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

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.

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.

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):

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

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?

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

Screen Shot 2020-07-29 at 3.41.18 PM

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

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.

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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

Except… It may still be an issue with specifying the argument drop rules because now there is this asymmetry:

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 ] > ] ].

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

I only changed how the subject drop rule works and left the object drop rule as it was. It happens to bring improvements to the tests we have (partial, in case with valchg-lkt), but this kind of asymmetry can’t be right can it? They should be doing a similar thing? But I can’t simply make them do a similar thing (as explained above; I start losing parses at that point).

This is this guthub issue.