# QUE feature on the verb **URL:** \ **Category:** Grammar Matrix\ **Tags:** erg, hpsg\ **Created:** [November 4, 2019, 7:46pm UTC](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/que-feature-on-the-verb/366 "2019-11-04T19:46:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![ebender](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/e/34f0e0/32.png) [@ebender](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/u/ebender)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2019, 7:20pm UTC](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/que-feature-on-the-verb/366/21 "2019-11-05T19:20:41Z")
Yes, that looks underspecified. I also wouldn’t expect the wh word to inherit from basic-one-arg or any of those. ---
**Author:** ![olzama](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/user_avatar/delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/olzama/32/6_2.png) [@olzama](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/u/olzama)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2019, 7:38pm UTC](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/que-feature-on-the-verb/366/22 "2019-11-05T19:38:28Z")
> [@ebender](#): > > I also wouldn’t expect the wh word to inherit from basic-one-arg or any of those. Why not? As for the undespecified lists: I wonder what is going on, because I just created a mini-English grammar using the Matrix trunk and I am observing the same thing. Could it be that I am looking at a wrong thing, still? I am looking at local AVM of the verb and the noun… ---
**Author:** ![ebender](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/e/34f0e0/32.png) [@ebender](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/u/ebender)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2019, 7:52pm UTC](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/que-feature-on-the-verb/366/23 "2019-11-05T19:52:13Z")
The purpose of the types like _basic-one-arg_ et al is to do the lexical threading, creating the NON-LOCAL values for each of the elements out of the append of the NON-LOCAL value of their arguments. (This is basically the analysis from Bouma, Malouf & Sag 2000.) Pronouns in general are ARG-ST \< \>, so they have no arguments (_basic-zero-arg_, then I think), BUT wh pronouns should have non-empty QUE values and so that type is incorrect. As for a grammar that has decent behavior along these lines, maybe the English from grammar here is a good one to look at? [http://courses.washington.edu/ling567/2017/lab8.html](http://courses.washington.edu/ling567/2017/lab8.html) ---
**Author:** ![olzama](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/user_avatar/delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/olzama/32/6_2.png) [@olzama](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/u/olzama)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2019, 9:30pm UTC](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/que-feature-on-the-verb/366/24 "2019-11-05T21:30:22Z")
Looking at the 567 English grammar linked above. The empty QUE lists on sentences like _cats chase dogs_ look healthy. This is what I am seeing for _who chases dogs?_, the local AVM for _chases_: ![52%20PM](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/uploads/default/original/1X/519fc52717b4d5be95568578b5f9bec60217840e.png) The local AVM for _who_: ![59%20PM](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/uploads/default/original/1X/e3e32f5a0401cceb9d325096bec6961efcc29717.png) Doesn’t look right does it? The LIST for _chases_’s QUE should be pointing to @1? ---
**Author:** ![ebender](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/e/34f0e0/32.png) [@ebender](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/u/ebender)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2019, 9:43pm UTC](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/que-feature-on-the-verb/366/25 "2019-11-05T21:43:57Z")
Yes, that looks good. The local avm for the verb should point only to the QUE of the things on its ARG-ST, which, as this is the local avm, aren’t unified with anything else in the sentence. ---
**Author:** ![olzama](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/user_avatar/delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/olzama/32/6_2.png) [@olzama](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/u/olzama)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2019, 10:36pm UTC](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/que-feature-on-the-verb/366/26 "2019-11-05T22:36:22Z")
How do I confirm that the QUE list is not empty for this verb? By looking at the local AVM for the S and then tracking down the verb?.. If I look at the local AVM for the S, I don’t see any ARGS. ---
**Author:** ![ebender](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/e/34f0e0/32.png) [@ebender](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/u/ebender)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2019, 10:54pm UTC](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/que-feature-on-the-verb/366/27 "2019-11-05T22:54:05Z")
What’s the QUE value on the S? ---
**Author:** ![olzama](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/user_avatar/delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/olzama/32/6_2.png) [@olzama](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/u/olzama)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2019, 10:56pm UTC](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/que-feature-on-the-verb/366/28 "2019-11-05T22:56:47Z")
On the (top) S’s mother, it is empty, and that I think is expected because that’s the effect of the head filler rule? ![49%20PM](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/uploads/default/original/1X/a546447b83b63172a6d02b02d38788023185ea63.png) (Note no ARGS) ---
**Author:** ![ebender](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/e/34f0e0/32.png) [@ebender](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/u/ebender)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2019, 11:25pm UTC](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/que-feature-on-the-verb/366/29 "2019-11-05T23:25:33Z")
And the daughter of that rule? ---
**Author:** ![olzama](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/user_avatar/delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/olzama/32/6_2.png) [@olzama](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/u/olzama)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2019, 11:29pm UTC](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/que-feature-on-the-verb/366/30 "2019-11-05T23:29:27Z")
So I cannot find it in the mother, but if I look at the local AVM of the node in the tree (the head daughter), the QUE list is empty: ![46%20PM](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/uploads/default/original/1X/4e57f7d1f40282ec51753630b7ad81bd946814cd.png) ---
**Author:** ![olzama](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/user_avatar/delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/olzama/32/6_2.png) [@olzama](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/u/olzama)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2019, 11:33pm UTC](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/que-feature-on-the-verb/366/31 "2019-11-05T23:33:10Z")
…and the VP looks like the verb; QUE looks “healthy” in the sense that the thing on it is identified with something on its ARG-ST but I cannot determine whether it is empty or not. ---
**Author:** ![ebender](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/e/34f0e0/32.png) [@ebender](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/u/ebender)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2019, 1:08am UTC](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/que-feature-on-the-verb/366/32 "2019-11-06T01:08:29Z")
So the extracted subject phrase is manipulating QUE, perhaps? ---
**Author:** ![olzama](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/user_avatar/delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/olzama/32/6_2.png) [@olzama](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/u/olzama)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2019, 1:50am UTC](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/que-feature-on-the-verb/366/33 "2019-11-06T01:50:36Z")
It doesn’t look like that to me, although the head-filler phrase insists on a QUE-empty head daugher, I think: ```auto mc-wh-subj-phrase := basic-head-filler-phrase & interrogative-clause & head-final & [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT [ MC +, VAL #val, HEAD verb & [FORM finite] ], HEAD-DTR extracted-subj-phrase & [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT [ MC na, VAL #val & [ SUBJ < >, COMPS < > ] ] ], NON-HEAD-DTR.SYNSEM.NON-LOCAL.QUE ]. extracted-subj-phrase := basic-extracted-subj-phrase & [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT.HEAD verb, HEAD-DTR.SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT.VAL.COMPS < > ]. basic-extracted-subj-phrase := basic-extracted-arg-phrase & head-compositional & [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT.VAL [ SUBJ < >, SPR < >, COMPS < > ], HEAD-DTR.SYNSEM [ LOCAL.CAT [ VAL [ SUBJ < gap & [ LOCAL #local & local & [CONT.HOOK.INDEX ref-ind] ] >, COMPS olist ], MC na ], NON-LOCAL.SLASH.LIST < #local > ] ]. basic-extracted-arg-phrase := head-valence-phrase & head-only & [SYNSEM.LIGHT -]. basic-filler-phrase := binary-phrase & phrasal & [ SYNSEM [ LOCAL [ CAT [ VAL [ COMPS < >, SPR < > ], POSTHEAD + ] ], NON-LOCAL.SLASH 0-dlist ], ARGS < [ SYNSEM [ LOCAL #slash & local & [ CAT.VAL [ SUBJ olist, COMPS olist, SPR olist ], CTXT.ACTIVATED + ], NON-LOCAL.SLASH 0-dlist ] ], [SYNSEM [ LOCAL.CAT [ VAL.COMPS olist], NON-LOCAL [ SLASH 1-dlist & [ LIST [ FIRST #slash, REST < > & #last ], LAST #last ], QUE 0-dlist, REL 0-dlist ] ] ] > ]. ``` I am confused about how this could ever work, even with only one wh-word, if we expected all the QUEs to be gathered on the verb? I must be misunderstanding something. ---
**Author:** ![ebender](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/e/34f0e0/32.png) [@ebender](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/u/ebender)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2019, 5:48pm UTC](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/que-feature-on-the-verb/366/34 "2019-11-06T17:48:15Z")
Is it that extracted-subj is just failing to constrain the mother’s QUE at all? (If you do View | Grammar Rule for that rule you can check.) This would be compatible with QUE 0-dlist on the head-daughter of head-filler, but probably isn’t right… That is, just leaving it underspecified seems incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![olzama](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/user_avatar/delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/olzama/32/6_2.png) [@olzama](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/u/olzama)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2019, 7:24pm UTC](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/que-feature-on-the-verb/366/35 "2019-11-06T19:24:21Z")
Extracted subject seems to be saying: my QUE is my daughter’s QUE. This comes via _head-nexus-que_. (Also from looking at the grammar rule in the LKB). ---
**Author:** ![ebender](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/e/34f0e0/32.png) [@ebender](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/u/ebender)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2019, 9:17pm UTC](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/que-feature-on-the-verb/366/36 "2019-11-06T21:17:03Z")
Then repeat that step for the rule licensing the daughter. What does the rule definition for that one say? ---
**Author:** ![olzama](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/user_avatar/delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/olzama/32/6_2.png) [@olzama](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/u/olzama)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2019, 10:08pm UTC](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/que-feature-on-the-verb/366/37 "2019-11-06T22:08:50Z")
(Spoiler: perhaps the Bare-NP rule is to blame) The Head-Comp rule? Here’s the tree by the way: ![22%20PM](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/uploads/default/original/1X/fae801ae138efebbebe4fbff9e47b3dcaa60707f.png) So we have just examined the second (lower) S, licensed by the Subject-Extraction rule. Next in line is the Head-Complement rule. That one is saying: the mother’s QUE is the head daughter’s QUE. Then there is the lexical rule (tense) which seems to be saying: My NON-LOCAL features are my daughter’s NON-LOCAL features (that includes QUE). As for the complement, the bare NP rule does look like it is underspecifying the QUE: ![55%20PM](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/uploads/default/original/1X/848eab08a4652b2fdc655b18224ced7f23d013fd.png) Yes? (I am not sure why it is so because it is inheriting from head-valence-phrase which is a subtype of head-nexus-phrase, which should take care of the QUE…) ---
**Author:** ![ebender](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/e/34f0e0/32.png) [@ebender](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/u/ebender)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2019, 4:46pm UTC](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/que-feature-on-the-verb/366/38 "2019-11-07T16:46:37Z")
Can we back up at review the top-level question here? What are you trying to discover and why? ---
**Author:** ![olzama](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/user_avatar/delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/olzama/32/6_2.png) [@olzama](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/u/olzama)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2019, 4:55pm UTC](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/que-feature-on-the-verb/366/39 "2019-11-07T16:55:50Z")
I want to make sure that I get correct grammars (from the Matrix), specifically that the QUE feature is what I should expect, including on the verb. ---
**Author:** ![ebender](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/e/34f0e0/32.png) [@ebender](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/u/ebender)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2019, 2:08pm UTC](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/que-feature-on-the-verb/366/40 "2019-11-08T14:08:46Z")
Hi Olga – in talking with @sweaglesw yesterday I remembered a critical piece of what’s going on here: The whole point of the LOCAL/NON-LOCAL feature distinction. The QUE value of the extracted wh word is _not_ amalgamated into the QUE value of the verb, because the verb only sees its LOCAL features. Take a look at the type _gap_ — the thing that ends up on the verb’s ARG-ST if an argument-extraction rule applies. It should have a non-empty SLASH value, identified with its own LOCAL value, but empty QUE and REL. [Previous page](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/que-feature-on-the-verb/366.md?page=1) [Next page](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/que-feature-on-the-verb/366.md?page=3)