Canonical Citation for SF?

What is the canonical citation for modeling questions and imperatives with the sentential force feature?

1 Like

The only published reference I can quickly find that introduces the attribute SF is the following, though it only briefly mentions it as one of the variable properties on eventualities. The DELPH-IN wiki page ErgSemantics/Basics is similar but not more informative. Improved documentation of these variable properties is on the to-do list for those ErgSemantics pages.

@inproceedings{flickinger-etal-2014-towards,
title = “Towards an Encyclopedia of Compositional Semantics: Documenting the Interface of the {E}nglish Resource Grammar”,
author = “Flickinger, Dan and
Bender, Emily M. and
Oepen, Stephan”,
booktitle = “Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation ({LREC}'14)”,
month = may,
year = “2014”,
address = “Reykjavik, Iceland”,
publisher = “European Language Resources Association (ELRA)”,
url = “http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2014/pdf/562_Paper.pdf”,
pages = “875–881”,
}

1 Like

Thanks Dan! So is this a DELPH-IN tradition that stemmed from the ERG, rather than a wide-spread HPSG tradition?

I believe that SF was introduced by DELPH-IN (probably starting with the ERG) in the stead of a more detailed (and problematic for implementation?) treatment of question semantics in Ginzburg and Sag; the famous “messages”. Others please correct me if I am wrong…

Yes, I think SF (for “sentential force”) came in when Dan removed the messages from the ERG. The messages were a representation of illocutionary force in the form of elementary predications and raised a serious slippery slope question — where should we include them and where shouldn’t we? You might look to the inline comments in the ERG to see if there’s any further information. There’s also this discussion from the Singapore Summit: http://moin.delph-in.net/SingaporeRepresentingPragmatics