AMR annotation of certain pragmatics

[uhermjakob]

There are a few idiomatic phrases in English with pragmatic meanings that are not easily captured using traditional frames for AMR annotation.

Here are a few examples, along with some original and current annotations that I think are too shallow or that are just placeholders for a better pragmatic roleset.

• "That's it." or "That's what it is." Originally annotated as: (i / it :domain (t / that)), currently annotated as: (t / that-is-it-00) # That's the main_point/difficulty/solution/all/the end/enough.
• "That's all." (a / all :domain (t / that))
• "That's that." # There's nothing more to do or say about the matter.

---

• "That's enough." (e / enough :domain (t / that))
• "Enough is enough." (e / enough :domain (e2 / enough))
• "I've got enough problems of my own."

CU's frame enough.01 (" sufficient, meeting a minimum requirement") is not really suitable, nor is (have-quant-91 ... :ARG3 enough). Maybe we need an additional roleset for enough in the sense of "unwilling to tolerate any more of something undesirable".

---

Person A: Let me tell you about this crazy thing that happened to me yesterday. long silence Person B: Yes?

For cases such as above or below, I propose to use request-response-91, in analogy to request-confirmation-91.

"Well?" said the geographer expectantly.
(r / request-response-91 :ARG0 (g / geographer) :manner ...)

---

Thoughts?

[nschneid]

I like request-response-91. The other pragmatic situations seem more difficult to circumscribe....

[timjogorman]

Thanks Ulf! My temptation would be to handle this with some specific MWP frames; we could just do something like:

• be-it-01 (that's it, that's all) -- "to be less than expected; only"
• be-it-02 (that''s it) -- be the correct answer to a need or a question under discussion
• be-it-03 (that's it; maybe also that's enough) -- exceed one's tolerance for problems or misbehavior.

A few of the "that's what it is" instances do seem to me to just call for (t/ that :domain (i / it)) -- "that" and "it" being both actually anaphoric -- as in:

I think there can be details (what happened when, who tried to do what, etc.) without spreading his own propaganda. Because that's what it is.