Open timjogorman opened 9 years ago
People on the call wander more information on this and an impression of the scale of changes, so here's a bunch of info.
There are constructions that clearly encode this meaning, like "let alone", "much less" and also "not only" and "not just" (specifically they then to be "not just X but Y"). That's 76 instances - "let alone":10, "not just":22, "not only":35, "much less":.
I did a quick study (included below), grabbing the first 33 each of 'only', 'just' and 'even'. In that, "even" pervasively fit into the proposed let-alone-91 treatment -- I've included tricky examples below but everything seems to be a clear gain -- and "only" and "just" simply didn't -- I've listed a bunch of "mitigating" uses of "only" and "just" here, but I'd propose that they are different and clearly differentiable.
This leaves a total re-annotation load of 321 total (but I naturally think this is lower priority than unification...)
I included random examples at the bottom of this to see more proposed annotation. Tricky issues, however, are:
There's a small set of "even" examples where it might be viewed as being more like coordination with focal marking on the last parts. The most painful cases for a let-alone-91 predicate are things like: "they served apples, bananas and even dragonfruit!". One could theoretically still go whole-hog on those:
(l / let-alone-91
:ARG1 (s / serve-02
:ARG0 (t / they)
:ARG1 (a / and
:op1 (a2 / apple)
:op2 (b / banana)))
:ARG2 (s2 / serve-02
:ARG0 t
:ARG1 (d2 / dragonfruit)))
(i.e. not only did they serve bananas, they even served dragonfruit!")
In real text this shows up with "maybe even", as in:
You also get sentences with this modifying the whole sentence that might seem similar:
You get strings like "even more X", like "it's even more complicated when...". These, to me at least, do imply this same let-alone-91 meaning, or something close to it. With an example like:
I think that it makes sense to interpret that as an extreme point on the scale that has other components -- i.e. "finding terrorists normally is hard but it's even harder in borderless cyber space". One example where you'd use both arguments did show up (capitalization added):
Kallie kriel of afriforum stated that the South African Government's approval for the transport of the arms across South African territory will in effect mean that the Government is replacing an ineffective policy of silent diplomacy with an EVEN MORE catastrophic policy of complicity to the State violence and human rights violations committed by the Zimbabwean government against Zimbabwean citizens.
(s / state-01
:ARG0 (p / person :wiki - :name (n5 / name :op1 "Kallie" :op2 "Kriel")
:ARG0-of (h2 / have-org-role-91
:ARG1 (o / organization :wiki "AfriForum" :name (n3 / name :op1 "Afriforum"))))
:ARG1 (m / mean-01
:ARG1 (a / approve-01
:ARG0 (g / government-organization
:ARG0-of (g2 / govern-01
:ARG1 (c / country :wiki "South_Africa" :name (n / name :op1 "South" :op2 "Africa"))))
:ARG1 (t / transport-01
:ARG1 (a2 / arm)
:path (a3 / across
:op1 (t2 / territory
:poss c))))
:ARG2 (r / replace-01
:ARG0 g
:ARG1 (p2 / policy
:mod (e2 / effective :polarity -)
:mod (d / diplomacy
:mod (s2 / silence)))
:ARG2 (p3 / policy
:mod (c2 / catastrophic
:degree (m2 / more
:ARG2-of (l / LET-ALONE-91
:ARG1 e2)))
:mod (c3 / complicity
:prep-to (a4 / and
:op1 (v / violence
:mod (s3 / state))
:op2 (v2 / violate-01
:ARG1 (r2 / right
:mod (h / human)))
:ARG1-of (c4 / commit-02
:ARG0 (g3 / government-organization
:ARG0-of (g4 / govern-01
:ARG1 (c5 / country :wiki "Zimbabwe" :name (n2 / name :op1 "Zimbabwe"))))
:prep-against (c6 / citizen
:mod c5))))))
:prep-in (e / effect)))
There are a pile of examples of "only" and "just" that are often paraphrasable with "mere" or "merely", and which mark something as being low on a scale with no implication of anything beyond that. For example:
The format definition of concession that I'm familiar with is "X implies normally not(Y), but X and Y". We tend to lump a related concept into concession, this "even if" meaning, which would be "X implies normally not(Y); Y irregardless of the truth value of X". While I'm not proposing we have a rigid logical definition for any of these, even if you shoved these into a logical form, they are doing pretty different things (even if one might decompose most instances into operations over expectation)
label | example | more logical form |
---|---|---|
concession | although it rained, the game continued | rain -implies-> not(game-continuing), rain & game-continuing |
concession (irrelevance conditional) | even if it rains, the game will continue | rain -implies-> not(game-continuing), game-continuing |
let-alone-91 | cancelled? it didn't even sprinkle, much less rain! | sprinkling is on a scale with rain so that rain -entails-> sprinkle, and not-sprinkling -entails-> not-raining ; it did not sprinkle, and thus entailments of "rain" should clearly not apply |
let-alone-91 | not cancelled? it not only rained, it sleeted! | railing is on a scale with hail so that sleeting -entails-> rain, and not-raining -entails-> not-sleeting ; it sleeted, and therefore the entailments of raining should clearly apply. |
I make sure I'm not accidentally picking "clean" examples, I grabbed 100 examples of these, evenly from only, just and even, excluding even-if and even-though connectives.
I'll modify the AMRs for a few of these and add them at the bottom. I've added in {} hypothetical continuations where you have both arguments.
Usually paraphrasable with 'mere' or 'merely' or 'only'. We could theoretically frame these all as arg1 on let-alone-91, but I think it's a bad idea. I think if you look at these, they are clearly different from the let-alone-91 examples above.
There aren't paraphrasable with "only" or "merely", usually paraphrasable with "simply", and perhaps having only interactional meaning -- I'm tempted to throw them out entirely
Chavez has insisted and even his staunchest retired military Critics here agree that the purchases are essential to update old weaponry such as the military's decades-old Belgian FAL rifles.
(l / let-alone-91
:ARG1 (i / insist-01
:ARG0 (p / person :wiki "Hugo_Chávez" :name (n / name :op1 "Chavez"))
:ARG1 e2)
:ARG2 (a2 / agree-01
:ARG0 (p2 / person
:ARG0-of (c / criticize-01
:ARG1 p)
:mod (m / military)
:ARG0-of (r / retire-01)
:mod (s / staunch
:degree (m2 / most))
:location (h / here))
:ARG1 (e2 / essential
:domain (p3 / purchase-01)
:purpose (u / update-01
:ARG1 (w / weaponry
:mod (o / old)
:example (r2 / rifle :wiki "FN_FAL" :name (n2 / name :op1 "FAL")
:ARG1-of (a3 / age-01
:ARG2 (m3 / multiple
:op1 (t / temporal-quantity :quant 1
:unit (d / decade))))
:source (c2 / country :wiki "Belgium" :name (n3 / name :op1 "Belgium"))
:poss (m4 / military)))))))
Alexandert Downer stated doubts that North Korea was even capable of firing a nuclear missiles.
(s / state-01
:ARG0 (p / person :wiki "Alexander_Downer" :name (n / name :op1 "Alexander" :op2 "Downer"))
:ARG1 (d / doubt-01
:ARG1 (c / capable-41
:ARG1 (c2 / country :wiki "North_Korea" :name (n2 / name :op1 "North" :op2 "Korea"))
:ARG2 (f / fire-01
:ARG1 (m / missile
:mod (n3 / nucleus)))
:ARG1-of (l / let-alone-91))))
When the IED detonates, this copper cup turns into a shaft of superheated metal that can zip right through any armor, even an M1's.
(t / turn-02
:ARG0 (d / detonate-01
:ARG1 (i2 / IED))
:ARG1 (c / cup
:consist-of (c2 / copper))
:ARG2 (s / shaft
:consist-of (m2 / metal
:ARG1-of (h / heat-01
:degree (s2 / super)))
:ARG0-of (z / zip-01
:mod (r / right)
:mod (p / possible)
:path (l2 / let-alone-91
:ARG1 (t2 / thing
:ARG2-of (a / armor-01)
:mod (a3 / any))
:ARG2 (t3 / thing
:ARG2-of (a2 / armor-01
:ARG1 (v / vehicle :wiki "M1_Abrams" :name (n2 / name :op1 "M1"))))))))
Hi all! Sorry for the delay -- here is a proposed from for "let-alone-91" as the annotators might see it. Does that seem like something that annotators would feel comfortable using?
Lemma:let-alone-91 let-alone.91: shows that two terms exist along a scale of likelihood or expectation.
Note: This predicate will occur almost exclusively with "let alone", "must less", "even", and negated versions of "just" and "only". Negative examples should generally be paraphrasable with "not ARG1 let alone ARG2" or "not ARG1 much less ARG2". Positive examples should be usable with "not just ARG1 but also ARG2" or "not only ARG1 but also ARG2".
more Example - "let alone" He was unable to even roll over in bed, let alone get to the refrigerator or supermarket....
Example - "not just but " What I am trying to say is that domestic abuse does not just affect you - it will affect everyone you care about.
node: do not use let-alone-91 when a use of 'just' or 'only' merely mitigates or downtones an argument, such as in "it was just a test"; let-alone-91 should imply the other end of the scale, even if not mentioned
Example - "'even' with both arguments" It seems pretty clear that the police did not bother with forensic testing and may not even have checked the CCTV footage .
Example - "single argument with 'even' (usually ARG2)" If the blast is big enough, it can kill even an MBT.
Example - "single argument with 'even' (when negated, usually ARG1)" They can't just 'close an investigation' the day afterwards, not having even taken statements.
I wanted to put up a proposal (mentioned in meetings with Kevin, presumably for AFTER we finish unification) regarding scalar models. Basically, the idea is that there a bunch of constructions like "not X let alone Y", "not X much less Y", or "I not only Xed, I even Yed", that actually imply more than "not X and not Y" or "X and Y"; they actually imply that X and Y are on a scale of likelihood; if not X, then not Y, and if Y, then probably X.
The starting point for this is Fillmore '88, which gives lots of good examples for "let alone". Consider something like:
I don't have time to FEED the children, let alone PREPARE my LECTURE
This isn't simply saying that they don't have time for feeding children or preparing a lecture, but that if one doesn't have time to feed the children, then you can naturally assume that they also didn't prepare a lecture. This works for "prepositional" let-alone uses too, since they can be viewed as elided version of the clausal kind:
I doubt you could get Fred, let alone Louise, to eat the squid
The fact that we get a scale here too -- if Fred won't eat it, there's no chance that Louise would -- would definitely be a cool thing to capture. As these are the rare moments where the grammar explicitly encodes pragmatic entailments, it seems silly to not be capturing them. So how could we do so?
Very tentatively, I'd propose a predicate like this:
let-alone-91: "Assertion that two events are along a scale of probability. If arg1 doesn't happen, arg2 definitely won't; if arg2 happens, arg1 is pretty likely". :arg1 The more likely, less extreme item. You "only" did this, or "didn't even" do this. :arg2 The less likely, more extreme, argument. You "even" did this. :arg3 explicit scale, if present (rare)
So for example:
Yesterday afternoon I went back to check out the torch relay, but even the flame was practically impossible to see, let alone the guys carrying the torch.
what we want: it wasn't possible to see the flame, and therefore was even less possible to see the guy carrying it:
This goes beyond "let alone", though, which is pretty rare (~40 instances). The "big" part of this assertion isn't those rare connectives like "let alone", "much less" and possibly "a fortiori", but rather something called "scalar additive particles", like many instances of "even" and "only", which encode this same meaning. Consider:
None of us even know ITALIAN Hans even knows ITALIAN
and in German: Keiner von uns kann auch nur ITALIENISCH Hans kann nicht einmal ITALIENISCH
The "even" in these has this same scalar function in some ways, although it interacts weirdly with modality. You could elaborate them with None of us even know ITALIAN much less Swahili Hans not only knows Spanish and French, but he even knows SWAHILI
In this sense, these are doing the same thing, either implying that something is an extreme form of something (it entails many easier versions of the same) or is a minimal form of something (there are more extreme things that aren't true).
I've included a bunch of examples below of how we currently do this kind of thing, and how I'd propose doing them with a let-alone-91 predicate:
Yesterday afternoon I went back to check out the torch relay, but even the flame was practically impossible to see, let alone the guys carrying the torch.
what we want: it wasn't possible to see the flame, and therefore it is even more impossible for me to see the guy carrying it:
I think The Dark Knight should have won the Best Film award, but they didn't even nominate that film.
currently the sentence says "It should have was, was not nominated"
proposed model would get the same AMR as "it wasn't even nominated much less given the award"; captures this fact that nominations are a more basic thing than actually winning but one a related implicature scale (if you won you were probably nominated):
Where they happen they become viral videos and even make the newspapers.
You could capture this richer idea that "becoming viral videos" is a lesser extent of "making the papers" but on the same ill-defined "scale"
A weird instance that might express the actual scale:
Israel would find it hard enough to conduct air raids on Iran, let alone fighting a large scale war. current:
proposed: ("hard describes conducting air raids, but even further along the same hardness scale would be fighting a large-scale war")
Evidently scalar additives are everywhere; there's a basic paper on these in German that expands to other languages too. (Evidently Romanian "chiar" being in this same general domain? I didn't see examples)
That is why I think we should do this; do people think that we can do this easily/consistently? The case for "this might be hard" might be best made in the fact that negation with "even" can flip the arguments for this proposed predicate:
The waiter even brought silverware! (b / bring-01 :ARG0 (p / person :ARG0-of (w / wait-02)) :ARG1 (s / silverware) :ARG2-of (l2 / let-alone-91))
The waiter didn't even bring silverware! (b / bring-01 :polarity - :ARG0 (p / person :ARG0-of (w / wait-02)) :ARG1 (s / silverware) :ARG1-of (l2 / let-alone-91))