This assignment covers material which varies greatly from language to language. While you are welcome to do more, this section lays out what is actually required for this lab. The instructions given below are then a superset of what any one student needs to do.
For part (2.) choose one of the following "packages" (in many cases, you may find it easier to write more lexical rules rather than put in all the lexical entries you'll need if you don't):
Because person and number information are also interpreted semantically, we want to record them regardless of whether they are syntactically relevant (i.e., whether they get used for agreement).
Some of the instructions in this section are very specific (i.e., I'm giving you lots of answers) because I want you to have time to focus your efforts on other parts of the lab. Don't be surprised then, when all of the sudden things get less specific!
png :+ [ PER person, NUM number ]. person := *top*. first := person. second := person. third := person. number := *top*. sg := number. non-sg := number. ; use this one if your language only has sg-pl dual := non-sg. ; at these two if your language has sg-du-pl pl := non-sg.
(The type non-sg is there to facilitate a mapping between languages with sg-pl and languages with sg-du-pl systems in the MT exercise. In some languages with a du-pl distinction it might also be useful language internally. If you language makes more than a three way distinction (some do!) talk to me.)
(If your language does person and number agreement with an elsewhere case -- like English non-3sg -- you may want to define subtypes of png which groups the values of PER and NUM in interesting ways. If you want to know more about this, talk to me.)
png :+ [ PER person, NUM number, GEND gender ]. gender := *top*. ...
The current plan is to treat pronouns as quantified by an existential quantifer, and as lexically definite. (We'll return to discourse status in the next lab.) We further assume that bare noun phrases always get an existential quantifier (and that generic interpretations are derivative of this, say). So the first step is to edit the type bare-np-phrase in klingon.tdl to have it introduce "_exist_q_rel" rather than "unspec_q_rel".
The next step is to create the lexical type for pronouns:
pronoun-lex := noun-lex & [ SYNSEM [ LOCAL.CAT.VAL.SPR < [ OPT + ] >, LKEYS.KEYREL.PRED "pronoun_n_rel" ] ].
Note that pronoun-lex specifies a PRED value, so all pronouns will have the same one. The only difference will be in the person and number values. (Something will have to be said about demonstrative pronouns, but that's for a later lab.) In creating this type, you may need to move some constraints on noun-lex down to a subtype, say common-noun-lex. common-noun-lex should also be constrained to be [PER third] since only pronouns have other PER values.
we := pronoun-lex & [ STEM < "we" >, SYNSEM.LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX.PNG [ PER first, NUM non-sg ] ].
noun :+ [ CASE case ].
trans-verb-lex := basic-verb-lex & transitive-lex-item & [ SYNSEM.LOCAL [ CAT [ HEAD verb, VAL [ SPR < >, SUBJ < #subj & synsem & [ LOCAL.CAT [ HEAD noun & [ CASE nom ], VAL.SPR <> ]] >, COMPS < #comps & [ LOCAL.CAT [ HEAD noun & [ CASE acc ], VAL.SPR <> ]]>, SPEC < > ]]], ARG-S < #subj, #comps > ].
we := pronoun-lex & [ STEM < "we" >, SYNSEM.LOCAL [ CAT.HEAD.CASE nom, CONT.HOOK.INDEX.PNG [ PER first, NUM non-sg ] ] ]. us := pronoun-lex & [ STEM < "us" >, SYNSEM.LOCAL [ CAT.HEAD.CASE acc, CONT.HOOK.INDEX.PNG [ PER first, NUM non-sg ] ] ].
Some languages mark case with adpositions rather than affixes. These adpositions are analyzed as semantically empty (though they may fill the same 'slot' as semantically contentful adpositions).
+np :+ [ CASE case ].Otherwise, you might be able to declare it just for adpositions:
adp :+ [ CASE case ].
case-marker-p-lex := basic-one-arg & raise-sem-lex-item & [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT [ HEAD adp & [ MOD < > ], VAL [ SPR < >, SUBJ < >, COMPS < #comps >, SPEC < > ]], ARG-ST < #comps & [ LOCAL.CAT [ HEAD noun, VAL.SPR < > ]] > ].
Example from French:
chat := common-noun-lex & [ STEM < "chat" >, SYNSEM [ LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX.PNG [ NUM sg, GEND masc ], LKEYS.KEYREL.PRED "_cat_n_rel" ] ]. le := determiner-lex & [ STEM < "le" >, SYNSEM [ LOCAL.CAT.VAL.SPEC < [ LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX.PNG [ NUM sg, GEND masc ] ] >, LKEYS.KEYREL.PRED "exist_q_rel" ] ].
3sg_verb-lex-rule := infl-ltow-rule & [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT.VAL.SUBJ < [ LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX.PNG [ PER third, NUM sg ]] >, DTR.SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT.HEAD verb ].
3sg_verb := %suffix (!s s) (!ss !ssses) (ss sses) 3sg_verb-lex-rule.And here's the letter set that's used:
%(letter-set (!s abcedfghijklmnopqrtuvwxyz))
If you're doing adjectives because your only agreement involves adjectives, you're going to need one or two head-modifier rules.
The Matrix distinguishes scopal from intersective modification. We're going to pretend that everything is intersective and just not worry about the scopal guys for now.
adjective-lex := basic-adjective-lex & [ SYNSEM [ LOCAL [ CAT [ HEAD adj & [ MOD < [ LOCAL [ CAT.HEAD noun, CONT.HOOK [ INDEX #ind, LTOP #ltop ]]]>], VAL [ SPR < >, SUBJ < >, COMPS < >, SPEC < > ], POSTHEAD - ], CONT.HOOK.LTOP #ltop ], LKEYS.KEYREL.ARG1 #ind ] ].
Here is the basic strategy with numeral classifiers:
I hope to have some specific instructions here eventually, but in the meantime, here are some references:
The target semantics that we want for something like "Kim's dog" (modulo definitiness, which we'll get to in a later lab) is:
[ "_exist_q_rel" LBL: h6 ARG0: x7 RSTR: h8 BODY: h9 ] [ "_named_rel" LBL: h10 ARG0: x7 CARG: "kim" ] [ "_exist_q_rel" LBL: h11 ARG0: x12 RSTR: h13 BODY: h14 ] [ "_poss_rel" LBL: h15 ARG0: e16 ARG1: x12 ARG2: x7 ] [ "_dog_n_rel" LBL: h15 ARG0: x12 ] h8 qeq h10, h13 qeq h15
Things to note:
The semantics we want for "Their dog" is:
[ "_exist_q_rel" LBL: h6 ARG0: x7 RSTR: h8 BODY: h9 ] [ "_pronoun_n_rel" LBL: h10 ARG0: x7 CARG: "kim" ] [ "_exist_q_rel" LBL: h11 ARG0: x12 RSTR: h13 BODY: h14 ] [ "_poss_rel" LBL: h15 ARG0: e16 ARG1: x12 ARG2: x7 ] [ "_dog_n_rel" LBL: h15 ARG0: x12 ] h8 qeq h10, h13 qeq h15
This is the same as the above, except that the noun rel corresponding to the possessor has changed. Note that the index x7 (ARG0 of the pronoun relation) should bear the person/number information third non-sg.
What it takes to build these semantic representations depends on what exactly is going on in your language. There are at least the following parameters of variation:
If possessives are modifiers, they introduce the poss_rel and their own noun and quantifier relations. If they are determiners, they also introduce the quantifier relation for the head noun.
If possessive pronouns have a special form, you'll need lexical entries that introduce three relations (poss_rel, _pronoun_n_rel, and _exist_q_rel). If pronominal possessors involve the regular possessive marker, then there isn't any need for a special series of pronouns.
If the possessive construction is marked on the head noun, then the nouns which are so marked must select for the possessor (if it is required that they co-occur). This analysis thus predicts that languages that mark possession on the possessed noun should treat the possessive phrase as a determiner if it's required.
Here is a sample lexical type for a possessive linker that is a modifier (such as Mandarin de). Such a linker selects for the possessor NP through its SUBJ or COMPS (whichever is convenient for purposes of order) and the possesee through its MOD. NB: I haven't tested this yet, so it may take some debugging.
link := head. possessive-marker-lex := intersective-mod-lex & norm-hook-lex-item & single-rel-lex-item & no-hcons-lex-item & intransitive-lex-item & [ SYNSEM [ LOCAL [ CAT [ HEAD link, VAL [ SUBJ < #subj & [ LOCAL.CAT [ HEAD noun, VAL [ SPR < >, COMPS < > ]]] >, COMPS < >, SPR < >, SPEC < > ]]], LKEYS.KEYREL.PRED "poss_rel" ]].
The descriptions of phenomena and analyses should be at least a page per phenomenon. If you feel that the analyses presented here don't sit well with your language, describe (as best you can) why not.