E: Right .
C: But it 's got to be pieces of this along with constraints among them .
E: OK .
C: 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 .
E: Mm - hmm .
C: Or whate whatever .
E: Yeah .
C: So those constraints appear in constructions
E: Mm - hmm .
C: but pretty much this is the full range of semantic structures available to you .
E: OK .
F: Except for " cause " , that I forgot .
F: But anyway , there 's som some kind of causal structure for composite events .
E: Yeah .
C: OK , good .
C: Let 's let 's mark that .
C: So we need a c
F: Uh , I mean , so it gets a little funny .
F: These are all so far these structures , especially from " path " and on down , these are sort of relatively familiar , um , image schematic kind of slots .
F: Now with " cause " , uh , the fillers will actually be themselves frames . Right ?
F: So you 'll say , " event one causes event B C: Right .
E: Mm - hmm .
C: And and and and this this this again may ge our , um and we and and , of course , worlds .
F: uh , event two " ,
F: and F: Yeah . So that 's , uh these are all implicitly one within , uh within one world .
E: Mm - hmm .
F: Um ,
F: even though saying that place takes place , whatever .
F: 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 " .
E: Mm - hmm .
E: Mm - hmm .
E: Yeah .
F: So . But that that that 's sort of OK .
F: The the within the event it 's st it 's still one world .
F: Um .
F: Yeah , so " cause " and F: Other frames that could come in I mean , unfortunately you could bring in say for instance , um , uh , " desire " or something like that ,
E: Mm - hmm .
F: like " want " .
F: And actually there is right now under " discourse segments " , um , " attitude " ?
E: Mm - hmm .
F: " Volition " ?
F: could fill that .
F: So there are a couple things where I like , " oh , I 'm not sure if I wanted to have it there
E: Well that 's F: or " Basically there was a whole list of of possible speaker attitudes that like say Talmy listed .
F: And , like , well , I don't you know , it was like " hope , wish . desire " ,
C: Right .
E: Uh - huh .
F: blah - blah - blah .
F: And it 's like , well , I feel like if I wanted to have an extra meaning F: I don't know if those are grammatically marked in the first place .
F: So They 're more lexically marked , right ?
F: At least in English .
E: Mmm .
F: So if I wanted to I would stick in an extra frame in my meaning , saying ,
F: e so th it 'd be a hierarchical frame them , right ?
F: You know , like " Naomi wants wants su a certain situation
F: and that situation itself is a state of affairs " .
C: S right .
C: So so , " want " itself can be  i i i i i
F: u
F: Can be just another frame that 's part of your C: Well , and it i basically it 's an action .
C: In in our s in our in our F: Yeah .
F: Situation . <comment> Right , right .
C: in in our in our s terminology , " want " can be an action
C: and " what you want " is a world .
F: Mm - hmm .
B: Hmm .
F: Mmm .
C: So that 's I mean , it 's certainly one way to do it .
E: Mm - hmm .
C: Yeah , there there are other things .
C: Causal stuff we absolutely need .
C: Mental space we need .
F: Mm - hmm .
C: The context we need .
C: Um , so anyway , Keith C: So is this comfortable to you
C: that , uh , once we have this defined , it is your tool kit for building the semantic part of constructions .
E: Mm - hmm .
C: 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 .
E: Mm - hmm .
E: Yeah .
C: And that 's the wh and and I mean , that according to the party line , that 's the whole story .
E: Mm - hmm .
E: Yeah .
E: Um . y
E: Right . That makes sense .
E: So I mean , there 's this stuff in the off in the scenario ,
E: which just tells you how various what schemas you 're using
E: and they 're how they 're bound together .
E: And I guess that some of the discourse segment stuff F: Mm - hmm .
E: is that where you would sa
E: I mean , that 's E: OK , that 's where the information structure is
E: which sort of is a kind of profiling on different parts of , um , of this .
F: Right .
F: Exactly .
E: I mean , what 's interesting is that the information structure stuff E: Hmm .
E: There 's almost I mean , we keep coming back to how focus is like this this , uh , trajector - landmark thing .
F: Yeah .
E: So if I say , um , You know , " In France it 's like this " .
E: You know , great ,
E: we 've learned something about France
E: but the fact is that utterances of that sort are generally used to help you draw a conclusion also about some implicit contrast ,
E: like " In France it 's like this " .
F: Right .
E: And therefore you 're supposed to say , " Boy , life sure "
E: You know , " in France kids are allowed to drink at age three " .
E: And w you 're that 's not just a fact about France .
F: Right , right .
E: You also conclude something about how boring it is here in the U S . Right ?
C: Right .
E: And so F: S so I would prefer not to worry about that for right now
E: OK .
F: and to think that there are , um ,
E: That comes in
F: discourse level constructions in a sense , topic topic - focus constructions that would say , " oh , when you focus something " then E: and , uh E: Mm - hmm .
E: Yeah .
F: just done the same way just actually in the same way as the lower level .
F: If you stressed , you know , " John went to the " , you know , " the bar " whatever , you 're focusing that
E: Mm - hmm .
F: and a in a possible inference is " in contrast to other things " .
E: Yeah .
F: So similarly for a whole sentence , you know , " in France such - and - such happens " .
E: Yeah .
E: Yeah , yeah .
F: So the whole thing is sort of like again implicitly as opposed to other things that are possible .
E: Yeah .
A: Uh , just just , uh , look read uh even sem semi formal Mats Rooth .
F: I mean F: Yeah .
F: Uh - huh .
A: If you haven't read it . It 's nice .
A: And just pick any paper on alternative semantics .
F: Uh - huh .
E: OK .
A: So that 's his that 's the best way of talking about focus , is I think his way .
E: OK , what was the name ?
A: Mats .
A: MATS .
E: OK .
A: Rooth .
A: I think two O 's ,
A: yes , TH .
E: OK .
A: I never know how to pronounce his name
A: because he 's sort of ,
C: S Swede ?
A: uh , he is Dutch
C: Dutch ?
E: Yeah .
C: Oh , Dutch .
A: and , um but very confused background I think .
C: Uh - huh .
A: So and , um ,
E: Mats Gould .
A: And sadly enough he also just left the IMS in Stuttgart .
A: So he 's not there anymore .
E: Hmm .
A: But , um A: I don't know where he is right now
A: but alternative semantics is if you type that into an , uh , uh , browser or search engine you 'll get tons of stuff .
E: OK .
E: OK .
E: OK , thanks .
A: And what I 'm kind of confused about is is what the speaker and the hearer is is sort of doing there .
F: So for a particular segment it 's really just a reference to some other entity again in the situation , right ?
F: So for a particular segment the speaker might be you or might be me .
A: Yeah .
F: Um , hearer is a little bit harder .
F: It could be like multiple people .
F: I guess that that that that 's not very clear from here F: I mean , that 's not allowed here .
A: Yeah , but you Don't we ultimately want to handle that analogously to the way we handle time and place ,
A: because " you " , " me " , " he " , " they " ,
A: you know , " these guys " ,
A: all these expressions , nuh , are in in much the same way contextually dependent as " here , " and " now , " and " there " F: Mm - hmm .
C: Now , this is this is assuming you 've already solved that .
F: Ye - yeah .
C: So it 's it 's Fred and Mary ,
F: So th
C: so the speaker would be Fred
C: and the A: Ah !
F: Right , so the constructions might of course will refer , using pronouns or whatever .
A: Mm - hmm .
F: In which case they have to check to see , uh , who the , uh , speaker in here wa in order to resolve those .
F: But when you actually say that " he walked into " , whatever , um , the " he " will refer to a particular F: You you will already have figured who " he " or " you " , mmm , or " I " , maybe is a bett better example , who " I " refers to .
F: Um , and then you 'd just be able to refer to Harry , you know , in wherever that person whatever role that person was playing in the event .
A: Mmm .
A: That 's up at the reference part .
F: Yeah , yeah .
A: And down there in the speaker - hearer part ?
F: S so , that 's I think that 's just F: n
F: for instance , Speaker is known from the situation , right ?
F: You 're when you hear something you 're told who the speaker is F: I mean , you know who the speaker is .
F: In fact , that 's kind of constraining how F: in some ways you know this before you get to the you fill in all the rest of it .
F: I think .
C: Mmm .
F: I mean , how else would you um A: You know , uh , uh , it 's the speaker may in English is allowed to say " I . "
C: Yeah .
C: Well , here F: Yeah .
A: Uh , among the twenty - five percent most used words .
F: Right .
A: But wouldn't the " I " then set up the the s s referent F: Mm - hmm .
A: that happens to be the speaker this time
F: Right , right .
A: and not " they , " whoever they are .
F: So A: Or " you " A: much like the " you " could n
F: S so OK , so I would say ref under referent should be something that corresponds to " I " .
F: And maybe each referent should probably have a list of way whatever , the way it was referred to .
F: So that 's " I "
F: but , uh , uh , should we say it it refers to , what ?
F: Uh , if it were " Harry " it would refer to like some ontology thing .
F: If it were if it 's " I " it would refer to the current speaker ,
F: OK , which is given to be like , you know , whoever it is .
A: Well , not not always .
A: I mean , so there 's " and then he said , I w " Uh - huh .
F: " I " within the current world .
C: Uh A: Yeah .
C: Yeah .
C: That 's right .
F: Yeah , yeah , yeah , yeah .
C: So so again , this uh , this this is gonna to get us into the mental space stuff
C: and t because you know , " Fred said that Mary said " , and whatever .
F: Mm - hmm .
E: Mmm .
C: And and so we 're , uh gonna have to , um , chain those as well .
A: Mm - hmm .
A: Twhhh - whhh .
A: But F: Mm - hmm .
F: So this entire thing is inside a world ,
C: Right .
F: not just like the top part .
C: Right .
C: I I think , uh F: That 's A: Mm - hmm .
C: Except s it 's it 's trickier than that
C: because um , the reference for example C: So he where it gets really tricky is there 's some things ,
F: Yeah .
C: and this is where blends and all terribl
F: Yeah .
C: So , some things which really are meant to be identified and some things which aren't .
F: Right .
C: And again , all we need for the moment is some way to say that .
F: Right .
F: So I thought of having like for each referent , having the list of of the things t with which it is identified .
F: You know , which which , uh you know , you you you C: You could do that .
F: for instance , um F: So , I guess ,
F: it sort of depends on if it is a referring exp if it 's identifiable already or it 's a new thing .
E: Mm - hmm .
F: If it 's a new thing you 'd have to like create a structure or whatever .
F: If it 's an old thing it could be referring to , um , usually w something in a situation , right ?
F: Or something in ontology .
C: uh - huh .
F: So ,
F: there 's a you know , whatever , it c it could point at one of these .
C: I just had a I just had an an idea that would be very nice if it works .
F: For what ?
F: If it works .
C: Uh , uh , uh , I haven't told you what it is yet .
F: Mm - hmm . Mmm .
C: This was my build - up .
C: An i an idea that would be nice i
F: Yeah .
F: OK , we 're crossing our fingers .
C: Right .
C: If it worked .
B: So we 're building a mental space , good .
C: Yeah .
F: OK .
C: Right , it was a space builder .
C: Um , we might be able to handle context in the same way that we handle mental spaces
C: because , uh , you have somewhat the same things going on of , uh , things being accessible or not .
F: Mm - hmm .
C: And so , i
F: Yep .
C: it c it it , uh I think if we did it right we might be able to get at least a lot of the same structure .
F: Use the same <comment> Yep .
C: So that pulling something out of a discourse context is I think similar to other kinds of , uh , mental space phenomena .
B: I see .
F: Mm - hmm .
F: And C: Uh , I 've I 've I 've never seen anybody write that up
F: And C: but maybe they did .
C: I don't know .
C: That may be all over the literature .
F: Yeah .
F: So so by default E: There 's things like ther you know , there 's all kinds of stuff like , um , in I think I mentioned last time in Czech if you have a a verb of saying then
E: um , you know , you say something like or or I was thinking you can say something like , " oh , I thought , uh , you are a republican " or something like that .
E: Where as in English you would say , " I thought you were " .
C: Right .
E: Um , you know , sort of the past tense being copied onto the lower verb doesn't happen there ,
E: so you have to say something about , you know , tense is determined relative to current blah - blah - blah .
F: Mm - hmm .
F: Mm - hmm .
E: Same things happens with pronouns .
E: There 's languages where , um ,
E: if you have a verb of saying then ,
E: ehhh ,
E: where E: 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 .
F: Mm - hmm .
E: Um , and it 's sort of in an extended function C: Mm - hmm .
C: So we would have it be in quotes in English .
E: Yeah .
F: Right .
B: Right .
E: But it 's not perceived as a quotative construction .
E: I mean , it 's been analyzed by the formalists as being a logophoric pronoun ,
C: Yeah .
E: um which means a pronoun which refers back to the person who is speaking or that sort of thing , right ?
F: Oh , right . Yeah , that makes sense .
C: OK .
E: Um ,
E: but uh , that happens to sound like the word for " I "
E: but is actually semantically unrelated to it .
F: Oh , no !
C: Oh , good , I love the formali
E: Um ,
F: Really ?
E: Yeah . Yeah .
F: You 're kidding .
E: There 's a whole book which basically operates on this assumption .
E: Uh , Mary Dalrymple ,
E: uh , this book , a ninety - three book on , uh on pronoun stuff .
F: No , that 's horrible .
F: OK .
F: That 's horrible . <comment> OK .
E: Well , yeah . And then the same thing for ASL
E: where , you know , you 're signing
E: and someone says something .
E: And then , you know , so " he say " , and then you sort of do a role shift .
E: And then you sign " I , this , that , and the other " .
F: Uh - huh .
E: And you know , " I did this " .
E: That 's also been analyzed as logophoric and having nothing to do with " I " .
E: And the role shift thing is completely left out and so on .
E: So ,
E: 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 .
F: Uh - huh .
E: And so , yeah , I mean F: Yeah .
C: So that that d that does sound like it 's co consistent with what we 're saying , yeah .
E: Right .
E: Yeah .
F: OK , so it 's kind of like the unspecified mental spaces just are occurring in context .
F: 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 you you 're scope is m might extend out to the the base one .
E: Mm - hmm .
C: Mm - hmm .
E: Yeah .
F: It would be nice to actually use the same , um , mechanism
F: since there are so many cases where you actually need
F: it 'll be one or the other .
E: Yeah .
F: It 's like , oh , actually , it 's the same same operation .
C: Oh , OK , so this this is worth some thought .
F: So .
E: It 's like it 's like what 's happening that , yeah , what what 's happening , uh , there is that you 're moving the base space or something like that , right ?
F: Yeah , yeah .
E: So that 's that 's how Fauconnier would talk about it .
F: Mm - hmm .
E: And it happens diff under different circumstances in different languages .
E: And so ,
F: Mm - hmm .
E: 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
E: which can change .
F: Mm - hmm ,
E: And we need all the same machinery .
F: right .
A: Mm - hmm .
F: Robert .
C: Well , but , uh , this is very good actually
E: Schade .
C: cuz it it it to the extent that it works , it y
F: Ties it all into it .
C: it it ties together several of of these things .
F: Yeah .
F: Yep .
A: Mm - hmm .
A: Mm - hmm .
A: And I 'm sure gonna read the transcript of this one .
A: So .
A: But the , uh ,  But it 's too bad that we don't have a camera .