorry .
speaker: F
text: Um , which is ,
speaker: F
text: so something like " past " which i you know , we think is a very simple <disfmarker> uh , we 've often just stuck it in as a feature ,
speaker: C
text: Right .
speaker: F
text: you know , " oh , <pause> this event takes place before speech time " , <comment> OK , is what this means .
speaker: C
text: Right .
speaker: F
text: Um , it 's often thought of as <disfmarker> it is also considered a mental space ,
speaker: C
text: Right .
speaker: F
text: you know , by , you know , lots of people around here .
speaker: C
text: Right .
speaker: F
text: So there 's this issue of well sometimes there are really exotic explicit space builders that say " in France , blah - blah - blah " ,
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: and you have to build up <disfmarker> you ha you would imagine that would require you , you know , to be very specific about the machinery ,
speaker: F
text: whereas past is a very conventionalized one
speaker: F
text: and we sort of know what it means
speaker: F
text: but it <disfmarker> we doesn't <disfmarker> don't necessarily want to , you know , unload all the notation every time we see that it 's past tense .
speaker: C
text: Right .
speaker: F
text: So , you know , we could think of our <disfmarker> uh , just like X - schema " walk " refers to this complicated structure , past refers to , you know , a certain configuration of this thing with respect to it .
speaker: C
text: I think that 's exactly right .
speaker: F
text: So <disfmarker> so we 're kind of like having our cake and eating it <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: you know , having it both ways , right ?
speaker: C
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: So , i i
speaker: C
text: Yeah . <pause> No , I think <disfmarker> I think that i we 'll have to see how it works out when we do the details
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: C
text: but my intuition would be that that 's right .
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: Yeah , OK .
speaker: A
text: Do you want to do the same for space ?
speaker: F
text: Wha - sorry ?
speaker: A
text: Space ?
speaker: F
text: Space ?
speaker: A
text: Here ?
speaker: A
text: Now ?
speaker: F
text: Oh , oh , oh , oh , instead of just time ?
speaker: F
text: Yeah , yeah , yeah .
speaker: A
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: Same thing .
speaker: F
text: So there are very conventionalized like deictic ones , right ?
speaker: F
text: And then I think for other spaces that you introduce , you could just attach y
speaker: F
text: whatever <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: You could build up an appropriately <disfmarker> uh , appropriate structure according to the l the sentence .
speaker: A
text: Hmm .
speaker: C
text: Yeah .
speaker: A
text: Hmm ,
speaker: A
text: well this <disfmarker> this basically would involve everything you can imagine to fit under your C dot something <disfmarker>
speaker: E
text: N
speaker: F
text: Yeah .
speaker: A
text: you know , where <disfmarker> where it 's contextually dependent ,
speaker: F
text: Right .
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: A
text: " what is now ,
speaker: A
text: what was past ,
speaker: A
text: what is in the future ,
speaker: A
text: where is this ,
speaker: A
text: what is here ,
speaker: A
text: what is there ,
speaker: A
text: what is <disfmarker> "
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: So time and space .
speaker: F
text: Um , we 'll <disfmarker> we 'll get that on the other side a little , like very minimally .
speaker: F
text: There 's a sort of there 's a slot for setting time and setting place .
speaker: C
text: Good .
speaker: F
text: And
speaker: F
text: you know , you could imagine for both of those are absolute things you could say about the time and place ,
speaker: F
text: and then there are many in more interestingly , linguistically anyway , <comment> there are relative things that , you know , you relate the event in time and space to where you are now .
speaker: F
text: If there 's something a lot more complicated like , or so <disfmarker> hypothetical or whatever , then you have to do your job ,
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: like or somebody 's job anyway .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: I 'm gonna point to <disfmarker> at random .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: E
text: I mean , I 'm <disfmarker> I 'm s curious about how much of the mental <disfmarker>
speaker: E
text: I mean , I 'm not sure that the formalism , sort of the grammatical side of things , <comment> is gonna have that much going on in terms of the mental space stuff .
speaker: E
text: You know , um , basically all of these so - called space builders that are in the sentence are going to sort of <disfmarker>
speaker: E
text: I think of it as , sort of giving you the coordinates of , you know <disfmarker>
speaker: E
text: assuming that at any point in discourse there 's the possibility that we could be sort of talking about a bunch of different world scenarios , whatever , and the speaker 's supposed to be keeping track of those . The , um <disfmarker> the construction that you actually get is just gonna sort of give you a cue as to which one of those that you 've already got going , um , you 're supposed to add structure to .
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: E
text: So " in France , uh , Watergate wouldn't have hurt Nixon " or something like that .
speaker: E
text: Um , well , you say , " alright , I 'm supposed to add some structure to my model of this hypothetical past France universe " or something like that .
speaker: E
text: The information in the sentence tells you that much
speaker: E
text: but it doesn't tell you like exactly what it <disfmarker> what the point of doing so is .
speaker: E
text: So for example , depending on the linguistic con uh , context it could be <disfmarker>
speaker: E
text: like the question is for example , what does " Watergate " refer to there ?
speaker: E
text: Does it , you know <disfmarker> does it refer to , um <disfmarker>
speaker: E
text: if you just hear that sentence cold , the assumption is that when you say " Watergate " you 're referring to " a Watergate - like scandal as we might imagine it happening in France " .
speaker: E
text: But in a different context , " oh , you know , if Nixon had apologized right away it wouldn't <disfmarker> you know , Watergate wouldn't have hurt him so badly in the US
speaker: E
text: and in France it wouldn't have hurt him at all " .
speaker: E
text: Now we 're s now that " Watergate " <disfmarker> we 're now talking about the real one ,
speaker: F
text: They 're real , right .
speaker: E
text: and the " would " sort of <disfmarker> it 's a sort of different dimension of hypothe - theticality , right ?
speaker: F
text: I see <disfmarker> right .
speaker: E
text: We 're not saying <disfmarker> What 's hypothetical about this world .
speaker: E
text: In the first case , hypothetically we 're imagining that Watergate happened in France .
speaker: F
text: Hmm .
speaker: E
text: In the second case we 're imagining hypothetically that Nixon had apologized right away
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: Right .
speaker: E
text: or something . Right ?
speaker: E
text: So a lot of this isn't happening at the grammatical level .
speaker: E
text: Uh , um , and so <disfmarker>
speaker: C
text: Correct .
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: E
text: I don't know where that sits then ,
speaker: A
text: Hmm .
speaker: E
text: sort of the idea of sorting out what the person meant .
speaker: F
text: It seems like , um , the grammatical things such as the auxiliaries that you know introduce these conditionals , whatever , give you sort of the <disfmarker> the most basi
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: th those we <disfmarker> I think we can figure out what the possibilities are , right ?
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: There are sort of a relatively limited number .
speaker: F
text: And then how they interact with some extra thing like " in France " or " if such - and - such " , that 's like there are certain ways that they c they can <disfmarker>
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: You know , one is a more specific version of the general pattern that the grammat grammar gives you .
speaker: F
text: I think .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: But , you know , whatever ,
speaker: F
text: we <disfmarker> we 're <disfmarker>
speaker: C
text: Yeah , in the short run all we need is a enough mechanism on the form side to get things going .
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: C
text: Uh , I <disfmarker> uh , you <disfmarker> you <disfmarker>
speaker: E
text: But the whole point of <disfmarker> the whole point of what Fauconnier and Turner have to say about , uh , mental spaces , and blending , and all that stuff is that you don't really get that much out of the sentence .
speaker: E
text: You know , there 's not that much information contained in the sentence .
speaker: E
text: It just says , " Here .
speaker: E
text: Add this structure to this space . "
speaker: E
text: and exactly what that means for the overall ongoing interpretation is quite open .
speaker: E
text: An individual sentence could mean a hundred different things depending on , quote , " what the space configuration is at the time of utterance " .
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: E
text: And so somebody 's gonna have to be doing a whole lot of work but not me , I think .
speaker: C
text: Well <disfmarker>
speaker: C
text: I think that 's right .
speaker: C
text: Oh , I <disfmarker> yeah , I , uh , uh <disfmarker> I think that 's <disfmarker> Not k I th
speaker: C
text: I don't think it 's completely right .
speaker: C
text: I mean , in fact a sentence examples you gave in f did constrain the meaning b
speaker: C
text: the form did constrain the meaning ,
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: C
text: and so , um , it isn't , uh <disfmarker>
speaker: E
text: Sure , but like what <disfmarker> what was the point of saying that sentence about Nixon and France ?
speaker: E
text: That is not <disfmarker> there is nothing about that in the <disfmarker> in the sentence really .
speaker: F
text: That 's OK .
speaker: F
text: We usually don't know the point of the sentence at all .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: But we know what it 's trying to say .
speaker: F
text: We <disfmarker> we know that it 's <disfmarker> what predication it 's setting up .
speaker: E
text: Y yeah .
speaker: C
text: Yeah .
speaker: C
text: But <disfmarker> but <disfmarker> bottom line , I agree with you ,
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: That 's all .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: C
text: that <disfmarker> that <disfmarker> that we 're not expecting much out of the , uh f
speaker: F
text: Purely linguistic cues , right ?
speaker: C
text: uh , the purely form cues , yeah .
speaker: F
text: So .
speaker: F
text: Mmm .
speaker: C
text: And , um <disfmarker> I mean , you 're <disfmarker> you 're the linguist
speaker: C
text: but , uh , it seems to me that th these <disfmarker> we <disfmarker> we <disfmarker> you know , we 've talked about maybe a half a dozen linguistics theses in the last few minutes or something .
speaker: E
text: Yeah , yeah .
speaker: C
text: Yeah , I mean <disfmarker>
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: E
text: Oh , yeah .
speaker: C
text: uh , I <disfmarker> I mean , that <disfmarker> that 's my feeling that <disfmarker> that these are really hard uh , problems that decide exactly what <disfmarker> what 's going on .
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: C
text: OK .
speaker: F
text: OK , so , um , one other thing I just want to point out is there 's a lot of confusion about the terms like " profile , designate , focus " , et cetera , et cetera .
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: C
text: Uh , right , right , right .
speaker: F
text: Um , for now I 'm gonna say like " profile " 's often used <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: like two uses that come to mind immediately .
speaker: F
text: One is in the traditional like semantic highlight of one element with respect to everything else .
speaker: F
text: So " hypotenuse " , you profiled this guy against the background of the <pause> right t right triangle .
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: OK .
speaker: F
text: And the second use , um , is in FrameNet. It 's
speaker: F
text: slightly different .
speaker: F
text: Oh , I was asking Hans about this .
speaker: F
text: They use it to really mean , um , this <disfmarker> in a frame th this is <disfmarker> the profiles on the <disfmarker> these are the ones that are required .
speaker: F
text: So they have to be there or expressed in some way .
speaker: F
text: Which <disfmarker> which <disfmarker> I 'm not saying one and two are mutually exclusive
speaker: F
text: but they 're <disfmarker> they 're different meanings .
speaker: C
text: Right .
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: So the closest thing <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: so I was thinking about how it relates to this notation .
speaker: F
text: For us , um <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: OK , so how is it <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: so " designate " <disfmarker> FrameNet ?
speaker: C
text: Does that <disfmarker> Is that really what they mean in <disfmarker> in <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: FrameNet ?
speaker: C
text: I didn't know that .
speaker: F
text: Yeah , yeah .
speaker: F
text: I <disfmarker> I mean , I <disfmarker> I was a little bit surprised about it too .
speaker: F
text: I knew that <disfmarker>
speaker: C
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: I thought that that would be something like <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: there 's another term that I 've heard for that thing
speaker: C
text: Right , OK .
speaker: F
text: but they <disfmarker> I mean <disfmarker> uh , well , at least Hans says they use it that way .
speaker: F
text: And <disfmarker>
speaker: C
text: Well , I 'll check .
speaker: F
text: and may maybe he 's wrong .
speaker: F
text: Anyway , so
speaker: F
text: I think the <disfmarker> the " designate " that we have in terms of meaning is really the " highlight this thing with respect to everything else " . OK ?
speaker: C
text: Right .
speaker: F
text: So this is what <disfmarker> what it means .
speaker: F
text: But the second one seems to be useful
speaker: F
text: but we might not need a notation for it ?
speaker: F
text: We don't have a notation for it
speaker: F
text: but we might want one .
speaker: F
text: So for example we 've talked about if you 're talking about the lexical item " walk " ,
speaker: F
text: you know it 's an action .
speaker: F
text: Well , it also has this idea <disfmarker> it carries along with it the idea of an actor
speaker: F
text: or somebody 's gonna do the walking .
speaker: F
text: Or if you talk about an adjective " red " , it carries along the idea of the thing that has the property of having color red .
speaker: F
text: So we used to use the notation " with " for this
speaker: F
text: and I think that 's closest to their second one .
speaker: C
text: Right .
speaker: F
text: So I d don't yet know , I have no commitment , as to whether we need it .
speaker: F
text: It might be <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: it 's the kind of thing that w a parser might want to think about whether we require <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: you know , these things are like it 's semantically part of it <disfmarker>
speaker: C
text: N no , no .
speaker: C
text: Well , uh , th critically they 're not required syntactically .
speaker: C
text: Often they 're pres presu presupposed and all that sort of stuff .
speaker: F
text: Right .
speaker: F
text: Right , right . Yeah , um , definitely .
speaker: F
text: So , um ,
speaker: F
text: " in " was a good example .
speaker: F
text: If you walk " in " , like well , in what ?
speaker: F
text: You know , like you have to have the <disfmarker> <comment> So <disfmarker> so it 's only semantically is it <disfmarker>
speaker: C
text: Right , there 's <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: it is still required , say , by simulation time though
speaker: F
text: to have something .
speaker: C
text: Right .
speaker: F
text: So it 's that <disfmarker> I meant the idea of like that <disfmarker> the semantic value is filled in by sim simulation .
speaker: F
text: I don't know if that 's something we need to spa to <disfmarker> to like say ever as part of the requirement ? <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: or the construction ?
speaker: F
text: or not .
speaker: F
text: We 'll <disfmarker> we 'll again defer .
speaker: C
text: Or <disfmarker> I mean , or <disfmarker> or , uh
speaker: C
text: so the <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: Have it construed ,
speaker: F
text: is that the idea ?
speaker: C
text: Yeah , yeah .
speaker: F
text: Just point at Robert .
speaker: F
text: Whenever I 'm confused just point to him .
speaker: C
text: Right .
speaker: F
text: You tell me .
speaker: C
text: It 's <disfmarker> it 's his thesis , right ?
speaker: F
text: OK .
speaker: C
text: Anyway ,
speaker: C
text: right , yeah , w this is gonna be a b
speaker: C
text: you 're right , this is a bit of in a mess
speaker: C
text: and we still have emphasis as well , or stress , or whatever .
speaker: F
text: OK , well we 'll get , uh uh , I <disfmarker> we have thoughts about those as well .
speaker: C
text: Yeah .
speaker: C
text: Great .
speaker: F
text: Um ,
speaker: F
text: the I w I would just
speaker: F
text: s some of this is just like my <disfmarker> you know , by fiat .
speaker: F
text: I 'm going to say , this is how we use these terms .
speaker: F
text: I don't - you know , there 's lots of different ways in the world that people use it .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: C
text: I <disfmarker> that 's fine .
speaker: F
text: I think that , um , the other terms that are related are like focus and stress .
speaker: F
text: So , s
speaker: C
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: I think that the way I <disfmarker> we would like to think , uh , I think is focus is something that comes up in , I mean , lots of <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: basically this is the information structure .
speaker: F
text: OK , it 's like <disfmarker> uh , it 's not <disfmarker> it might be that there 's a syntactic , uh , device that you use to indicate focus
speaker: C
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: or that there are things like , you know ,
speaker: F
text: I think Keith was telling me , <comment> things toward the end of the sentence , post - verbal , tend to be the focused <disfmarker> focused element ,
speaker: E
text: Mmm .
speaker: F
text: the new information .
speaker: F
text: You know , if I <disfmarker> " I walked into the room " , you <disfmarker> tend to think that , whatever , " into the room " is sort of like the more focused kind of thing .
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: And when you , uh , uh , you have stress on something that might be , you know , a cue that the stressed element , or for instance , the negated element is kind of related to information structure .
speaker: F
text: So that 's like the new <disfmarker> the sort of like import or whatever of <disfmarker> of this thing .
speaker: F
text: Uh , so <disfmarker> so I think that 's kind of nice to keep " focus " being an information structure term .
speaker: F
text: " Stress " <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: I th and then there are different kinds of focus that you can bring to it .
speaker: F
text: So , um , like " stress " , th stress is kind of a pun on <disfmarker> you might have like <disfmarker> whatever , like , um , accent kind of stress .
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: And that 's just a <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: uh , w we 'll want to distinguish stress as a form device .
speaker: F
text: You know , like , oh , high volume or whatever .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: Um ,
speaker: F
text: t uh , and distinguish that from it 's effect
speaker: F
text: which is , " Oh , the kind of focus we have is we 're emphasizing this value often as opposed to other values " , right ?
speaker: F
text: So focus carries along a scope .
speaker: F
text: Like if you 're gonna focus on this thing and you wanna know <disfmarker> it sort of evokes all the other possibilities that it wasn't .
speaker: F
text: Um , so my classic <disfmarker> my now - classic example of saying , " Oh , he did go to the meeting ? " ,
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: that was my way of saying <disfmarker> as opposed to , you know , " Oh , he didn't g " or " There was a meeting ? "
speaker: F
text: I think that was the example that was caught on by the linguists immediately .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: And so , um , the <disfmarker> like if you said he <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: you know , there 's all these different things that if you put stress on a different part of it then you 're , c focusing , whatever , on , uh <disfmarker>
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: " he walked to the meeting " as opposed to " he ran " ,
speaker: F
text: or " he did walk to the meeting " as opposed to " he didn't walk " . You know ,
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: so we need to have a notation for that
speaker: F
text: which , um ,
speaker: F
text: I think that 's still in progress .
speaker: F
text: So , sort of I 'm still working it out .
speaker: F
text: But it did <disfmarker> one <disfmarker> one implication it does f have for the other side , which we 'll get to in a minute is that I couldn't think of a good way to say " here are the possible things that you could focus on " ,
speaker: F
text: cuz it seems like any entity in any sentence , you know , or any meaning component of anyth you know <disfmarker> all the possible meanings you could have , any of them could be the subject of focus .
speaker: C
text: Mmm .
speaker: F
text: But I think one <disfmarker> the one thing you can schematize is the kind of focus , right ?
speaker: F
text: So for instance , you could say it 's the <disfmarker> the tense on this as opposed to , um , the <disfmarker> the action . OK .
speaker: F
text: Or it 's <disfmarker> uh , it 's an identity thing or a contrast with other things ,
speaker: F
text: or stress this value as opposed to other things .
speaker: F
text: So , um ,
speaker: F
text: it 's <disfmarker> it is kind of like a profile <disfmarker> profile - background thing
speaker: F
text: but I <disfmarker> I can't think of like the limited set of possible meanings that you would <disfmarker> that you would focu
speaker: E
text: Light up with focus , yeah .
speaker: F
text: light <disfmarker> highlight
speaker: F
text: as opposed to other ones .
speaker: F
text: So it has some certain complications for the , uh , uh <disfmarker> later on .
speaker: F
text: Li - I mean , uh , the best thing I can come up with is that information has a list of focused elements .
speaker: F
text: For instance , you <disfmarker> Oh , one other type that I forgot to mention is like query elements
speaker: F
text: and that 's probably relevant for the like " where is " , you know , " the castle " kind of thing ?
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: Because you might want to say that , um , location or cert certain WH words bring <disfmarker> you know , sort of automatically focus in a , you know , " I don't know the identity of this thing " kind of way on certain elements .
speaker: F
text: So .
speaker: F
text: OK . Anyway . So that 's onl there are <disfmarker> there are many more things that are uncl that are sort of like a little bit unstable about the notation
speaker: F
text: but it 's most <disfmarker> I think it 's <disfmarker> this is , you know , the current <disfmarker> current form .
speaker: F
text: Other things we didn't <vocalsound> totally deal with , um ,
speaker: F
text: well , we 've had a lot of other stuff that Keith and I have them working on in terms of like how you deal with like an adjective .
speaker: E
text: Oh , there 's a bunch .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: You know , a <disfmarker> a nominal expression .
speaker: F
text: And , um ,
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: I mean , we should have put an example of this
speaker: F
text: and we could do that later .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: But I think the not inherently like the general principles still work though ,
speaker: F
text: that , um , we can have constructions that have sort of constituent structure in that there is like , you know , for instance , one <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: Uh , you know , they <disfmarker> they have constituents , right ?
speaker: F
text: So you can like nest things when you need to ,
speaker: F
text: but they can also overlap in a sort of flatter way .
speaker: F
text: So if you don't have like a lot of grammar experience , then like this <disfmarker> this might , you know , be a little o opaque .
speaker: F
text: But , you know , we have the <pause> properties of dependency grammars and some properties of constituents <disfmarker> constituent - based grammar .
speaker: F
text: So that 's <disfmarker> I think that 's sort of the main thing we wanted to aim for
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: and so far it 's worked out OK .
speaker: C
text: Good .
speaker: F
text: So .
speaker: F
text: OK .
speaker: A
text: I can say two things about the f
speaker: F
text: Yes .
speaker: A
text: Maybe you want to forget stress .
speaker: A
text: This <disfmarker> my f
speaker: F
text: As a word ?
speaker: A
text: No , as <disfmarker> as <disfmarker> Just don't <disfmarker> don't think about it .
speaker: F
text: As a <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: What 's that ?
speaker: F
text: Sorry .
speaker: A
text: If <disfmarker>
speaker: A
text: canonically speaking you can <disfmarker> if you look at a <disfmarker> a curve over sentence , you can find out where a certain stress is
speaker: A
text: and say , " hey , that 's my focus exponent . "
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: E
text: Right .
speaker: A
text: It doesn't tell you anything what the focus is .
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: A
text: If it 's just that thing ,
speaker: F
text: Or the constituent that it falls in .
speaker: A
text: a little bit more or the whole phrase .
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: A
text: Um <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: You mean t forget about stress , the form cue ?
speaker: A
text: The form bit
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: A
text: because , uh , as a form cue , um , not even trained experts can always <disfmarker> well , they can tell you where the focus exponent is sometimes .
speaker: F
text: OK .
speaker: A
text: And that 's also mostly true for read speech .
speaker: A
text: In <disfmarker> in real speech , um , people may put stress .
speaker: A
text: It 's so d context dependent on what was there before , phrase ba breaks , um , restarts .
speaker: F
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: A
text: It 's just , um <disfmarker>
speaker: A
text: it 's absurd .
speaker: A
text: It 's complicated .
speaker: F
text: OK ,
speaker: E
text: Yeah , I mean , I <disfmarker> I 'm sort of inclined to say let 's worry about specifying the information structure focus of the sentence
speaker: A
text: And all <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: I believe you , yeah .
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: E
text: and then ,
speaker: F
text: Ways that you can get it come from th
speaker: E
text: hhh , <comment> the phonology component can handle actually assigning an intonation contour to that .
speaker: F
text: right .
speaker: E
text: You know , I mean , later on we 'll worry about exactly how <disfmarker>
speaker: A
text: Or <disfmarker> or map from the contour to <disfmarker> to what the focus exponent is .
speaker: E
text: y Yeah .
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: E
text: Exactly .
speaker: E
text: But figure out how the <disfmarker>
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: A
text: But , uh , if you don't know what you 're <disfmarker> what you 're focus is then you 're <disfmarker> you 're hopeless - uh - ly lost anyways ,
speaker: F
text: Right .
speaker: F
text: That 's fine , yeah .
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: A
text: and the only way of figuring out what that is , <vocalsound> is , um , by sort of generating all the possible alternatives to each focused element , decide which one in that context makes sense and which one doesn't .
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: A
text: And then you 're left with a couple three .
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: A
text: So , you know , again , that 's something that h humans can do ,
speaker: A
text: um , but far outside the scope of <disfmarker> of any <disfmarker> anything .
speaker: A
text: So .
speaker: A
text: You know .
speaker: A
text: It 's <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: OK . Well , uh , yeah , I wouldn't have assumed that it 's an easy problem in <disfmarker> in absence of all the oth
speaker: A
text: u u
speaker: F
text: you need all the other information I guess .
speaker: A
text: But it 's <disfmarker> it 's <disfmarker> what it <disfmarker> uh , it 's pretty easy to put it in the formalism , though .
speaker: A
text: I mean , because
speaker: F
text: Yeah .
speaker: A
text: you can just say whatever stuff , " i is the container being focused or the <disfmarker> the entire whatever , both , and so forth . "
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm , mm - hmm .
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: Yeah . Exactly . So the sort of effect of it is something we want to be able to capture .
speaker: C
text: Yeah , so b b but I think the poi
speaker: C
text: I 'm not sure I understand
speaker: C
text: but here 's what I th think is going on .
speaker: C
text: That if we do the constructions right when a particular construction matches , it <disfmarker> the fact that it matches , does in fact specify the focus .
speaker: F
text: W uh ,
speaker: F
text: I 'm not sure about that .
speaker: F
text: Or it might limit <disfmarker> it cert certainly constrains the possibilities of focus .
speaker: C
text: OK .
speaker: C
text: Uh <disfmarker> k uh , at at the very least it constrai
speaker: F
text: I think that 's <disfmarker> that 's , th that 's certainly true .
speaker: F
text: And depending on the construction it may or may not f specify the focus , right ?
speaker: C
text: Oh , uh , for sure , yes .
speaker: C
text: There are constrai yeah , it 's not every <disfmarker> but there are constructions , uh , where you t explicitly take into account those considerations
speaker: F
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: C
text: that you need to take into account in order to decide which <disfmarker> what is being focused .
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: A
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: A
text: So we talked about that a little bit this morning .
speaker: A
text: " John is on the bus ,
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: A
text: not Nancy . "
speaker: F
text: Hmm .
speaker: A
text: So that 's <disfmarker> focuses on John .
speaker: C
text: Right .
speaker: A
text: " John is on the bus and not on the train . "
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: C
text: Right .
speaker: A
text: " John is on the bus " versus " John is on the train . "
speaker: F
text: Right .
speaker: A
text: And " John is on the bus " versus " was " , and e
speaker: F
text: Is on .
speaker: F
text: " John is on the bus " .
speaker: A
text: " it 's the bu " so e
speaker: F
text: Yeah . Yeah .
speaker: C
text: Right .
speaker: C
text: Yeah , all <disfmarker> all of those .
speaker: C
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: Right .
speaker: A
text: All of these
speaker: A
text: and will we have <disfmarker> u
speaker: A
text: is it all the same constructions ?
speaker: A
text: Just with a different foc focus constituent ?
speaker: F
text: Yeah , I would say that argument structure in terms of like the main like sort of ,
speaker: A
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: I don't know <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: the fact that you can get it without any stress and you have some <disfmarker> whatever is predicated anyway should be the same set of constructions .
speaker: F
text: So that 's why I was talking about overlapping constructions .
speaker: F
text: So , then you have a separate thing that picks out , you know , stress on something relative to everything else .
speaker: C
text: Yeah .
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: C
text: So , the question is actually <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: And it would <disfmarker>
speaker: C
text: oh , I 'm sorry ,
speaker: F
text: yeah ,
speaker: C
text: go ahead ,
speaker: C
text: finish .
speaker: F
text: and it w and that would have to <disfmarker> uh it might be ambiguous as , uh , whether it picks up that element , or the phrase , or something like that .
speaker: F
text: But it 's still is limited possibility .
speaker: A
text: Hmm .
speaker: F
text: So that should , you know , interact with <disfmarker> it should overlap with whatever other construction is there .
speaker: A
text: Yeah .
speaker: C
text: S s the question is , do we have a way on the other page , uh , when we get to the s semantic side , of saying what the stressed element was , or stressed phrase , or something .
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: Well , so that 's why I was saying how <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: since I couldn't think of an easy like limited way of doing it , um , all I can say is that information structure has a focused slot
speaker: C
text: Right .
speaker: F
text: and I think that should be able to refer to <disfmarker>
speaker: C
text: So that 's down at the bottom here when we get over there .
speaker: F
text: Yeah ,
speaker: C
text: OK .
speaker: F
text: and , infer <disfmarker> and I don't have <disfmarker> I don't have a great way or great examples
speaker: C
text: I 'll - I 'll wait .
speaker: F
text: but I think that <disfmarker> something like that is probably gonna be , uh , more <disfmarker> more what we have to do .
speaker: C
text: OK .
speaker: A
text: Hmm .
speaker: F
text: But , um ,
speaker: C
text: OK .
speaker: A
text: So
speaker: F
text: OK , that was one comment .
speaker: F
text: And you had another one ?
speaker: A
text: Yeah , well the <disfmarker> once you know what the focus is the <disfmarker> everything else is background .
speaker: A
text: How about " topic - comment "
speaker: A
text: that 's the other side of information .
speaker: F
text: How about what ?
speaker: A
text: Topic - comment .
speaker: F
text: Yeah , so that was the other thing .
speaker: F
text: And so I didn't realize it before .
speaker: F
text: It 's like , " oh ! " It was an epiphany that it <disfmarker> you know , topic and focus are a contrast set .
speaker: F
text: So topic is <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: Topic - focused seems to me like , um , background profile , OK ,
speaker: F
text: or a landmark trajector , or some something like that .
speaker: F
text: There 's <disfmarker> there 's definitely , um , that kind of thing going on .
speaker: A
text: Mmm .
speaker: F
text: Now I don't know whether <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: I n I don't have as many great examples of like topic - indicating constructions
speaker: F
text: on like focus , right ?
speaker: F
text: Um , topic <disfmarker> it seems kind of <disfmarker> you know , I think that might be an ongoing kind of thing .
speaker: A
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: E
text: Japanese has this though .
speaker: F
text: Topic marker ?
speaker: E
text: You know .
speaker: E
text: Yeah , that 's what " wa " is ,
speaker: A
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: E
text: uh , just to mark which thing is the topic .
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: E
text: It doesn't always have to be the subject .
speaker: F
text: Right .
speaker: F
text: So again , information structure has a topic slot .
speaker: F
text: And , you know , I stuck it in thinking that we might use it .
speaker: A
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: Um , I think I stuck it in .
speaker: C
text: Yep , it 's there .
speaker: F
text: Um , and
speaker: F
text: one thing that I didn't do consistently , um , is <disfmarker> when we get there , is like indicate what kind of thing fits into every role .
speaker: F
text: I think I have an idea of what it should be
speaker: F
text: but th
speaker: F
text: you know , so far we 've been getting away with like either a type constraint or , um , you know , whatever .
speaker: F
text: I forg it 'll be a frame .
speaker: F
text: You know , it 'll be <disfmarker> it 'll be another predication or it 'll be , um , I don't know , some value from <disfmarker> from some something , some variable and scope or something like that ,
speaker: F
text: or a slot chain based on a variable and scope .
speaker: F
text: OK , so well that 's <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: should we flip over to the other side officially then ?
speaker: A
text: Mm - hmm , hmm .
speaker: F
text: I keep , uh , like , pointing forward to it .
speaker: E
text: OK , side one .
speaker: F
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: Now we 'll go back to s
speaker: F
text: OK , so this doesn't include something which mi mi may have some effect on <disfmarker> on it ,
speaker: F
text: which is , um , the discourse situation context record ,
speaker: F
text: right ? So I didn't <disfmarker> I <disfmarker> I meant just like draw a line
speaker: F
text: and like , you know , you also have , uh , some tracking of what was going on .
speaker: C
text: Right .
speaker: F
text: And sort of <disfmarker> this is a big scale comment before I , you know , look into the details of this .
speaker: F
text: But for instance you could imagine instead of having <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: I <disfmarker> I changed the name of <disfmarker> um it used to be " entities " .
speaker: F
text: So you see it 's " scenario " , " referent " and " discourse segment " .
speaker: F
text: And " scenario " is essentially what kind of <disfmarker> what 's the basic predication ,
speaker: F
text: what event happened .
speaker: F
text: And actually it 's just a list of various slots from which you would draw <disfmarker> draw in order to paint your picture , a bunch of frames , bi and bindings , right ?
speaker: F
text: Um , and obviously there are other ones that are not included here ,
speaker: F
text: general cultural frames and general like , uh , other action f
speaker: F
text: you know , specific X - schema frames .
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: OK , whatever .
speaker: F
text: The middle thing used to be " entities "
speaker: F
text: because you could imagine it should be like really a list
speaker: F
text: where here was various information .
speaker: F
text: And this is intended to be grammatically specifiable information about a referent <disfmarker> uh , you know , about some entity that you were going to talk about .
speaker: F
text: So " Harry walked into the room " ,
speaker: F
text: " Harry " and " room " ,
speaker: F
text: you know , the room <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: th but they would be represented in this list somehow .
speaker: F
text: And it could also have for instance , it has this category slot .
speaker: F
text: Um , it should be either category or in or instance .
speaker: F
text: Basically , it could be a pointer to ontology .
speaker: F
text: So that everything you know about this could be <disfmarker> could be drawn in .
speaker: F
text: But the important things for grammatical purposes are for <disfmarker> things like number , gender ,
speaker: F
text: um <disfmarker> ki the ones I included here are slightly arbitrary
speaker: F
text: but you could imagine that , um , you need to figure out wheth
speaker: F
text: if it 's a group whether , um , some event is happening ,
speaker: F
text: linear time , linear spaces ,
speaker: F
text: like , you know , are <disfmarker> are they doing something serially
speaker: F
text: or is it like ,
speaker: F
text: um , uh I 'm <disfmarker> I 'm not sure .
speaker: F
text: Because this partly came from , uh , Talmy 's schema
speaker: F
text: and I 'm not sure we 'll need all of these actually .
speaker: F
text: But <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: Um , and then the " status " I used was like , again , in some languages , you know , like for instance in child language you might distinguish between different status .
speaker: F
text: So , th the <disfmarker> the big com and <disfmarker> and finally " discourse segment " is about <vocalsound> sort of speech - act - y information structure - y ,
speaker: F
text: like utterance - specific kinds of things .
speaker: F
text: So the comment I was going to make about , um , changing entity <disfmarker> the entity 's block to reference is that <vocalsound> you can imagine your discourse
speaker: F
text: like situation context ,
speaker: F
text: you have a set of entities that you 're sort of referring to .
speaker: F
text: And you might <disfmarker> that might be sort of a general , I don't know , database of all the things in this discourse that you could refer to .
speaker: F
text: And I changed to " reference "
speaker: F
text: cuz I would say , for a particular utterance you have particular referring expressions in it .
speaker: F
text: And those are the ones that you get information about that you stick in here .
speaker: F
text: For instance , I know it 's going to be plural .
speaker: F
text: I know it 's gonna be feminine or something like that .
speaker: F
text: And <disfmarker> and these could actually just point to , you know , the <disfmarker> the ID in my other list of enti active entities , right ?
speaker: F
text: So , um ,
speaker: F
text: uh , th there 's <disfmarker> there 's all this stuff about discourse status . We 've talked about .
speaker: F
text: I almost listed " discourse status " as a slot where you could say it 's active .
speaker: F
text: You know , there 's this , um , hierarchy <disfmarker> uh there 's a schematization of , you know , things can be active or they can be , um , accessible , inaccessible .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: It was the one that , you know , Keith , um , emailed to us once , to some of us ,
speaker: F
text: not all of us .
speaker: F
text: And
speaker: F
text: the thing is that that <disfmarker> I noticed that that , um , list was sort of discourse dependent .
speaker: F
text: It was like in this particular set , s you know , instance , it has been referred to recently or it hasn't been ,
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: or this is something that 's like in my world knowledge but not active .
speaker: C
text: This <disfmarker>
speaker: C
text: Uh <disfmarker> yeah , well there <disfmarker> there seems to be context properties .
speaker: F
text: So .
speaker: F
text: Yeah , they 're contex and for instance , I used to have a location thing there
speaker: C
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: but actually that 's a property of the situation .
speaker: F
text: And it 's again , time , you know <disfmarker> at cert certain points things are located , you know , near or far from you
speaker: C
text: Well , uh , uh , this is recursive
speaker: F
text: and <disfmarker>
speaker: C
text: cuz until we do the uh , mental space story , we 're not quite sure <disfmarker> <comment> Th - th
speaker: F
text: Yeah .
speaker: C
text: which is fine .
speaker: F
text: Yeah , yeah .
speaker: C
text: We 'll just <disfmarker> we 'll j
speaker: F
text: So some of these are , uh <disfmarker>
speaker: C
text: we just don't know yet .
speaker: F
text: Right .
speaker: F
text: So I <disfmarker> so for now I thought , well maybe I 'll just have in this list the things that are relevant to this particular utterance , right ?
speaker: F
text: Everything else here is utterance - specific .
speaker: F
text: Um , and I left the slot , " predications " , open
speaker: F
text: because you can have , um , things like " the guy I know from school " .
speaker: F
text: Or , you know , like your referring expression might be constrained by certain like unbounded na amounts of prep you know , predications that you might make .
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: And it 's unclear whether <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: I mean , you could just have in your scenario , " here are some extra few things that are true " , right ?
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: And then you could just sort of not have this slot here . Right ?
speaker: F
text: You 're <disfmarker> but <disfmarker> but it 's used for identification purposes .
speaker: F
text: So it 's <disfmarker> it 's a little bit different from just saying " all these things are true from my utterance " .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: C
text: Right .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: Um .
speaker: E
text: Right , " this guy I know from school came for dinner " does not mean , um , " there 's a guy , I know him from school ,
speaker: E
text: and he came over for dinner " .
speaker: E
text: That 's not the same effect .
speaker: F
text: Yeah , it 's a little bit <disfmarker> it 's a little bit different .
speaker: F
text: Right ? So <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: Or maybe that 's like a restrictive , non - restrictive <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: you know , it 's like it gets into that kind of thing for <disfmarker>
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: um , but maybe I 'm mixing , you know <disfmarker> this is kind of like the final result after parsing the sentence .
speaker: F
text: So you might imagine that the information you pass to , you know <disfmarker> in identifying a particular referent would be , " oh , some <disfmarker> " you know , " it 's a guy
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: and it 's someone I know from school " .
speaker: F
text: So maybe that would , you know , be some intermediate structure that you would pass into the disc to the , whatever , construal engine or whatever , discourse context , to find <disfmarker> you know , either create this reference ,
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: in which case it 'd be created here ,
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: and <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: you know , so <disfmarker> so you could imagine that this might not <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: So , uh , I 'm uncommitted to a couple of these things .
speaker: A
text: But <disfmarker> to make it m precise at least in my mind , uh , it 's not precise .
speaker: F
text: Um .
speaker: A
text: So " house " is gender neuter ?
speaker: F
text: Um , it could be in <disfmarker>
speaker: A
text: In reality
speaker: A
text: or in <disfmarker>
speaker: C
text: Semantically .
speaker: F
text: semantically , yeah . Yeah .
speaker: A
text: semantically .
speaker: A
text: So <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: So it uh , uh , a table .
speaker: F
text: You know , a thing that c doesn't have a gender .
speaker: F
text: So . Uh , it could be that <disfmarker> I mean ,
speaker: F
text: maybe you 'd <disfmarker> maybe not all these <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: I mean , I wou I would say that I tried to keep slots here that were potentially relevant to most <disfmarker> most things .
speaker: A
text: No , just to make sure that we <disfmarker> everybody that 's <disfmarker> completely agreed that it <disfmarker> it has nothing to do with , uh , form .
speaker: F
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: OK , that is semantic as opposed to <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: Yeah . Yeah . That 's right .
speaker: F
text: Um .
speaker: F
text: S so again <disfmarker>
speaker: A
text: Then " predications " makes sense to <disfmarker> to have it open for something like , uh , accessibility or not .
speaker: F
text: Open to various things .
speaker: A
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: Right .
speaker: F
text: OK , so . Let 's see .
speaker: F
text: So maybe having made that big sca sort of like large scale comment , should I just go through each of these slots <disfmarker> uh , each of these blocks , um , a little bit ?
speaker: E
text: Sure .
speaker: F
text: Um , mostly the top one is sort of image schematic .
speaker: F
text: And just a note ,
speaker: F
text: which was that , um <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: s so when we actually ha
speaker: F
text: so for instance , um ,
speaker: F
text: some of them seem more inherently static , OK ,
speaker: F
text: like a container or sort of support - ish .
speaker: F
text: And others are a little bit seemingly inherently dynamic
speaker: F
text: like " source , path , goal " is often thought of that way
speaker: F
text: or " force " , or something like that .
speaker: F
text: But in actual fact , I think that they 're intended to be sort of neutral with respect to that .
speaker: F
text: And different X - schemas use them in a way that 's either static or dynamic .
speaker: F
text: So " path " , you could just be talking about the path between this and this .
speaker: E
text: Mmm .
speaker: F
text: And you know , " container " that you can go in and out .
speaker: F
text: All of these things .
speaker: F
text: And so , um ,
speaker: F
text: I think this came up when , uh , Ben and I were working with the Spaniards , um , the other day <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: the " Spaniettes " , as we <vocalsound> called them <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: um , to decide like how you want to split up , like , s image schematic contributions versus , like , X - schematic contributions .
speaker: F
text: How do you link them up .
speaker: F
text: And I think again , um , it 's gonna be something in the X - schema that tells you " is this static or is this dynamic " .
speaker: F
text: So we definitely need <disfmarker> that sort of aspectual type gives you some of that .
speaker: F
text: Um , that , you know , is it , uh , a state or is it a change of state , or is it a , um , action of some kind ?
speaker: A
text: Uh , i i i is there any meaning to when you have sort of parameters behind it and when you don't ?
speaker: F
text: Uh .
speaker: F
text: Yeah .
speaker: A
text: Just means <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: Oh , oh ! You mean , in the slot ?
speaker: A
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: Um , no , it 's like X - sc it 's <disfmarker> it 's like I was thinking of type constraints
speaker: F
text: but X - schema , well it obviously has to be an X - schema .
speaker: F
text: " Agent " , I mean , the <disfmarker> the performer of the X - schema ,
speaker: F
text: that s depends on the X - schema .
speaker: F
text: You know , and I <disfmarker> in general it would probably be , you know <disfmarker>
speaker: E
text: So the difference is basically whether you thought it was obvious what the possible fillers were .
speaker: F
text: Yeah , basically .
speaker: A
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: E
text: OK .
speaker: F
text: Um , " aspectual type " probably isn't obvious
speaker: F
text: but I should have <disfmarker> So , I just neglected to stick something in . " Perspective " , " actor " , " undergoer " , " observer " , um ,
speaker: B
text: Mmm .
speaker: F
text: I think we 've often used " agent " , " patient " , obser
speaker: E
text: " Whee ! "
speaker: E
text: That 's that one , right ?
speaker: F
text: Yeah , exactly . <vocalsound> Exactly .
speaker: F
text: Um , and so one nice thing that , uh , we had talked about is this example <comment> of like , if you have a passive construction then one thing it does is ch you know <disfmarker> definitely , it is one way to <disfmarker> for you to , you know , specifically take the perspective of the undergoing kind of object .
speaker: F
text: And so then we talked about , you know , whether well , does that specify topic as well ?
speaker: F
text: Well , maybe there are other things .
speaker: F
text: You know , now that it 's <disfmarker> subject is more like a topic .
speaker: F
text: And now that , you know <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: Anyway . So .
speaker: F
text: Sorry . I 'm gonna trail off on that one
speaker: F
text: cuz it 's not that f important right now .
speaker: F
text: Um ,
speaker: C
text: N now , for the moment we just need the ability to l l write it down if <disfmarker> if somebody figured out what the rules were .
speaker: F
text: To know how <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: Yeah . Yeah . Exactly .
speaker: C
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: Um ,
speaker: F
text: some of these other ones ,
speaker: F
text: let 's see .
speaker: F
text: So ,
speaker: F
text: uh , one thing I 'm uncertain about is how polarity interacts .
speaker: F
text: So polarity , uh , is using for like action did not take place for instance .
speaker: C
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: So by default it 'll be like " true " , I guess ,
speaker: F
text: you know , if you 're specifying events that did happen .
speaker: F
text: You could imagine that you skip out this <disfmarker> you know , leave off this polarity ,
speaker: F
text: you know , not <disfmarker> don't have it here .
speaker: F
text: And then have it part of the speech - act in some way .
speaker: C
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: There 's some negation .
speaker: F
text: But the reason why I left it in is cuz you might have a change of state , let 's say , where some state holds and then some state doesn't hold ,
speaker: F
text: and you 're just talking , you know <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: if you 're trying to have the nuts and bolts of simulation you need to know that , you know , whatever , the holder doesn't and <disfmarker>
speaker: C
text: No , I th I think at this lev which is <disfmarker> it should be where you have it .
speaker: F
text: OK , it 's <disfmarker> so it 's <disfmarker> it 's <disfmarker> it 's fine where it is .
speaker: F
text: So ,
speaker: C
text: I mean , how you get it may <disfmarker> may in will often involve the discourse
speaker: F
text: OK .
speaker: F
text: May come from a few places .
speaker: C
text: but <disfmarker> but <disfmarker> by the time you 're simulating you sh y you should know that .
speaker: F
text: Right .
speaker: F
text: Right .
speaker: E
text: So , <vocalsound> I 'm still just really not clear on what I 'm looking at .
speaker: E
text: The " scenario " box ,
speaker: E
text: like , what does that look like for an example ?
speaker: F
text: Yeah .
speaker: E
text: Like , not all of these things are gonna be here .
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: C
text: Correct .
speaker: E
text: This is just basically says
speaker: F
text: It 's a grab bag of <disfmarker>
speaker: E
text: " part of what I 'm going to hand you is a whole bunch of s uh , schemas , image , and X - schemas .
speaker: E
text: Here are some examples of the sorts of things you might have in there " .
speaker: F
text: So that 's exactly what it is .
speaker: E
text: OK .
speaker: F
text: And for a particular instance which I will , you know , make an example of something , is that you might have an instance of container and path , let 's say , as part of your , you know , " into " you know , definition .
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: So you would eventually have instances filled in with various <disfmarker> various values for all the different slots .
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: And they 're bound up in , you know , their bindings and <disfmarker> and <disfmarker> and values .
speaker: E
text: OK .
speaker: C
text: W it c
speaker: E
text: Do you have to say about the binding in your <disfmarker>
speaker: E
text: is there a slot in here for <disfmarker> that tells you how the bindings are done ?
speaker: C
text: No , no , no .
speaker: C
text: I <disfmarker> let 's see , I think we 're <disfmarker> we 're not <disfmarker>
speaker: C
text: I don't think we have it quite right yet .
speaker: E
text: OK .
speaker: C
text: So , uh , what this is ,
speaker: C
text: let 's suppose for the moment it 's complete .
speaker: E
text: OK .
speaker: C
text: OK , uh , then this says that when an analysis is finished , the whole analysis is finished , <comment> you 'll have as a result , uh , some s resulting s semspec for that utterance in context ,
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: C
text: which is made up entirely of these things and , uh , bindings among them .
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: C
text: And bindings to ontology items .
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: C
text: So that <disfmarker> that the who that this is the tool kit under whi out of which you can make a semantic specification .
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: C
text: So that 's A .
speaker: E
text: OK .
speaker: C
text: But B , which is more relevant to your life , is this is also the tool kit that is used in the semantic side of constructions .
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: C
text: So this is an that anything you have , in the party line , <comment> anything you have as the semantic side of constructions comes , from pieces of this <disfmarker> ignoring li
speaker: E
text: OK .
speaker: C
text: I mean , in general , you ignore lots of it .
speaker: E
text: Right .
speaker: C
text: But it 's got to be pieces of this along with constraints among them .
speaker: E
text: OK .
speaker: C
text: Uh , so that the , you know , goal of the , uh uh , " source , path , goal " has to be the landmark of the conta you know , the interior of this container .
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: C
text: Or whate whatever .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: C
text: So those constraints appear in constructions
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: C
text: but pretty much this is the full range of semantic structures available to you .
speaker: E
text: OK .
speaker: F
text: Except for " cause " , that I forgot .
speaker: F
text: But anyway , there 's som some kind of causal structure for composite events .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: C
text: OK , good .
speaker: C
text: Let 's <disfmarker> let 's mark that .
speaker: C
text: So we need a c
speaker: F
text: Uh , I mean , so it gets a little funny .
speaker: F
text: These are all <disfmarker> so far these structures , especially from " path " and on down , these are sort of relatively familiar , um , image schematic kind of slots .
speaker: F
text: Now with " cause " , uh , the fillers will actually be themselves frames . Right ?
speaker: F
text: So you 'll say , " event one causes event B <disfmarker>
speaker: C
text: Right .
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: C
text: And <disfmarker> and <disfmarker> and <disfmarker> and this <disfmarker> this <disfmarker> this again may ge our , um <disfmarker> and we <disfmarker> and <disfmarker> and , of course , worlds .
speaker: F
text: uh , event two " ,
speaker: F
text: and <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: Yeah . So that 's , uh these are all implicitly one <disfmarker> within , uh within one world .
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: Um ,
speaker: F
text: even though saying that place takes place , whatever .
speaker: F
text: Uh , if y if I said " time " is , you know , " past " , that would say " set that this world " , you know , " somewhere , before the world that corresponds to our current speech time " .
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: So . But that <disfmarker> that <disfmarker> that 's sort of OK .
speaker: F
text: The <disfmarker> the <disfmarker> within the event it 's st it 's still one world .
speaker: F
text: Um .
speaker: F
text: Yeah , so " cause " and <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: Other frames that could come in <disfmarker> I mean , unfortunately you could bring in say for instance , um , uh , " desire " or something like that ,
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: like " want " .
speaker: F
text: And actually there is right now under " discourse segments " , um , " attitude " ?
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: " Volition " ?
speaker: F
text: could fill that .
speaker: F
text: So there are a couple things where I like , " oh , I 'm not sure if I wanted to have it there
speaker: E
text: Well that 's <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: or <disfmarker> " Basically there was a whole list of <disfmarker> of possible speaker attitudes that like say Talmy listed .
speaker: F
text: And , like , well , I don't <disfmarker> you know , it was like " hope , wish . desire " ,
speaker: C
text: Right .
speaker: E
text: Uh - huh .
speaker: F
text: blah - blah - blah .
speaker: F
text: And it 's like , well , I feel like if I wanted to have an extra meaning <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: I don't know if those are grammatically marked in the first place .
speaker: F
text: So <disfmarker> They 're more lexically marked , right ?
speaker: F
text: At least in English .
speaker: E
text: Mmm .
speaker: F
text: So if I wanted to I would stick in an extra frame in my meaning , saying ,
speaker: F
text: e so th it 'd be a hierarchical frame them , right ?
speaker: F
text: You know , like " Naomi wants <disfmarker> wants su a certain situation
speaker: F
text: and that situation itself is a state of affairs " .
speaker: C
text: S right .
speaker: C
text: So <disfmarker> so , " want " itself can be <disfmarker> <pause> i i i i i
speaker: F
text: u
speaker: F
text: Can be just another frame that 's part of your <disfmarker>
speaker: C
text: Well , and it i basically it 's an action .
speaker: C
text: In <disfmarker> in our s in our <disfmarker> in our <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: Situation . <comment> Right , right .
speaker: C
text: in <disfmarker> in our <disfmarker> in our s terminology , " want " can be an action
speaker: C
text: and " what you want " is a world .
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: B
text: Hmm .
speaker: F
text: Mmm .
speaker: C
text: So that 's <disfmarker> I mean , it 's certainly one way to do it .
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: C
text: Yeah , there <disfmarker> there are other things .
speaker: C
text: Causal stuff we absolutely need .
speaker: C
text: Mental space we need .
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: C
text: The context we need .
speaker: C
text: Um , so anyway , Keith <disfmarker>
speaker: C
text: So is this comfortable to you
speaker: C
text: that , uh , once we have this defined , it is your tool kit for building the semantic part of constructions .
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: C
text: And then when we combine constructions semantically , the goal is going to be to fill out more and more of the bindings needed in order to come up with the final one .
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: C
text: And that 's the wh and <disfmarker> and I mean , that <disfmarker> according to the party line , that 's the whole story .
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: E
text: Um . y
speaker: E
text: Right . That makes sense .
speaker: E
text: So I mean , there 's this stuff in the <disfmarker> off in the scenario ,
speaker: E
text: which just tells you how various <disfmarker> what schemas you 're using
speaker: E
text: and they 're <disfmarker> how they 're bound together .
speaker: E
text: And I guess that some of the discourse segment stuff <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: E
text: is that where you would sa
speaker: E
text: I mean , that 's <disfmarker>
speaker: E
text: OK , that 's where the information structure is
speaker: E
text: which sort of is a kind of profiling on different parts of , um , of this .
speaker: F
text: Right .
speaker: F
text: Exactly .
speaker: E
text: I mean , what 's interesting is that the information structure stuff <disfmarker>
speaker: E
text: Hmm .
speaker: E
text: There 's almost <disfmarker> I mean , we keep coming back to how focus is like this <disfmarker> this , uh , trajector - landmark thing .
speaker: F
text: Yeah .
speaker: E
text: So if I say , um , You know , " In France it 's like this " .
speaker: E
text: You know , great ,
speaker: E
text: we 've learned something about France
speaker: E
text: but the fact is that utterances of that sort are generally used to help you draw a conclusion also about some implicit contrast ,
speaker: E
text: like " In France it 's like this " .
speaker: F
text: Right .
speaker: E
text: And therefore you 're supposed to say , " Boy , life sure <disfmarker> "
speaker: E
text: You know , " in France kids are allowed to drink at age three " .
speaker: E
text: And w you 're <disfmarker> that 's not just a fact about France .
speaker: F
text: Right , right .
speaker: E
text: You also conclude something about how boring it is here in the U S . Right ?
speaker: C
text: Right .
speaker: E
text: And so <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: S so I would prefer not to worry about that for right now
speaker: E
text: OK .
speaker: F
text: and to think that there are , um ,
speaker: E
text: That comes in
speaker: F
text: discourse level constructions in a sense , topic <disfmarker> topic - focus constructions that would say , " oh , when you focus something " then <disfmarker>
speaker: E
text: and , uh <disfmarker>
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: just done the same way <disfmarker> just actually in the same way as the lower level .
speaker: F
text: If you stressed , you know , " John went to the <disfmarker> " , you know , " the bar " whatever , you 're focusing that
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: and a in a possible inference is " in contrast to other things " .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: So similarly for a whole sentence , you know , " in France such - and - such happens " .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: E
text: Yeah , yeah .
speaker: F
text: So the whole thing is sort of like again implicitly as opposed to other things that are possible .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: A
text: Uh , just <disfmarker> just , uh , look <disfmarker> read uh even sem semi formal Mats Rooth .
speaker: F
text: I mean <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: Uh - huh .
speaker: A
text: If you haven't read it . It 's nice .
speaker: A
text: And just pick any paper on alternative semantics .
speaker: F
text: Uh - huh .
speaker: E
text: OK .
speaker: A
text: So that 's his <disfmarker> that 's the best way of talking about focus , is I think his way .
speaker: E
text: OK , what was the name ?
speaker: A
text: Mats .
speaker: A
text: MATS .
speaker: E
text: OK .
speaker: A
text: Rooth .
speaker: A
text: I think two O 's ,
speaker: A
text: yes , TH .
speaker: E
text: OK .
speaker: A
text: I never know how to pronounce his name
speaker: A
text: because he 's sort of ,
speaker: C
text: S Swede ?
speaker: A
text: uh , he is Dutch
speaker: C
text: Dutch ?
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: C
text: Oh , Dutch .
speaker: A
text: and , um <disfmarker> but very confused background I think .
speaker: C
text: Uh - huh .
speaker: A
text: So <pause> and , um ,
speaker: E
text: Mats Gould .
speaker: A
text: And sadly enough he also just left the IMS in Stuttgart .
speaker: A
text: So he 's not there anymore .
speaker: E
text: Hmm .
speaker: A
text: But , um <disfmarker>
speaker: A
text: I don't know where he is right now
speaker: A
text: but alternative semantics is <disfmarker> if you type that into an , uh , uh , browser or search engine you 'll get tons of stuff .
speaker: E
text: OK .
speaker: E
text: OK .
speaker: E
text: OK , thanks .
speaker: A
text: And what I 'm kind of confused about is <disfmarker> is what the speaker and the hearer is <disfmarker> is sort of doing there .
speaker: F
text: So for a particular segment it 's really just a reference to some other entity again in the situation , right ?
speaker: F
text: So for a particular segment the speaker might be you or might be me .
speaker: A
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: Um , hearer is a little bit harder .
speaker: F
text: It could be like multiple people .
speaker: F
text: I guess that <disfmarker> that <disfmarker> that <disfmarker> that 's not very clear from here <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: I mean , that 's not allowed here .
speaker: A
text: Yeah , but you <disfmarker> Don't we ultimately want to handle that analogously to the way we handle time and place ,
speaker: A
text: because " you " , " me " , " he " , " they " ,
speaker: A
text: you know , " these guys " ,
speaker: A
text: all these expressions , nuh , are in <disfmarker> in much the same way contextually dependent as " here , " and " now , " and " there " <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: C
text: Now , this is <disfmarker> this is assuming you 've already solved that .
speaker: F
text: Ye - yeah .
speaker: C
text: So it 's <disfmarker> it 's Fred and Mary ,
speaker: F
text: So th
speaker: C
text: so the speaker would be Fred
speaker: C
text: and the <disfmarker>
speaker: A
text: Ah !
speaker: F
text: Right , so the constructions might <disfmarker> of course will refer , using pronouns or whatever .
speaker: A
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: In which case they have to check to see , uh , who the , uh , speaker in here wa in order to resolve those .
speaker: F
text: But when you actually say that " he walked into <disfmarker> " , whatever , um , the " he " will refer to a particular <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: You <disfmarker> you will already have figured who " he " or " you " , mmm , or " I " , maybe is a bett better example , who " I " refers to .
speaker: F
text: Um , and then you 'd just be able to refer to Harry , you know , in wherever that person <disfmarker> whatever role that person was playing in the event .
speaker: A
text: Mmm .
speaker: A
text: That 's up at the reference part .
speaker: F
text: Yeah , yeah .
speaker: A
text: And down there in the speaker - hearer part ?
speaker: F
text: S so , that 's <disfmarker> I think that 's just <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: n
speaker: F
text: for instance , Speaker is known from the situation , right ?
speaker: F
text: You 're <disfmarker> when you hear something you 're told who the speaker is <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: I mean , you know who the speaker is .
speaker: F
text: In fact , that 's kind of constraining how <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: in some ways you know this before you get to the <disfmarker> you fill in all the rest of it .
speaker: F
text: I think .
speaker: C
text: Mmm .
speaker: F
text: I mean , how else would you um <disfmarker>
speaker: A
text: You know , uh , uh , it 's <disfmarker> the speaker may <disfmarker> in English is allowed to say " I . "
speaker: C
text: Yeah .
speaker: C
text: Well , here <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: Yeah .
speaker: A
text: Uh , among the twenty - five percent most used words .
speaker: F
text: Right .
speaker: A
text: But wouldn't the " I " then set up the <disfmarker> the s s referent <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: A
text: that happens to be the speaker this time
speaker: F
text: Right , right .
speaker: A
text: and not " they , " whoever they are .
speaker: F
text: So <disfmarker>
speaker: A
text: Or " you " <disfmarker>
speaker: A
text: much like the " you " could n
speaker: F
text: S so <disfmarker> OK , so I would say ref under referent should be something that corresponds to " I " .
speaker: F
text: And maybe each referent should probably have a list of way whatever , the way it was referred to .
speaker: F
text: So that 's " I "
speaker: F
text: but , uh , uh , should we say it <disfmarker> it refers to , what ?
speaker: F
text: Uh , if it were " Harry " it would refer to like some ontology thing .
speaker: F
text: If it were <disfmarker> if it 's " I " it would refer to the current speaker ,
speaker: F
text: OK , which is given to be like , you know , whoever it is .
speaker: A
text: Well , not <disfmarker> not always .
speaker: A
text: I mean , so there 's " and then he said , I w " Uh - huh .
speaker: F
text: " I " within the current world .
speaker: C
text: Uh <disfmarker>
speaker: A
text: Yeah .
speaker: C
text: Yeah .
speaker: C
text: That 's right .
speaker: F
text: Yeah , yeah , yeah , yeah .
speaker: C
text: So <disfmarker> so again , this <disfmarker> uh , this <disfmarker> this is gonna to get us into the mental space stuff
speaker: C
text: and t because you know , " Fred said that Mary said <disfmarker> " , and whatever .
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: E
text: Mmm .
speaker: C
text: And <disfmarker> and so we 're , uh gonna have to , um , chain those as well .
speaker: A
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: A
text: Twhhh - whhh .
speaker: A
text: But <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: So this entire thing is inside a world ,
speaker: C
text: Right .
speaker: F
text: not just like the top part .
speaker: C
text: Right .
speaker: C
text: I <disfmarker> I think , uh <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: That 's <disfmarker>
speaker: A
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: C
text: Except s it 's <disfmarker> it 's trickier than that
speaker: C
text: because um , the reference for example <disfmarker>
speaker: C
text: So he where it gets really tricky is there 's some things ,
speaker: F
text: Yeah .
speaker: C
text: and this is where blends and all terribl
speaker: F
text: Yeah .
speaker: C
text: So , some things which really are meant to be identified and some things which aren't .
speaker: F
text: Right .
speaker: C
text: And again , all we need for the moment is some way to say that .
speaker: F
text: Right .
speaker: F
text: So I thought of having like <disfmarker> for each referent , having the list of <disfmarker> of the things t with which it is identified .
speaker: F
text: You know , which <disfmarker> which , uh you know , you <disfmarker> you <disfmarker> you <disfmarker>
speaker: C
text: You could do that .
speaker: F
text: for instance , um <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: So , I guess ,
speaker: F
text: it sort of depends on if it is a referring exp if it 's identifiable already or it 's a new thing .
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: If it 's a new thing you 'd have to like create a structure or whatever .
speaker: F
text: If it 's an old thing it could be referring to , um , usually w something in a situation , right ?
speaker: F
text: Or something in ontology .
speaker: C
text: uh - huh .
speaker: F
text: So ,
speaker: F
text: there 's a you know , whatever , it c it could point at one of these .
speaker: C
text: I just had a <disfmarker> I just had an <disfmarker> an idea that would be very nice if it works .
speaker: F
text: For what ?
speaker: F
text: If it works .
speaker: C
text: Uh , uh , uh , I haven't told you what it is yet .
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm . Mmm .
speaker: C
text: This was my build - up .
speaker: C
text: An i an idea that would be nice i
speaker: F
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: OK , we 're crossing our fingers .
speaker: C
text: Right .
speaker: C
text: If it worked .
speaker: B
text: So we 're building a mental space , good .
speaker: C
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: OK .
speaker: C
text: Right , it was a space builder .
speaker: C
text: Um , we might be able to handle context in the same way that we handle mental spaces
speaker: C
text: because , uh , you have somewhat the same things going on of , uh , things being accessible or not .
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: C
text: And so , i
speaker: F
text: Yep .
speaker: C
text: it c it <disfmarker> it , uh I think if we did it right we might be able to get at least a lot of the same structure .
speaker: F
text: Use the same <disfmarker> <comment> Yep .
speaker: C
text: So that pulling something out of a discourse context is I think similar to other kinds of , uh , mental space phenomena .
speaker: B
text: I see .
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: And <disfmarker>
speaker: C
text: Uh , I 've <disfmarker> I 've <disfmarker> I 've never seen anybody write that up
speaker: F
text: And <disfmarker>
speaker: C
text: but maybe they did .
speaker: C
text: I don't know .
speaker: C
text: That may be all over the literature .
speaker: F
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: So <disfmarker> so by default <disfmarker>
speaker: E
text: There 's things like ther you know , there 's all kinds of stuff like , um , in <disfmarker> I think I mentioned last time in Czech if you have a <disfmarker> a verb of saying then
speaker: E
text: um , you know , you say something like <disfmarker> or <disfmarker> or I was thinking you can say something like , " oh , I thought , uh , you are a republican " or something like that .
speaker: E
text: Where as in English you would say , " I thought you were " .
speaker: C
text: Right .
speaker: E
text: Um , you know , sort of the past tense being copied onto the lower verb doesn't happen there ,
speaker: E
text: so you have to say something about , you know , tense is determined relative to current blah - blah - blah .
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: E
text: Same things happens with pronouns .
speaker: E
text: There 's languages where , um ,
speaker: E
text: if you have a verb of saying then ,
speaker: E
text: ehhh ,
speaker: E
text: where <disfmarker>
speaker: E
text: OK , so a situation like " Bob said he was going to the movies " , where that lower subject is the same as the person who was saying or thinking , you 're actually required to have " I " there .
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: E
text: Um , and it 's sort of in an extended function <disfmarker>
speaker: C
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: C
text: So we would have it be in quotes in English .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: Right .
speaker: B
text: Right .
speaker: E
text: But it 's not perceived as a quotative construction .
speaker: E
text: I mean , it 's been analyzed by the formalists as being a logophoric pronoun ,
speaker: C
text: Yeah .
speaker: E
text: um which means a pronoun which refers back to the person who is speaking or that sort of thing , right ?
speaker: F
text: Oh , right . Yeah , that makes sense .
speaker: C
text: OK .
speaker: E
text: Um ,
speaker: E
text: but <disfmarker> uh , that happens to sound like the word for " I "
speaker: E
text: but is actually semantically unrelated to it .
speaker: F
text: Oh , no !
speaker: C
text: Oh , good , I love the formali
speaker: E
text: Um ,
speaker: F
text: Really ?
speaker: E
text: Yeah . <vocalsound> Yeah .
speaker: F
text: You 're kidding .
speaker: E
text: There 's a whole book which basically operates on this assumption .
speaker: E
text: Uh , Mary Dalrymple ,
speaker: E
text: uh , this book , a ninety - three book on , uh on pronoun stuff .
speaker: F
text: No , that 's horrible .
speaker: F
text: OK .
speaker: F
text: That 's horrible . <comment> OK .
speaker: E
text: Well , yeah . And then the same thing for ASL
speaker: E
text: where , you know , you 're signing
speaker: E
text: and someone says something .
speaker: E
text: And then , you know , so " he say " , and then you sort of do a role shift .
speaker: E
text: And then you sign " I , this , that , and the other " .
speaker: F
text: Uh - huh .
speaker: E
text: And you know , " I did this " .
speaker: E
text: That 's also been analyzed as logophoric and having nothing to do with " I " .
speaker: E
text: And the role shift thing is completely left out and so on .
speaker: E
text: So ,
speaker: E
text: I mean , the point is that pronoun references , uh , you know , sort of ties in with all this mental space stuff and so on , and so forth .
speaker: F
text: Uh - huh .
speaker: E
text: And so , yeah , I mean <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: Yeah .
speaker: C
text: So that <disfmarker> that d that does sound like it 's co consistent with what we 're saying , yeah .
speaker: E
text: Right .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: OK , so it 's kind of like the unspecified mental spaces just are occurring in context .
speaker: F
text: And then when you embed them sometimes you have to pop up to the h you know , depending on the construction or the whatever , um , you <disfmarker> you <disfmarker> you 're scope is <disfmarker> m might extend out to the <disfmarker> the base one .
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: C
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: It would be nice to actually use the same , um , mechanism
speaker: F
text: since there are so many cases where you actually need
speaker: F
text: it 'll be one or the other .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: It 's like , oh , actually , it 's the same <disfmarker> same operation .
speaker: C
text: Oh , OK , so this <disfmarker> this is worth some thought .
speaker: F
text: So .
speaker: E
text: It 's like <disfmarker> it 's like what 's happening <disfmarker> that , yeah , what what 's happening , uh , there is that you 're moving the base space or something like that , right ?
speaker: F
text: Yeah , yeah .
speaker: E
text: So that 's <disfmarker> that 's how Fauconnier would talk about it .
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: E
text: And it happens diff under different circumstances in different languages .
speaker: E
text: And so ,
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: E
text: um , things like pronoun reference and tense which we 're thinking of as being these discourse - y things actually are relative to a Bayes space
speaker: E
text: which can change .
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm ,
speaker: E
text: And we need all the same machinery .
speaker: F
text: right .
speaker: A
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: Robert .
speaker: C
text: Well , but , uh , this is very good actually
speaker: E
text: Schade .
speaker: C
text: cuz it <disfmarker> it <disfmarker> it <disfmarker> to the extent that it works , it y
speaker: F
text: Ties it all into it .
speaker: C
text: it <disfmarker> it ties together several of <disfmarker> of these things .
speaker: F
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: Yep .
speaker: A
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: A
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: A
text: And I 'm sure gonna read the transcript of this one .
speaker: A
text: So .
speaker: A
text: But the , uh , <disfmarker> <vocalsound> But it 's too bad that we don't have a camera .
speaker: A
text: You know , all the pointing is gonna be lost .
speaker: F
text: Oh , yeah .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: Yeah , that 's why I said " point to Robert " , <vocalsound> when I did it .
speaker: B
text: Well every time Nancy giggles it means <disfmarker> it means that it 's your job .
speaker: A
text: Uh .
speaker: A
text: Yeah .
speaker: A
text: Mmm , isn't <disfmarker> I mean , I 'm <disfmarker> I was sort of dubious why <disfmarker> why he even introduces this sort of reality , you know , as your basic mental space
speaker: A
text: and then builds up <disfmarker>
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: A
text: d doesn't start with some <disfmarker> because it 's so obvi it should be so obvious , at least it is to me , <comment> that whenever I say something I could preface that with " I think . "
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: A
text: Nuh ?
speaker: A
text: So there should be no categorical difference between your base and all the others that ensue .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: C
text: No , but there 's <disfmarker> there 's a Gricean thing going on there ,
speaker: C
text: that when you say " I think " you 're actually hedging .
speaker: F
text: Mmm .
speaker: E
text: Yeah , I mean <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: It 's like I don't totally think <disfmarker>
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: C
text: Right .
speaker: F
text: I mostly think , uh <disfmarker>
speaker: E
text: Y
speaker: A
text: Yeah , it 's <disfmarker> Absolutely .
speaker: E
text: Yeah , it 's an <disfmarker> it 's an evidential .
speaker: E
text: It 's sort of semi - grammaticalized .
speaker: E
text: People have talked about it this way .
speaker: E
text: And you know , you can do sort of special things .
speaker: E
text: You can , th
speaker: E
text: put just the phrase " I think " as a parenthetical in the middle of a sentence and so on , and so forth .
speaker: F
text: Actually one of the child language researchers who works with T Tomasello studied a bunch of these constructions
speaker: A
text: Yeah .
speaker: E
text: So <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: and it was like it 's not using any kind of interesting embedded ways
speaker: F
text: just to mark , you know , uncertainty or something like that .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: So .
speaker: A
text: Yeah , but about linguistic hedges ,
speaker: A
text: I mean , those <disfmarker> those tend to be , um , funky anyways
speaker: A
text: because they blur <disfmarker>
speaker: C
text: So we don't have that in here either do we ?
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: Hedges ?
speaker: C
text: Yeah , yeah .
speaker: F
text: Hhh , <comment> I <disfmarker> there used to be a slot for speaker , um ,
speaker: F
text: it was something like factivity .
speaker: F
text: I couldn't really remember what it meant
speaker: F
text: so I took it out .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: But it 's something <disfmarker>
speaker: E
text: Um .
speaker: E
text: Well we were just talking about this sort of evidentiality and stuff like that , right ?
speaker: F
text: we <disfmarker> we were talking about sarcasm too , right ?
speaker: F
text: Oh , oh .
speaker: E
text: I mean ,
speaker: F
text: Oh , yeah , yeah , right .
speaker: E
text: that 's what I think is ,
speaker: E
text: um , sort of telling you what percent reality you should give this
speaker: C
text: So we probably should .
speaker: F
text: Yeah .
speaker: E
text: or the , you know <disfmarker>
speaker: A
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: C
text: Confidence or something like that .
speaker: E
text: Yeah ,
speaker: E
text: and the fact that I 'm , you know <disfmarker> the fact maybe if I think it versus he thinks that might , you know , depending on how much you trust the two of us or whatever ,
speaker: F
text: Yeah .
speaker: E
text: you know <disfmarker>
speaker: A
text: Uh great word in the English language is called " about " .
speaker: A
text: If you study how people use that it 's also <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: What 's the word ?
speaker: A
text: " about . "
speaker: C
text: About .
speaker: A
text: It 's about <disfmarker>
speaker: C
text: Oh , that <disfmarker> in that use of " about " , yeah .
speaker: A
text: clever .
speaker: F
text: Oh , oh , oh , as a hedge .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: C
text: And I think <disfmarker> And I think <pause> y if you want us to spend a pleasant six or seven hours you could get George started on that .
speaker: E
text: He wrote a paper about thirty - five years ago on that one .
speaker: B
text: I r I read that paper ,
speaker: C
text: Yeah .
speaker: B
text: the hedges paper ?
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: B
text: I read some of that paper actually .
speaker: E
text: Would you believe that that paper lead directly to the development of anti - lock brakes ?
speaker: C
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: What ?
speaker: C
text: No .
speaker: E
text: Ask me about it later
speaker: E
text: I 'll tell you how .
speaker: E
text: When we 're not on tape .
speaker: F
text: I 'd love to know .
speaker: B
text: Oh , man .
speaker: F
text: So , and <disfmarker> and I think , uh , someone had raised like sarcasm as a complication at some point .
speaker: C
text: There 's all that stuff .
speaker: C
text: Yeah , let 's <disfmarker> I <disfmarker> I don't <disfmarker> I think <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: And
speaker: F
text: we just won't deal with sarcastic people .
speaker: C
text: Yeah , I mean <disfmarker>
speaker: E
text: I don't really know what like <disfmarker>
speaker: E
text: We <disfmarker> we don't have to care too much about the speaker attitude , right ?
speaker: E
text: Like there 's not so many different <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: Certainly not as some <disfmarker>
speaker: E
text: hhh , <comment> I don't know , m
speaker: F
text: Well , they 're intonational markers I think for the most part .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: I don't know too much about the like grammatical <disfmarker>
speaker: E
text: I just mean <disfmarker>
speaker: E
text: There 's lots of different attitudes that <disfmarker> that the speaker could have and that we can clearly identify , and so on , and so forth .
speaker: F
text: Yeah .
speaker: E
text: But like what are the distinctions among those that we actually care about for our current purposes ?
speaker: C
text: Right .
speaker: C
text: Right , so , uh , this <disfmarker> this raises the question of what are our current purposes .
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: C
text: Right ?
speaker: F
text: Oh , yeah , do we have any ?
speaker: E
text: Oh , shoot .
speaker: E
text: Here it is three - fifteen already .
speaker: A
text: Mmm .
speaker: A
text: Yeah .
speaker: C
text: Uh , so , um ,
speaker: C
text: I <disfmarker> I don't know the answer
speaker: C
text: but <disfmarker> but , um , it does seem that ,
speaker: C
text: you know , this is <disfmarker> this is coming along .
speaker: C
text: I think it 's <disfmarker> it 's converging .
speaker: C
text: It 's <disfmarker> as far as I can tell there 's this one major thing we have to do
speaker: C
text: which is the mental <disfmarker> the whole s mental space thing .
speaker: C
text: And then there 's some other minor things .
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: C
text: Um , and we 're going to have to s sort of bound the complexity .
speaker: C
text: I mean , if we get everything that anybody ever thought about you know , w we 'll go nuts .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: C
text: So we had started with the idea that the actual , uh , constraint was related to this tourist domain
speaker: C
text: and the kinds of interactions that might occur in the tourist domain ,
speaker: C
text: assuming that people were being helpful and weren't trying to d
speaker: C
text: you know , there 's all sorts of <disfmarker> God knows , irony , and stuff like <disfmarker>
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: C
text: which you <disfmarker> isn't probably of much use in dealing with a tourist guide .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: C
text: Yeah ?
speaker: C
text: Uh .
speaker: F
text: M mockery .
speaker: C
text: Right .
speaker: C
text: Whatever .
speaker: C
text: So
speaker: C
text: y uh , no end of things th that <disfmarker> that , you know , we don't deal with .
speaker: A
text: But it <disfmarker>
speaker: C
text: And <disfmarker>
speaker: C
text: Go ahead .
speaker: A
text: i isn't that part easy though
speaker: A
text: because in terms of the s simspec , it would just mean you put one more set of brack brackets around it ,
speaker: A
text: and then just tell it to sort of negate whatever the content of that is in terms of irony
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: C
text: N no .
speaker: F
text: Mmm .
speaker: A
text: or <disfmarker>
speaker: E
text: Right .
speaker: C
text: No .
speaker: F
text: Maybe .
speaker: F
text: Yeah , in model theory cuz the semantics is always like " speaker believes not - P " ,
speaker: C
text: No .
speaker: F
text: you know ?
speaker: F
text: Like " the speaker says P and believes not - P " .
speaker: C
text: Right .
speaker: E
text: We have a theoretical model of sarcasm now .
speaker: F
text: But <disfmarker>
speaker: E
text: Yeah , right , I mean .
speaker: F
text: Right , right , but ,
speaker: C
text: Right .
speaker: C
text: No , no .
speaker: C
text: Anyway , so <disfmarker> so , um , I guess
speaker: C
text: uh , let me make a proposal on how to proceed on that ,
speaker: C
text: which is that , um ,
speaker: C
text: it was Keith 's , uh , sort of job over the summer to come up with this set of constructions .
speaker: C
text: Uh , and my suggestion to Keith is that you , over the next couple weeks , n
speaker: E
text: Mmm .
speaker: C
text: don't try to do them in detail or formally
speaker: C
text: but just try to describe which ones you think we ought to have .
speaker: E
text: OK .
speaker: C
text: Uh , and then when Robert gets back we 'll look at the set of them .
speaker: E
text: OK .
speaker: C
text: Just <disfmarker> just sort of , you know , define your space .
speaker: E
text: Yeah , OK .
speaker: C
text: And , um , so th these are <disfmarker> this is a set of things that I think we ought to deal with .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: C
text: And then we 'll <disfmarker> we 'll <disfmarker> we 'll go back over it
speaker: C
text: and w people will <disfmarker> will give feedback on it .
speaker: E
text: OK .
speaker: C
text: And then <disfmarker> then we 'll have a <disfmarker> at least initial spec of <disfmarker> of what we 're actually trying to do .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: C
text: And that 'll also be useful for anybody who 's trying to write a parser .
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: C
text: Knowing uh <disfmarker>
speaker: E
text: In case there 's any around .
speaker: F
text: If we knew anybody like that .
speaker: C
text: Right ,
speaker: C
text: " who might want "
speaker: C
text: et cetera .
speaker: C
text: So , uh <disfmarker>
speaker: E
text: OK .
speaker: C
text: So a and we get this <disfmarker> this , uh , portals fixed
speaker: C
text: and then we have an idea of the sort of initial range .
speaker: C
text: And then of course Nancy you 're gonna have to , uh , do your set of <disfmarker>
speaker: C
text: but you have to do that anyway .
speaker: F
text: For the same , yeah , data . Yeah , mm - hmm .
speaker: C
text: So <disfmarker> so we 're gonna get the w we 're basically dealing with two domains ,
speaker: C
text: the tourist domain and the <disfmarker> and the child language learning .
speaker: B
text: Mmm .
speaker: C
text: And we 'll see what we need for those two .
speaker: C
text: And then my proposal would be to , um , not totally cut off more general discussion
speaker: C
text: but to focus really detailed work on the subset of things that we 've <disfmarker> we really want to get done .
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: C
text: And then as a kind of separate thread , think about the more general things and <disfmarker> and all that .
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: A
text: Well , I also think the detailed discussion will hit <disfmarker> you know , bring us to problems that are of a general nature
speaker: C
text: Uh , without doubt .
speaker: A
text: and maybe even <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: Yeah .
speaker: C
text: Yeah .
speaker: C
text: But what I want to do is <disfmarker> is <disfmarker> is to <disfmarker> to constrain the things that we really feel responsible for .
speaker: A
text: even suggest some solutions .
speaker: A
text: Yeah .
speaker: A
text: Mmm .
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: C
text: So that <disfmarker> that we say these are the things we 're really gonna try do by the end of the summer
speaker: C
text: and other things we 'll put on a list of <disfmarker> of research problems or something ,
speaker: C
text: because you can easily get to the point where nothing gets done
speaker: C
text: because every time you start to do something you say , " oh , yeah , but what about this case ? "
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: C
text: This is <disfmarker> this is called being a linguist .
speaker: A
text: Mmm .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: C
text: And , uh ,
speaker: E
text: Basically .
speaker: F
text: Or me .
speaker: C
text: Huh ?
speaker: F
text: Or me .
speaker: F
text: Anyways <disfmarker>
speaker: B
text: There 's that quote in Jurafsky and Martin where <disfmarker> where it goes <disfmarker> where some guy goes , " every time I fire a linguist the performance of the recognizer goes up . "
speaker: C
text: Right .
speaker: F
text: Yeah .
speaker: E
text: Exactly .
speaker: C
text: Right .
speaker: C
text: But anyway .
speaker: C
text: So , is <disfmarker> is that <disfmarker> does that make sense as a , uh <disfmarker> a general way to proceed ?
speaker: F
text: Sure , yeah .
speaker: E
text: Yeah , yeah , we 'll start with that ,
speaker: E
text: just figuring out what needs to be done
speaker: E
text: then actually the next step is to start trying to do it .
speaker: C
text: Exactly right .
speaker: E
text: Got it .
speaker: A
text: Mmm .
speaker: A
text: Mmm .
speaker: E
text: OK .
speaker: A
text: We have a little bit of news , uh , just minor stuff .
speaker: A
text: The one big <disfmarker>
speaker: B
text: Ooo , can I ask a <disfmarker>
speaker: E
text: You ran out of power .
speaker: A
text: Huh ?
speaker: B
text: Can I ask a quick question about this side ?
speaker: F
text: Yes .
speaker: A
text: Yeah .
speaker: B
text: Is this , uh <disfmarker> was it intentional to leave off things like " inherits "
speaker: B
text: and <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: Oops .
speaker: F
text: Um ,
speaker: E
text: No .
speaker: F
text: not really <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: just on the constructions , right ?
speaker: B
text: Yeah ,
speaker: F
text: Um ,
speaker: B
text: like constructions can inherit from other things ,
speaker: B
text: am I right ?
speaker: F
text: yeah .
speaker: B
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: I didn't want to think too much about that for <disfmarker> for now .
speaker: B
text: OK .
speaker: F
text: So , uh , maybe it was subconsciously intentional .
speaker: C
text: Yeah .
speaker: C
text: Yeah , uh <disfmarker>
speaker: E
text: Um , yeah , there should be <disfmarker> I <disfmarker> I wanted to s find out someday if there was gonna be some way of dealing with , uh , if this is the right term , multiple inheritance ,
speaker: C
text: yeah .
speaker: E
text: where one construction is inheriting from , uh from both parents ,
speaker: C
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: F
text: Uh - huh .
speaker: F
text: Yep .
speaker: E
text: uh , or different ones ,
speaker: E
text: or three or four different ones .
speaker: C
text: Yeah .
speaker: F
text: Yeah .
speaker: E
text: Cuz the problem is that then you have to <disfmarker>
speaker: C
text: So let me <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: Refer to <pause> them .
speaker: E
text: which of <disfmarker> you know , which are <disfmarker> how they 're getting bound together .
speaker: C
text: Yeah , right , right , right .
speaker: F
text: Yeah , and <disfmarker> and there are certainly cases like that .
speaker: C
text: Yeah , yeah , yeah .
speaker: F
text: Even with just semantic schemas we have some examples .
speaker: C
text: Right .
speaker: F
text: So ,
speaker: F
text: and we 've been talking a little bit about that anyway .
speaker: C
text: Yeah . So what I would like to do is separate that problem out .
speaker: F
text: Inherits .
speaker: C
text: So um ,
speaker: E
text: OK .
speaker: C
text: my argument is there 's nothing you can do with that that you can't do by just having more constructions .
speaker: E
text: Yeah , yes .
speaker: C
text: It 's uglier and it d doesn't have the deep linguistic insights and stuff .
speaker: E
text: That 's right .
speaker: C
text: Uh ,
speaker: E
text: But whatever .
speaker: F
text: Uh , those are over rated .
speaker: E
text: Yeah , no , no , no no .
speaker: C
text: Right .
speaker: E
text: No , by all means ,
speaker: E
text: right . Uh , sure .
speaker: C
text: And so I <disfmarker> what I 'd like to do is <disfmarker> is in the short run focus on getting it right .
speaker: C
text: And when we think we have it right then saying , " aha ! ,
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: C
text: can we make it more elegant ? "
speaker: E
text: Yeah , that 's <disfmarker>
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: C
text: Can <disfmarker> can we , uh <disfmarker> What are the generalizations , and stuff ?
speaker: E
text: Connect the dots .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: C
text: But rather than try to guess a inheritance structure and all that sort of stuff before we know what we 're doing .
speaker: E
text: Yep .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: C
text: So I would say in the short run we 're not gonna b
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: C
text: First of all , we 're not doing them yet at all .
speaker: C
text: And <disfmarker> and it could be that half way through we say , " aha ! ,
speaker: C
text: we <disfmarker> we now see how we want to clean it up . "
speaker: E
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: C
text: Uh , and inheritance is only one <disfmarker> I mean , that 's one way to organize it
speaker: C
text: but there are others .
speaker: E
text: Yeah .
speaker: C
text: And it may or may not be the best way .
speaker: C
text: I 'm sorry ,
speaker: C
text: you had news .
speaker: A
text: Mmm .
speaker: A
text: Oh , just small stuff .
speaker: A
text: Um , thanks to Eva on our web site we can now ,
speaker: A
text: if you want to run JavaBayes , uh , you could see <disfmarker> get <disfmarker> download these classes .
speaker: A
text: And then it will enable you <disfmarker>
speaker: A
text: she modified the GUI so it has now a m a m a button menu item for saving it into the embedded JavaBayes format .
speaker: D
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: B
text: Mmm .
speaker: A
text: So that 's wonderful .
speaker: C
text: Great .
speaker: A
text: And , um and she , a You tested it out .
speaker: A
text: Do you want to say something about that , that it works , right ?
speaker: D
text: I was just checking like , when we wanna , um , get the posterior probability of , like , variables .
speaker: A
text: With the <disfmarker>
speaker: D
text: You know how you asked whether we can , like , just observe all the variables like in the same list ?
speaker: D
text: You can't .
speaker: D
text: You have to make separate queries every time .
speaker: A
text: Uh - huh .
speaker: A
text: OK , that 's <disfmarker> that 's a bit unfortunate
speaker: D
text: So <disfmarker>
speaker: D
text: Yeah .
speaker: A
text: but
speaker: A
text: for the time being it 's <disfmarker> it 's <disfmarker> it 's fine to do it <disfmarker>
speaker: D
text: You just have to have a long list of , you know , all the variables .
speaker: A
text: Yeah .
speaker: D
text: Basically .
speaker: A
text: But uh <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: Uh , all the things you want to query , you just have to like ask for separately .
speaker: D
text: Yeah , yeah .
speaker: A
text: Well that 's <disfmarker> probably maybe in the long term that 's good news
speaker: A
text: because it forces us to think a little bit more carefully how <disfmarker> how we want to get an out output .
speaker: A
text: Um , but that 's a different discussion for a different time .
speaker: A
text: And , um ,
speaker: A
text: I don't know .
speaker: A
text: We 're really running late ,
speaker: A
text: so I had , uh , an idea yesterday
speaker: A
text: but , uh , I don't know whether we should even start discussing .
speaker: C
text: W what <disfmarker>
speaker: C
text: Yeah , sure , tell us what it is .
speaker: A
text: Um , the construal bit that , um , has been pointed to but hasn't been , um , made precise by any means , um , may w may work as follows .
speaker: A
text: I thought that we would , uh <disfmarker>
speaker: A
text: that the following thing would be in incredibly nice
speaker: A
text: and I have no clue whether it will work at all or nothing .
speaker: A
text: So that 's just a tangent , a couple of mental disclaimers here .
speaker: A
text: Um , imagine you <disfmarker> you write a Bayes - net ,
speaker: A
text: um <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: Bayes ?
speaker: A
text: Bayes - net ,
speaker: F
text: OK .
speaker: A
text: um , completely from scratch every time you do construal .
speaker: A
text: So you have nothing .
speaker: A
text: Just a white piece of paper .
speaker: C
text: Mmm ,
speaker: C
text: right .
speaker: A
text: You consult <disfmarker> consult your ontology
speaker: A
text: which will tell you a bunch of stuff , and parts , and properties , uh - uh - uh
speaker: F
text: Grout out the things that <disfmarker> that you need .
speaker: C
text: Right .
speaker: A
text: then y you 'd simply write , uh , these into <disfmarker> onto your <disfmarker> your white piece of paper .
speaker: A
text: And you will get a lot of notes and stuff out of there .
speaker: A
text: You won't get <disfmarker> you won't really get any C P
speaker: A
text: T 's , therefore we need everything that <disfmarker> that configures to what the situation is ,
speaker: A
text: IE , the context dependent stuff .
speaker: A
text: So you get whatever comes from discourse
speaker: A
text: but also filtered .
speaker: A
text: Uh , so only the ontology relevant stuff from the discourse
speaker: F
text: Mm - hmm .
speaker: A
text: plus the situation and the user model .
speaker: A
text: And that fills in your CPT 's with which you can then query , um , the <disfmarker> the net that you just wrote
speaker: A
text: and find out how thing X is construed as an utterance U .
speaker: A
text: And the embedded JavaBayes works exactly like that ,
speaker: A
text: that once you <disfmarker>
speaker: A
text: we have , you know , precise format in which to write it ,
speaker: A
text: so we write it down .
speaker: A
text: You query it .
speaker: A
text: You get the result ,
speaker: A
text: and you throw it away .
speaker: A
text: And the <disfmarker> the nice thing about this idea is that you don't ever have to sit down and think about it or write about it .
speaker: A
text: You may have some general rules as to how things can be <disfmarker> can be construed as what , so that will allow you to craft the <disfmarker> the <disfmarker> the initial notes .
speaker: A
text: But it 's <disfmarker> in that respect it 's completely scalable .
speaker: A
text: Because it doesn't have any prior , um , configuration .
speaker: A
text: It 's just you need an ontology of the domain
speaker: A
text: and you need the context dependent modules .
speaker: A
text: And if this can be made to work at all , <vocalsound> that 'd be kind of funky .
speaker: C
text: Um , it sounds to me like you want P R
speaker: A
text: P R Ms - uh , PRM
speaker: A
text: I mean , since you can unfold a PRM into a straightforward Bayes - net <disfmarker>
speaker: C
text: Beca - because it <disfmarker> b because <disfmarker>
speaker: C
text: No , no , you can't .
speaker: C
text: See the <disfmarker> the critical thing about the PRM is it gives these relations in general form .
speaker: C
text: So once you have instantiated the PRM with the instances and ther then you can <disfmarker> then you can unfold it .
speaker: A
text: Then you can .
speaker: A
text: Mm - hmm , yeah .
speaker: A
text: No , I was m using it generic .
speaker: A
text: So , uh , probabilistic , whatever , relational models .
speaker: A
text: Whatever you write it .
speaker: C
text: Well , no , but it matters a lot
speaker: A
text: In <disfmarker>
speaker: C
text: because you <disfmarker> what you want are these generalized rules
speaker: C
text: about the way things relate ,
speaker: C
text: th that you then instantiate in each case .
speaker: A
text: And then <disfmarker> then instantiate them .
speaker: C
text: Yeah , and that 's <disfmarker>
speaker: A
text: That 's ma maybe the <disfmarker> the way <disfmarker> the only way it works .
speaker: C
text: Yeah , that 's the only way it could work .
speaker: C
text: I <disfmarker> we have a <disfmarker> our local expert on P R
speaker: C
text: uh , but my guess is that they 're not currently good enough to do that .
speaker: C
text: But we 'll <disfmarker> we 'll have to see .
speaker: C
text: Uh <disfmarker>
speaker: A
text: But , uh ,
speaker: C
text: Yes .
speaker: C
text: This is <disfmarker> that 's <disfmarker> that would be a good thing to try .
speaker: C
text: It 's related to the Hobbs abduction story
speaker: C
text: in that you th you throw everything into a pot
speaker: C
text: and you try to come up with the , uh <disfmarker>
speaker: A
text: Except there 's no <disfmarker> no theorem prover involved .
speaker: F
text: Best explanation .
speaker: C
text: No , there isn't a theorem prover
speaker: C
text: but there <disfmarker> but <disfmarker> but the , um , The cove the <disfmarker> the P R Ms are like rules of inference
speaker: C
text: and you 're <disfmarker> you 're coupling a bunch of them together .
speaker: A
text: Mm - hmm , yeah .
speaker: C
text: And then ins instead of proving you 're trying to , you know , compute the most likely .
speaker: C
text: Uh <disfmarker>
speaker: C
text: Tricky .
speaker: C
text: But you <disfmarker> yeah , it 's a good <disfmarker> it 's a <disfmarker> it 's a good thing to put in your thesis proposal .
speaker: A
text: What 's it ?
speaker: C
text: So are you gonna write something for us before you go ?
speaker: A
text: Yes .
speaker: A
text: Um .
speaker: C
text: Oh , you have something .
speaker: A
text: In the process thereof , or whatever .
speaker: C
text: OK .
speaker: C
text: So , what 's <disfmarker> what <disfmarker> when are we gonna meet again ?
speaker: F
text: When are you leaving ?
speaker: F
text: Thursday ,
speaker: A
text: Fri - uh ,
speaker: F
text: Friday ?
speaker: D
text: Fri
speaker: A
text: Thursday 's my last day here .
speaker: F
text: OK .
speaker: C
text: Yeah .
speaker: A
text: So <disfmarker>
speaker: A
text: I would suggest as soon as possible .
speaker: A
text: Do you mean by we , the whole ben gang ?
speaker: C
text: N no , I didn't mean y just the two of us .
speaker: C
text: We <disfmarker> obviously we can <disfmarker> we can do this .
speaker: C
text: But the question is do you want to , for example , send the little group , uh , a draft of your thesis proposal
speaker: C
text: and get , uh , another session on feedback on that ?
speaker: C
text: Or <disfmarker>
speaker: A
text: We can do it Th - Thursday again .
speaker: A
text: Yeah .
speaker: E
text: Fine with me .
speaker: E
text: Should we do the one PM time
speaker: E
text: for Thursday since we were on that before
speaker: E
text: or <disfmarker> ?
speaker: A
text: Sure .
speaker: E
text: OK .
speaker: C
text: Alright .
speaker: D
text: Hmm .
speaker: A
text: Thursday at one ?
speaker: A
text: I can also maybe then sort of run through the , uh <disfmarker> the talk I have to give at EML
speaker: A
text: which highlights all of our work .
speaker: C
text: OK .
speaker: A
text: And we can make some last minute changes on that .
speaker: C
text: OK .
speaker: B
text: You can just give him the abstract that we wrote for the paper .
speaker: C
text: That - that 'll tell him exactly what 's going on .
speaker: C
text: Yeah , that <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: Can we do <disfmarker> can we do one - thirty ?
speaker: C
text: Alright .
speaker: A
text: No .
speaker: F
text: Oh , you already told me no .
speaker: F
text: One ,
speaker: A
text: But we can do four .
speaker: F
text: OK , it 's fine .
speaker: F
text: I can do one .
speaker: F
text: It 's fine .
speaker: F
text: It 's fine .
speaker: A
text: One or four .
speaker: A
text: I don't care .
speaker: E
text: To me this is equal .
speaker: E
text: I don't care .
speaker: A
text: If it 's equal for all ?
speaker: A
text: What should we do ?
speaker: F
text: Yeah , it 's fine .
speaker: F
text: Fine .
speaker: A
text: Four ?
speaker: F
text: Yeah <disfmarker>
speaker: F
text: no , no , no , uh , I don't care .
speaker: F
text: It 's fine .
speaker: A
text: It 's equal to all of us ,
speaker: A
text: so you can decide
speaker: A
text: one or four .
speaker: B
text: The pressure 's on you Nancy .
speaker: A
text: Liz actually said she likes four
speaker: A
text: because it forces the Meeting Recorder people to cut , you know <disfmarker> the discussions short .
speaker: F
text: OK .
speaker: F
text: OK , four .
speaker: F
text: OK ?
speaker: F
text: OK . I am .
speaker: E
text: Well , if you insist , then .

Meeting summary:
text: The discussion concerned the revised semantic specification and the construction formalism.
text: The different levels of the latter focus on what construction types are encountered and what bindings there are between them.
text: The notation maintains properties of both dependency and constituent-based grammars.
text: The encoding of features is still incomplete: frame profiles, focus, adjectives, nominal expressions are phenomena in the process of being integrated.
text: Similarly, ways to handle mental spaces will have to be added on top.
text: On the other hand, the semantic specification structures information in terms of "scenario", "referent" and "discourse segment".
text: Each category comprises a number of slots filled in by information derived from the utterance.
text: It is, essentially, a toolkit with which to create semantic constructions, as well as the bindings between them and with the ontology.
text: Among the issues still being defined, mental spaces and context (eg pronoun references) present similarities that can be echoed in the specification.
text: Work on both of these formalisms will continue with circumscription of the construction space that will be studied in more detail.
text: Work on construal will use Bayes-nets, which will be fed information from other modules and implement general rules to infer how utterances are construed.
text: The semantic specification requires some adjustments.
text: Amongst other things "cause" has to be added as another X-schema.
text: Linguistic hedging will also be encoded as a demarcation of evidentiality or speaker confidence.
text: Mental spaces can be tackled with mechanisms that can also deal with context issues (time, space etc.): creating a base space and rules of interaction with other interconnected spaces.
text: However, the complexity of these mechanisms has to be bound as well: it is necessary to define the range of constructions to be studied.
text: Given the domains currently used (tourist, child language learning), some features, like speaker attitude, are not of equal importance at this stage.
text: On the other hand, it was decided for the inheritance between constructions to be left out for now, as the notation can be rendered more elegant later on.
text: Finally, a preliminary presentation on the idea of how to use Bayes-nets for construal will take place in the next meeting.
text: The construction formalism is not yet complete as to the semantic constraints -the terminology has also been met with objections- and does not deal with mental spaces.
text: On their own, constructions can only give limited information regarding mental spaces: forms can provide cues to create a different mental space, but the semantic nuances are defined by context.
text: It is not decided at this stage whether the necessary values should be coded within the construction or as part of construal.
text: Other issues concern focus and stress: focus is seen as an information structure device, but there has been no suggestion as to how to predict its effects or break it down in possible focused elements; as to stress, it may not be useful as a form value, as it shows the focus exponent, but not what the focus is on.
text: Moving to the semantic specification, the analysis still needs mechanisms to deal with causality, as well as mental spaces and bindings between them.
text: Additionally, how referring expressions are linked to referents or even how mental spaces affect this linking are still to lay down in detail.
text: The revised semantic specification and construction formalism are more stable than the previous versions.
text: In the latter, we find both construction types and meaning types along with formal considerations like verb subcategorisation, or the ones a "directed motion" construction would dictate.
text: Semantic constraints also come into play.
text: The semantic specification, on the other hand, is split into three levels: "scenario" is a list of schemas and bindings between them, which describes the current event in terms of Source-Path-Goal, Container, etc.; "referent" is about the entities in the discourse and includes grammatical information and pointers to the ontology; "discourse segment" comprises utterance-specific things.
text: Apart from the presentation, JavaBayes can now run through the modified web page of the project.