UniversalConceptualCognitiveAnnotation / docs

UCCA Documentation
https://universalconceptualcognitiveannotation.github.io/
10 stars 1 forks source link

Have/take/give + time unit #46

Open dotdv opened 5 years ago

dotdv commented 5 years ago

In continuation to a discussion Jakob and me are having in the the doc, I think it will be helpful if we add some time examples with have/give/take to the guidelines:

Will you have time for me today? It took you a while to figure this out
It took a year of negotiations to reach the agreement
It must have taken the staff about a day to clean up the place
It may take many years before the new drug is approved Give me 5 minutes to figure this out Give us some time alone
I need 5 minutes to figure this out. Take a few minutes

nschneid commented 5 years ago

Also: Calculus takes a long time to learn. (no explicit learner)

As pointed out in https://github.com/ablodge/amr-ccg-alignment/issues/10#issuecomment-437643345, verbs like "cost" seem related: The pill costs $5 to produce. (no explicit producer)

jakpra commented 5 years ago

I thought about it some more and I'm really struggling to see any of these expressions as scene-evoking, not to mention, being parallel to the respective main event (2.c, 3.d, 4.d). I think, in all cases the take/have/give time expression is contingent on the main scene, and thus, I would expect it at least to take it as a (Participant) argument (2.b, 3.c, 4.c).

However, what I would be most happy with is still the Adverbial/secondary verb analysis, because I think it is the most consistent with the guidelines about Adverbials and secondary verbs (1.a, 2.a, 3.a, 3.b, 4.a, 4.b).

For 3.a-c, I'm not sure about the treatment of "of negotiations" (see my comment in the design doc): ... of_R negotiations_P ... OR ... [of_R negotiations_C]_P ...? Similar problem for 4.b (before ... approved), if that analysis is at all conceivable.

1.a + Will_F you_A [have_F time_C]_D [for_R me_C]_A today_T (IMP)_P // ~ Can_D you IMP_P with me today? 1.b ? Will_F you_A [have_F time_C]_S [[for_R me_C]_A (IMP)_P (you)_A]_A today_T // ~ Are you in the [state of having time]_S [to IMP_P with me]_A today? 1.c ?? Will_F you_A [have_F time_C]_S [for_R me_C]_A today_T // ~ Are you in the [state of having time]_S [for me]_A today?

2.a + It_F took_F/D you_A a_F while_T to_F [figure ... out]_P this_A // ~ For you to [figure ... out]_P this [had a long duration]_T 2.b ? It_F [took_F ... a_F while_C]_P you_A [(you)_A to_F [figure ... out]_P this_A]_A // ~ You [took part in the event of time-taking]_P [to produce/benefit the event of figuring out]_A 2.c ?? [It_F [took_F ... a_F while_C]_P you_A]_H to_L [(you)_A [figure ... out]_P this_A] // ~ [You [took part in the event of time-taking]_P]_H [in order to]_L [do the event of figuring out]_H

3.a + It_F took_F/D [[a_F year_C]_T of_R negotiations_P (IMP)_A]_A to_F reach_D [the_F agreement_C]_P (IMP)_A // ~ Reaching_D [the agreement]_P was contingent on [negotiations_P which lasted [a year]_T]_A 3.b +/? It_F took_F/D [a_F year_C]_T of_R negotiations_P (IMP)_A [to_F reach_D [the_F agreement_C]_P (IMP)_A]_A // ~ There were negotiations_P which lasted [a year]_T and produced [the reaching_D of [the agreement]_P]_A 3.c ? [It_F [took_F a_F year_C]_P [of_R negotiations_P (IMP)_A]_A]_H to_L [reach_D [the_F agreement_C]_P (IMP)_A]_H // ~ [There was a year-taking_P of [negotiations_P]_A]_H [in order to]_L [reach_D [the agreement]_P] 3.d ?? [It_F [took_F a_F year_C]_P]_H of_L [negotiations_P (IMP)_A]_H to_L [reach_D [the_F agreement_C]_P (IMP)_A]_H // ~ Year-taking, negotiations, and reaching the agreement are all independent events

4.a.1 + [It_F may_D take_F/D [many_Q years_C]_T (IMP)_P]_H before_L [[the_F new_E drug_C]_A is_F approved_P/S (IMP)_A]_H 4.a.2 + [It_P may_D take_F/D [many_Q years_C]_T]_H before_L [[the_F new_E drug_C]_A is_F approved_P/S (IMP)_A]_H // Assuming that there is no such event as year-taking (which is what I claim), there must be an implicit event which takes many years, which takes place before the drug is approved. This could be the approval process, or some other process, depending on the P vs. S reading of the participle "approved". The difference between 4.a.1 and 4.a.2 is that this event could be modeled as an implicit unit (a.1), or referred to with "it" (a.2).

4.b +/? It_F may_D take_F/D [many_Q years_C]_T before_R [the_F new_E drug_C]_A is_F approved_P/S (IMP)_A 4.c ? It_F may_D [take_F ... years_C]_P many_D [before_R [the_F new_E drug_C]_A is_F approved_P/S (IMP)_A]_A 4.d ?? [It_F may_D [take_F ... years_C]_P many_D]_H before_L [[the_F new_E drug_C]_A is_F approved_P/S (IMP)_A]_H ...