Q: What was the meeting about?
Text: Grad B: what things to talk about .
Grad F: I 'm {disfmarker} What ? Really ? Oh , that 's horrible ! Disincentive !
Grad A: OK , we 're recording .
Grad F: Hello ?
Grad B: Check check {pause} check check .
Grad D: Uh , yeah .
Grad F: Hello ? Which am I ?
Professor C: Oh right .
Grad B: Alright . Good .
Grad F: Channel fi OK . OK . Are you doing something ? OK , then I guess I 'm doing something . So , um , So basically the result of m much thinking since the last time we met , um , but not as much writing , um , is a sheet that I have a lot of , like , thoughts and justification of comments on but I 'll just pass out as is right now . So , um , here . If you could pass this around ? And there 's two things . And so one on one side is {disfmarker} on one side is a sort of the revised sort of updated semantic specification .
Grad D: Um {disfmarker} The {disfmarker} wait .
Grad F: And the other side is , um , sort of a revised construction formalism .
Grad E: This is just one sheet , right ?
Grad D: Ah ! Just one sheet .
Grad F: It 's just one sheet .
Grad D: OK .
Grad F: It 's just a {disfmarker} Nothing else .
Grad D: Front , back .
Grad F: Um , Enough to go around ? OK . And in some ways it 's {disfmarker} it 's {disfmarker} it 's very similar to {disfmarker} There are very few changes in some ways from what we 've , um , uh , b done before but I don't think everyone here has seen all of this . So , uh , I 'm not sure where to begin . Um , as usual the disclaimers are there are {disfmarker} all these things are {disfmarker} it 's only slightly more stable than it was before .
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Grad F: And , um , after a little bit more discussion and especially like Keith and I {disfmarker} I have more linguistic things to settle in the next few days , um , it 'll probably change again some more .
Grad E: Yeah .
Grad F: Um , maybe I will {disfmarker} let 's start b let 's start on number two actually on the notation , um , because that 's , I 'm thinking , possibly a little more familiar to , um {disfmarker} to people . OK , so the top block is just sort of a {disfmarker} sort of abstract nota it 's sort of like , um , listings of the kinds of things that we can have . And certain things that have , um , changed , have changed back to this . There {disfmarker} there 's been a little bit of , um , going back and forth . But basically obviously all constructions have some kind of name . I forgot to include that you could have a type included in this line .
Professor C: What I was gonna {disfmarker} Right .
Grad F: So something like , um {disfmarker} Well , there 's an example {disfmarker} the textual example at the end has clausal construction . So , um , just to show it doesn't have to be beautiful It could be , you know , simple old text as well . Um , there are a couple of {disfmarker} Uh , these three have various ways of doing certain things . So I 'll just try to go through them . So they could all have a type at the beginning . Um , and then they say the key word construction
Professor C: Oh , I see .
Grad F: and they have some name .
Professor C: So {disfmarker} so the current syntax is if it s if there 's a type it 's before construct
Grad F: Yeah , right .
Professor C: OK , that 's fine .
Grad F: OK , and then it has a block that is constituents . And as usual I guess all the constructions her all the examples here have only , um , tsk {comment} one type of constituent , that is a constructional constituent . I think that 's actually gonna turn out to m be certainly the most common kind . But in general instead of the word " construct " , th here you might have " meaning " or " form " as well . OK ? So if there 's some element that doesn't {disfmarker} that isn't yet constructional in the sense that it maps form and meaning . OK , um , the main change with the constructs which {disfmarker} each of which has , um , the key word " construct " and then some name , and then some type specification , is that it 's {disfmarker} it 's pro it 's often {disfmarker} sometimes the case in the first case here that you know what kind of construction it is . So for example whatever I have here is gonna be a form of the word " throw " , or it 's gonna be a form of the word , you know , I don't know , " happy " , or something like that . Or , you know , some it 'll be a specific word or maybe you 'll have the type . You 'll say " I need a p uh spatial relation phrase here " or " I need a directional specifier here " . So - uh you could have a j a actual type here . Um , or you could just say in the second case that you only know the meaning type . So a very common example of this is that , you know , in directed motion , the first person to do something should be an agent of some kind , often a human . Right ? So if I {disfmarker} you know , the um , uh , run down the street then I {disfmarker} I {disfmarker} I run down the street , it 's typed , uh , " I " , meaning category is what 's there . The {disfmarker} the new kind is this one that is sort of a pair and , um , sort of skipping fonts and whatever . The idea is that sometimes there are , um , general constructions that you know , that you 're going to need . It 's {disfmarker} it 's the equivalent of a noun phrase or a prepositional phrase , or something like that there .
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Grad F: And usually it has formal um , considerations that will go along with it .
Professor C: Mm - hmm .
Grad F: And then uh , you might know something much more specific depending on what construction you 're talking about , about what meaning {disfmarker} what specific meaning you want . So the example again at the bottom , which is directed motion , you might need a nominal expression to take the place of , you know , um , " the big th " , you you know , " the big {disfmarker} the tall dark man " , you know , " walked into the room " .
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Grad F: But because of the nature of this particular construction you know not just that it 's nominal of some kind but in particular , that it 's some kind of animate nominal , and which will apply just as well to like , you know , a per you know , a simple proper noun or to some complicated expression . Um , so I don't know if the syntax will hold but something that gives you a way to do both constructional and meaning types . So . OK , then I don't think the , {comment} um {disfmarker} at least {disfmarker} Yeah . {comment} None of these examples have anything different for formal constraints ? But you can refer to any of the , um , sort of available elements and scope , right ? which here are the constructs , {comment} to say something about the relation . And I think i if you not if you compare like the top block and the textual block , um , we dropped like the little F subscript . The F subscripts refer to the " form " piece of the construct .
Professor C: Good .
Grad F: And I think that , um , in general it 'll be unambiguous . Like if you were giving a formal constraint then you 're referring to the formal pole of that . So {disfmarker} so by saying {disfmarker} if I just said " Name one " then that means name one formal and we 're talking about formal struc {comment} Which {disfmarker} which makes sense . Uh , there are certain times when we 'll have an exception to that , in which case you could just indicate " here I mean the meaningful for some reason " . Right ? Or {disfmarker} Actually it 's more often that , only to handle this one special case of , you know , " George and Jerry walk into the room in that order " .
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Grad F: So we have a few funny things where something in the meaning might refer to something in the form . But {disfmarker} but s we 're not gonna really worry about that for right now and there are way We can be more specific if we have to later on . OK , and so in terms of the {disfmarker} the relations , you know , as usual they 're before and ends . I should have put an example in of something that isn't an interval relation but in form you might also have a value binding . You know , you could say that , um , you know , " name - one dot " , t you know , " number equals " , you know , a plural or something like that .
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Grad F: There are certain things that are attribute - value , similar to the bindings below but I mean they 're just {disfmarker} us usually they 're going to be value {disfmarker} value fillers , right ? OK , and then again semantic constraints here are just {disfmarker} are just bindings . There was talk of changing the name of that . And Johno and I {disfmarker} I {disfmarker} you {disfmarker} you and I can like fight about that if you like ? but about changing it to " semantic {pause} n effects " , which I thought was a little bit too order - biased
Grad B: Well {disfmarker} Th
Grad F: and " semantic bindings " , which I thought might be too restrictive in case we don't have only bindings . And so it was an issue whether constraints {disfmarker} um , there were some linguists who reacted against " constraints " , saying , " oh , if it 's not used for matching , then it shouldn't be called a constraint " . But I think we want to be uncommitted about whether it 's used for matching or not . Right ? Cuz there are {disfmarker} I think we thought of some situations where it would be useful to use whatever the c bindings are , for actual , you know , sort of like modified constraining purposes .
Professor C: Well , you definitely want to de - couple the formalism from the parsing strategy . So that whether or not it 's used for matching or only for verification , I {disfmarker}
Grad E: Yeah .
Grad F: Yeah , yeah . It 's used shouldn't matter , right ? Mm - hmm .
Professor C: s For sure . I mean , I don't know what , uh , term we want to use
Grad F: Mm - hmm .
Professor C: but we don't want to {disfmarker}
Grad F: Yeah , uh , there was one time when {disfmarker} when Hans explained why " constraints " was a misleading word for him .
Professor C: Yep .
Grad F: And I think the reason that he gave was similar to the reason why Johno thought it was a misleading term , which was just an interesting coincidence . Um , but , uh {disfmarker} And so I was like , " OK , well both of you don't like it ?
Professor C: It 's g it 's gone .
Grad F: Fine , we can change it " . But I {disfmarker} I {disfmarker} I 'm starting to like it again .
Grad B: But {disfmarker}
Grad F: So that that 's why {disfmarker} {comment} That 's why I 'll stick with it .
Grad A: Well , you know what ?
Grad F: So {disfmarker}
Grad A: If you have an " if - then " phrase , do you know what the " then " phrase is called ?
Professor C: Th
Grad F: What ? Con - uh , a consequent ?
Grad A: Yeah .
Grad F: Yeah , but it 's not an " if - then " .
Grad A: No , but {disfmarker}
Professor C: I know . Anyway , so the other {disfmarker} the other strategy you guys could consider is when you don't know what word to put , you could put no word ,
Grad F: Mm - hmm .
Professor C: just meaning . OK ? And the then let {disfmarker}
Grad E: Yeah .
Grad F: Yeah , that 's true .
Grad B: So that 's why you put semantic constraints up top and meaning bindings down {disfmarker} down here ?
Grad F: Oh , oops ! No . That was just a mistake of cut and paste from when I was going with it .
Grad B: OK .
Professor C: OK .
Grad F: So , I 'm sorry . I didn't mean {disfmarker} that one 's an in unintentional .
Grad B: So this should be semantic and {disfmarker}
Grad F: Sometimes I 'm intentionally inconsistent
Grad B: 
Grad F: cuz I 'm not sure yet . Here , I actually {disfmarker} it was just a mistake .
Grad B: Th - so this definitely should be " semantic constraints " down at the bottom ?
Grad E: Sure .
Grad F: Yeah .
Grad B: OK .
Grad F: Well , unless I go with " meaning " but i I mean , I kind of like " meaning " better than " semantic "
Grad B: Or {disfmarker}
Professor C: Oh , whatever .
Grad F: but I think there 's {pause} vestiges of other people 's biases .
Professor C: Or {disfmarker} wh That - b
Grad F: Like {disfmarker}
Professor C: Right . Minor {disfmarker} min problem {disfmarker}
Grad F: Minor point .
Professor C: OK .
Grad E: Extremely .
Grad F: OK , um , so I think the middle block doesn't really give you any more information , ex than the top block . And the bottom block similarly only just illus you know , all it does is illustrate that you can drop the subscripts and {disfmarker} and that you can drop the , um {disfmarker} uh , that you can give dual types . Oh , one thing I should mention is about " designates " . I think I 'm actually inconsistent across these as well . So , um , strike out the M subscript on the middle block .
Professor C: Mm - hmm .
Grad F: So basically now , um , this is actually {disfmarker} this little change actually goes along with a big linguistic change , which is that " designates " isn't only something for the semantics to worry about now .
Professor C: Good .
Grad F: So we want s " designates " to actually know one of the constituents which acts like a head in some respects but is sort of , um , really important for say composition later on . So for instance , if some other construction says , you know , " are you of type {disfmarker} is this part of type whatever " , um , the " designates " tells you which sort of part is the meaning part . OK , so if you have like " the big red ball " , you know , you wanna know if there 's an object or a noun . Well , ball is going to be the designated sort of element of that kind of phrase .
Grad E: Mmm .
Grad F: Um , there is a slight complication here which is that when we talk about form it 's useful sometimes to talk about , um {disfmarker} to talk about there also being a designated object and we think that that 'll be the same one , right ? So the ball is the head of the phrase , " the r the {disfmarker} " , um , " big red ball " , and the entity denoted by the word " ball " is sort of the semantic head in some ways of {disfmarker} of this sort of , um , in interesting larger element .
Professor C: A a and the {disfmarker} Yeah . And there 's {disfmarker} uh there 's ca some cases where the grammar depends on some form property of the head . And {disfmarker} and this enables you to get that , if I understand you right .
Grad E: Yeah .
Grad F: Mm - hmm .
Grad E: Yeah .
Grad F: Right , right .
Grad E: That 's the idea .
Professor C: Yeah yeah .
Grad E: Yeah .
Grad F: And , uh , you might be able to say things like if the head has to go last in a head - final language , you can refer to the head as a p the , you know {disfmarker} the formal head as opposed to the rest of the form having to be at the end of that decision .
Professor C: Right .
Grad F: So that 's a useful thing so that you can get some internal structural constraints in .
Professor C: OK , so that all looks good . Let me {disfmarker} Oh , w Oh . I don't know . Were you finished ?
Grad F: Um , there was a list of things that isn't included but you {disfmarker} you can {disfmarker} you can ask a question . That might @ @ it .
Professor C: OK . So , i if I understand this the {disfmarker} aside from , uh , construed and all that sort of stuff , the {disfmarker} the differences are mainly that , {vocalsound} we 've gone to the possibility of having form - meaning pairs for a type
Grad F: Mm - hmm .
Professor C: or actually gone back to ,
Grad F: Right .
Professor C: if we go back far enough {disfmarker}
Grad F: Well , except for their construction meaning , so it 's not clear that , uh {disfmarker} Well , right now it 's a c uh contr construction type and meaning type . So I don't know what a form type is .
Professor C: Oh , I see . Yeah , yeah , yeah . I 'm sorry , you 're right .
Grad F: Yeah .
Professor C: A construction type . Uh , that 's fine . But it , um {disfmarker}
Grad F: Right . A well , and a previous , um , you know , version of the notation certainly allowed you to single out the meaning bit by it . So you could say " construct of type whatever designates something " .
Professor C: Yeah .
Grad F: But that was mostly for reference purposes , just to refer to the meaning pole . I don't think that it was often used to give an extra meaning const type constraint on the meaning , which is really what we want most of the time I think .
Professor C: Mm - hmm .
Grad F: Um , I {disfmarker} I don't know if we 'll ever have a case where we actually h if there is a form category constraint , you could imagine having a triple there that says , you know {disfmarker} that 's kind of weird .
Professor C: No , no , no , I don't think so . I think that you 'll {disfmarker} you 'll do fine .
Grad E: I {disfmarker}
Professor C: In fact , these are , um , as long as {disfmarker} as Mark isn't around , these are form constraints . So a nominal expression is {disfmarker} uh , the fact that it 's animate , is semantic . The fact that it 's n uh , a nominal expression I would say on most people 's notion of {disfmarker} of f you know , higher form types , this i this is one .
Grad F: Mm - hmm .
Grad E: Yeah .
Grad F: Right , right .
Professor C: And I think that 's just fine .
Grad E: Yeah , yeah .
Grad F: Which is fine , yeah .
Professor C: Yeah .
Grad E: It 's {disfmarker} that now , um , I 'm mentioned this , I {disfmarker} I don't know if I ever explained this but the point of , um , I mentioned in the last meeting , {comment} the point of having something called " nominal expression " is , um , because it seems like having the verb subcategorize for , you know , like say taking as its object just some expression which , um , designates an object or designates a thing , or whatever , um , that leads to some syntactic problems basically ? So you wanna , you know {disfmarker} you sort of have this problem like " OK , well , I 'll put the word " , uh , let 's say , the word " dog " , you know . And that has to come right after the verb
Grad F: Mm - hmm .
Grad E: cuz we know verb meets its object . And then we have a construction that says , oh , you can have " the " preceding a noun . And so you 'd have this sort of problem that the verb has to meet the designatum .
Professor C: Right .
Grad E: And you could get , you know , " the kicked dog " or something like that , meaning " kicked the dog " .
Professor C: Right .
Grad E: Um , so you kind of have to let this phrase idea in there
Professor C: That I {disfmarker} I have no problem with it at all .
Grad E: but {disfmarker} It - it
Professor C: I think it 's fine .
Grad E: Yeah .
Grad F: Yeah . Right , n s you may be {disfmarker} you may not be like everyone else in {disfmarker} in Berkeley ,
Grad E: Yeah . Yeah .
Grad F: but that 's OK .
Grad E: I mean , we {disfmarker} we {disfmarker} we sort of thought we were getting away with , uh {disfmarker} with , a p
Grad F: Uh , we don't mind either , so {disfmarker}
Grad E: I mean , this is not reverting to the X - bar theory of {disfmarker} of phrase structure .
Professor C: Right .
Grad E: But , uh ,
Grad F: Right .
Grad E: I just know that this is {disfmarker} Like , we didn't originally have in mind that , uh {disfmarker} that verbs would subcategorize for a particular sort of form .
Grad F: Mm - hmm .
Professor C: But they do .
Grad E: Um , but they does .
Grad F: Well , there 's an alternative to this
Grad E: At least in English .
Grad F: which is , um {disfmarker} The question was did we want directed motion ,
Professor C: Yeah .
Grad F: which is an argument structure construction {disfmarker}
Professor C: Mm - hmm .
Grad E: Yeah .
Grad F: did we want it to worry about , um , anything more than the fact that it , you know , has semantic {disfmarker} You know , it 's sort of frame - based construction . So one option that , you know , Keith had mentioned also was like , well if you have more abstract constructions such as subject , predicate , basically things like grammatical relations ,
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Grad F: those could intersect with these in such a way that subject , predicate , or subject , predicate , subject , verb , ob you know , verb object would require that those things that f fill a subject and object are NOM expressions .
Professor C: Right .
Grad F: And that would be a little bit cleaner in some way . But you know , for now , I mean ,
Professor C: Yeah . But it {disfmarker} y y it 's {disfmarker} yeah , just moving it {disfmarker} moving the c the cons the constraints around .
Grad F: uh , you know . M moving it to another place , right .
Grad E: Yeah .
Professor C: OK , so that 's {disfmarker}
Grad F: But there does {disfmarker} basically , the point is there has to be that constraint somewhere , right ?
Professor C: Right .
Grad F: So , yeah .
Professor C: And so that was the {disfmarker}
Grad F: Robert 's not happy now ?
Grad A: No !
Grad F: Oh , OK .
Professor C: OK , and sort of going with that is that the designatum also now is a pair .
Grad F: Yes .
Professor C: Instead of just the meaning .
Grad F: Mm - hmm .
Professor C: And that aside from some terminology , that 's basically it .
Grad F: Right .
Professor C: I just want to b I 'm {disfmarker} I 'm asking .
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Grad F: Yep .
Grad E: Yeah .
Grad F: Yeah , um , the un sort of the un - addressed questions in this , um , definitely would for instance be semantic constraints we talked about .
Professor C: Yeah .
Grad F: Here are just bindings but , right ? we might want to introduce mental spaces {disfmarker} You know , there 's all these things that we don't {disfmarker}
Professor C: The whole {disfmarker} the mental space thing is clearly not here .
Grad F: Right ? So there 's going to be some extra {disfmarker} you know , definitely other notation we 'll need for that which we skip for now .
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Professor C: By the way , I do want to get on that as soon as Robert gets back .
Grad F: Uh Yeah .
Professor C: So , uh , the {disfmarker} the mental space thing .
Grad F: OK .
Professor C: Um , obviously , {vocalsound} construal is a b is a b is a big component of that
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Professor C: so this probably not worth trying to do anything till he gets back . But sort of as soon as he gets back I think um , we ought to {disfmarker}
Grad F: Mm - hmm . Mm - hmm .
Grad E: So what 's the {disfmarker} what 's the time frame ? I forgot again when you 're going away for how long ?
Grad A: Just , uh , as a {disfmarker} sort of a mental bridge , I 'm not {disfmarker} I 'm skipping fourth of July . So , uh , {vocalsound} right afterwards I 'm back .
Grad E: OK . OK .
Grad F: What ? You 're missing like the premier American holiday ? What 's the point of spending a year here ?
Grad A: Uh , I 've had it often enough .
Grad F: So , anyway .
Grad B: Well he w he went to college here .
Grad F: Oh , yeah , I forgot . Oops . {comment} Sorry .
Professor C: Yeah .
Grad F: OK .
Professor C: And furthermore it 's well worth missing .
Grad F: Not in California .
Grad E: Yes .
Grad F: Yeah , that 's true . I like {disfmarker} I {disfmarker} I like spending fourth of July in other countries , {vocalsound} whenever I can .
Professor C: Right .
Grad F: Um {disfmarker}
Professor C: OK , so that 's great .
Grad F: Construal , OK , so {disfmarker} Oh , so there was one question that came out . I hate this thing . Sorry . Um , which is , so something like " past " which i you know , we think is a very simple {disfmarker} uh , we 've often just stuck it in as a feature ,
Professor C: Right . Right .
Grad F: you know , " oh , {pause} this event takes place before speech time " , {comment} OK , is what this means . Um , it 's often thought of as {disfmarker} it is also considered a mental space ,
Professor C: Right .
Grad F: you know , by , you know , lots of people around here .
Professor C: Right .
Grad F: So there 's this issue of well sometimes there are really exotic explicit space builders that say " in France , blah - blah - blah " ,
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Grad F: and you have to build up {disfmarker} you ha you would imagine that would require you , you know , to be very specific about the machinery , whereas past is a very conventionalized one and we sort of know what it means but it {disfmarker} we doesn't {disfmarker} don't necessarily want to , you know , unload all the notation every time we see that it 's past tense .
Professor C: Right .
Grad F: So , you know , we could think of our {disfmarker} uh , just like X - schema " walk " refers to this complicated structure , past refers to , you know , a certain configuration of this thing with respect to it .
Professor C: I think that 's exactly right .
Grad F: So {disfmarker} so we 're kind of like having our cake and eating it {disfmarker}
Professor C: Yeah .
Grad F: you know , having it both ways , right ?
Professor C: Yeah . {pause} No , I think {disfmarker} I think that i we 'll have to see how it works out when we do the details
Grad F: So , i i Mm - hmm .
Professor C: but my intuition would be that that 's right .
Grad F: Mm - hmm . Yeah , OK .
Grad A: Do you want to do the same for space ?
Grad F: Wha - sorry ?
Grad A: Space ?
Grad F: Space ?
Grad A: Here ? Now ?
Grad F: Oh , oh , oh , oh , instead of just time ?
Grad A: Mm - hmm .
Grad F: Yeah , yeah , yeah . Same thing . So there are very conventionalized like deictic ones , right ? And then I think for other spaces that you introduce , you could just attach y whatever {disfmarker}
Grad A: Hmm .
Grad F: You could build up an appropriately {disfmarker} uh , appropriate structure according to the l the sentence .
Professor C: Yeah .
Grad A: Hmm , well this {disfmarker} this basically would involve everything you can imagine to fit under your C dot something {disfmarker}
Grad E: N
Grad A: you know , where {disfmarker} where it 's contextually dependent ,
Grad F: Yeah . Right .
Grad A: " what is now , what was past ,
Grad F: Mm - hmm .
Grad A: what is in the future , where is this , what is here , what is there , what is {disfmarker} "
Grad F: Mm - hmm . Yeah . So time and space . Um , we 'll {disfmarker} we 'll get that on the other side a little , like very minimally . There 's a sort of there 's a slot for setting time and setting place .
Professor C: Good .
Grad F: And you know , you could imagine for both of those are absolute things you could say about the time and place , and then there are many in more interestingly , linguistically anyway , {comment} there are relative things that , you know , you relate the event in time and space to where you are now . If there 's something a lot more complicated like , or so {disfmarker} hypothetical or whatever , then you have to do your job ,
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Grad F: like or somebody 's job anyway .
Grad E: Yeah .
Grad F: I 'm gonna point to {disfmarker} at random .
Grad E: Yeah . I mean , I 'm {disfmarker} I 'm s curious about how much of the mental {disfmarker} I mean , I 'm not sure that the formalism , sort of the grammatical side of things , {comment} is gonna have that much going on in terms of the mental space stuff . You know , um , basically all of these so - called space builders that are in the sentence are going to sort of {disfmarker} I think of it as , sort of giving you the coordinates of , you know {disfmarker} assuming that at any point in discourse there 's the possibility that we could be sort of talking about a bunch of different world scenarios , whatever , and the speaker 's supposed to be keeping track of those . The , um {disfmarker} the construction that you actually get is just gonna sort of give you a cue as to which one of those that you 've already got going , um , you 're supposed to add structure to .
Grad F: Mm - hmm .
Grad E: So " in France , uh , Watergate wouldn't have hurt Nixon " or something like that . Um , well , you say , " alright , I 'm supposed to add some structure to my model of this hypothetical past France universe " or something like that . The information in the sentence tells you that much but it doesn't tell you like exactly what it {disfmarker} what the point of doing so is . So for example , depending on the linguistic con uh , context it could be {disfmarker} like the question is for example , what does " Watergate " refer to there ? Does it , you know {disfmarker} does it refer to , um {disfmarker} if you just hear that sentence cold , the assumption is that when you say " Watergate " you 're referring to " a Watergate - like scandal as we might imagine it happening in France " . But in a different context , " oh , you know , if Nixon had apologized right away it wouldn't {disfmarker} you know , Watergate wouldn't have hurt him so badly in the US and in France it wouldn't have hurt him at all " . Now we 're s now that " Watergate " {disfmarker} we 're now talking about the real one ,
Grad F: They 're real , right .
Grad E: and the " would " sort of {disfmarker} it 's a sort of different dimension of hypothe - theticality , right ? We 're not saying {disfmarker} What 's hypothetical about this world .
Grad F: I see {disfmarker} right .
Grad E: In the first case , hypothetically we 're imagining that Watergate happened in France .
Grad F: Hmm .
Grad E: In the second case we 're imagining hypothetically that Nixon had apologized right away
Grad F: Mm - hmm .
Grad E: or something . Right ?
Grad F: Right .
Grad E: So a lot of this isn't happening at the grammatical level .
Professor C: Correct .
Grad E: Uh , um , and so {disfmarker}
Grad F: Mm - hmm .
Grad E: I don't know where that sits then ,
Grad A: Hmm .
Grad E: sort of the idea of sorting out what the person meant .
Grad F: It seems like , um , the grammatical things such as the auxiliaries that you know introduce these conditionals , whatever , give you sort of the {disfmarker} the most basi
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Grad F: th those we {disfmarker} I think we can figure out what the possibilities are , right ?
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Grad F: There are sort of a relatively limited number . And then how they interact with some extra thing like " in France " or " if such - and - such " , that 's like there are certain ways that they c they can {disfmarker}
Grad E: Yeah .
Grad F: You know , one is a more specific version of the general pattern that the grammat grammar gives you .
Grad E: Yeah .
Grad F: I think . But , you know , whatever ,
Professor C: Yeah , in the short run all we need is a enough mechanism on the form side to get things going .
Grad F: we {disfmarker} we 're {disfmarker}
Grad E: Mm - hmm . Yeah .
Professor C: Uh , I {disfmarker} uh , you {disfmarker} you {disfmarker}
Grad E: But the whole point of {disfmarker} the whole point of what Fauconnier and Turner have to say about , uh , mental spaces , and blending , and all that stuff is that you don't really get that much out of the sentence . You know , there 's not that much information contained in the sentence . It just says , " Here . Add this structure to this space . " and exactly what that means for the overall ongoing interpretation is quite open . An individual sentence could mean a hundred different things depending on , quote , " what the space configuration is at the time of utterance " .
Grad F: Mm - hmm . Mm - hmm .
Grad E: And so somebody 's gonna have to be doing a whole lot of work but not me , I think .
Professor C: Well {disfmarker} I think that 's right . Oh , I {disfmarker} yeah , I , uh , uh {disfmarker} I think that 's {disfmarker} Not k I th I don't think it 's completely right . I mean , in fact a sentence examples you gave in f did constrain the meaning b the form did constrain the meaning ,
Grad E: Yeah .
Professor C: and so , um , it isn't , uh {disfmarker}
Grad E: Sure , but like what {disfmarker} what was the point of saying that sentence about Nixon and France ? That is not {disfmarker} there is nothing about that in the {disfmarker} in the sentence really .
Grad F: That 's OK . We usually don't know the point of the sentence at all .
Grad E: Yeah .
Grad F: But we know what it 's trying to say .
Professor C: Yeah .
Grad E: Y yeah .
Grad F: We {disfmarker} we know that it 's {disfmarker} what predication it 's setting up .
Professor C: But {disfmarker} but {disfmarker} bottom line , I agree with you ,
Grad E: Yeah .
Grad F: That 's all .
Professor C: that {disfmarker} that {disfmarker} that we 're not expecting much out of the , uh f
Grad E: Yeah .
Grad F: Purely linguistic cues , right ?
Professor C: uh , the purely form cues , yeah .
Grad F: So .
Professor C: And , um {disfmarker} I mean , you 're {disfmarker} you 're the linguist
Grad F: Mmm .
Professor C: but , uh , it seems to me that th these {disfmarker} we {disfmarker} we {disfmarker} you know , we 've talked about maybe a half a dozen linguistics theses in the last few minutes or something .
Grad E: Yeah , yeah .
Professor C: Yeah , I mean {disfmarker}
Grad E: Yeah . Oh , yeah .
Professor C: uh , I {disfmarker} I mean , that {disfmarker} that 's my feeling that {disfmarker} that these are really hard uh , problems that decide exactly what {disfmarker} what 's going on .
Grad E: Mm - hmm . Yeah . Yeah .
Professor C: OK .
Grad F: OK , so , um , one other thing I just want to point out is there 's a lot of confusion about the terms like " profile , designate , focus " , et cetera , et cetera .
Professor C: Uh , right , right , right .
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Grad F: Um , for now I 'm gonna say like " profile " 's often used {disfmarker} like two uses that come to mind immediately . One is in the traditional like semantic highlight of one element with respect to everything else . So " hypotenuse " , you profiled this guy against the background of the {pause} right t right triangle .
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Grad F: OK . And the second use , um , is in FrameNet. It 's slightly different . Oh , I was asking Hans about this . They use it to really mean , um , this {disfmarker} in a frame th this is {disfmarker} the profiles on the {disfmarker} these are the ones that are required . So they have to be there or expressed in some way . Which {disfmarker} which {disfmarker} I 'm not saying one and two are mutually exclusive but they 're {disfmarker} they 're different meanings .
Professor C: Right .
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Grad F: So the closest thing {disfmarker} so I was thinking about how it relates to this notation . For us , um {disfmarker} OK , so how is it {disfmarker}
Professor C: Does that {disfmarker} Is that really what they mean in {disfmarker} in {disfmarker}
Grad F: so " designate " {disfmarker} FrameNet ?
Professor C:  I didn't know that .
Grad F: FrameNet ? Yeah , yeah . I {disfmarker} I mean , I {disfmarker} I was a little bit surprised about it too .
Professor C: Yeah .
Grad F: I knew that {disfmarker} I thought that that would be something like {disfmarker} there 's another term that I 've heard for that thing
Professor C: Right , OK .
Grad F: but they {disfmarker} I mean {disfmarker} uh , well , at least Hans says they use it that way . And {disfmarker}
Professor C: Well , I 'll check .
Grad F: and may maybe he 's wrong . Anyway , so I think the {disfmarker} the " designate " that we have in terms of meaning is really the " highlight this thing with respect to everything else " . OK ?
Professor C: Right .
Grad F: So this is what {disfmarker} what it means . But the second one seems to be useful but we might not need a notation for it ? We don't have a notation for it but we might want one . So for example we 've talked about if you 're talking about the lexical item " walk " , you know it 's an action . Well , it also has this idea {disfmarker} it carries along with it the idea of an actor or somebody 's gonna do the walking . Or if you talk about an adjective " red " , it carries along the idea of the thing that has the property of having color red . So we used to use the notation " with " for this
Professor C: Right .
Grad F: and I think that 's closest to their second one . So I d don't yet know , I have no commitment , as to whether we need it . It might be {disfmarker} it 's the kind of thing that w a parser might want to think about whether we require {disfmarker} you know , these things are like it 's semantically part of it {disfmarker}
Professor C: N no , no . Well , uh , th critically they 're not required syntactically . Often they 're pres presu presupposed and all that sort of stuff .
Grad F: Right . Right , right . Yeah , um , definitely . So , um , " in " was a good example . If you walk " in " , like well , in what ?
Professor C: Right , there 's {disfmarker}
Grad F: You know , like you have to have the {disfmarker} {comment} So {disfmarker} so it 's only semantically is it {disfmarker} it is still required , say , by simulation time though
Professor C: Right .
Grad F: to have something . So it 's that {disfmarker} I meant the idea of like that {disfmarker} the semantic value is filled in by sim simulation . I don't know if that 's something we need to spa to {disfmarker} to like say ever as part of the requirement ? {disfmarker} or the construction ? or not . We 'll {disfmarker} we 'll again defer .
Professor C: Or {disfmarker} I mean , or {disfmarker} or , uh so the {disfmarker}
Grad F: Have it construed ,
Professor C: Yeah , yeah .
Grad F: is that the idea ? Just point at Robert . Whenever I 'm confused just point to him .
Professor C: Right . It 's {disfmarker} it 's his thesis , right ?
Grad F: You tell me .
Professor C: Anyway ,
Grad F: OK .
Professor C: right , yeah , w this is gonna be a b you 're right , this is a bit of in a mess and we still have emphasis as well , or stress , or whatever .
Grad F: OK , well we 'll get , uh uh , I {disfmarker} we have thoughts about those as well .
Professor C: Yeah . Great .
Grad F: Um , the I w I would just s some of this is just like my {disfmarker} you know , by fiat . I 'm going to say , this is how we use these terms . I don't - you know , there 's lots of different ways in the world that people use it .
Professor C: I {disfmarker} that 's fine .
Grad E: Yeah .
Grad F: I think that , um , the other terms that are related are like focus and stress .
Professor C: Mm - hmm .
Grad F: So , s I think that the way I {disfmarker} we would like to think , uh , I think is focus is something that comes up in , I mean , lots of {disfmarker} basically this is the information structure .
Professor C: Mm - hmm .
Grad F: OK , it 's like {disfmarker} uh , it 's not {disfmarker} it might be that there 's a syntactic , uh , device that you use to indicate focus or that there are things like , you know , I think Keith was telling me , {comment} things toward the end of the sentence , post - verbal , tend to be the focused {disfmarker} focused element ,
Grad E: Mmm .
Grad F: the new information . You know , if I {disfmarker} " I walked into the room " , you {disfmarker} tend to think that , whatever , " into the room " is sort of like the more focused kind of thing .
Grad E: Mm - hmm . Yeah .
Grad F: And when you , uh , uh , you have stress on something that might be , you know , a cue that the stressed element , or for instance , the negated element is kind of related to information structure . So that 's like the new {disfmarker} the sort of like import or whatever of {disfmarker} of this thing . Uh , so {disfmarker} so I think that 's kind of nice to keep " focus " being an information structure term . " Stress " {disfmarker} I th and then there are different kinds of focus that you can bring to it . So , um , like " stress " , th stress is kind of a pun on {disfmarker} you might have like {disfmarker} whatever , like , um , accent kind of stress .
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Grad F: And that 's just a {disfmarker} uh , w we 'll want to distinguish stress as a form device . You know , like , oh , high volume or whatever .
Grad E: Yeah .
Grad F: Um , t uh , and distinguish that from it 's effect which is , " Oh , the kind of focus we have is we 're emphasizing this value often as opposed to other values " , right ? So focus carries along a scope . Like if you 're gonna focus on this thing and you wanna know {disfmarker} it sort of evokes all the other possibilities that it wasn't .
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Grad F: Um , so my classic {disfmarker} my now - classic example of saying , " Oh , he did go to the meeting ? " ,
Grad E: Yeah .
Grad F: that was my way of saying {disfmarker} as opposed to , you know , " Oh , he didn't g " or " There was a meeting ? "
Grad E: Yeah .
Grad F: I think that was the example that was caught on by the linguists immediately .
Grad E: Yeah .
Grad F: And so , um , the {disfmarker} like if you said he {disfmarker} you know , there 's all these different things that if you put stress on a different part of it then you 're , c focusing , whatever , on , uh {disfmarker}
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Grad F: " he walked to the meeting " as opposed to " he ran " , or " he did walk to the meeting " as opposed to " he didn't walk " . You know ,
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Grad F: so we need to have a notation for that which , um , I think that 's still in progress . So , sort of I 'm still working it out . But it did {disfmarker} one {disfmarker} one implication it does f have for the other side , which we 'll get to in a minute is that I couldn't think of a good way to say " here are the possible things that you could focus on " , cuz it seems like any entity in any sentence , you know , or any meaning component of anyth you know {disfmarker} all the possible meanings you could have , any of them could be the subject of focus .
Professor C: Mmm .
Grad F: But I think one {disfmarker} the one thing you can schematize is the kind of focus , right ? So for instance , you could say it 's the {disfmarker} the tense on this as opposed to , um , the {disfmarker} the action . OK . Or it 's {disfmarker} uh , it 's an identity thing or a contrast with other things , or stress this value as opposed to other things . So , um , it 's {disfmarker} it is kind of like a profile {disfmarker} profile - background thing but I {disfmarker} I can't think of like the limited set of possible meanings that you would {disfmarker} that you would focu
Grad E: Light up with focus , yeah .
Grad F: light {disfmarker} highlight as opposed to other ones . So it has some certain complications for the , uh , uh {disfmarker} later on . Li - I mean , uh , the best thing I can come up with is that information has a list of focused elements . For instance , you {disfmarker} Oh , one other type that I forgot to mention is like query elements and that 's probably relevant for the like " where is " , you know , " the castle " kind of thing ?
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Grad F: Because you might want to say that , um , location or cert certain WH words bring {disfmarker} you know , sort of automatically focus in a , you know , " I don't know the identity of this thing " kind of way on certain elements . So . OK . Anyway . So that 's onl there are {disfmarker} there are many more things that are uncl that are sort of like a little bit unstable about the notation but it 's most {disfmarker} I think it 's {disfmarker} this is , you know , the current {disfmarker} current form . Other things we didn't {vocalsound} totally deal with , um ,
Grad E: Oh , there 's a bunch .
Grad F: well , we 've had a lot of other stuff that Keith and I have them working on in terms of like how you deal with like an adjective .
Grad E: Yeah .
Grad F: You know , a {disfmarker} a nominal expression .
Grad E: Yeah .
Grad F: And , um , I mean , we should have put an example of this and we could do that later .
Grad E: Yeah .
Grad F: But I think the not inherently like the general principles still work though , that , um , we can have constructions that have sort of constituent structure in that there is like , you know , for instance , one {disfmarker} Uh , you know , they {disfmarker} they have constituents , right ? So you can like nest things when you need to , but they can also overlap in a sort of flatter way . So if you don't have like a lot of grammar experience , then like this {disfmarker} this might , you know , be a little o opaque . But , you know , we have the {pause} properties of dependency grammars and some properties of constituents {disfmarker} constituent - based grammar . So that 's {disfmarker} I think that 's sort of the main thing we wanted to aim for
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Grad F: and so far it 's worked out OK .
Professor C: Good .
Grad F: So . OK .
Grad A: I can say two things about the f
Grad F: Yes .
Grad A: Maybe you want to forget stress . This {disfmarker} my f
Grad F: As a word ?
Grad A: No , as {disfmarker} as {disfmarker} Just don't {disfmarker} don't think about it .
Grad F: As a {disfmarker} What 's that ?
Grad A: If {disfmarker}
Grad F: Sorry .
Grad A: canonically speaking you can {disfmarker} if you look at a {disfmarker} a curve over sentence , you can find out where a certain stress is and say , " hey , that 's my focus exponent . "
Grad E: Right .
Grad F: Mm - hmm .
Grad A: It doesn't tell you anything what the focus is . If it 's just that thing ,
Grad F: Mm - hmm . Or the constituent that it falls in .
Grad A: a little bit more or the whole phrase .
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Grad A: Um {disfmarker}
Grad F: You mean t forget about stress , the form cue ?
Grad A: The form bit
Grad E: Yeah .
Grad A: because , uh , as a form cue , um , not even trained experts can always {disfmarker} well , they can tell you where the focus exponent is sometimes .
Grad F: OK .
Grad A: And that 's also mostly true for read speech . In {disfmarker} in real speech , um , people may put stress . It 's so d context dependent on what was there before , phrase ba breaks , um , restarts .
Grad F: Yeah . Mm - hmm .
Grad A: It 's just , um {disfmarker} it 's absurd . It 's complicated .
Grad F: OK ,
Grad A: And all {disfmarker}
Grad E: Yeah , I mean , I {disfmarker} I 'm sort of inclined to say let 's worry about specifying the information structure focus of the sentence
Grad F: I believe you , yeah .
Grad E: and then ,
Grad F: Mm - hmm . Ways that you can get it come from th
Grad E: hhh , {comment} the phonology component can handle actually assigning an intonation contour to that .
Grad F: right .
Grad E: You know , I mean , later on we 'll worry about exactly how {disfmarker}
Grad A: Or {disfmarker} or map from the contour to {disfmarker} to what the focus exponent is .
Grad E: y Yeah . Exactly .
Grad F: Mm - hmm .
Grad E: But figure out how the {disfmarker}
Grad A: But , uh , if you don't know what you 're {disfmarker} what you 're focus is then you 're {disfmarker} you 're hopeless - uh - ly lost anyways ,
Grad E: Yeah .
Grad F: Right . That 's fine , yeah . Mm - hmm .
Grad A: and the only way of figuring out what that is , {vocalsound} is , um , by sort of generating all the possible alternatives to each focused element , decide which one in that context makes sense and which one doesn't .
Grad F: Mm - hmm .
Grad A: And then you 're left with a couple three . So , you know , again , that 's something that h humans can do ,
Grad F: Mm - hmm .
Grad A: um , but far outside the scope of {disfmarker} of any {disfmarker} anything . So . You know . It 's {disfmarker}
Grad F: OK . Well , uh , yeah , I wouldn't have assumed that it 's an easy problem in {disfmarker} in absence of all the oth
Grad A: u u
Grad F: you need all the other information I guess .
Grad A: But it 's {disfmarker} it 's {disfmarker} what it {disfmarker} uh , it 's pretty easy to put it in the formalism , though . I mean , because
Grad F: Yeah .
Grad A: you can just say whatever stuff , " i is the container being focused or the {disfmarker} the entire whatever , both , and so forth . "
Grad F: Mm - hmm , mm - hmm .
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Grad F: Yeah . Exactly . So the sort of effect of it is something we want to be able to capture .
Professor C: Yeah , so b b but I think the poi I 'm not sure I understand but here 's what I th think is going on . That if we do the constructions right when a particular construction matches , it {disfmarker} the fact that it matches , does in fact specify the focus .
Grad F: W uh , I 'm not sure about that .
Professor C: OK .
Grad F: Or it might limit {disfmarker} it cert certainly constrains the possibilities of focus .
Professor C: Uh {disfmarker} k uh , at at the very least it constrai
Grad F: I think that 's {disfmarker} that 's , th that 's certainly true . And depending on the construction it may or may not f specify the focus , right ?
Professor C: Oh , uh , for sure , yes . There are constrai yeah , it 's not every {disfmarker} but there are constructions , uh , where you t explicitly take into account those considerations
Grad F: Yeah . Mm - hmm .
Professor C: that you need to take into account in order to decide which {disfmarker} what is being focused .
Grad F: Mm - hmm .
Grad A: Mm - hmm . So we talked about that a little bit this morning . " John is on the bus , not Nancy . "
Grad F: Mm - hmm .
Grad A: So that 's {disfmarker} focuses on John .
Professor C: Right .
Grad F: Hmm .
Grad A: " John is on the bus and not on the train . "
Grad F: Mm - hmm .
Grad A: " John is on the bus " versus " John is on the train . "
Professor C: Right .
Grad F: Right .
Grad A: And " John is on the bus " versus " was " , and e
Grad F: Is on . " John is on the bus " . Yeah . Yeah .
Grad A: " it 's the bu " so e
Professor C: Right . Yeah , all {disfmarker} all of those .
Grad A: All of these
Professor C: Yeah .
Grad F: Right .
Grad A: and will we have {disfmarker} u is it all the same constructions ? Just with a different foc focus constituent ?
Grad F: Yeah , I would say that argument structure in terms of like the main like sort of ,
Grad A: Mm - hmm .
Grad F: I don't know {disfmarker} the fact that you can get it without any stress and you have some {disfmarker} whatever is predicated anyway should be the same set of constructions . So that 's why I was talking about overlapping constructions . So , then you have a separate thing that picks out , you know , stress on something relative to everything else .
Professor C: Yeah . So , the question is actually {disfmarker}
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Professor C: oh , I 'm sorry ,
Grad F: And it would {disfmarker}
Professor C: go ahead ,
Grad F: yeah ,
Professor C: finish .
Grad F: and it w and that would have to {disfmarker} uh it might be ambiguous as , uh , whether it picks up that element , or the phrase , or something like that . But it 's still is limited possibility .
Grad A: Hmm .
Grad F: So that should , you know , interact with {disfmarker} it should overlap with whatever other construction is there .
Grad A: Yeah .
Professor C: S s the question is , do we have a way on the other page , uh , when we get to the s semantic side , of saying what the stressed element was , or stressed phrase , or something .
Grad F: Mm - hmm . Well , so that 's why I was saying how {disfmarker} since I couldn't think of an easy like limited way of doing it , um , all I can say is that information structure has a focused slot
Professor C: Right .
Grad F: and I think that should be able to refer to {disfmarker}
Professor C: So that 's down at the bottom here when we get over there . OK .
Grad F: Yeah , and , infer {disfmarker} and I don't have {disfmarker} I don't have a great way or great examples
Professor C: I 'll - I 'll wait . OK .
Grad F: but I think that {disfmarker} something like that is probably gonna be , uh , more {disfmarker} more what we have to do .
Grad A: Hmm .
Professor C: OK .
Grad F: But , um ,
Grad A: So
Grad F: OK , that was one comment . And you had another one ?
Grad A: Yeah , well the {disfmarker} once you know what the focus is the {disfmarker} everything else is background . How about " topic - comment " that 's the other side of information .
Grad F: How about what ?
Grad A: Topic - comment .
Grad F: Yeah , so that was the other thing . And so I didn't realize it before . It 's like , " oh ! " It was an epiphany that it {disfmarker} you know , topic and focus are a contrast set . So topic is {disfmarker} Topic - focused seems to me like , um , background profile , OK , or a landmark trajector , or some something like that . There 's {disfmarker} there 's definitely , um , that kind of thing going on .
Grad A: Mmm .
Grad F: Now I don't know whether {disfmarker} I n I don't have as many great examples of like topic - indicating constructions on like focus , right ? Um , topic {disfmarker} it seems kind of {disfmarker} you know , I think that might be an ongoing kind of thing .
Grad A: Mm - hmm .
Grad E: Japanese has this though . You know .
Grad F: Topic marker ?
Grad A: Yeah .
Grad E: Yeah , that 's what " wa " is , uh , just to mark which thing is the topic .
Grad F: Mm - hmm .
Grad E: It doesn't always have to be the subject .
Grad F: Mm - hmm . Right . So again , information structure has a topic slot . And , you know , I stuck it in thinking that we might use it .
Grad A: Mm - hmm .
Grad F: Um , I think I stuck it in .
Professor C: Yep , it 's there .
Grad F: Um , and one thing that I didn't do consistently , um , is {disfmarker} when we get there , is like indicate what kind of thing fits into every role . I think I have an idea of what it should be but th you know , so far we 've been getting away with like either a type constraint or , um , you know , whatever . I forg it 'll be a frame . You know , it 'll be {disfmarker} it 'll be another predication or it 'll be , um , I don't know , some value from {disfmarker} from some something , some variable and scope or something like that , or a slot chain based on a variable and scope . OK , so well that 's {disfmarker} should we flip over to the other side officially then ?
Grad A: Mm - hmm , hmm .
Grad E: OK , side one .
Grad F: I keep , uh , like , pointing forward to it . Yeah . Now we 'll go back to s OK , so this doesn't include something which mi mi may have some effect on {disfmarker} on it , which is , um , the discourse situation context record , right ? So I didn't {disfmarker} I {disfmarker} I meant just like draw a line and like , you know , you also have , uh , some tracking of what was going on .
Professor C: Right .
Grad F: And sort of {disfmarker} this is a big scale comment before I , you know , look into the details of this . But for instance you could imagine instead of having {disfmarker} I {disfmarker} I changed the name of {disfmarker} um it used to be " entities " . So you see it 's " scenario " , " referent " and " discourse segment " . And " scenario " is essentially what kind of {disfmarker} what 's the basic predication , what event happened . And actually it 's just a list of various slots from which you would draw {disfmarker} draw in order to paint your picture , a bunch of frames , bi and bindings , right ? Um , and obviously there are other ones that are not included here , general cultural frames and general like , uh , other action f
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Grad F: you know , specific X - schema frames . OK , whatever . The middle thing used to be " entities " because you could imagine it should be like really a list where here was various information . And this is intended to be grammatically specifiable information about a referent {disfmarker} uh , you know , about some entity that you were going to talk about . So " Harry walked into the room " , " Harry " and " room " , you know , the room {disfmarker} th but they would be represented in this list somehow . And it could also have for instance , it has this category slot . Um , it should be either category or in or instance . Basically , it could be a pointer to ontology . So that everything you know about this could be {disfmarker} could be drawn in . But the important things for grammatical purposes are for {disfmarker} things like number , gender , um {disfmarker} ki the ones I included here are slightly arbitrary but you could imagine that , um , you need to figure out wheth if it 's a group whether , um , some event is happening , linear time , linear spaces , like , you know , are {disfmarker} are they doing something serially or is it like , um , uh I 'm {disfmarker} I 'm not sure . Because this partly came from , uh , Talmy 's schema and I 'm not sure we 'll need all of these actually . But {disfmarker} Um , and then the " status " I used was like , again , in some languages , you know , like for instance in child language you might distinguish between different status . So , th the {disfmarker} the big com and {disfmarker} and finally " discourse segment " is about {vocalsound} sort of speech - act - y information structure - y , like utterance - specific kinds of things . So the comment I was going to make about , um , changing entity {disfmarker} the entity 's block to reference is that {vocalsound} you can imagine your discourse like situation context , you have a set of entities that you 're sort of referring to . And you might {disfmarker} that might be sort of a general , I don't know , database of all the things in this discourse that you could refer to . And I changed to " reference " cuz I would say , for a particular utterance you have particular referring expressions in it . And those are the ones that you get information about that you stick in here . For instance , I know it 's going to be plural . I know it 's gonna be feminine or something like that . And {disfmarker} and these could actually just point to , you know , the {disfmarker} the ID in my other list of enti active entities , right ? So , um , uh , th there 's {disfmarker} there 's all this stuff about discourse status . We 've talked about . I almost listed " discourse status " as a slot where you could say it 's active . You know , there 's this , um , hierarchy {disfmarker} uh there 's a schematization of , you know , things can be active or they can be , um , accessible , inaccessible .
Grad E: Yeah .
Grad F: It was the one that , you know , Keith , um , emailed to us once , to some of us , not all of us . And the thing is that that {disfmarker} I noticed that that , um , list was sort of discourse dependent . It was like in this particular set , s you know , instance , it has been referred to recently or it hasn't been ,
Grad E: Yeah .
Grad F: or this is something that 's like in my world knowledge but not active .
Professor C: This {disfmarker} Uh {disfmarker} yeah , well there {disfmarker} there seems to be context properties .
Grad F: So .
Professor C: Yeah .
Grad F: Yeah , they 're contex and for instance , I used to have a location thing there but actually that 's a property of the situation . And it 's again , time , you know {disfmarker} at cert certain points things are located , you know , near or far from you
Professor C: Well , uh , uh , this is recursive
Grad F: and {disfmarker}
Professor C: cuz until we do the uh , mental space story , we 're not quite sure {disfmarker} {comment} Th - th
Grad F: Yeah .
Professor C: which is fine . We 'll just {disfmarker} we 'll j
Grad F: Yeah , yeah . So some of these are , uh {disfmarker}
Professor C: we just don't know yet .
Grad F: Right . So I {disfmarker} so for now I thought , well maybe I 'll just have in this list the things that are relevant to this particular utterance , right ? Everything else here is utterance - specific . Um , and I left the slot , " predications " , open because you can have , um , things like " the guy I know from school " .
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Grad F: Or , you know , like your referring expression might be constrained by certain like unbounded na amounts of prep you know , predications that you might make . And it 's unclear whether {disfmarker} I mean , you could just have in your scenario , " here are some extra few things that are true " , right ?
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Grad F: And then you could just sort of not have this slot here . Right ? You 're {disfmarker} but {disfmarker} but it 's used for identification purposes .
Professor C: Right .
Grad E: Yeah .
Grad F: So it 's {disfmarker} it 's a little bit different from just saying " all these things are true from my utterance " .
Grad E: Yeah .
Grad F: Um .
Grad E: Right , " this guy I know from school came for dinner " does not mean , um , " there 's a guy , I know him from school , and he came over for dinner " . That 's not the same effect .
Grad F: Yeah , it 's a little bit {disfmarker} it 's a little bit different . Right ? So {disfmarker} Or maybe that 's like a restrictive , non - restrictive {disfmarker}
Grad E: Yeah .
Grad F: you know , it 's like it gets into that kind of thing for {disfmarker} um , but maybe I 'm mixing , you know {disfmarker} this is kind of like the final result after parsing the sentence .
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Grad F: So you might imagine that the information you pass to , you know {disfmarker} in identifying a particular referent would be , " oh , some {disfmarker} " you know , " it 's a guy and it 's someone I know from school " .
Grad E: Yeah .
Grad F: So maybe that would , you know , be some intermediate structure that you would pass into the disc to the , whatever , construal engine or whatever , discourse context , to find {disfmarker} you know , either create this reference ,
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Grad F: in which case it 'd be created here , and {disfmarker} you know , so {disfmarker} so you could imagine that this might not {disfmarker} So , uh , I 'm uncommitted to a couple of these things .
Grad A: But {disfmarker} to make it m precise at least in my mind , uh , it 's not precise .
Grad F: Um .
Grad A: So " house " is gender neuter ? In reality
Grad F: Um , it could be in {disfmarker}
Grad A: or in {disfmarker}
Professor C: Semantically .
Grad A: semantically .
Grad F: semantically , yeah . Yeah .
Grad A: So {disfmarker}
Grad F: So it uh , uh , a table . You know , a thing that c doesn't have a gender . So . Uh , it could be that {disfmarker} I mean , maybe you 'd {disfmarker} maybe not all these {disfmarker} I mean , I wou I would say that I tried to keep slots here that were potentially relevant to most {disfmarker} most things .
Grad A: No , just to make sure that we {disfmarker} everybody that 's {disfmarker} completely agreed that it {disfmarker} it has nothing to do with , uh , form .
Grad F: Yeah . OK , that is semantic as opposed to {disfmarker} Yeah . Yeah . That 's right . Um .
Grad A: Then " predications " makes sense to {disfmarker} to have it open for something like , uh , accessibility or not .
Grad F: S so again {disfmarker} Open to various things .
Grad A: Yeah .
Grad F: Right . OK , so . Let 's see . So maybe having made that big sca sort of like large scale comment , should I just go through each of these slots {disfmarker} uh , each of these blocks , um , a little bit ?
Grad E: Sure .
Grad F: Um , mostly the top one is sort of image schematic . And just a note , which was that , um {disfmarker} s so when we actually ha so for instance , um , some of them seem more inherently static , OK , like a container or sort of support - ish . And others are a little bit seemingly inherently dynamic like " source , path , goal " is often thought of that way or " force " , or something like that . But in actual fact , I think that they 're intended to be sort of neutral with respect to that . And different X - schemas use them in a way that 's either static or dynamic . So " path " , you could just be talking about the path between this and this .
Grad E: Mmm .
Grad F: And you know , " container " that you can go in and out . All of these things . And so , um , I think this came up when , uh , Ben and I were working with the Spaniards , um , the other day {disfmarker} the " Spaniettes " , as we {vocalsound} called them {disfmarker} um , to decide like how you want to split up , like , s image schematic contributions versus , like , X - schematic contributions . How do you link them up . And I think again , um , it 's gonna be something in the X - schema that tells you " is this static or is this dynamic " . So we definitely need {disfmarker} that sort of aspectual type gives you some of that . Um , that , you know , is it , uh , a state or is it a change of state , or is it a , um , action of some kind ?
Grad A: Uh , i i i is there any meaning to when you have sort of parameters behind it and when you don't ?
Grad F: Uh . Yeah .
Grad A: Just means {disfmarker}
Grad F: Oh , oh ! You mean , in the slot ?
Grad A: Mm - hmm .
Grad F: Um , no , it 's like X - sc it 's {disfmarker} it 's like I was thinking of type constraints but X - schema , well it obviously has to be an X - schema . " Agent " , I mean , the {disfmarker} the performer of the X - schema , that s depends on the X - schema . You know , and I {disfmarker} in general it would probably be , you know {disfmarker}
Grad E: So the difference is basically whether you thought it was obvious what the possible fillers were .
Grad F: Yeah , basically .
Grad A: Mm - hmm .
Grad E: OK .
Grad F: Um , " aspectual type " probably isn't obvious but I should have {disfmarker} So , I just neglected to stick something in . " Perspective " , " actor " , " undergoer " , " observer " , um ,
Grad B: Mmm .
Grad F: I think we 've often used " agent " , " patient " , obser
Grad E: " Whee ! " That 's that one , right ?
Grad F: Yeah , exactly . {vocalsound} Exactly . Um , and so one nice thing that , uh , we had talked about is this example {comment} of like , if you have a passive construction then one thing it does is ch you know {disfmarker} definitely , it is one way to {disfmarker} for you to , you know , specifically take the perspective of the undergoing kind of object . And so then we talked about , you know , whether well , does that specify topic as well ? Well , maybe there are other things . You know , now that it 's {disfmarker} subject is more like a topic . And now that , you know {disfmarker} Anyway . So . Sorry . I 'm gonna trail off on that one cuz it 's not that f important right now .
Professor C: N now , for the moment we just need the ability to l l write it down if {disfmarker} if somebody figured out what the rules were .
Grad F: Um , To know how {disfmarker} Yeah . Yeah . Exactly .
Professor C: Yeah .
Grad F: Um , some of these other ones , let 's see . So , uh , one thing I 'm uncertain about is how polarity interacts .
Professor C: Mm - hmm .
Grad F: So polarity , uh , is using for like action did not take place for instance . So by default it 'll be like " true " , I guess , you know , if you 're specifying events that did happen . You could imagine that you skip out this {disfmarker} you know , leave off this polarity , you know , not {disfmarker} don't have it here . And then have it part of the speech - act in some way .
Professor C: Mm - hmm .
Grad F: There 's some negation . But the reason why I left it in is cuz you might have a change of state , let 's say , where some state holds and then some state doesn't hold , and you 're just talking , you know {disfmarker} if you 're trying to have the nuts and bolts of simulation you need to know that , you know , whatever , the holder doesn't and {disfmarker}
Professor C: No , I th I think at this lev which is {disfmarker} it should be where you have it .
Grad F: OK , it 's {disfmarker} so it 's {disfmarker} it 's {disfmarker} it 's fine where it is .
Professor C: I mean , how you get it may {disfmarker} may in will often involve the discourse
Grad F: So , OK . May come from a few places .
Professor C: but {disfmarker} but {disfmarker} by the time you 're simulating you sh y you should know that .
Grad F: Right . Right .
Grad E: So , {vocalsound} I 'm still just really not clear on what I 'm looking at . The " scenario " box , like , what does that look like for an example ? Like , not all of these things are gonna be here .
Grad F: Yeah .
Professor C: Correct .
Grad E: This is just basically says
Grad F: Mm - hmm . It 's a grab bag of {disfmarker}
Grad E: " part of what I 'm going to hand you is a whole bunch of s uh , schemas , image , and X - schemas . Here are some examples of the sorts of things you might have in there " .
Grad F: So that 's exactly what it is .
Grad E: OK .
Grad F: And for a particular instance which I will , you know , make an example of something , is that you might have an instance of container and path , let 's say , as part of your , you know , " into " you know , definition .
Grad E: Mm - hmm . Mm - hmm .
Grad F: So you would eventually have instances filled in with various {disfmarker} various values for all the different slots .
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Grad F: And they 're bound up in , you know , their bindings and {disfmarker} and {disfmarker} and values .
Professor C: W it c
Grad E: OK . Do you have to say about the binding in your {disfmarker} is there a slot in here for {disfmarker} that tells you how the bindings are done ?
Professor C: No , no , no . I {disfmarker} let 's see , I think we 're {disfmarker} we 're not {disfmarker} I don't think we have it quite right yet . So , uh , what this is ,
Grad E: OK .
Professor C: let 's suppose for the moment it 's complete . OK , uh , then this says that when an analysis is finished , the whole analysis is finished , {comment} you 'll have as a result , uh , some s resulting s semspec for that utterance in context ,
Grad E: OK . Mm - hmm .
Professor C: which is made up entirely of these things and , uh , bindings among them . And bindings to ontology items .
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Professor C: So that {disfmarker} that the who that this is the tool kit under whi out of which you can make a semantic specification .
Grad E: Mm - hmm . Mm - hmm .
Professor C: So that 's A . But B , which is more relevant to your life , is this is also the tool kit that is used in the semantic side of constructions .
Grad E: OK . Mm - hmm .
Professor C: So this is an that anything you have , in the party line , {comment} anything you have as the semantic side of constructions comes , from pieces of this {disfmarker} ignoring li
Grad E: OK .
Professor C: I mean , in general , you ignore lots of it .
Grad E: Right .
Professor C: But it 's got to be pieces of this along with constraints among them .
Grad E: OK .
Professor C: Uh , so that the , you know , goal of the , uh uh , " source , path , goal " has to be the landmark of the conta you know , the interior of this container .
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Professor C: Or whate whatever .
Grad E: Yeah .
Professor C: So those constraints appear in constructions
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Professor C: but pretty much this is the full range of semantic structures available to you .
Grad E: OK .
Grad F: Except for " cause " , that I forgot . But anyway , there 's som some kind of causal structure for composite events .
Grad E: Yeah .
Professor C: OK , good . Let 's {disfmarker} let 's mark that . So we need a c
Grad F: Uh , I mean , so it gets a little funny . These are all {disfmarker} so far these structures , especially from " path " and on down , these are sort of relatively familiar , um , image schematic kind of slots . Now with " cause " , uh , the fillers will actually be themselves frames . Right ?
Professor C: Right .
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Grad F: So you 'll say , " event one causes event B {disfmarker}
Professor C: And {disfmarker} and {disfmarker} and {disfmarker} and this {disfmarker} this {disfmarker} this again may ge our , um {disfmarker} and we {disfmarker} and {disfmarker} and , of course , worlds .
Grad F: uh , event two " , and {disfmarker}
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Grad F: Yeah . So that 's , uh these are all implicitly one {disfmarker} within , uh within one world . Um , even though saying that place takes place , whatever . Uh , if y if I said " time " is , you know , " past " , that would say " set that this world " , you know , " somewhere , before the world that corresponds to our current speech time " .
Grad E: Mm - hmm . Mm - hmm . Yeah .
Grad F: So . But that {disfmarker} that {disfmarker} that 's sort of OK . The {disfmarker} the {disfmarker} within the event it 's st it 's still one world . Um . Yeah , so " cause " and {disfmarker} Other frames that could come in {disfmarker} I mean , unfortunately you could bring in say for instance , um , uh , " desire " or something like that ,
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Grad F: like " want " . And actually there is right now under " discourse segments " , um , " attitude " ?
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Grad F: " Volition " ? could fill that . So there are a couple things where I like , " oh , I 'm not sure if I wanted to have it there
Grad E: Well that 's {disfmarker}
Grad F: or {disfmarker} " Basically there was a whole list of {disfmarker} of possible speaker attitudes that like say Talmy listed . And , like , well , I don't {disfmarker} you know , it was like " hope , wish . desire " ,
Professor C: Right .
Grad E: Uh - huh .
Grad F: blah - blah - blah . And it 's like , well , I feel like if I wanted to have an extra meaning {disfmarker} I don't know if those are grammatically marked in the first place . So {disfmarker} They 're more lexically marked , right ?
Grad E: Mmm .
Grad F: At least in English . So if I wanted to I would stick in an extra frame in my meaning , saying , e so th it 'd be a hierarchical frame them , right ? You know , like " Naomi wants {disfmarker} wants su a certain situation and that situation itself is a state of affairs " .
Professor C: S right . So {disfmarker} so , " want " itself can be {disfmarker} {pause} i i i i i
Grad F: u Can be just another frame that 's part of your {disfmarker}
Professor C: Well , and it i basically it 's an action . In {disfmarker} in our s in our {disfmarker} in our {disfmarker}
Grad F: Yeah . Situation . {comment} Right , right .
Professor C: in {disfmarker} in our {disfmarker} in our s terminology , " want " can be an action and " what you want " is a world .
Grad F: Mm - hmm .
Grad B: Hmm .
Professor C: So that 's {disfmarker} I mean , it 's certainly one way to do it .
Grad F: Mmm .
Professor C: Yeah , there {disfmarker} there are other things .
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Professor C: Causal stuff we absolutely need . Mental space we need .
Grad F: Mm - hmm .
Professor C: The context we need . Um , so anyway , Keith {disfmarker} So is this comfortable to you that , uh , once we have this defined , it is your tool kit for building the semantic part of constructions .
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Professor C: And then when we combine constructions semantically , the goal is going to be to fill out more and more of the bindings needed in order to come up with the final one .
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Professor C: And that 's the wh and {disfmarker} and I mean , that {disfmarker} according to the party line , that 's the whole story .
Grad E: Yeah . Mm - hmm . Yeah . Um . y Right . That makes sense . So I mean , there 's this stuff in the {disfmarker} off in the scenario , which just tells you how various {disfmarker} what schemas you 're using and they 're {disfmarker} how they 're bound together . And I guess that some of the discourse segment stuff {disfmarker} is that where you would sa
Grad F: Mm - hmm .
Grad E: I mean , that 's {disfmarker} OK , that 's where the information structure is which sort of is a kind of profiling on different parts of , um , of this .
Grad F: Right . Exactly .
Grad E: I mean , what 's interesting is that the information structure stuff {disfmarker} Hmm . There 's almost {disfmarker} I mean , we keep coming back to how focus is like this {disfmarker} this , uh , trajector - landmark thing .
Grad F: Yeah .
Grad E: So if I say , um , You know , " In France it 's like this " . You know , great , we 've learned something about France but the fact is that utterances of that sort are generally used to help you draw a conclusion also about some implicit contrast , like " In France it 's like this " . And therefore you 're supposed to say , " Boy , life sure {disfmarker} "
Grad F: Right .
Grad E: You know , " in France kids are allowed to drink at age three " . And w you 're {disfmarker} that 's not just a fact about France . You also conclude something about how boring it is here in the U S . Right ?
Grad F: Right , right .
Professor C: Right .
Grad E: And so {disfmarker}
Grad F: S so I would prefer not to worry about that for right now
Grad E: OK .
Grad F: and to think that there are , um ,
Grad E: That comes in and , uh {disfmarker}
Grad F: discourse level constructions in a sense , topic {disfmarker} topic - focus constructions that would say , " oh , when you focus something " then {disfmarker}
Grad E: Mm - hmm . Yeah .
Grad F: just done the same way {disfmarker} just actually in the same way as the lower level . If you stressed , you know , " John went to the {disfmarker} " , you know , " the bar " whatever , you 're focusing that
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Grad F: and a in a possible inference is " in contrast to other things " .
Grad E: Yeah .
Grad F: So similarly for a whole sentence , you know , " in France such - and - such happens " .
Grad E: Yeah . Yeah , yeah .
Grad F: So the whole thing is sort of like again implicitly as opposed to other things that are possible .
Grad E: Yeah .
Grad A: Uh , just {disfmarker} just , uh , look {disfmarker} read uh even sem semi formal Mats Rooth .
Grad F: I mean {disfmarker} Yeah .
Grad A: If you haven't read it . It 's nice .
Grad F: Uh - huh .
Grad A: And just pick any paper on alternative semantics .
Grad F: Uh - huh .
Grad E: OK .
Grad A: So that 's his {disfmarker} that 's the best way of talking about focus , is I think his way .
Grad E: OK , what was the name ?
Grad A: Mats . MATS . Rooth .
Grad E: OK .
Grad A: I think two O 's , yes , TH .
Grad E: OK .
Grad A: I never know how to pronounce his name because he 's sort of ,
Professor C: S Swede ?
Grad A: uh , he is Dutch
Professor C: Dutch ?
Grad A: and , um {disfmarker} but very confused background I think .
Professor C: Oh , Dutch .
Grad E: Yeah .
Professor C: Uh - huh .
Grad A: So {pause} and , um ,
Grad E: Mats Gould .
Grad A: And sadly enough he also just left the IMS in Stuttgart . So he 's not there anymore .
Grad E: Hmm .
Grad A: But , um {disfmarker} I don't know where he is right now but alternative semantics is {disfmarker} if you type that into an , uh , uh , browser or search engine you 'll get tons of stuff .
Grad E: OK . OK . OK , thanks .
Grad A: And what I 'm kind of confused about is {disfmarker} is what the speaker and the hearer is {disfmarker} is sort of doing there .
Grad F: So for a particular segment it 's really just a reference to some other entity again in the situation , right ? So for a particular segment the speaker might be you or might be me .
Grad A: Yeah .
Grad F: Um , hearer is a little bit harder . It could be like multiple people . I guess that {disfmarker} that {disfmarker} that {disfmarker} that 's not very clear from here {disfmarker}
Grad A: Yeah , but you {disfmarker} Don't we ultimately want to handle that analogously to the way we handle time and place ,
Grad F: I mean , that 's not allowed here .
Grad A: because " you " , " me " , " he " , " they " , you know , " these guys " , all these expressions , nuh , are in {disfmarker} in much the same way contextually dependent as " here , " and " now , " and " there " {disfmarker}
Grad F: Mm - hmm .
Professor C: Now , this is {disfmarker} this is assuming you 've already solved that .
Grad F: Ye - yeah .
Professor C: So it 's {disfmarker} it 's Fred and Mary ,
Grad F: So th
Professor C: so the speaker would be Fred and the {disfmarker}
Grad A: Ah !
Grad F: Right , so the constructions might {disfmarker} of course will refer , using pronouns or whatever .
Grad A: Mm - hmm .
Grad F: In which case they have to check to see , uh , who the , uh , speaker in here wa in order to resolve those . But when you actually say that " he walked into {disfmarker} " , whatever , um , the " he " will refer to a particular {disfmarker} You {disfmarker} you will already have figured who " he " or " you " , mmm , or " I " , maybe is a bett better example , who " I " refers to . Um , and then you 'd just be able to refer to Harry , you know , in wherever that person {disfmarker} whatever role that person was playing in the event .
Grad A: Mmm . That 's up at the reference part .
Grad F: Yeah , yeah .
Grad A: And down there in the speaker - hearer part ?
Grad F: S so , that 's {disfmarker} I think that 's just {disfmarker} n for instance , Speaker is known from the situation , right ? You 're {disfmarker} when you hear something you 're told who the speaker is {disfmarker} I mean , you know who the speaker is . In fact , that 's kind of constraining how {disfmarker} in some ways you know this before you get to the {disfmarker} you fill in all the rest of it . I think .
Professor C: Mmm .
Grad F: I mean , how else would you um {disfmarker}
Grad A: You know , uh , uh , it 's {disfmarker} the speaker may {disfmarker} in English is allowed to say " I . "
Professor C: Yeah . Well , here {disfmarker}
Grad A: Uh , among the twenty - five percent most used words .
Grad F: Yeah . Right .
Grad A: But wouldn't the " I " then set up the {disfmarker} the s s referent {disfmarker} that happens to be the speaker this time
Grad F: Mm - hmm .
Grad A: and not " they , " whoever they are .
Grad F: Right , right .
Grad A: Or " you " {disfmarker}
Grad F: So {disfmarker}
Grad A: much like the " you " could n
Grad F: S so {disfmarker} OK , so I would say ref under referent should be something that corresponds to " I " . And maybe each referent should probably have a list of way whatever , the way it was referred to . So that 's " I " but , uh , uh , should we say it {disfmarker} it refers to , what ? Uh , if it were " Harry " it would refer to like some ontology thing . If it were {disfmarker} if it 's " I " it would refer to the current speaker , OK , which is given to be like , you know , whoever it is .
Grad A: Well , not {disfmarker} not always . I mean , so there 's " and then he said , I w " Uh - huh .
Professor C: Uh {disfmarker}
Grad F: " I " within the current world .
Grad A: Yeah .
Professor C: Yeah . That 's right . So {disfmarker} so again , this {disfmarker} uh , this {disfmarker} this is gonna to get us into the mental space stuff
Grad F: Yeah , yeah , yeah , yeah .
Professor C: and t because you know , " Fred said that Mary said {disfmarker} " , and whatever .
Grad E: Mmm .
Grad F: Mm - hmm .
Professor C: And {disfmarker} and so we 're , uh gonna have to , um , chain those as well .
Grad A: Mm - hmm . Twhhh - whhh . But {disfmarker}
Grad F: Mm - hmm . So this entire thing is inside a world ,
Professor C: Right . Right .
Grad F: not just like the top part .
Professor C: I {disfmarker} I think , uh {disfmarker}
Grad F: That 's {disfmarker}
Grad A: Mm - hmm .
Professor C: Except s it 's {disfmarker} it 's trickier than that because um , the reference for example {disfmarker} So he where it gets really tricky is there 's some things ,
Grad F: Yeah .
Professor C: and this is where blends and all terribl So , some things which really are meant to be identified and some things which aren't .
Grad F: Yeah . Right .
Professor C: And again , all we need for the moment is some way to say that .
Grad F: Right . So I thought of having like {disfmarker} for each referent , having the list of {disfmarker} of the things t with which it is identified . You know , which {disfmarker} which , uh you know , you {disfmarker} you {disfmarker} you {disfmarker}
Professor C: You could do that .
Grad F: for instance , um {disfmarker} So , I guess , it sort of depends on if it is a referring exp if it 's identifiable already or it 's a new thing .
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Grad F: If it 's a new thing you 'd have to like create a structure or whatever . If it 's an old thing it could be referring to , um , usually w something in a situation , right ? Or something in ontology .
Professor C: uh - huh .
Grad F: So , there 's a you know , whatever , it c it could point at one of these .
Professor C: I just had a {disfmarker} I just had an {disfmarker} an idea that would be very nice if it works .
Grad F: For what ?
Professor C: Uh , uh , uh , I haven't told you what it is yet .
Grad F: If it works .
Professor C: This was my build - up .
Grad F: Mm - hmm . Mmm .
Professor C: An i an idea that would be nice i
Grad F: Yeah . OK , we 're crossing our fingers .
Professor C: Right .
Grad B: So we 're building a mental space , good .
Professor C: If it worked . Yeah .
Grad F: OK .
Professor C: Right , it was a space builder . Um , we might be able to handle context in the same way that we handle mental spaces because , uh , you have somewhat the same things going on of , uh , things being accessible or not .
Grad F: Mm - hmm .
Professor C: And so , i
Grad F: Yep .
Professor C: it c it {disfmarker} it , uh I think if we did it right we might be able to get at least a lot of the same structure .
Grad F: Use the same {disfmarker} {comment} Yep .
Professor C: So that pulling something out of a discourse context is I think similar to other kinds of , uh , mental space phenomena .
Grad B: I see .
Grad F: Mm - hmm . And {disfmarker} And {disfmarker}
Professor C: Uh , I 've {disfmarker} I 've {disfmarker} I 've never seen anybody write that up but maybe they did . I don't know . That may be all over the literature .
Grad F: Yeah .
Grad E: There 's things like ther you know , there 's all kinds of stuff like , um , in {disfmarker} I think I mentioned last time in Czech if you have a {disfmarker} a verb of saying then
Grad F: So {disfmarker} so by default {disfmarker}
Grad E: um , you know , you say something like {disfmarker} or {disfmarker} or I was thinking you can say something like , " oh , I thought , uh , you are a republican " or something like that . Where as in English you would say , " I thought you were " .
Professor C: Right .
Grad E: Um , you know , sort of the past tense being copied onto the lower verb doesn't happen there , so you have to say something about , you know , tense is determined relative to current blah - blah - blah .
Grad F: Mm - hmm .
Grad E: Same things happens with pronouns .
Grad F: Mm - hmm .
Grad E: There 's languages where , um , if you have a verb of saying then , ehhh , where {disfmarker} OK , so a situation like " Bob said he was going to the movies " , where that lower subject is the same as the person who was saying or thinking , you 're actually required to have " I " there .
Grad F: Mm - hmm .
Professor C: Mm - hmm .
Grad E: Um , and it 's sort of in an extended function {disfmarker}
Professor C: So we would have it be in quotes in English .
Grad E: Yeah .
Grad B: Right .
Grad E: But it 's not perceived as a quotative construction .
Grad F: Right .
Professor C: Yeah .
Grad E: I mean , it 's been analyzed by the formalists as being a logophoric pronoun , um which means a pronoun which refers back to the person who is speaking or that sort of thing , right ?
Professor C: OK .
Grad F: Oh , right . Yeah , that makes sense .
Grad E: Um , but {disfmarker} uh , that happens to sound like the word for " I " but is actually semantically unrelated to it .
Grad F: Oh , no !
Professor C: Oh , good , I love the formali
Grad E: Um ,
Grad F: Really ?
Grad E: Yeah . {vocalsound} Yeah .
Grad F: You 're kidding .
Grad E: There 's a whole book which basically operates on this assumption . Uh , Mary Dalrymple , uh , this book , a ninety - three book on , uh on pronoun stuff .
Grad F: No , that 's horrible . OK . That 's horrible . {comment} OK .
Grad E: Well , yeah . And then the same thing for ASL where , you know , you 're signing and someone says something . And then , you know , so " he say " , and then you sort of do a role shift . And then you sign " I , this , that , and the other " .
Grad F: Uh - huh .
Grad E: And you know , " I did this " . That 's also been analyzed as logophoric and having nothing to do with " I " . And the role shift thing is completely left out and so on . So , I mean , the point is that pronoun references , uh , you know , sort of ties in with all this mental space stuff and so on , and so forth .
Grad F: Uh - huh .
Grad E: And so , yeah , I mean {disfmarker}
Grad F: Yeah .
Professor C: So that {disfmarker} that d that does sound like it 's co consistent with what we 're saying , yeah .
Grad E: Right . Yeah .
Grad F: OK , so it 's kind of like the unspecified mental spaces just are occurring in context . And then when you embed them sometimes you have to pop up to the h you know , depending on the construction or the whatever , um , you {disfmarker} you {disfmarker} you 're scope is {disfmarker} m might extend out to the {disfmarker} the base one .
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Professor C: Mm - hmm .
Grad E: Yeah .
Grad F: It would be nice to actually use the same , um , mechanism since there are so many cases where you actually need it 'll be one or the other .
Grad E: Yeah .
Grad F: It 's like , oh , actually , it 's the same {disfmarker} same operation .
Professor C: Oh , OK , so this {disfmarker} this is worth some thought .
Grad F: So .
Grad E: It 's like {disfmarker} it 's like what 's happening {disfmarker} that , yeah , what what 's happening , uh , there is that you 're moving the base space or something like that , right ?
Grad F: Yeah , yeah .
Grad E: So that 's {disfmarker} that 's how Fauconnier would talk about it . And it happens diff under different circumstances in different languages .
Grad F: Mm - hmm .
Grad E: And so ,
Grad F: Mm - hmm .
Grad E: um , things like pronoun reference and tense which we 're thinking of as being these discourse - y things actually are relative to a Bayes space which can change .
Grad F: Mm - hmm ,
Grad E: And we need all the same machinery .
Grad F: right .
Grad A: Mm - hmm .
Grad F: Robert .
Professor C: Well , but , uh , this is very good actually
Grad E: Schade .
Professor C: cuz it {disfmarker} it {disfmarker} it {disfmarker} to the extent that it works , it y
Grad F: Ties it all into it .
Professor C: it {disfmarker} it ties together several of {disfmarker} of these things .
Grad F: Yeah . Yep .
Grad A: Mm - hmm . Mm - hmm . And I 'm sure gonna read the transcript of this one . So . But the , uh , {disfmarker} {vocalsound} But it 's too bad that we don't have a camera . You know , all the pointing is gonna be lost .
Grad E: Yeah .
Grad F: Oh , yeah .
Grad B: Well every time Nancy giggles it means {disfmarker} it means that it 's your job .
Grad F: Yeah , that 's why I said " point to Robert " , {vocalsound} when I did it .
Grad A: Uh . Yeah . Mmm , isn't {disfmarker} I mean , I 'm {disfmarker} I was sort of dubious why {disfmarker} why he even introduces this sort of reality , you know , as your basic mental space and then builds up {disfmarker}
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Grad A: d doesn't start with some {disfmarker} because it 's so obvi it should be so obvious , at least it is to me , {comment} that whenever I say something I could preface that with " I think . " Nuh ?
Grad E: Yeah .
Grad A: So there should be no categorical difference between your base and all the others that ensue .
Grad E: Yeah .
Professor C: No , but there 's {disfmarker} there 's a Gricean thing going on there , that when you say " I think " you 're actually hedging .
Grad E: Yeah , I mean {disfmarker}
Grad F: Mmm . It 's like I don't totally think {disfmarker}
Professor C: Right .
Grad E: Yeah . Y
Grad F: I mostly think , uh {disfmarker}
Grad A: Yeah , it 's {disfmarker} Absolutely .
Grad E: Yeah , it 's an {disfmarker} it 's an evidential . It 's sort of semi - grammaticalized . People have talked about it this way . And you know , you can do sort of special things . You can , th put just the phrase " I think " as a parenthetical in the middle of a sentence and so on , and so forth .
Grad A: Yeah .
Grad E: So {disfmarker}
Grad F: Actually one of the child language researchers who works with T Tomasello studied a bunch of these constructions and it was like it 's not using any kind of interesting embedded ways just to mark , you know , uncertainty or something like that .
Grad E: Yeah .
Grad F: So .
Grad A: Yeah , but about linguistic hedges , I mean , those {disfmarker} those tend to be , um , funky anyways because they blur {disfmarker}
Professor C: So we don't have that in here either do we ?
Grad E: Yeah .
Grad F: Hedges ?
Professor C: Yeah , yeah .
Grad F: Hhh , {comment} I {disfmarker} there used to be a slot for speaker , um , it was something like factivity . I couldn't really remember what it meant
Grad E: Yeah .
Grad F: so I took it out .
Grad E: Um .
Grad F: But it 's something {disfmarker}
Grad E: Well we were just talking about this sort of evidentiality and stuff like that , right ?
Grad F: we {disfmarker} we were talking about sarcasm too , right ? Oh , oh .
Grad E: I mean ,
Grad F: Oh , yeah , yeah , right .
Grad E: that 's what I think is , um , sort of telling you what percent reality you should give this
Professor C: So we probably should .
Grad F: Yeah .
Grad A: Mm - hmm .
Grad E: or the , you know {disfmarker}
Professor C: Confidence or something like that .
Grad E: Yeah , and the fact that I 'm , you know {disfmarker} the fact maybe if I think it versus he thinks that might , you know , depending on how much you trust the two of us or whatever ,
Grad F: Yeah .
Grad A: Uh great word in the English language is called " about " .
Grad E: you know {disfmarker}
Grad A: If you study how people use that it 's also {disfmarker}
Grad F: What 's the word ?
Grad A: " about . " It 's about {disfmarker}
Professor C: About .
Grad A: clever .
Professor C: Oh , that {disfmarker} in that use of " about " , yeah .
Grad F: Oh , oh , oh , as a hedge .
Grad E: Yeah .
Professor C: And I think {disfmarker} And I think {pause} y if you want us to spend a pleasant six or seven hours you could get George started on that .
Grad E: He wrote a paper about thirty - five years ago on that one .
Grad B: I r I read that paper ,
Professor C: Yeah .
Grad B: the hedges paper ? I read some of that paper actually .
Grad E: Yeah .
Professor C: Yeah .
Grad E: Would you believe that that paper lead directly to the development of anti - lock brakes ?
Grad F: What ?
Professor C: No .
Grad E: Ask me about it later I 'll tell you how . When we 're not on tape .
Grad F: I 'd love to know .
Grad B: Oh , man .
Grad F: So , and {disfmarker} and I think , uh , someone had raised like sarcasm as a complication at some point .
Professor C: There 's all that stuff . Yeah , let 's {disfmarker} I {disfmarker} I don't {disfmarker} I think {disfmarker}
Grad F: And we just won't deal with sarcastic people .
Professor C: Yeah , I mean {disfmarker}
Grad E: I don't really know what like {disfmarker} We {disfmarker} we don't have to care too much about the speaker attitude , right ? Like there 's not so many different {disfmarker} hhh , {comment} I don't know , m
Grad F: Certainly not as some {disfmarker} Well , they 're intonational markers I think for the most part .
Grad E: Yeah .
Grad F: I don't know too much about the like grammatical {disfmarker}
Grad E: I just mean {disfmarker} There 's lots of different attitudes that {disfmarker} that the speaker could have and that we can clearly identify , and so on , and so forth .
Grad F: Yeah .
Grad E: But like what are the distinctions among those that we actually care about for our current purposes ?
Professor C: Right . Right , so , uh , this {disfmarker} this raises the question of what are our current purposes .
Grad F: Mm - hmm .
Professor C: Right ?
Grad E: Oh , shoot .
Grad F: Oh , yeah , do we have any ?
Grad E: Here it is three - fifteen already .
Grad A: Mmm . Yeah .
Professor C: Uh , so , um , I {disfmarker} I don't know the answer but {disfmarker} but , um , it does seem that , you know , this is {disfmarker} this is coming along . I think it 's {disfmarker} it 's converging . It 's {disfmarker} as far as I can tell there 's this one major thing we have to do which is the mental {disfmarker} the whole s mental space thing . And then there 's some other minor things .
Grad F: Mm - hmm .
Professor C: Um , and we 're going to have to s sort of bound the complexity . I mean , if we get everything that anybody ever thought about you know , w we 'll go nuts .
Grad E: Yeah .
Professor C: So we had started with the idea that the actual , uh , constraint was related to this tourist domain and the kinds of interactions that might occur in the tourist domain , assuming that people were being helpful and weren't trying to d you know , there 's all sorts of {disfmarker} God knows , irony , and stuff like {disfmarker} which you {disfmarker} isn't probably of much use in dealing with a tourist guide .
Grad E: Yeah .
Professor C: Yeah ?
Grad E: Yeah .
Professor C: Uh .
Grad F: M mockery .
Professor C: Right . Whatever . So y uh , no end of things th that {disfmarker} that , you know , we don't deal with .
Grad A: But it {disfmarker}
Professor C: And {disfmarker}
Grad A: i isn't that part easy though
Professor C: Go ahead .
Grad A: because in terms of the s simspec , it would just mean you put one more set of brack brackets around it , and then just tell it to sort of negate whatever the content of that is in terms of irony
Grad E: Yeah .
Professor C: N no .
Grad F: Mmm .
Grad A: or {disfmarker}
Professor C: No .
Grad E: Right .
Grad F: Maybe .
Professor C: No .
Grad F: Yeah , in model theory cuz the semantics is always like " speaker believes not - P " , you know ?
Professor C: Right .
Grad F: Like " the speaker says P and believes not - P " .
Grad E: We have a theoretical model of sarcasm now .
Grad F: But {disfmarker}
Professor C: Right .
Grad E: Yeah , right , I mean .
Professor C: No , no .
Grad F: Right , right , but ,
Professor C: Anyway , so {disfmarker} so , um , I guess uh , let me make a proposal on how to proceed on that , which is that , um , it was Keith 's , uh , sort of job over the summer to come up with this set of constructions . Uh , and my suggestion to Keith is that you , over the next couple weeks , n
Grad E: Mmm .
Professor C: don't try to do them in detail or formally but just try to describe which ones you think we ought to have .
Grad E: OK .
Professor C: Uh , and then when Robert gets back we 'll look at the set of them .
Grad E: OK .
Professor C: Just {disfmarker} just sort of , you know , define your space .
Grad E: Yeah , OK .
Professor C: And , um , so th these are {disfmarker} this is a set of things that I think we ought to deal with .
Grad E: Yeah .
Professor C: And then we 'll {disfmarker} we 'll {disfmarker} we 'll go back over it and w people will {disfmarker} will give feedback on it .
Grad E: OK .
Professor C: And then {disfmarker} then we 'll have a {disfmarker} at least initial spec of {disfmarker} of what we 're actually trying to do .
Grad E: Yeah .
Professor C: And that 'll also be useful for anybody who 's trying to write a parser .
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Professor C: Knowing uh {disfmarker}
Grad E: In case there 's any around .
Grad F: If we knew anybody like that .
Professor C: Right , " who might want " et cetera . So , uh {disfmarker}
Grad E: OK .
Professor C: So a and we get this {disfmarker} this , uh , portals fixed and then we have an idea of the sort of initial range . And then of course Nancy you 're gonna have to , uh , do your set of {disfmarker} but you have to do that anyway .
Grad F: For the same , yeah , data . Yeah , mm - hmm .
Professor C: So {disfmarker} so we 're gonna get the w we 're basically dealing with two domains , the tourist domain and the {disfmarker} and the child language learning .
Grad B: Mmm .
Professor C: And we 'll see what we need for those two . And then my proposal would be to , um , not totally cut off more general discussion but to focus really detailed work on the subset of things that we 've {disfmarker} we really want to get done .
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Professor C: And then as a kind of separate thread , think about the more general things and {disfmarker} and all that .
Grad E: Mm - hmm . Mm - hmm .
Grad A: Well , I also think the detailed discussion will hit {disfmarker} you know , bring us to problems that are of a general nature and maybe even {disfmarker}
Professor C: Uh , without doubt . Yeah .
Grad F: Yeah .
Grad A: even suggest some solutions .
Professor C: But what I want to do is {disfmarker} is {disfmarker} is to {disfmarker} to constrain the things that we really feel responsible for .
Grad A: Yeah . Mmm .
Professor C: So that {disfmarker} that we say these are the things we 're really gonna try do by the end of the summer
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Professor C: and other things we 'll put on a list of {disfmarker} of research problems or something , because you can easily get to the point where nothing gets done because every time you start to do something you say , " oh , yeah , but what about this case ? "
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Professor C: This is {disfmarker} this is called being a linguist .
Grad A: Mmm .
Grad E: Yeah .
Professor C: And , uh ,
Grad E: Basically .
Grad F: Or me .
Professor C: Huh ?
Grad F: Or me . Anyways {disfmarker}
Grad B: There 's that quote in Jurafsky and Martin where {disfmarker} where it goes {disfmarker} where some guy goes , " every time I fire a linguist the performance of the recognizer goes up . "
Professor C: Right .
Grad F: Yeah .
Grad E: Exactly .
Professor C: Right . But anyway . So , is {disfmarker} is that {disfmarker} does that make sense as a , uh {disfmarker} a general way to proceed ?
Grad F: Sure , yeah .
Grad E: Yeah , yeah , we 'll start with that , just figuring out what needs to be done then actually the next step is to start trying to do it .
Professor C: Exactly right .
Grad A: Mmm .
Grad E: Got it .
Grad A: Mmm .
Grad E: OK .
Grad A: We have a little bit of news , uh , just minor stuff . The one big {disfmarker}
Grad B: Ooo , can I ask a {disfmarker}
Grad E: You ran out of power .
Grad A: Huh ?
Grad B: Can I ask a quick question about this side ?
Grad A: Yeah .
Grad F: Yes .
Grad B: Is this , uh {disfmarker} was it intentional to leave off things like " inherits " and {disfmarker}
Grad F: Oops . Um ,
Grad E: No .
Grad F: not really {disfmarker} just on the constructions , right ?
Grad B: Yeah , like constructions can inherit from other things ,
Grad F: Um ,
Grad B: am I right ?
Grad F: yeah .
Grad B: Yeah .
Grad F: I didn't want to think too much about that for {disfmarker} for now .
Grad B: OK .
Professor C: Yeah .
Grad F: So , uh , maybe it was subconsciously intentional .
Professor C: Yeah , uh {disfmarker} yeah .
Grad E: Um , yeah , there should be {disfmarker} I {disfmarker} I wanted to s find out someday if there was gonna be some way of dealing with , uh , if this is the right term , multiple inheritance ,
Professor C: Mm - hmm .
Grad E: where one construction is inheriting from , uh from both parents ,
Grad F: Uh - huh . Yep .
Grad E: uh , or different ones , or three or four different ones .
Professor C: Yeah . So let me {disfmarker}
Grad E: Cuz the problem is that then you have to {disfmarker}
Grad F: Yeah .
Grad E: which of {disfmarker} you know , which are {disfmarker} how they 're getting bound together .
Grad F: Refer to {pause} them .
Professor C: Yeah , right , right , right . Yeah , yeah , yeah .
Grad F: Yeah , and {disfmarker} and there are certainly cases like that . Even with just semantic schemas we have some examples .
Professor C: Right .
Grad F: So , and we 've been talking a little bit about that anyway .
Professor C: Yeah . So what I would like to do is separate that problem out .
Grad F: Inherits .
Professor C: So um ,
Grad E: OK .
Professor C: my argument is there 's nothing you can do with that that you can't do by just having more constructions .
Grad E: Yeah , yes .
Professor C: It 's uglier and it d doesn't have the deep linguistic insights and stuff .
Grad E: That 's right .
Professor C: Uh ,
Grad E: But whatever .
Professor C: Right .
Grad E: Yeah , no , no , no no .
Grad F: Uh , those are over rated .
Grad E: No , by all means ,
Professor C: And so I {disfmarker} what I 'd like to do is {disfmarker} is in the short run focus on getting it right .
Grad E: right . Uh , sure .
Professor C: And when we think we have it right then saying , " aha ! ,
Grad E: Yeah .
Professor C: can we make it more elegant ? "
Grad E: Yeah , that 's {disfmarker}
Professor C: Can {disfmarker} can we , uh {disfmarker} What are the generalizations , and stuff ?
Grad E: Yeah . Connect the dots . Yeah .
Professor C: But rather than try to guess a inheritance structure and all that sort of stuff before we know what we 're doing .
Grad E: Yep . Yeah .
Professor C: So I would say in the short run we 're not gonna b
Grad E: Yeah .
Professor C: First of all , we 're not doing them yet at all . And {disfmarker} and it could be that half way through we say , " aha ! , we {disfmarker} we now see how we want to clean it up . "
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Professor C: Uh , and inheritance is only one {disfmarker} I mean , that 's one way to organize it but there are others . And it may or may not be the best way .
Grad E: Yeah .
Grad A: Mmm .
Professor C: I 'm sorry , you had news .
Grad A: Oh , just small stuff . Um , thanks to Eva on our web site we can now , if you want to run JavaBayes , uh , you could see {disfmarker} get {disfmarker} download these classes . And then it will enable you {disfmarker} she modified the GUI so it has now a m a m a button menu item for saving it into the embedded JavaBayes format .
Grad D: Mm - hmm .
Grad B: Mmm .
Grad A: So that 's wonderful .
Professor C: Great .
Grad A: And , um and she , a You tested it out . Do you want to say something about that , that it works , right ? With the {disfmarker}
Grad D: I was just checking like , when we wanna , um , get the posterior probability of , like , variables . You know how you asked whether we can , like , just observe all the variables like in the same list ? You can't .
Grad A: Uh - huh .
Grad D: You have to make separate queries every time .
Grad A: OK , that 's {disfmarker} that 's a bit unfortunate
Grad D: So {disfmarker} Yeah .
Grad A: but for the time being it 's {disfmarker} it 's {disfmarker} it 's fine to do it {disfmarker}
Grad D: You just have to have a long list of , you know , all the variables .
Grad A: Yeah . But uh {disfmarker}
Grad D: Basically .
Grad F: Uh , all the things you want to query , you just have to like ask for separately .
Grad D: Yeah , yeah .
Grad A: Well that 's {disfmarker} probably maybe in the long term that 's good news because it forces us to think a little bit more carefully how {disfmarker} how we want to get an out output . Um , but that 's a different discussion for a different time . And , um , I don't know . We 're really running late , so I had , uh , an idea yesterday but , uh , I don't know whether we should even start discussing .
Professor C: W what {disfmarker} Yeah , sure , tell us what it is .
Grad A: Um , the construal bit that , um , has been pointed to but hasn't been , um , made precise by any means , um , may w may work as follows . I thought that we would , uh {disfmarker} that the following thing would be in incredibly nice and I have no clue whether it will work at all or nothing . So that 's just a tangent , a couple of mental disclaimers here . Um , imagine you {disfmarker} you write a Bayes - net , um {disfmarker}
Grad F: Bayes ?
Grad A: Bayes - net ,
Grad F: OK .
Grad A: um , completely from scratch every time you do construal . So you have nothing . Just a white piece of paper .
Professor C: Mmm , right .
Grad A: You consult {disfmarker} consult your ontology which will tell you a bunch of stuff , and parts , and properties , uh - uh - uh
Grad F: Grout out the things that {disfmarker} that you need .
Professor C: Right .
Grad A: then y you 'd simply write , uh , these into {disfmarker} onto your {disfmarker} your white piece of paper . And you will get a lot of notes and stuff out of there . You won't get {disfmarker} you won't really get any C P T 's , therefore we need everything that {disfmarker} that configures to what the situation is , IE , the context dependent stuff . So you get whatever comes from discourse but also filtered . Uh , so only the ontology relevant stuff from the discourse plus the situation and the user model .
Grad F: Mm - hmm .
Grad A: And that fills in your CPT 's with which you can then query , um , the {disfmarker} the net that you just wrote and find out how thing X is construed as an utterance U . And the embedded JavaBayes works exactly like that , that once you {disfmarker} we have , you know , precise format in which to write it , so we write it down . You query it . You get the result , and you throw it away . And the {disfmarker} the nice thing about this idea is that you don't ever have to sit down and think about it or write about it . You may have some general rules as to how things can be {disfmarker} can be construed as what , so that will allow you to craft the {disfmarker} the {disfmarker} the initial notes . But it 's {disfmarker} in that respect it 's completely scalable . Because it doesn't have any prior , um , configuration . It 's just you need an ontology of the domain and you need the context dependent modules . And if this can be made to work at all , {vocalsound} that 'd be kind of funky .
Professor C: Um , it sounds to me like you want P R
Grad A: P R Ms - uh , PRM I mean , since you can unfold a PRM into a straightforward Bayes - net {disfmarker}
Professor C: Beca - because it {disfmarker} b because {disfmarker} No , no , you can't . See the {disfmarker} the critical thing about the PRM is it gives these relations in general form . So once you have instantiated the PRM with the instances and ther then you can {disfmarker} then you can unfold it .
Grad A: Then you can . Mm - hmm , yeah . No , I was m using it generic . So , uh , probabilistic , whatever , relational models . Whatever you write it . In {disfmarker}
Professor C: Well , no , but it matters a lot because you {disfmarker} what you want are these generalized rules about the way things relate , th that you then instantiate in each case .
Grad A: And then {disfmarker} then instantiate them . That 's ma maybe the {disfmarker} the way {disfmarker} the only way it works .
Professor C: Yeah , and that 's {disfmarker}
Grad A: 
Professor C: Yeah , that 's the only way it could work . I {disfmarker} we have a {disfmarker} our local expert on P R uh , but my guess is that they 're not currently good enough to do that . But we 'll {disfmarker} we 'll have to see .
Grad A: But , uh ,
Professor C: Uh {disfmarker} Yes . This is {disfmarker} that 's {disfmarker} that would be a good thing to try . It 's related to the Hobbs abduction story in that you th you throw everything into a pot and you try to come up with the , uh {disfmarker}
Grad A: Except there 's no {disfmarker} no theorem prover involved .
Grad F: Best explanation .
Professor C: No , there isn't a theorem prover but there {disfmarker} but {disfmarker} but the , um , The cove the {disfmarker} the P R Ms are like rules of inference and you 're {disfmarker} you 're coupling a bunch of them together .
Grad A: Mm - hmm , yeah .
Professor C: And then ins instead of proving you 're trying to , you know , compute the most likely . Uh {disfmarker} Tricky . But you {disfmarker} yeah , it 's a good {disfmarker} it 's a {disfmarker} it 's a good thing to put in your thesis proposal .
Grad A: What 's it ?
Professor C: So are you gonna write something for us before you go ?
Grad A: Yes . Um .
Professor C: Oh , you have something .
Grad A: In the process thereof , or whatever .
Professor C: OK . So , what 's {disfmarker} what {disfmarker} when are we gonna meet again ?
Grad F: When are you leaving ?
Grad A: Fri - uh ,
Grad F: Thursday , Friday ?
Grad A: Thursday 's my last day here .
Grad D: Fri
Professor C: Yeah .
Grad F: OK .
Grad A: So {disfmarker} I would suggest as soon as possible . Do you mean by we , the whole ben gang ?
Professor C: N no , I didn't mean y just the two of us . We {disfmarker} obviously we can {disfmarker} we can do this . But the question is do you want to , for example , send the little group , uh , a draft of your thesis proposal and get , uh , another session on feedback on that ? Or {disfmarker}
Grad A: We can do it Th - Thursday again . Yeah .
Grad E: Fine with me . Should we do the one PM time for Thursday since we were on that before or {disfmarker} ?
Grad A: Sure .
Grad E: OK .
Professor C: Alright .
Grad D: Hmm .
Grad A: Thursday at one ? I can also maybe then sort of run through the , uh {disfmarker} the talk I have to give at EML which highlights all of our work .
Professor C: OK .
Grad A: And we can make some last minute changes on that .
Professor C: OK .
Grad B: You can just give him the abstract that we wrote for the paper .
Professor C: That - that 'll tell him exactly what 's going on . Yeah , that {disfmarker} Alright .
Grad F: Can we do {disfmarker} can we do one - thirty ?
Grad A: No .
Grad F: Oh , you already told me no .
Grad A: But we can do four .
Grad F: One , OK , it 's fine . I can do one . It 's fine . It 's fine .
Grad A: One or four . I don't care .
Grad E: To me this is equal . I don't care .
Grad A: If it 's equal for all ? What should we do ?
Grad F: Yeah , it 's fine .
Grad A: Four ?
Grad F: Fine . Yeah {disfmarker} no , no , no , uh , I don't care . It 's fine .
Grad A: It 's equal to all of us , so you can decide one or four .
Grad B: The pressure 's on you Nancy .
Grad A: Liz actually said she likes four because it forces the Meeting Recorder people to cut , you know {disfmarker} the discussions short .
Grad F: OK . OK , four .
Grad E: Well , if you insist , then .
Grad F: OK ? OK . I am .
The revised semantic specification and construction formalism are more stable than the previous versions. Semantic constraints also come into play. The semantic specification, on the other hand, is split into three levels: "scenario" is a list of schemas and bindings between them, which describes the current event in terms of Source-Path-Goal, Container, etc.; "referent" is about the entities in the discourse and includes grammatical information and pointers to the ontology; "discourse segment" comprises utterance-specific things. Apart from the presentation, JavaBayes can now run through the modified web page of the project.