Check argument structure of relative clauses and questions

[craigp-atw]

We currently don't check the argument structure for relative clauses, questions, and same-participant clauses, because those clauses may change their structure (eg 'What did John see?' and 'The book [that John read].').

We need to support checking of these clause types, but they will require some special handling. In the comments below I will outline my ideas for each type.

[craigp-atw]

Same-Participant Patient/Adverbial Clauses

• These could be an adverbial clauses (eg. '[in-order-to go]', '[by going]') or a patient clauses (eg. 'John wanted [to sleep]').
• There is always a missing agent in these clauses, as it is understood to be the same as the agent in the outer clause.
• The Analyzer in TBTA currently copies the agent NP from the outer clause into the inner clause and marks it as the agent. This is done before checking the argument structure.
• I think we have two options:
  1. Check the same-participant clause as usual, but any sense of the verb that is invalid due to a missing agent becomes valid. If there are other missing/extra arguments besides the agent, it remains invalid, but the agent is removed from the 'missing' list.
  2. Check the outer argument structure first in order to find the agent. Then before checking the same-participant clause, copy in that agent as a 'hidden' token or something which will satisfy the case frame check. (That hidden token should not be output in the api or show in the ui)
     • This is more complex, but is similar to what we would have to do when rewriting the Analyzer. So doing it this way could help prepare for that.

[craigp-atw]

Question Clauses

• There are two main types of questions - yes/no questions (eg. Did John see Mary?) and content questions (eg. Who did John see?)
• Only some types of questions get affected by moving arguments

Helpful example sentences:

• Content Interrogatives
  • Who saw John? or Which person saw John? - Because the agent is the word in question, there is no change to the structure
  • Who did John see? or Which person did John see? - The interrogative patient has moved to the front, compare the equivalent statement John saw that person.
  • Who did John talk to? -
  • Who did John talk about the problem to? -
  • Who did John talk to about the problem? -
  • Who did John walk with? - Because the interrogative pronoun (who) is from an oblique (with X), it does not affect the argument structure of the verb. But the dangling adposition should still somehow be associated with the fronted interrogative pronoun
  • How/why/when did John read the book? - No effect on the argument structure
  • Which book did John read? - interrogative patient brought to the front
  • How-many books did John read? - same idea as Which book did John read?
  • Why is John happy? -
  • Who is John? -
  • Who is John's father?
  • Is John reading a book? - No effect on the argument structure because the 'is' is handled as an auxiliary, not the main verb.
• Yes-No interrogatives
  • Is John happy? - 'John' is the agent
  • Is John that man? - 'John' is the agent, 'that man' is the state.
  • Has John eaten that apple? - No effect on the argument structure ('has' is an auxiliary)
  • Did John see Mary? - No effect on the argument structure

[craigp-atw]

Relative Clauses

Helpful example sentences:

• John knew the thing [that John did].
• John knew the thing [that John talked about].
• John knew the thing [that John wanted [to do]].
• John knew the thing [that John talked about to Mary].
• John knew the thing [that John talked to Mary about].
• John knew the place [that John sat at].
• John did things-B [that Yahweh thinks [are good]].

Possible Approaches

1. Using 'hidden' tokens - this is the best I can think of right now
   • Find the gap (if any)
     • If there is no head_np before the verb, put it right before the verb
     • If there is an adposition after the verb that is not followed by an np, put it right after that adposition
     • If there is not an np immediately after the verb (with no adposition between), put it there
     • Otherwise put it at the end
   • Copy in the relativized noun as 'hidden' tokens or something into the determined spot
   • Check the argument structure as usual