usc-022.id5d4d1ccb-f599-11ee-babc-9b453f011230_2_0.cgel

[bwaldon]

todo: lemma and xpos

[bwaldon]

Treating PP "as payment..." as :Comp to "considered" (with "payment" as :PredComp), following analysis of VP "identifying the holder thereof..." in usc-006

[nschneid]

Mod?

[bwaldon]

Oh yes, should definitely be Mod -- thanks for catching this

[bwaldon]

272d980

[nschneid]

Attach within VP?

[bwaldon]

I think that works. I was thinking that the "for"-PP is licensed by "payments"

[nschneid]

I guess either interpretation works

[bwaldon]

If it attaches within VP: is it :Mod?

[nschneid]

The active form would be "made payments for a policy", which uses a light verb construction. So...I don't know. It does seem like the notion of paying licenses a for-PP. To take another light verb construction, what would be the structure of "made a decision about the schedule"?

[bwaldon]

It could just be that I'm having trouble thinking of a context where you'd want to say [ii]:

"The payment for phone service which John made was late; the payment for phone service which Linda made was on-time."

[bwaldon]

The path of least resistance here is probably to follow CGEL: "such post-nominal elements are complements of the light verb."

[bwaldon]

22bb742

[bwaldon]

Discussion with @nschneid : either attachment sites are plausible here. Maybe we'd prefer the light-verb complementation analysis were it not to result in gaps. But in this case, it results in a gap, and we want to minimize gaps, so that consideration motivates the noun complementation analysis.

[bwaldon]

4b458b8

[nschneid]

Treating PP "as payment..." as :Comp to "considered" (with "payment" as :PredComp), following analysis of VP "identifying the holder thereof..." in usc-006

I don't see any as-PP example in the guidelines. But I see some examples in CGELBank that are consistent: "take as a given", "describe as", "known as".

Does this call for https://github.com/nert-nlp/cgel/blob/ed77639f052f2204359239daec9f128990467fda/datasets/ewt.cgel#L1652 to be revised (Obj -> PredComp)?

[bwaldon]

Treating PP "as payment..." as :Comp to "considered" (with "payment" as :PredComp), following analysis of VP "identifying the holder thereof..." in usc-006

I don't see any as-PP example in the guidelines. But I see some examples in CGELBank that are consistent: "take as a given", "describe as", "known as".

Does this call for https://github.com/nert-nlp/cgel/blob/ed77639f052f2204359239daec9f128990467fda/datasets/ewt.cgel#L1652 to be revised (Obj -> PredComp)?

I'm not sure. From CGEL p. 255:

This suggests that the "as..." PPs themselves should be :PredComp. We don't have a specialized 'predicative oblique' function for the complement of "as" but maybe the function is :Obj when the complement is NP (and :Comp otherwise).

[nschneid]

SIEG2 p. 194:

This may be a slight revision in terminology from the passage you quoted.

[bwaldon]

Oh interesting. I like the analysis suggested by the SIEG2 passage (and it's consistent with what we've been doing), but I think that it does maybe call for a revision to https://github.com/nert-nlp/cgel/blob/ed77639f052f2204359239daec9f128990467fda/datasets/ewt.cgel#L1652

[nschneid]

Proposed documentation: nert-nlp/cgel#150