There are certain things that are attribute - value , similar to the bindings below but I mean they 're just  us usually they 're going to be value  value fillers , right ? OK , and then again semantic constraints here are just  are just bindings. There was talk of changing the name of that. And Johno and I  I  you  you and I can like fight about that if you like ? but about changing it to " semantic  n effects " , which I thought was a little bit too order - biased

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  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  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.

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


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  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  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.

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


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  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  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.

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

Yeah , yeah. It 's used shouldn't matter , right ? Mm - hmm.


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

Yeah , yeah. It 's used shouldn't matter , right ? Mm - hmm.

s For sure. I mean , I don't know what , uh , term we want to use


Yeah , yeah. It 's used shouldn't matter , right ? Mm - hmm.

s For sure. I mean , I don't know what , uh , term we want to use


s For sure. I mean , I don't know what , uh , term we want to use

Yeah , uh , there was one time when  when Hans explained why " constraints " was a misleading word for him.


Yeah , uh , there was one time when  when Hans explained why " constraints " was a misleading word for him.


Yeah , uh , there was one time when  when Hans explained why " constraints " was a misleading word for him.

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  And so I was like , " OK , well both of you don't like it ?


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  And so I was like , " OK , well both of you don't like it ?

Fine , we can change it ". But I  I  I 'm starting to like it again.


Fine , we can change it ". But I  I  I 'm starting to like it again.

So that that 's why   That 's why I 'll stick with it.


So that that 's why   That 's why I 'll stick with it.


So that that 's why   That 's why I 'll stick with it.

If you have an " if - then " phrase , do you know what the " then " phrase is called ?


If you have an " if - then " phrase , do you know what the " then " phrase is called ?


I know. Anyway , so the other  the other strategy you guys could consider is when you don't know what word to put , you could put no word ,


So that 's why you put semantic constraints up top and meaning bindings down  down here ?


So that 's why you put semantic constraints up top and meaning bindings down  down here ?

Oh , oops ! No. That was just a mistake of cut and paste from when I was going with it.


Oh , oops ! No. That was just a mistake of cut and paste from when I was going with it.

So , I 'm sorry. I didn't mean  that one 's an in unintentional.


So , I 'm sorry. I didn't mean  that one 's an in unintentional.


So , I 'm sorry. I didn't mean  that one 's an in unintentional.

Sometimes I 'm intentionally inconsistent


So , I 'm sorry. I didn't mean  that one 's an in unintentional.

Sometimes I 'm intentionally inconsistent

cuz I 'm not sure yet. Here , I actually  it was just a mistake.


Sometimes I 'm intentionally inconsistent

cuz I 'm not sure yet. Here , I actually  it was just a mistake.

Th - so this definitely should be " semantic constraints " down at the bottom ?


cuz I 'm not sure yet. Here , I actually  it was just a mistake.

Th - so this definitely should be " semantic constraints " down at the bottom ?


Th - so this definitely should be " semantic constraints " down at the bottom ?


Well , unless I go with " meaning " but i I mean , I kind of like " meaning " better than " semantic "


Well , unless I go with " meaning " but i I mean , I kind of like " meaning " better than " semantic "

but I think there 's  vestiges of other people 's biases.


but I think there 's  vestiges of other people 's biases.


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  and that you can drop the , um  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.


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  and that you can drop the , um  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.

So basically now , um , this is actually  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.


So basically now , um , this is actually  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.

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  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.


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  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.

Um , there is a slight complication here which is that when we talk about form it 's useful sometimes to talk about , um  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  " , um , " big red ball " , and the entity denoted by the word " ball " is sort of the semantic head in some ways of  of this sort of , um , in interesting larger element.


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  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.

Um , there is a slight complication here which is that when we talk about form it 's useful sometimes to talk about , um  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  " , um , " big red ball " , and the entity denoted by the word " ball " is sort of the semantic head in some ways of  of this sort of , um , in interesting larger element.

A a and the  Yeah. And there 's  uh there 's ca some cases where the grammar depends on some form property of the head. And  and this enables you to get that , if I understand you right.


Um , there is a slight complication here which is that when we talk about form it 's useful sometimes to talk about , um  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  " , um , " big red ball " , and the entity denoted by the word " ball " is sort of the semantic head in some ways of  of this sort of , um , in interesting larger element.

A a and the  Yeah. And there 's  uh there 's ca some cases where the grammar depends on some form property of the head. And  and this enables you to get that , if I understand you right.


A a and the  Yeah. And there 's  uh there 's ca some cases where the grammar depends on some form property of the head. And  and this enables you to get that , if I understand you right.


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  the formal head as opposed to the rest of the form having to be at the end of that decision.


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  the formal head as opposed to the rest of the form having to be at the end of that decision.

So that 's a useful thing so that you can get some internal structural constraints in.


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  the formal head as opposed to the rest of the form having to be at the end of that decision.

So that 's a useful thing so that you can get some internal structural constraints in.

OK , so that all looks good. Let me  Oh , w Oh. I don't know. Were you finished ?


So that 's a useful thing so that you can get some internal structural constraints in.

OK , so that all looks good. Let me  Oh , w Oh. I don't know. Were you finished ?

Um , there was a list of things that isn't included but you  you can  you can ask a question. That might @ @ it.


So that 's a useful thing so that you can get some internal structural constraints in.

OK , so that all looks good. Let me  Oh , w Oh. I don't know. Were you finished ?

Um , there was a list of things that isn't included but you  you can  you can ask a question. That might @ @ it.

OK. So , i if I understand this the  aside from , uh , construed and all that sort of stuff , the  the differences are mainly that ,  we 've gone to the possibility of having form - meaning pairs for a type


OK , so that all looks good. Let me  Oh , w Oh. I don't know. Were you finished ?

Um , there was a list of things that isn't included but you  you can  you can ask a question. That might @ @ it.

OK. So , i if I understand this the  aside from , uh , construed and all that sort of stuff , the  the differences are mainly that ,  we 've gone to the possibility of having form - meaning pairs for a type


Um , there was a list of things that isn't included but you  you can  you can ask a question. That might @ @ it.

OK. So , i if I understand this the  aside from , uh , construed and all that sort of stuff , the  the differences are mainly that ,  we 've gone to the possibility of having form - meaning pairs for a type


OK. So , i if I understand this the  aside from , uh , construed and all that sort of stuff , the  the differences are mainly that ,  we 've gone to the possibility of having form - meaning pairs for a type


Well , except for their construction meaning , so it 's not clear that , uh  Well , right now it 's a c uh contr construction type and meaning type. So I don't know what a form type is.


Well , except for their construction meaning , so it 's not clear that , uh  Well , right now it 's a c uh contr construction type and meaning type. So I don't know what a form type is.

Oh , I see. Yeah , yeah , yeah. I 'm sorry , you 're right.


Well , except for their construction meaning , so it 's not clear that , uh  Well , right now it 's a c uh contr construction type and meaning type. So I don't know what a form type is.

Oh , I see. Yeah , yeah , yeah. I 'm sorry , you 're right.

A construction type. Uh , that 's fine. But it , um


Oh , I see. Yeah , yeah , yeah. I 'm sorry , you 're right.

A construction type. Uh , that 's fine. But it , um

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 ".


A construction type. Uh , that 's fine. But it , um

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 ".


A construction type. Uh , that 's fine. But it , um

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 ".

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.


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 ".

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.


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.

Um , I  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  that 's kind of weird.


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.

Um , I  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  that 's kind of weird.

No , no , no , I don't think so. I think that you 'll  you 'll do fine.


Um , I  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  that 's kind of weird.

No , no , no , I don't think so. I think that you 'll  you 'll do fine.

In fact , these are , um , as long as  as Mark isn't around , these are form constraints. So a nominal expression is  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  of f you know , higher form types , this i this is one.


No , no , no , I don't think so. I think that you 'll  you 'll do fine.

In fact , these are , um , as long as  as Mark isn't around , these are form constraints. So a nominal expression is  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  of f you know , higher form types , this i this is one.


In fact , these are , um , as long as  as Mark isn't around , these are form constraints. So a nominal expression is  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  of f you know , higher form types , this i this is one.


It 's  that now , um , I 'm mentioned this , I  I don't know if I ever explained this but the point of , um , I mentioned in the last meeting ,  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  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


It 's  that now , um , I 'm mentioned this , I  I don't know if I ever explained this but the point of , um , I mentioned in the last meeting ,  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  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

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.


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.

And you could get , you know , " the kicked dog " or something like that , meaning " kicked the dog ".


And you could get , you know , " the kicked dog " or something like that , meaning " kicked the dog ".

Um , so you kind of have to let this phrase idea in there


And you could get , you know , " the kicked dog " or something like that , meaning " kicked the dog ".

Um , so you kind of have to let this phrase idea in there

That I  I have no problem with it at all.


Um , so you kind of have to let this phrase idea in there

That I  I have no problem with it at all.


That I  I have no problem with it at all.


Yeah. Right , n s you may be  you may not be like everyone else in  in Berkeley ,


Yeah. Right , n s you may be  you may not be like everyone else in  in Berkeley ,

I mean , we  we  we sort of thought we were getting away with , uh  with , a p


I mean , we  we  we sort of thought we were getting away with , uh  with , a p


I mean , we  we  we sort of thought we were getting away with , uh  with , a p

I mean , this is not reverting to the X - bar theory of  of phrase structure.


I mean , this is not reverting to the X - bar theory of  of phrase structure.


I just know that this is  Like , we didn't originally have in mind that , uh  that verbs would subcategorize for a particular sort of form.


which is , um  The question was did we want directed motion ,


which is , um  The question was did we want directed motion ,

which is an argument structure construction


which is an argument structure construction


which is an argument structure construction

did we want it to worry about , um , anything more than the fact that it , you know , has semantic  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 ,


did we want it to worry about , um , anything more than the fact that it , you know , has semantic  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 ,


did we want it to worry about , um , anything more than the fact that it , you know , has semantic  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 ,

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.


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.

And that would be a little bit cleaner in some way. But you know , for now , I mean ,


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.

And that would be a little bit cleaner in some way. But you know , for now , I mean ,

Yeah. But it  y y it 's  yeah , just moving it  moving the c the cons the constraints around.


And that would be a little bit cleaner in some way. But you know , for now , I mean ,

Yeah. But it  y y it 's  yeah , just moving it  moving the c the cons the constraints around.

uh , you know. M moving it to another place , right.


Yeah. But it  y y it 's  yeah , just moving it  moving the c the cons the constraints around.

uh , you know. M moving it to another place , right.


uh , you know. M moving it to another place , right.

But there does  basically , the point is there has to be that constraint somewhere , right ?


But there does  basically , the point is there has to be that constraint somewhere , right ?


OK , and sort of going with that is that the designatum also now is a pair.


And that aside from some terminology , that 's basically it.


Yeah , um , the un sort of the un - addressed questions in this , um , definitely would for instance be semantic constraints we talked about.


Yeah , um , the un sort of the un - addressed questions in this , um , definitely would for instance be semantic constraints we talked about.

Here are just bindings but , right ? we might want to introduce mental spaces  You know , there 's all these things that we don't


Yeah , um , the un sort of the un - addressed questions in this , um , definitely would for instance be semantic constraints we talked about.

Here are just bindings but , right ? we might want to introduce mental spaces  You know , there 's all these things that we don't

The whole  the mental space thing is clearly not here.


Here are just bindings but , right ? we might want to introduce mental spaces  You know , there 's all these things that we don't

The whole  the mental space thing is clearly not here.

Right ? So there 's going to be some extra  you know , definitely other notation we 'll need for that which we skip for now.


The whole  the mental space thing is clearly not here.

Right ? So there 's going to be some extra  you know , definitely other notation we 'll need for that which we skip for now.

By the way , I do want to get on that as soon as Robert gets back.


Right ? So there 's going to be some extra  you know , definitely other notation we 'll need for that which we skip for now.

By the way , I do want to get on that as soon as Robert gets back.


By the way , I do want to get on that as soon as Robert gets back.


Um , obviously ,  construal is a b is a b is a big component of that


Um , obviously ,  construal is a b is a b is a big component of that

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


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

So what 's the  what 's the time frame ? I forgot again when you 're going away for how long ?


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

So what 's the  what 's the time frame ? I forgot again when you 're going away for how long ?

Just , uh , as a  sort of a mental bridge , I 'm not  I 'm skipping fourth of July. So , uh ,  right afterwards I 'm back.


So what 's the  what 's the time frame ? I forgot again when you 're going away for how long ?

Just , uh , as a  sort of a mental bridge , I 'm not  I 'm skipping fourth of July. So , uh ,  right afterwards I 'm back.


So what 's the  what 's the time frame ? I forgot again when you 're going away for how long ?

Just , uh , as a  sort of a mental bridge , I 'm not  I 'm skipping fourth of July. So , uh ,  right afterwards I 'm back.

What ? You 're missing like the premier American holiday ? What 's the point of spending a year here ?


Just , uh , as a  sort of a mental bridge , I 'm not  I 'm skipping fourth of July. So , uh ,  right afterwards I 'm back.

What ? You 're missing like the premier American holiday ? What 's the point of spending a year here ?


What ? You 're missing like the premier American holiday ? What 's the point of spending a year here ?


And furthermore it 's well worth missing.


And furthermore it 's well worth missing.

Yeah , that 's true. I like  I  I like spending fourth of July in other countries ,  whenever I can.


Yeah , that 's true. I like  I  I like spending fourth of July in other countries ,  whenever I can.


Construal , OK , so  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  uh , we 've often just stuck it in as a feature ,


Construal , OK , so  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  uh , we 've often just stuck it in as a feature ,

you know , " oh ,  this event takes place before speech time " ,  OK , is what this means. Um , it 's often thought of as  it is also considered a mental space ,


you know , " oh ,  this event takes place before speech time " ,  OK , is what this means. Um , it 's often thought of as  it is also considered a mental space ,

you know , by , you know , lots of people around here.


you know , by , you know , lots of people around here.

So there 's this issue of well sometimes there are really exotic explicit space builders that say " in France , blah - blah - blah " ,


So there 's this issue of well sometimes there are really exotic explicit space builders that say " in France , blah - blah - blah " ,

and you have to build up  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  we doesn't  don't necessarily want to , you know , unload all the notation every time we see that it 's past tense.


and you have to build up  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  we doesn't  don't necessarily want to , you know , unload all the notation every time we see that it 's past tense.

So , you know , we could think of our  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.


So , you know , we could think of our  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.

So  so we 're kind of like having our cake and eating it


So  so we 're kind of like having our cake and eating it

you know , having it both ways , right ?


So  so we 're kind of like having our cake and eating it

you know , having it both ways , right ?

Yeah.  No , I think  I think that i we 'll have to see how it works out when we do the details


you know , having it both ways , right ?

Yeah.  No , I think  I think that i we 'll have to see how it works out when we do the details


you know , having it both ways , right ?

Yeah.  No , I think  I think that i we 'll have to see how it works out when we do the details

but my intuition would be that that 's right.


Yeah.  No , I think  I think that i we 'll have to see how it works out when we do the details

but my intuition would be that that 's right.


but my intuition would be that that 's right.


Oh , oh , oh , oh , instead of just time ?


Oh , oh , oh , oh , instead of just time ?

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


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

You could build up an appropriately  uh , appropriate structure according to the l the sentence.


You could build up an appropriately  uh , appropriate structure according to the l the sentence.

Hmm , well this  this basically would involve everything you can imagine to fit under your C dot something


You could build up an appropriately  uh , appropriate structure according to the l the sentence.

Hmm , well this  this basically would involve everything you can imagine to fit under your C dot something

you know , where  where it 's contextually dependent ,


Hmm , well this  this basically would involve everything you can imagine to fit under your C dot something

you know , where  where it 's contextually dependent ,


you know , where  where it 's contextually dependent ,


what is in the future , where is this , what is here , what is there , what is  "


what is in the future , where is this , what is here , what is there , what is  "

Mm - hmm. Yeah. So time and space. Um , we 'll  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.


what is in the future , where is this , what is here , what is there , what is  "

Mm - hmm. Yeah. So time and space. Um , we 'll  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.

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 ,  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  hypothetical or whatever , then you have to do your job ,


Mm - hmm. Yeah. So time and space. Um , we 'll  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.

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 ,  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  hypothetical or whatever , then you have to do your job ,


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 ,  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  hypothetical or whatever , then you have to do your job ,


Yeah. I mean , I 'm  I 'm s curious about how much of the mental  I mean , I 'm not sure that the formalism , sort of the grammatical side of things ,  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  I think of it as , sort of giving you the coordinates of , you know  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  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.


Yeah. I mean , I 'm  I 'm s curious about how much of the mental  I mean , I 'm not sure that the formalism , sort of the grammatical side of things ,  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  I think of it as , sort of giving you the coordinates of , you know  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  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.

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  what the point of doing so is. So for example , depending on the linguistic con uh , context it could be  like the question is for example , what does " Watergate " refer to there ? Does it , you know  does it refer to , um  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  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 "  we 're now talking about the real one ,


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  what the point of doing so is. So for example , depending on the linguistic con uh , context it could be  like the question is for example , what does " Watergate " refer to there ? Does it , you know  does it refer to , um  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  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 "  we 're now talking about the real one ,

and the " would " sort of  it 's a sort of different dimension of hypothe - theticality , right ? We 're not saying  What 's hypothetical about this world.


and the " would " sort of  it 's a sort of different dimension of hypothe - theticality , right ? We 're not saying  What 's hypothetical about this world.

In the first case , hypothetically we 're imagining that Watergate happened in France.


In the first case , hypothetically we 're imagining that Watergate happened in France.

In the second case we 're imagining hypothetically that Nixon had apologized right away


In the second case we 're imagining hypothetically that Nixon had apologized right away


So a lot of this isn't happening at the grammatical level.


sort of the idea of sorting out what the person meant.


sort of the idea of sorting out what the person meant.

It seems like , um , the grammatical things such as the auxiliaries that you know introduce these conditionals , whatever , give you sort of the  the most basi


sort of the idea of sorting out what the person meant.

It seems like , um , the grammatical things such as the auxiliaries that you know introduce these conditionals , whatever , give you sort of the  the most basi

th those we  I think we can figure out what the possibilities are , right ?


It seems like , um , the grammatical things such as the auxiliaries that you know introduce these conditionals , whatever , give you sort of the  the most basi

th those we  I think we can figure out what the possibilities are , right ?


th those we  I think we can figure out what the possibilities are , right ?

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


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

You know , one is a more specific version of the general pattern that the grammat grammar gives you.


You know , one is a more specific version of the general pattern that the grammat grammar gives you.


You know , one is a more specific version of the general pattern that the grammat grammar gives you.

Yeah , in the short run all we need is a enough mechanism on the form side to get things going.


Yeah , in the short run all we need is a enough mechanism on the form side to get things going.


But the whole point of  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 ".


But the whole point of  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 ".

And so somebody 's gonna have to be doing a whole lot of work but not me , I think.


But the whole point of  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 ".

And so somebody 's gonna have to be doing a whole lot of work but not me , I think.

Well  I think that 's right. Oh , I  yeah , I , uh , uh  I think that 's  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 ,


And so somebody 's gonna have to be doing a whole lot of work but not me , I think.

Well  I think that 's right. Oh , I  yeah , I , uh , uh  I think that 's  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 ,


Well  I think that 's right. Oh , I  yeah , I , uh , uh  I think that 's  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 ,

Sure , but like what  what was the point of saying that sentence about Nixon and France ? That is not  there is nothing about that in the  in the sentence really.


Sure , but like what  what was the point of saying that sentence about Nixon and France ? That is not  there is nothing about that in the  in the sentence really.

That 's OK. We usually don't know the point of the sentence at all.


That 's OK. We usually don't know the point of the sentence at all.


We  we know that it 's  what predication it 's setting up.


We  we know that it 's  what predication it 's setting up.

But  but  bottom line , I agree with you ,


But  but  bottom line , I agree with you ,

that  that  that we 're not expecting much out of the , uh f


that  that  that we 're not expecting much out of the , uh f


And , um  I mean , you 're  you 're the linguist


And , um  I mean , you 're  you 're the linguist

but , uh , it seems to me that th these  we  we  you know , we 've talked about maybe a half a dozen linguistics theses in the last few minutes or something.


but , uh , it seems to me that th these  we  we  you know , we 've talked about maybe a half a dozen linguistics theses in the last few minutes or something.


uh , I  I mean , that  that 's my feeling that  that these are really hard uh , problems that decide exactly what  what 's going on.


uh , I  I mean , that  that 's my feeling that  that these are really hard uh , problems that decide exactly what  what 's going on.

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.


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.


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.

Um , for now I 'm gonna say like " profile " 's often used  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  right t right triangle.


Um , for now I 'm gonna say like " profile " 's often used  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  right t right triangle.


Um , for now I 'm gonna say like " profile " 's often used  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  right t right triangle.

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  in a frame th this is  the profiles on the  these are the ones that are required. So they have to be there or expressed in some way. Which  which  I 'm not saying one and two are mutually exclusive but they 're  they 're different meanings.


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  in a frame th this is  the profiles on the  these are the ones that are required. So they have to be there or expressed in some way. Which  which  I 'm not saying one and two are mutually exclusive but they 're  they 're different meanings.


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  in a frame th this is  the profiles on the  these are the ones that are required. So they have to be there or expressed in some way. Which  which  I 'm not saying one and two are mutually exclusive but they 're  they 're different meanings.

So the closest thing  so I was thinking about how it relates to this notation. For us , um  OK , so how is it


So the closest thing  so I was thinking about how it relates to this notation. For us , um  OK , so how is it

Does that  Is that really what they mean in  in


Does that  Is that really what they mean in  in

FrameNet ? Yeah , yeah. I  I mean , I  I was a little bit surprised about it too.


FrameNet ? Yeah , yeah. I  I mean , I  I was a little bit surprised about it too.


FrameNet ? Yeah , yeah. I  I mean , I  I was a little bit surprised about it too.

I knew that  I thought that that would be something like  there 's another term that I 've heard for that thing


I knew that  I thought that that would be something like  there 's another term that I 've heard for that thing

but they  I mean  uh , well , at least Hans says they use it that way. And


but they  I mean  uh , well , at least Hans says they use it that way. And

and may maybe he 's wrong. Anyway , so I think the  the " designate " that we have in terms of meaning is really the " highlight this thing with respect to everything else ". OK ?


and may maybe he 's wrong. Anyway , so I think the  the " designate " that we have in terms of meaning is really the " highlight this thing with respect to everything else ". OK ?

So this is what  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  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


So this is what  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  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

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  it 's the kind of thing that w a parser might want to think about whether we require  you know , these things are like it 's semantically part of it


So this is what  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  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

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  it 's the kind of thing that w a parser might want to think about whether we require  you know , these things are like it 's semantically part of it

N no , no. Well , uh , th critically they 're not required syntactically. Often they 're pres presu presupposed and all that sort of stuff.


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  it 's the kind of thing that w a parser might want to think about whether we require  you know , these things are like it 's semantically part of it

N no , no. Well , uh , th critically they 're not required syntactically. Often they 're pres presu presupposed and all that sort of stuff.

Right. Right , right. Yeah , um , definitely. So , um , " in " was a good example. If you walk " in " , like well , in what ?


N no , no. Well , uh , th critically they 're not required syntactically. Often they 're pres presu presupposed and all that sort of stuff.

Right. Right , right. Yeah , um , definitely. So , um , " in " was a good example. If you walk " in " , like well , in what ?

You know , like you have to have the   So  so it 's only semantically is it  it is still required , say , by simulation time though


Right. Right , right. Yeah , um , definitely. So , um , " in " was a good example. If you walk " in " , like well , in what ?

You know , like you have to have the   So  so it 's only semantically is it  it is still required , say , by simulation time though


You know , like you have to have the   So  so it 's only semantically is it  it is still required , say , by simulation time though

to have something. So it 's that  I meant the idea of like that  the semantic value is filled in by sim simulation. I don't know if that 's something we need to spa to  to like say ever as part of the requirement ?  or the construction ? or not. We 'll  we 'll again defer.


to have something. So it 's that  I meant the idea of like that  the semantic value is filled in by sim simulation. I don't know if that 's something we need to spa to  to like say ever as part of the requirement ?  or the construction ? or not. We 'll  we 'll again defer.


is that the idea ? Just point at Robert. Whenever I 'm confused just point to him.


is that the idea ? Just point at Robert. Whenever I 'm confused just point to him.

Right. It 's  it 's his thesis , right ?


Right. It 's  it 's his thesis , right ?


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.


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.

OK , well we 'll get , uh uh , I  we have thoughts about those as well.


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.

OK , well we 'll get , uh uh , I  we have thoughts about those as well.

Um , the I w I would just s some of this is just like my  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.


OK , well we 'll get , uh uh , I  we have thoughts about those as well.

Um , the I w I would just s some of this is just like my  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.


Um , the I w I would just s some of this is just like my  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.


Um , the I w I would just s some of this is just like my  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.

I think that , um , the other terms that are related are like focus and stress.


I think that , um , the other terms that are related are like focus and stress.


I think that , um , the other terms that are related are like focus and stress.

So , s I think that the way I  we would like to think , uh , I think is focus is something that comes up in , I mean , lots of  basically this is the information structure.


So , s I think that the way I  we would like to think , uh , I think is focus is something that comes up in , I mean , lots of  basically this is the information structure.

OK , it 's like  uh , it 's not  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 ,  things toward the end of the sentence , post - verbal , tend to be the focused  focused element ,


OK , it 's like  uh , it 's not  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 ,  things toward the end of the sentence , post - verbal , tend to be the focused  focused element ,

the new information. You know , if I  " I walked into the room " , you  tend to think that , whatever , " into the room " is sort of like the more focused kind of thing.


the new information. You know , if I  " I walked into the room " , you  tend to think that , whatever , " into the room " is sort of like the more focused kind of thing.

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  the sort of like import or whatever of  of this thing. Uh , so  so I think that 's kind of nice to keep " focus " being an information structure term. " Stress "  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  you might have like  whatever , like , um , accent kind of stress.


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  the sort of like import or whatever of  of this thing. Uh , so  so I think that 's kind of nice to keep " focus " being an information structure term. " Stress "  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  you might have like  whatever , like , um , accent kind of stress.

And that 's just a  uh , w we 'll want to distinguish stress as a form device. You know , like , oh , high volume or whatever.


And that 's just a  uh , w we 'll want to distinguish stress as a form device. You know , like , oh , high volume or whatever.

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  it sort of evokes all the other possibilities that it wasn't.


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  it sort of evokes all the other possibilities that it wasn't.

Um , so my classic  my now - classic example of saying , " Oh , he did go to the meeting ? " ,


Um , so my classic  my now - classic example of saying , " Oh , he did go to the meeting ? " ,

that was my way of saying  as opposed to , you know , " Oh , he didn't g " or " There was a meeting ? "


that was my way of saying  as opposed to , you know , " Oh , he didn't g " or " There was a meeting ? "

I think that was the example that was caught on by the linguists immediately.


I think that was the example that was caught on by the linguists immediately.

And so , um , the  like if you said he  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


And so , um , the  like if you said he  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

" 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 ,


" 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 ,

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  one  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  all the possible meanings you could have , any of them could be the subject of focus.


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  one  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  all the possible meanings you could have , any of them could be the subject of focus.

But I think one  the one thing you can schematize is the kind of focus , right ? So for instance , you could say it 's the  the tense on this as opposed to , um , the  the action. OK. Or it 's  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  it is kind of like a profile  profile - background thing but I  I can't think of like the limited set of possible meanings that you would  that you would focu


But I think one  the one thing you can schematize is the kind of focus , right ? So for instance , you could say it 's the  the tense on this as opposed to , um , the  the action. OK. Or it 's  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  it is kind of like a profile  profile - background thing but I  I can't think of like the limited set of possible meanings that you would  that you would focu

light  highlight as opposed to other ones. So it has some certain complications for the , uh , uh  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  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 ?


light  highlight as opposed to other ones. So it has some certain complications for the , uh , uh  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  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 ?

Because you might want to say that , um , location or cert certain WH words bring  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  there are many more things that are uncl that are sort of like a little bit unstable about the notation but it 's most  I think it 's  this is , you know , the current  current form. Other things we didn't  totally deal with , um ,


Because you might want to say that , um , location or cert certain WH words bring  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  there are many more things that are uncl that are sort of like a little bit unstable about the notation but it 's most  I think it 's  this is , you know , the current  current form. Other things we didn't  totally deal with , um ,

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.


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.


And , um , I mean , we should have put an example of this and we could do that later.


And , um , I mean , we should have put an example of this and we could do that later.

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  Uh , you know , they  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  this might , you know , be a little o opaque. But , you know , we have the  properties of dependency grammars and some properties of constituents  constituent - based grammar. So that 's  I think that 's sort of the main thing we wanted to aim for


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  Uh , you know , they  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  this might , you know , be a little o opaque. But , you know , we have the  properties of dependency grammars and some properties of constituents  constituent - based grammar. So that 's  I think that 's sort of the main thing we wanted to aim for


Maybe you want to forget stress. This  my f


Maybe you want to forget stress. This  my f

No , as  as  Just don't  don't think about it.


No , as  as  Just don't  don't think about it.


canonically speaking you can  if you look at a  a curve over sentence , you can find out where a certain stress is and say , " hey , that 's my focus exponent. "


canonically speaking you can  if you look at a  a curve over sentence , you can find out where a certain stress is and say , " hey , that 's my focus exponent. "

It doesn't tell you anything what the focus is. If it 's just that thing ,


It doesn't tell you anything what the focus is. If it 's just that thing ,

Mm - hmm. Or the constituent that it falls in.


Mm - hmm. Or the constituent that it falls in.


You mean t forget about stress , the form cue ?


You mean t forget about stress , the form cue ?

because , uh , as a form cue , um , not even trained experts can always  well , they can tell you where the focus exponent is sometimes.


because , uh , as a form cue , um , not even trained experts can always  well , they can tell you where the focus exponent is sometimes.


because , uh , as a form cue , um , not even trained experts can always  well , they can tell you where the focus exponent is sometimes.

And that 's also mostly true for read speech. In  in real speech , um , people may put stress. It 's so d context dependent on what was there before , phrase ba breaks , um , restarts.


And that 's also mostly true for read speech. In  in real speech , um , people may put stress. It 's so d context dependent on what was there before , phrase ba breaks , um , restarts.

It 's just , um  it 's absurd. It 's complicated.


It 's just , um  it 's absurd. It 's complicated.


It 's just , um  it 's absurd. It 's complicated.

Yeah , I mean , I  I 'm sort of inclined to say let 's worry about specifying the information structure focus of the sentence


Yeah , I mean , I  I 'm sort of inclined to say let 's worry about specifying the information structure focus of the sentence


Yeah , I mean , I  I 'm sort of inclined to say let 's worry about specifying the information structure focus of the sentence

Mm - hmm. Ways that you can get it come from th


Mm - hmm. Ways that you can get it come from th

hhh ,  the phonology component can handle actually assigning an intonation contour to that.


Mm - hmm. Ways that you can get it come from th

hhh ,  the phonology component can handle actually assigning an intonation contour to that.

You know , I mean , later on we 'll worry about exactly how


hhh ,  the phonology component can handle actually assigning an intonation contour to that.

You know , I mean , later on we 'll worry about exactly how

Or  or map from the contour to  to what the focus exponent is.


You know , I mean , later on we 'll worry about exactly how

Or  or map from the contour to  to what the focus exponent is.


Or  or map from the contour to  to what the focus exponent is.


But , uh , if you don't know what you 're  what you 're focus is then you 're  you 're hopeless - uh - ly lost anyways ,


But , uh , if you don't know what you 're  what you 're focus is then you 're  you 're hopeless - uh - ly lost anyways ,

and the only way of figuring out what that is ,  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.


and the only way of figuring out what that is ,  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.


and the only way of figuring out what that is ,  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.

And then you 're left with a couple three. So , you know , again , that 's something that h humans can do ,


And then you 're left with a couple three. So , you know , again , that 's something that h humans can do ,

um , but far outside the scope of  of any  anything. So. You know. It 's


And then you 're left with a couple three. So , you know , again , that 's something that h humans can do ,

um , but far outside the scope of  of any  anything. So. You know. It 's

OK. Well , uh , yeah , I wouldn't have assumed that it 's an easy problem in  in absence of all the oth


um , but far outside the scope of  of any  anything. So. You know. It 's

OK. Well , uh , yeah , I wouldn't have assumed that it 's an easy problem in  in absence of all the oth


um , but far outside the scope of  of any  anything. So. You know. It 's

OK. Well , uh , yeah , I wouldn't have assumed that it 's an easy problem in  in absence of all the oth

you need all the other information I guess.


OK. Well , uh , yeah , I wouldn't have assumed that it 's an easy problem in  in absence of all the oth

you need all the other information I guess.

But it 's  it 's  what it  uh , it 's pretty easy to put it in the formalism , though. I mean , because


you need all the other information I guess.

But it 's  it 's  what it  uh , it 's pretty easy to put it in the formalism , though. I mean , because


you need all the other information I guess.

But it 's  it 's  what it  uh , it 's pretty easy to put it in the formalism , though. I mean , because

you can just say whatever stuff , " i is the container being focused or the  the entire whatever , both , and so forth. "


But it 's  it 's  what it  uh , it 's pretty easy to put it in the formalism , though. I mean , because

you can just say whatever stuff , " i is the container being focused or the  the entire whatever , both , and so forth. "


you can just say whatever stuff , " i is the container being focused or the  the entire whatever , both , and so forth. "


you can just say whatever stuff , " i is the container being focused or the  the entire whatever , both , and so forth. "

Yeah. Exactly. So the sort of effect of it is something we want to be able to capture.


Yeah. Exactly. So the sort of effect of it is something we want to be able to capture.

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  the fact that it matches , does in fact specify the focus.


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  the fact that it matches , does in fact specify the focus.

Or it might limit  it cert certainly constrains the possibilities of focus.


Or it might limit  it cert certainly constrains the possibilities of focus.

Uh  k uh , at at the very least it constrai


Or it might limit  it cert certainly constrains the possibilities of focus.

Uh  k uh , at at the very least it constrai

I think that 's  that 's , th that 's certainly true. And depending on the construction it may or may not f specify the focus , right ?


Or it might limit  it cert certainly constrains the possibilities of focus.

Uh  k uh , at at the very least it constrai

I think that 's  that 's , th that 's certainly true. And depending on the construction it may or may not f specify the focus , right ?

Oh , uh , for sure , yes. There are constrai yeah , it 's not every  but there are constructions , uh , where you t explicitly take into account those considerations


Uh  k uh , at at the very least it constrai

I think that 's  that 's , th that 's certainly true. And depending on the construction it may or may not f specify the focus , right ?

Oh , uh , for sure , yes. There are constrai yeah , it 's not every  but there are constructions , uh , where you t explicitly take into account those considerations


I think that 's  that 's , th that 's certainly true. And depending on the construction it may or may not f specify the focus , right ?

Oh , uh , for sure , yes. There are constrai yeah , it 's not every  but there are constructions , uh , where you t explicitly take into account those considerations

that you need to take into account in order to decide which  what is being focused.


Oh , uh , for sure , yes. There are constrai yeah , it 's not every  but there are constructions , uh , where you t explicitly take into account those considerations

that you need to take into account in order to decide which  what is being focused.


that you need to take into account in order to decide which  what is being focused.

Mm - hmm. So we talked about that a little bit this morning. " John is on the bus , not Nancy. "


Mm - hmm. So we talked about that a little bit this morning. " John is on the bus , not Nancy. "


" John is on the bus and not on the train. "


" John is on the bus and not on the train. "

" John is on the bus " versus " John is on the train. "


" John is on the bus " versus " John is on the train. "


" John is on the bus " versus " John is on the train. "

And " John is on the bus " versus " was " , and e


And " John is on the bus " versus " was " , and e

Is on. " John is on the bus ". Yeah. Yeah.


Is on. " John is on the bus ". Yeah. Yeah.


and will we have  u is it all the same constructions ? Just with a different foc focus constituent ?


and will we have  u is it all the same constructions ? Just with a different foc focus constituent ?

Yeah , I would say that argument structure in terms of like the main like sort of ,


and will we have  u is it all the same constructions ? Just with a different foc focus constituent ?

Yeah , I would say that argument structure in terms of like the main like sort of ,

I don't know  the fact that you can get it without any stress and you have some  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.


Yeah , I would say that argument structure in terms of like the main like sort of ,

I don't know  the fact that you can get it without any stress and you have some  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.


I don't know  the fact that you can get it without any stress and you have some  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.


and it w and that would have to  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.


and it w and that would have to  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.

So that should , you know , interact with  it should overlap with whatever other construction is there.


So that should , you know , interact with  it should overlap with whatever other construction is there.

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.


So that should , you know , interact with  it should overlap with whatever other construction is there.

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.

Mm - hmm. Well , so that 's why I was saying how  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


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.

Mm - hmm. Well , so that 's why I was saying how  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


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.

Mm - hmm. Well , so that 's why I was saying how  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

and I think that should be able to refer to


Mm - hmm. Well , so that 's why I was saying how  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

and I think that should be able to refer to

So that 's down at the bottom here when we get over there. OK.


and I think that should be able to refer to

So that 's down at the bottom here when we get over there. OK.

Yeah , and , infer  and I don't have  I don't have a great way or great examples


So that 's down at the bottom here when we get over there. OK.

Yeah , and , infer  and I don't have  I don't have a great way or great examples

but I think that  something like that is probably gonna be , uh , more  more what we have to do.


Yeah , and , infer  and I don't have  I don't have a great way or great examples

but I think that  something like that is probably gonna be , uh , more  more what we have to do.


but I think that  something like that is probably gonna be , uh , more  more what we have to do.


OK , that was one comment. And you had another one ?


OK , that was one comment. And you had another one ?

Yeah , well the  once you know what the focus is the  everything else is background. How about " topic - comment " that 's the other side of information.


Yeah , well the  once you know what the focus is the  everything else is background. How about " topic - comment " that 's the other side of information.

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  you know , topic and focus are a contrast set. So topic is  Topic - focused seems to me like , um , background profile , OK , or a landmark trajector , or some something like that. There 's  there 's definitely , um , that kind of thing going on.


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  you know , topic and focus are a contrast set. So topic is  Topic - focused seems to me like , um , background profile , OK , or a landmark trajector , or some something like that. There 's  there 's definitely , um , that kind of thing going on.


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  you know , topic and focus are a contrast set. So topic is  Topic - focused seems to me like , um , background profile , OK , or a landmark trajector , or some something like that. There 's  there 's definitely , um , that kind of thing going on.

Now I don't know whether  I n I don't have as many great examples of like topic - indicating constructions on like focus , right ? Um , topic  it seems kind of  you know , I think that might be an ongoing kind of thing.


Now I don't know whether  I n I don't have as many great examples of like topic - indicating constructions on like focus , right ? Um , topic  it seems kind of  you know , I think that might be an ongoing kind of thing.


Yeah , that 's what " wa " is , uh , just to mark which thing is the topic.


Yeah , that 's what " wa " is , uh , just to mark which thing is the topic.

It doesn't always have to be the subject.


Yeah , that 's what " wa " is , uh , just to mark which thing is the topic.

It doesn't always have to be the subject.

Mm - hmm. Right. So again , information structure has a topic slot. And , you know , I stuck it in thinking that we might use it.


It doesn't always have to be the subject.

Mm - hmm. Right. So again , information structure has a topic slot. And , you know , I stuck it in thinking that we might use it.


Mm - hmm. Right. So again , information structure has a topic slot. And , you know , I stuck it in thinking that we might use it.


Um , and one thing that I didn't do consistently , um , is  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  it 'll be another predication or it 'll be , um , I don't know , some value from  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  should we flip over to the other side officially then ?


Um , and one thing that I didn't do consistently , um , is  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  it 'll be another predication or it 'll be , um , I don't know , some value from  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  should we flip over to the other side officially then ?

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  on it , which is , um , the discourse situation context record , right ? So I didn't  I  I meant just like draw a line and like , you know , you also have , uh , some tracking of what was going on.


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  on it , which is , um , the discourse situation context record , right ? So I didn't  I  I meant just like draw a line and like , you know , you also have , uh , some tracking of what was going on.


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  on it , which is , um , the discourse situation context record , right ? So I didn't  I  I meant just like draw a line and like , you know , you also have , uh , some tracking of what was going on.

And sort of  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  I  I changed the name of  um it used to be " entities ". So you see it 's " scenario " , " referent " and " discourse segment ". And " scenario " is essentially what kind of  what 's the basic predication , what event happened. And actually it 's just a list of various slots from which you would draw  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


And sort of  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  I  I changed the name of  um it used to be " entities ". So you see it 's " scenario " , " referent " and " discourse segment ". And " scenario " is essentially what kind of  what 's the basic predication , what event happened. And actually it 's just a list of various slots from which you would draw  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

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  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  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  could be drawn in. But the important things for grammatical purposes are for  things like number , gender , um  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  are they doing something serially or is it like , um , uh I 'm  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  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  the big com and  and finally " discourse segment " is about  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  the entity 's block to reference is that  you can imagine your discourse like situation context , you have a set of entities that you 're sort of referring to. And you might  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  and these could actually just point to , you know , the  the ID in my other list of enti active entities , right ? So , um , uh , th there 's  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  uh there 's a schematization of , you know , things can be active or they can be , um , accessible , inaccessible.


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  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  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  could be drawn in. But the important things for grammatical purposes are for  things like number , gender , um  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  are they doing something serially or is it like , um , uh I 'm  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  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  the big com and  and finally " discourse segment " is about  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  the entity 's block to reference is that  you can imagine your discourse like situation context , you have a set of entities that you 're sort of referring to. And you might  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  and these could actually just point to , you know , the  the ID in my other list of enti active entities , right ? So , um , uh , th there 's  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  uh there 's a schematization of , you know , things can be active or they can be , um , accessible , inaccessible.

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  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 ,


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  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 ,

or this is something that 's like in my world knowledge but not active.


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  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 ,

or this is something that 's like in my world knowledge but not active.

This  Uh  yeah , well there  there seems to be context properties.


or this is something that 's like in my world knowledge but not active.

This  Uh  yeah , well there  there seems to be context properties.


This  Uh  yeah , well there  there seems to be context properties.

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  at cert certain points things are located , you know , near or far from you


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  at cert certain points things are located , you know , near or far from you


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  at cert certain points things are located , you know , near or far from you

cuz until we do the uh , mental space story , we 're not quite sure   Th - th


cuz until we do the uh , mental space story , we 're not quite sure   Th - th


Right. So I  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 ".


Right. So I  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 ".

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  I mean , you could just have in your scenario , " here are some extra few things that are true " , right ?


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  I mean , you could just have in your scenario , " here are some extra few things that are true " , right ?

And then you could just sort of not have this slot here. Right ? You 're  but  but it 's used for identification purposes.


And then you could just sort of not have this slot here. Right ? You 're  but  but it 's used for identification purposes.


And then you could just sort of not have this slot here. Right ? You 're  but  but it 's used for identification purposes.

So it 's  it 's a little bit different from just saying " all these things are true from my utterance ".


So it 's  it 's a little bit different from just saying " all these things are true from my utterance ".


So it 's  it 's a little bit different from just saying " all these things are true from my utterance ".

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.


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.

Yeah , it 's a little bit  it 's a little bit different. Right ? So  Or maybe that 's like a restrictive , non - restrictive


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.

Yeah , it 's a little bit  it 's a little bit different. Right ? So  Or maybe that 's like a restrictive , non - restrictive

you know , it 's like it gets into that kind of thing for  um , but maybe I 'm mixing , you know  this is kind of like the final result after parsing the sentence.


Yeah , it 's a little bit  it 's a little bit different. Right ? So  Or maybe that 's like a restrictive , non - restrictive

you know , it 's like it gets into that kind of thing for  um , but maybe I 'm mixing , you know  this is kind of like the final result after parsing the sentence.


you know , it 's like it gets into that kind of thing for  um , but maybe I 'm mixing , you know  this is kind of like the final result after parsing the sentence.

So you might imagine that the information you pass to , you know  in identifying a particular referent would be , " oh , some  " you know , " it 's a guy and it 's someone I know from school ".


So you might imagine that the information you pass to , you know  in identifying a particular referent would be , " oh , some  " you know , " it 's a guy and it 's someone I know from school ".

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  you know , either create this reference ,


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  you know , either create this reference ,

in which case it 'd be created here , and  you know , so  so you could imagine that this might not  So , uh , I 'm uncommitted to a couple of these things.


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  you know , either create this reference ,

in which case it 'd be created here , and  you know , so  so you could imagine that this might not  So , uh , I 'm uncommitted to a couple of these things.

But  to make it m precise at least in my mind , uh , it 's not precise.


in which case it 'd be created here , and  you know , so  so you could imagine that this might not  So , uh , I 'm uncommitted to a couple of these things.

But  to make it m precise at least in my mind , uh , it 's not precise.


in which case it 'd be created here , and  you know , so  so you could imagine that this might not  So , uh , I 'm uncommitted to a couple of these things.

But  to make it m precise at least in my mind , uh , it 's not precise.

So " house " is gender neuter ? In reality


But  to make it m precise at least in my mind , uh , it 's not precise.

So " house " is gender neuter ? In reality


So " house " is gender neuter ? In reality


So it uh , uh , a table. You know , a thing that c doesn't have a gender. So. Uh , it could be that  I mean , maybe you 'd  maybe not all these  I mean , I wou I would say that I tried to keep slots here that were potentially relevant to most  most things.


So it uh , uh , a table. You know , a thing that c doesn't have a gender. So. Uh , it could be that  I mean , maybe you 'd  maybe not all these  I mean , I wou I would say that I tried to keep slots here that were potentially relevant to most  most things.

No , just to make sure that we  everybody that 's  completely agreed that it  it has nothing to do with , uh , form.


So it uh , uh , a table. You know , a thing that c doesn't have a gender. So. Uh , it could be that  I mean , maybe you 'd  maybe not all these  I mean , I wou I would say that I tried to keep slots here that were potentially relevant to most  most things.

No , just to make sure that we  everybody that 's  completely agreed that it  it has nothing to do with , uh , form.

Yeah. OK , that is semantic as opposed to  Yeah. Yeah. That 's right. Um.