What should the ICONS look like in argument drop? (WAS: in a clausalmod sentence)

Grammar Matrix
#1

@trimblet pointed out on github that the way I added ICONS to some of the clausal modifier phrasal types is perhaps not yet fully working because the ICONS event variables are not otherwise present in the MRS (open in new tab if not scrollable/zoomable):

Screen Shot 2020-07-28 at 10.36.42 AM

I realized that I don’t actually know what should be happening here. This is the following Basque sentence:

Screen Shot 2020-07-28 at 10.38.12 AM
Screen Shot 2020-07-28 at 10.38.12 AM674×582 7.68 KB

I think it means something like When you finish the job, we go to dinner?

The ICONS in this one come from the two subject drops (the two lower S).

Should the ICONS e-variables be the finish and go e-variables?

If no: what should they be?

If yes: how do I achieve that?

Right now, the PP phrase, which is a unary phrase, simply says “my own ICONS are empty, and as I am a unary phrase, I will append the daughter’s ICONS to my own empty ones”. It does not say anything about anyone’s ICONS-KEY or CLAUSE-KEY. But by trying to modify that I managed to end up with finish and go sharing the e-variable, so, I need to understand what to do better.

1 Like
#2

Yes, I think they should be the finish and go intrinsic variables.

I don’t think the PP phrase matters here. If I’ve understood you correctly, the two ICONS are both introduced by the subject drop rule, so that rule is where the identification of the variable should happen.

#3

The PP was underspecified for ICONS before.

I am surprised that the argument drop rules are working incorrectly because they have always been there… I will look.

#4

I think the subject drop rule is working correctly…

basic-head-opt-subj-phrase := head-valence-phrase & head-only &
  [ INFLECTED #infl,
    SYNSEM canonical-synsem &
	      [ LOCAL.CAT [ VAL [ SUBJ < >,
				  COMPS #comps,
				  SPR #spr,
				  SPEC #spec ],
			    POSTHEAD #ph ],
		MODIFIED #mod ],
    HEAD-DTR [ INFLECTED #infl & infl-satisfied,
	       SYNSEM [ LOCAL [ CAT [ HEAD.MOD olist,
	       	      	      	      VAL [ SUBJ < unexpressed-reg &
						   [ OPT +,
						     LOCAL.CONT.HOOK [ INDEX #index & [ COG-ST in-foc ],
								       ICONS-KEY #ikey,
								       CLAUSE-KEY #ckey ] ] >,
					    COMPS #comps,
					    SPR #spr,
					    SPEC #spec ],
				      POSTHEAD #ph ],
				CONT.HOOK.INDEX event ],
			MODIFIED #mod ] ],
    C-CONT [ RELS.LIST < >,
	     HCONS.LIST < >,
	     ICONS.LIST < #ikey & non-focus & [ IARG1 #ckey,
					    IARG2 #index ] > ] ].

It creates some ICONS and it links the ICONS-KEY and CLAUSE-KEY to the event itself? Here’s the mother of the left subject drop (the one under the PP):

Screen Shot 2020-07-29 at 9.38.51 AM

The PP, I added empty ICONS so the append now works, but the ICONS-KEY and CLAUSE-KEY are still underspecified. I tried specifying them but I think I am confused about what should be happening.

Screen Shot 2020-07-29 at 9.40.38 AM
Screen Shot 2020-07-29 at 9.40.38 AM1412×892 12.8 KB

#5

I am confused about what to do here.

I tried this:

morphological-subord-clause-phrase := unary-phrase &
  [ SYNSEM.LOCAL [ CAT [ MC -,
                         VAL [ SUBJ #subj,
                               SPR < >,
                               COMPS < > ],
                         HEAD adp &
                              [ MOD < [ LOCAL scopal-mod &
                                              [ CAT [ HEAD verb,
                                                      VAL [ SPR < >,
                                                            COMPS < > ] ],
                                                CONT.HOOK [ LTOP #mcl,
                                                            INDEX #index ] ] ] > ] ],
                   COORD - ],
    C-CONT [ RELS.LIST < [ ARG1 #mch,
                           ARG2 #sch ] >,
             HCONS.LIST < qeq &
                          [ HARG #mch,
                            LARG #mcl ],
                          qeq &
                          [ HARG #sch,
                            LARG #scl ] >,
             ICONS 0-alist,
             HOOK [ INDEX #index,
                    ICONS-KEY #ikey ] ],
    ARGS < [ SYNSEM.LOCAL [ CAT [ HEAD verb,
                                  MC na-or-+,
                                  VAL [ SUBJ #subj,
                                        SPR < >,
                                        COMPS < > ] ],
                            CONT.HOOK [ LTOP #scl,
                                        ICONS-KEY #ikey ],
                            COORD - ] ] > ].

so, identifying the mother and the daughter’s ICONS-KEY. But that leads to the event variable being shared between the two events, e2 (and still no improvement in the ICONS e variables being connected to something):

Screen Shot 2020-07-29 at 3.04.56 PM
Screen Shot 2020-07-29 at 3.04.56 PM1942×352 209 KB

#6

Here’s the current PP sructure. Note index 6, twice on the mother’s HOOK and then highlighted as ARG0 of the finish relation. This seems to be what I want, no?.. But it then results in the weird MRS above.

Screen Shot 2020-07-29 at 3.15.34 PM

#7

If you remove the constraints you added on morphological-subord-clause-phrase and then look at its expanded type, is the ICONS-KEY already identified with something?

#8

No, I don’t think so; looks underspecified:

Screen Shot 2020-07-29 at 3.41.18 PM

#9

The #index is shared though, between the PP’s CCONT and the event that’s on its MOD list…

#10

I meant that the PP doesn’t matter for creating the ICONS. It still needs to have specified ICONS so that appends work. But if I’ve understood you correctly, the subject drop rule is the one that actually puts something non-empty on ICONS. (And the rule applies to both clauses, each time adding one element to the ICONS list.)

The ICONS element [non-focus] isn’t expanded so I can’t see whether it is pointing to the event. That’s where I think the missing re-entrancy is.

#11

Hmm. It looks like you are right but, given the TDL, I don’t understand why this is:

Screen Shot 2020-07-30 at 10.14.16 AM
Screen Shot 2020-07-30 at 10.14.16 AM1734×1364 126 KB

rules.tdl:

decl-head-opt-subj := decl-head-opt-subj-phrase.

matrix.tdl from this particular grammar (scroll down):

basic-head-opt-subj-phrase := head-valence-phrase & head-only &
  [ INFLECTED #infl,
    SYNSEM canonical-synsem &
	      [ LOCAL.CAT [ VAL [ SUBJ < >,
				  COMPS #comps,
				  SPR #spr,
				  SPEC #spec ],
			    POSTHEAD #ph ],
		MODIFIED #mod ],
    HEAD-DTR [ INFLECTED #infl & infl-satisfied,
	       SYNSEM [ LOCAL [ CAT [ HEAD.MOD olist,
	       	      	      	      VAL [ SUBJ < unexpressed-reg &
						   [ OPT +,
						     LOCAL.CONT.HOOK [ INDEX #index & [ COG-ST in-foc ],
								       ICONS-KEY #ikey,
								       CLAUSE-KEY #ckey ] ] >,
					    COMPS #comps,
					    SPR #spr,
					    SPEC #spec ],
				      POSTHEAD #ph ],
				CONT.HOOK.INDEX event ],
			MODIFIED #mod ] ],
    C-CONT [ RELS.LIST < >,
	     HCONS.LIST < >,
	     ICONS.LIST < #ikey & non-focus & [ IARG1 #ckey,
					    IARG2 #index ] > ] ].

; ERB 2007-01-21 Subtypes for declaratives and imperatives

decl-head-opt-subj-phrase := basic-head-opt-subj-phrase & declarative-clause &
  [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT.MC #mc,
    HEAD-DTR.SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT.MC #mc ].

Isn’t TDL correctly linking the event to the information structure?

#12

I’m not very familiar with how the values of ICONS-KEY and CLAUSE-KEY are propagated. But this rule identifies the ICONS element’s IARG1 with the dropped subject’s CLAUSE-KEY. Looking at the derived feature structure, it looks like it should be the head daughter’s own CLAUSE-KEY.

2 Likes
#13

Yay!

Screen Shot 2020-07-30 at 3.04.37 PM

So I changed the type as so:

basic-head-opt-subj-phrase := head-valence-phrase & head-only &
  [ INFLECTED #infl,
    SYNSEM canonical-synsem &
	      [ LOCAL [ CAT [ VAL [ SUBJ < >,
				  COMPS #comps,
				  SPR #spr,
				  SPEC #spec ],
			    POSTHEAD #ph ],
		             CONT.HOOK [ ICONS-KEY #ikey, CLAUSE-KEY #ckey ] ],
		     MODIFIED #mod ],
    HEAD-DTR [ INFLECTED #infl & infl-satisfied,
	       SYNSEM [ LOCAL [ CAT [ HEAD.MOD olist,
	       	      	      	      VAL [ SUBJ < unexpressed-reg &
						   [ OPT +,
						     LOCAL.CONT.HOOK [ INDEX #index & [ COG-ST in-foc ],
								       ICONS-KEY #ikey,
								       CLAUSE-KEY #ckey ] ] >,
					    COMPS #comps,
					    SPR #spr,
					    SPEC #spec ],
				      POSTHEAD #ph ],
				CONT.HOOK.INDEX event ],
			MODIFIED #mod ] ],
    C-CONT [ RELS.LIST < >,
	     HCONS.LIST < >,
	     ICONS.LIST < #ikey & non-focus & [ IARG1 #ckey,
					    IARG2 #index ] > ] ].
1 Like
#14

fwiw it looks like some other tests have this problem too, e.g. evidentials-infl-aux-kaz.

#15

Yes. It is the argument drop rule issue, not a clausal mod issue (as it turns out).

#16

So the question then is, what should happen when there is both a subject drop and an object drop in a sentence.

Consider the following pseudo-Lakota sentence from a valence change regression test (valchg-lkt):

1SgAgt-2SgPat-ičháGA-CAUS

It should be associated with this sort of tree:

Screen Shot 2020-07-31 at 10.26.40 AM

The top two nodes are head-opt-comp and head-opt-subj, respectively.

I have now changed the head-opt-subj rule as follows, to get proper ICONS:

basic-head-opt-subj-phrase := head-valence-phrase & head-only &
  [ INFLECTED #infl,
    SYNSEM canonical-synsem &
	      [ LOCAL [ CAT [ VAL [ SUBJ < >,
				  COMPS #comps,
				  SPR #spr,
				  SPEC #spec ],
			    POSTHEAD #ph ],
		             CONT.HOOK [ ICONS-KEY #ikey,
		                         CLAUSE-KEY #ckey ] ],
		     MODIFIED #mod ],
    HEAD-DTR [ INFLECTED #infl & infl-satisfied,
	       SYNSEM [ LOCAL [ CAT [ HEAD.MOD olist,
	       	      	      	      VAL [ SUBJ < unexpressed-reg &
						   [ OPT +,
						     LOCAL.CONT.HOOK [ INDEX #index & [ COG-ST in-foc ] ] ] >,
					    COMPS #comps,
					    SPR #spr,
					    SPEC #spec ],
				      POSTHEAD #ph ],
				CONT.HOOK.INDEX event ],
			MODIFIED #mod ] ],
    C-CONT [ RELS.LIST < >,
	     HCONS.LIST < >,
	     ICONS.LIST < #ikey & non-focus & [ IARG1 #ckey,
					    IARG2 #index ] > ] ].

This gives me one good set of ICONS (e2-x3)but the one that should be associated with the dropped complement will still be disconnected (the e8-x6):

Screen Shot 2020-07-31 at 10.29.02 AM

However it does not seem that the solution is to change the head-opt-comp rule in the same way because these appear to be two different events, at least in this case, because this is valence change (?)…

Should the argument drop rules in fact be doing an explicit append to their head daughter’s ICONS, somehow?

#17

Hmm no I think it is actually probably the causing that drops both arguments, so, should be the same event, e2.

#18

And, inspecting the basic-head-opt-comp phrase, what goes on its C-CONT.ICONS is already the APPEND of the ICONS on its CONT… So it should work, really, hmm.

#19

The failure I get trying to feed the mother of head-opt-comp as the daughter of head-opt-subj is the following:

Screen Shot 2020-07-31 at 11.39.33 AM

So, I confused it somehow about what’s the subject what’s the object.

#20

I think this may be a valence change issue specifically. I believe that in other cases, e.g. in clausalmods-lavukaleve, this is working correctly, meaning both the subject and the object can be dropped and both ICONS items are present in the end and linked properly. But with valence change, there is this problem with the items, well, changing valence (and I am as of now still confused how to fix it). But if it is just valence change, then it may be a separate bug.

1 Like