Here’s where I am at, extracting both subject and object (for my Russian grammar).
I am considering the following analysis for (1):
(1) Kto chto vidit? Who.NOM what.ACC sees `Who sees what?' [rus]
Right now, here’s what I have:
I think generally that’s good because I do want to also license (2):
(1) Chto kto vidit? what.ACC Who.NOM sees `Who sees what?' [rus]
I am assuming that gaps are filled in the order in which they were extracted?
experimental-filler-phrase := binary-phrase & phrasal & [ SYNSEM [ LOCAL.CAT.VAL [ COMPS < >, SPR < > ] ], ARGS < [ SYNSEM [ LOCAL #slash & local & [ CAT.VAL [ SUBJ olist, COMPS olist, SPR olist ], CTXT.ACTIVATED + ], NON-LOCAL.SLASH 0-alist ] ], [ SYNSEM [ LOCAL.CAT [ VAL.COMPS olist ], NON-LOCAL [ SLASH append-list & [ LIST.FIRST #slash ], <<<<<<<<< NOTE THIS; IS THIS DOING WHAT I WANT?.. REL 0-alist ] ] ] > ].
What I am confused about is the order of the elements on the SLASH list and what is going on with the CASE values.
In the tree on the left, subject extraction happens first, then object extraction. The tree on the right, vice versa. Why then, when I look at the lowest S node in both trees, the first element of the SLASH list is [CASE acc]? Looks like it is underconstrained somehwere; would that be connected to the removal of the #local identity between the gap and the head-daughter’s SLASH (again, as discussed here Emerson (append) lists for subject extraction)?
The first element on the SLASH list in the left tree, lowest S node:
The first element on the SLASH list in the lowest S node in the right tree: