Type definition for basic-head-comp-phrase


#1

In at least one analysis, I need to have the head-comp phrase pass up the SPEC value of its head daughter. In matrix.tdl, basic-head-comp-phrase (copied below) passes up the SUBJ and SPR values of the head daughter, but not SPEC values. I can add this in where needed, but I’m curious why this one isn’t included. Changing it manually in matrix.tdl doesn’t cause any regression tests to crash, so I’m not easily able to see the reasoning.

basic-head-comp-phrase := head-valence-phrase & head-compositional & binary-headed-phrase &
[ SYNSEM phr-synsem-min & [ LOCAL.CAT [ VAL [ SUBJ #subj,
SPR #spr ],
POSTHEAD #ph,
HC-LIGHT #light],
LIGHT #light ],
HEAD-DTR.SYNSEM [ LOCAL.CAT [ VAL [ SUBJ #subj,
SPR #spr ],
HC-LIGHT #light,
POSTHEAD #ph ]],
NON-HEAD-DTR.SYNSEM canonical-synsem,
C-CONT [ RELS <! !>, HCONS <! !>, ICONS <! !> ] ].


#2

My guess is that this is a hold-over from the ERG. Dan uses head-spec in various ways, and it’s just possible that some variant of head-comp produces something that needs a different SPEC value from the head daughter. It’s also possible that there are no things that serve as specifiers in English that can themselves take complements, and so he never found the need to copy it up! Please go ahead and make it work for you :slight_smile: