Skip to content

Home

Jump to bottom
jonathanPoitz edited this page Mar 27, 2016 · 6 revisions

Jonathan TODO

Writing

  • find examples for sdrs-formula "not” (definition 2 thesis) -> section 4.8 book
  • circle LAST in discourse Graph
  • mention implementation difference with boxer?

Johan Bos defines SDRSs in Boxer in a different way; he actually treats SDRSs as being part of the DRT definition, thus obtaining recursiveness from there: http://svn.ask.it.usyd.edu.au/trac/candc/wiki/SDRSs We do not want to do it in this way, because this would mean changing the entire DRT definition, and hence losing modularity.

Implementation

  • implement DRS accessibility for SDRSs
  • Graph with labeled Edges

Unsolved Problems

Theoretical

RFC

Constructed to show how RFC blocks antecedents that for DRT would be accessible but for SDRT aren’t. Relations are in my opinion Elaboration(1,2) and Entity-Elaboration(1,3). But since Elaboration is subordinating, 1 should be at the RF before 3 is added to the discourse and thus Entitiy-Elab(1,3) should be felicitous, right?

(12) [1 John drove his car to Minnesota]. [2 He brought his girlfriend along.] [3 It was red.]

Noortje: why not narration or coordination (you mean continuation?)? Those are coordinating relations, which I think should be the case in this example.

Jonathan: Narration only holds when the two sentences timewise doesn’t overlap. But that’s the case here. Continuation also is something else in my opinion. So far the examples about it that i’ve seen where things where things either happened in parallel (The light went off. Peter looked for the switch. John looked for candles) or when they were on the same level of discourse salience and all elaborated on the same topic (One plaintiff was passed over for promotion three times. Another one didn’t get a raise for five years. A third plaintiff was .... The jury didn’t believe this.) My example feels differently. It feels like sentence 2 doesnt have the same status as 1, but rather elaborates on it. But true it’s disputable. How can we find out, though? Also interesting:

(13) Peter drops a glas. Karen picks it up again. He is happy. (14) Peter cooks pasta while Karen sets the table. He turns off the stove.

Implementation

Definition problems

Noortje/Harm TODO/Discuss

  • Show for recursive SDRSFormulas -> Scoping of And and Not not clear
Clone this wiki locally