Q: How would the mental spaces operate?
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 .
Mental spaces can be tackled with mechanisms that can also deal with context issues (time, space etc.): creating a base space and rules of interaction with other interconnected spaces. However, the complexity of these mechanisms has to be bound as well: it is necessary to define the range of constructions to be studied. 