Ling 567 Lab 5 Write Up
Prescott Klassen/Jason Shaw
February 5, 2010
----------------

Refactoring the Grammar
----------------------

There were several left over tasks from last week's grammar development that we needed to tackle this week. Given time constraints we were only able to complete a couple of those tasks and are pushing the rest out to next week (see the TO-DO section at the bottom of the report for a summary).

Direct/Inverse
-------------

Implementing the correct rules for our VTA (transitive verb animate object) Direct/Inverse verbs was an important task left over from Lab 4. We made the following changes in tdl to the direct inverse scale generated by the questionnaire.

;;; Direct-inverse scale

;;; edited as per Emily's Go Post 
;;; dir-inv-scale := canonical-synsem. -- replaced with new value below

dir-inv-scale := synsem-min.

dir-inv-1 := dir-inv-scale &
  [ LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX.PNG.PERNUM 2nd ].

;;; added two following lines

dir-inv-1-canon := dir-inv-1 & canonical-synsem.
dir-inv-1-unexp := dir-inv-1 & unexpressed-reg.

dir-inv-non-1 := dir-inv-scale &
  [ LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX.PNG.PERNUM non-2nd ].

;;; added two following lines

dir-inv-non-1-canon := dir-inv-non-1 & canonical-synsem.
dir-inv-non-1-unexp := dir-inv-non-1 & unexpressed-reg.

dir-inv-2 := dir-inv-non-1 &
  [ LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX.PNG.PERNUM 1st ].

;;; added two following lines to handle optional subjects and objects

dir-inv-2-canon := dir-inv-2 & canonical-synsem.
dir-inv-2-unexp := dir-inv-2 & unexpressed-reg.

dir-inv-non-2 := dir-inv-non-1 &
  [ LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX.PNG.PERNUM 3rd+4th ].

;;; added two following lines to handle optional subjects and objects

dir-inv-non-2-canon := dir-inv-non-2 & canonical-synsem.
dir-inv-non-2-unexp := dir-inv-non-2 & unexpressed-reg.

dir-inv-3 := dir-inv-non-2 &
  [ LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX.PNG.PERNUM 4th ].

;;; added two following lines to handle optional subjects and objects

dir-inv-3-canon := dir-inv-3 & canonical-synsem.
dir-inv-3-unexp := dir-inv-3 & unexpressed-reg.

dir-inv-non-3 := dir-inv-non-2 &
  [ LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX.PNG.PERNUM 3rd ].

;;; added two following lines to handle optional subjects and objects

dir-inv-non-3-canon := dir-inv-non-3 & canonical-synsem.
dir-inv-non-3-unexp := dir-inv-non-3 & unexpressed-reg.


dir-inv-4 := dir-inv-non-3 &
  [ LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX.PNG [ PERNUM 3rd,
                                OBVIATION prox,
                                GEND anim ] ].

;;; added two following lines to handle optional subjects and objects

dir-inv-4-canon := dir-inv-4 & canonical-synsem.
dir-inv-4-unexp := dir-inv-4 & unexpressed-reg.

dir-inv-non-4 := dir-inv-non-3 &
  [ LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX.PNG [ PERNUM 3rd,
                                OBVIATION obv ] ].
;;; added two following lines to handle optional subjects and objects

dir-inv-non-4-canon := dir-inv-non-4 & canonical-synsem.
dir-inv-non-4-unexp := dir-inv-non-4 & unexpressed-reg.

dir-inv-5 := dir-inv-non-4 &
  [ LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX.PNG [ PERNUM 3rd,
                                OBVIATION obv,
                                GEND anim ] ].
;;; added two following lines to handle optional subjects and objects

dir-inv-5-canon := dir-inv-5 & canonical-synsem.
dir-inv-5-unexp := dir-inv-5 & unexpressed-reg.

dir-inv-non-5 := dir-inv-non-4 &
  [ LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX.PNG [ PERNUM 3rd,
                                GEND inan ] ].

;;; added two following lines to handle optional subjects and objects

dir-inv-non-5-canon := dir-inv-non-5 & canonical-synsem.
dir-inv-non-5-unexp := dir-inv-non-5 & unexpressed-reg.

After adding these rules and redefining the top level type, our VTA verbs were close to 100% correct parses in the sentences where they were isolated phenomena. We developed a comprehensive test suite section to deal specifically with testing direct inverse. It is based on the analysis of the VTA suffix chart in Valentine (which needed to be broken up into distinct morphemes based on the morphophonological rules of the language). Currently the test suite only covers positive items, we will add ungrammatical sentences in the coming weeks.

The regularized morphemes and morpheme to morpheme Gloss for VTAs is a bit complicated. Over this last week we came up with a standard way of glossing VTA sentences. Below is an example:

#302	
Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: g
Phenomena: vta
wgiimbwaachhaan
w-gii-nbwaachhaad-aa-an
AC.3SG-PAST-visit-DIR.THM-GL.3.OBV
"he visited them"

#303	
Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: g
Phenomena: vta
wgiimbwaachhaan waagoshan
w-gii-nbwaachhaad-aa-an waagosh-an
AC.3SG-PAST-visit-DIR.THM-GL.3.OBV fox.AN-3.OBV
"he visited the fox"

We will be replacing the phenomena code with dir-inv in the next round of refactoring.

Only AC.1ST >> INV.THM >> GL.2SG uses the direct/inverse mapping for constraints on subject/object (lowest/highest NP). All other suffix lexical rules for VTA use subject NP/object NP mapping. Although it works, we would like to edit these rules in future labs.

Missing from our analysis is reflexive/reciprocal inflectional rules for our VTA verbs. For example, we currently do not handle AC.3SG >> GL.3SG. Valentine has several sections dedicated to discussing this phenomena.

Coordination
------------

We reduced our coordination rules based on Lab 4 feedback.

1) Monosyndeton coordination with conjunction "gye" before the coordinand
2) Monosyndeton coordination with conjunction "miinwaa" before the coordinand
3) Asyndeton coordination (juxtaposition)

Refactoring the Test Suite
--------------------------

This section of the lab writeup is a description of those additions to our test suite which correct a disastrous oversight in last week's lab.  The test suite has been augmented to include the following phenomena: attributive adjectives, adverbs, embedded clauses, non-verbal predicates, and information structure.  I will address each of these phenomena in turn.  Descriptions of our implementation of adjectives and adverbs will follow in the main writeup for Lab 5.

Attributive Adjectives
-----------------------------
Nishnaabemwin does not have a part of speech corresponding to what we call adjectives in English.  All descriptive concepts are expressed by means of nominal derivational morphology (in which the descriptive property is introduced as a prefix such as gchi- 'big') or by intransitive verbs.  We have elected to treat these nominal prefixes as attributive adjectives.  There are two reasons for doing so.  The first is that, while we refer to them as prefixes, they behave phonologically as separate words, giving us motivation for dealing with them in our grammar.  Second, this is an efficient way to introduce the attributive predications involved without creating redundant lexical entries for nouns derived with various attributive prefixes.  We would miss significant generalization if we did not treat these prefixes as adjectival morphemes.  These morphemes always attach to the beginning of nouns:

#163   
Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: g
Phenomena: adj
Mkade-waagaakwad wiigiinboode
Mkade-waagaakwad w-wii-giinboodeg-0
black-axe.IN.3SG 3-FUT-be+sharpened-3SG
'The black axe needs sharpening'

The morpheme "mkade-", meaning 'black', attaches to the noun "waagaakwad", 'axe'.  The morpheme undergoes no change in form when it attaches, regardless of the phonemes in the following noun.  Vowels in these morphemes are not deleted by syncope.

#166   
Source: a:935
Vetted: s
Judgment: g
Phenomena: adj
Ntaagshkigwaaso wshkinnahaangnikwem
W-doo-ntaa-gshkigwaasod-0 wshki-nnahaangnikwem
3-PRES-HAB.be+good+at-sew-3SG young-my+daughter+in+law.AN.3SG
'My young daughter-in-law sews well'

Adverbs
-----------------------------
There do not seem to be any restrictions on the position of adverbs in sentences, although temporal adverbs are frequently sentence-initial.  They do not vary their form.  Some adverbs do force the verbs they modify to be in conjunct order, although attested examples of this are adverbs glossed as English non-adverbs (if, when, while), so it is debatable whether these are truly adverbs in Nishnaabemwin. ("Adverb" and "particle" seem to be catch-all terms for grammars of Nishnaabemwin -- nouns and verbs are the only other parts of speech.)  We are only concerned with manner adverbs, so there is no need to posit any particular position for adverbs in a sentence.  These four examples demonstrate the freedom of adverb placement.  An example in the next section about embedded clauses will drive the point home.

#175   
Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: g
Phenomena: wo, agr, adv
Giimooj giiwwabmigoon Nenbozhoon nnahaangnikwem
Giimooj w-gii-waabmaad-igw-an Nenbozh-oon nnahaangnikwem
suddenly GL.3SG-PAST-see-INV.THM-AC.3.OBV Nenabush.AN-3.OBV my+daughter+in+law.AN.3SG
'Suddenly Nenabush saw my daughter-in-law'

#176   
Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: g
Phenomena: wo, agr, adv 
Giiwwabmigoon giimooj Nenbozhoon nnahaangnikwem
W-gii-waabmaad-igw-an giimooj Nenbozh-oon nnahaangnikwem
GL.3SG-PAST-see-INV.THM-AC.3.OBV suddenly Nenabush.AN-3.OBV my+daughter+in+law.AN.3SG
'Suddenly Nenabush saw my daughter-in-law'

#177   
Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: g
Phenomena: wo, agr, adv
Giiwwabmigoon Nenbozhoon giimooj nnahaangnikwem
W-gii-waabmaad-igw-an Nenbozh-oon giimooj nnahaangnikwem
GL.3SG-PAST-see-INV.THM-AC.3.OBV Nenabush.AN-3.OBV suddenly my+daughter+in+law.AN.3SG
'Suddenly Nenabush saw my daughter-in-law'

#178   
Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: g
Phenomena: wo, agr, adv
Giiwwabmigoon Nenbozhoon nnahaangnikwem giimooj
W-gii-waabmaad-igw-an Nenbozh-oon nnahaangnikwem giimooj
GL.3SG-PAST-see-INV.THM-AC.3.OBV Nenabush.AN-3.OBV my+daughter+in+law.AN.3SG giimooj
'Suddenly Nenabush saw my daughter-in-law'

Embedded clauses
-----------------------------
In Nishnaabemwin, each verb can be inflected in "independent", "conjunct", or "imperative" order. (It is not clear what our author means by "order"; these are entirely different inflectional paradigms, not simply reordered morphemes.) Independent order is used in matrix clauses.  Conjunct order is used in wh- questions, relative and locative clauses, and sentential complements.  The primary difference between matrix clauses and embedded clauses is the use of conjunct order inflection in the latter.  While such complements are typically objects of the verb in English (e.g., I think *that you are nice*), in Nishnaabemwin the subjects of such sentences are typically promoted to the goal semantic role for the purposes of inflecting the verb.  Sentential complements can appear as complements to both transitive (X knows that Y) and intransitive (X is happy that Y) verbs.  Embedded clauses usually follow the verb they are associated with, although the complements of verbs of speaking and thinking can occur before the verb.  Diabolically, portions of embedded clauses can appear before the verb that introduces them, as the adverb "wewiib" does here:

#196   
Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: g
Phenomena: emb-d, adv
Wewiib wgiigkendaan wiimaajanid
Wewiib w-gii-gkendang-aa-an wii-maajad-nid
quickly 3-PAST-know+something-DIR.THM-3.OBV FUT-go+away-3.OBV.CONJ
'He knew that they would go away quickly'

Direct quotation does not use the conjunct order, but maintains the order that was used in the original speech act.  Indirect quotation, in which the original quote is paraphrased in a form sensible to the current discourse, does use conjunct order.  However, it is "not uncommon" for verbs in indirect quotation to maintain independent order.  Verbs of thinking can also use independent order:

#199   
Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: g
Phenomena: emb-d
Wgiigkendaan waagaakwad wiigiinboode
W-gii-gkendang-aa-an waagaakwad w-wii-giinboodeg-0
3-PAST-know+something-DIR.THM-3.OBV axe.IN.3SG 3-FUT-be+sharpened-3SG
'He knew that the axe needs sharpening'

Demonstrative complementizers maanda (this) and iw (that) can be used to introduce sentential complements.  Complementizers are optional.  Generally, verbs in complement clauses can take a wide range of tense and aspect prefixes, although verbs that represent unrealized events, regardless of tense, bear the future tense marker wii-.  Embedded clauses function identically in declarative and interrogative constructions.  Here is an example with a demonstrative complementizer:

#198   
Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: g
Phenomena: emb-d
Wgiigkendaan iw wiimaajanid
W-gii-gkendang-aa-an iw wii-maajad-nid
3-PAST-know+something-DIR.THM-3.OBV COMP FUT-go+away-3.OBV.CONJ
'He knew that they would go away'

Non-verbal predicates
-----------------------------
Nishnaabemwin uses a variety of constructions to communicate concepts of being.  Two verbs, aawi (animate) and aawan (inanimate) are used to express identity between nouns.  Alternatively, nouns can serve as bases for verbal suffixes -wi (animate) and -wan (inanimate), creating intransitive verbs.  This, of course, turns the construction into a verbal predicate.  Both of these constructions can be used in existential senses.  Three other verbs communicate various senses of being in relation to locations.  Yaa/yaamgad expresses location in conjunction with a locational adverb, and can also be used as an existential.  Dgo/dgomgad specifies the location of a stationary object.  Bi/te also specifies location and recently has come to acquire an existential meaning as well.  Nishnaabemwin does not use predicative adjectives, so there are no verbs associated with such predications.  These verbs are required in all circumstances. (There is no null copula.)  We have included examples of aawi/aawan, yaa/yaamgad, and bi/te in the test suite.

#243   
Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: g
Phenomena: cop, tam, neg
Gaa wii zhiishiib giiaawisii aw nmishoomis
Gaawii zhiishiib gii-aawi-sii aw nmishoomis
not duck PAST-is-not that my.grandfather
'My grandfather was not a duck'

Argument drop is possible:

#244   
Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: g
Phenomena: cop, tam, ao
Waagosh giiaawi
Waagosh gii-aawi
fox PAST-is
'He was a fox'

Null copulas are not allowed:

#265   
Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: u
Phenomena: cop
Wesiinh gaag
Wesiinh gaag
small+animal porcupine
'The porcupine is a small animal'

Information structure
-----------------------------
Word order in Nishnaabemwin is used to track each element's information status.  Entities occurring before the verb are usually discourse-new, while entities appearing after the verb are usually discourse-old.  However, other analyses, heavily steeped in the generative tradition, have concluded that there are positions in the sentence corresponding to topic and focus, and that these occur before the verb: (Negation) (Topic) (Focus) Verb (Other arguments).  However, there are two problems with this: First, while topics are not always discourse-old, they frequently are, so they ought to be appearing after the verb, according to the previous analysis.  Second, this pattern contradicts Nishnaabemwin's preference for verb-initial sentences and strong dispreference for verb-final sentences.

Focus is somewhat clearer in questions, in which the particle "na" questions the element it follows, and the particle must appear second in the sentence.  This ensures that the focused element in questions is in second position.  Declarative sentences can use a similar device in the emphatic particle "sa" to distinguish focused elements.  However, such particles are not used in a majority of sentences.  As it stands, the best rule for now is that position relative to the verb dictates information status.  Much work remains to be done in deciphering the packaging of information structure in Nishnaabemwin.

There is a focusing particle in Nishnaabemwin, "mii", which acts similar to cleft constructions in English.  This is the only place that focus can be unambiguously identified, and it is the only device which can generate ungrammaticalities.  Thus, it is the only device we have used in our test suite:

#267   
Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: g
Phenomena: info
Mii nmamaa giibid
Mii nmamaa gii-bi-d
FOC my+mother PAST-be-3.SG.CONJ
'It was my mother who was there'

The focusing particle must come first in the sentence:

#276   
Source: author
Vetted: f
Judmgent: u
Phenomena: info
Giibid mii nmabaa
Gii-bi-d mii nmabaa
PAST-be-3.SG.CONJ FOC my+mother
'It was my mother who was there'

Only NPs can be focused using this particle:

#275   
Source: author
Vetted: f
Judgment: u
Phenomena: info
Mii giibid nmamaa
Mii gii-bi-d nmamaa
FOC PAST-be-3.SG.CONJ my+mother
'It was be there that my mother did'

Summary of test suite
-----------------------------
We now have created sets of grammatical and ungrammatical examples for numerous phenomena in Nishnaabemwin.  The number of examples of each phenomenon is given in the table below:


Phenomenon          Grammatical     Ungrammatical    
word order              11                0
agreement               12               14
tense                   11               12
aspect                   6                3
negation                 5                4
argument optionality     12               0
pronouns/determiners     19              20
coordination             11               8
yes/no questions          7               7
adjectives                6               6
adverbs                  11              10
embedded clauses         24              22
non-verbal predicates    16               9
information structure     8               7
direct-inverse           68               0

Total                    227            122     349
Contrast possible        136            122     258

We have a total of 349 test sentences.  However, many of these represent phenomena for which it is impossible to generate ungrammaticalities.  Word order (i.e., the order of a verb and its arguments) is completely free, and arguments may be dropped in any situation, though it is never obligatory.  The direct-inverse examples demonstrate the interaction of the verbal affixes and how they determine which NP is actor and which is goal for any transitive verb, ungrammaticality can only be generated by disagreement in person, number, gender, or obviation, and this is handled in the "agreement" examples.  So among phenomena which can generate contrasts of grammaticality, we have 136 positive examples and 122 negative examples, for 258 total.

Lab 5 Tasks
------------

Modification
------------

Head-Modifier Rule
------------------

The grammar features from the lab instructions were included in our grammar by the questionnaire:

head-adj-int := head-adj-int-phrase.
adj-head-int := adj-head-int-phrase.

+nvcdmo :+ [ MOD < > ].

Adjectives
----------

In Nishnaabemwin, 'most attributive (adjectival descriptive) concepts are expressed by means of intransitive verbs having a descriptive initial, an optional classification medial, and a final sensitive to gender'[Valentine, 2001]

For example here are two verbs that have the following finals:

VAI/-izi/ and VII/-aa/ "have the attribute of being...

mkadewzi     mkadewaa    'be black'
mskozi       mskwaa      'be red'

We decided to not tackle these verbs in regards to their adjectival properties in this lab.

Valentine also defines a part of speech he calls adjectival prenoun, which serves to qualify a noun in some way. An example would be 'gchi-', meaning 'great, large, big'.

We decided to try to implement this type of descriptive prenoun in our test suite and grammar. Examples from the test suite can be found in the Attribute Adjective section in the Refactoring The Test Suite section above.

Below is the tdl used to create the lexical rules for our descriptive prenouns. The implementation did provide the required lexical rule to parse but the result was imperfect and the semantics in the resulting feature structure were incorrect. It has been removed from the final Lab 5 grammar and we will have to refactor the solution in coming labs.

The idea of the below solution was to add a prenoun lexical rule that would be the last slot in the noun inflection pipeline. In order to go through the pipeline and add the correct semantics in the ccont feature structure, the original types had to be changed:

;;; original type
;;;class1-anim-sg-lex-rule := lexeme-to-word-rule & add-only-no-ccont-rule &
;;;  [ DTR class1-anim-noun-lex ].

;;; new type
class1-anim-sg-lex-rule :=  add-only-rule &
  [ DTR class1-anim-noun-lex ].

;;; original type
;;;class1-anim-sg-morph-lex-rule := const-ltow-rule & class1-anim-sg-lex-rule &
;;;  [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX.PNG [ PERNUM 3SG,
;;;                                       OBVIATION prox,
;;;                                       GEND anim ] ].

;;; new type
class1-anim-sg-morph-lex-rule := class1-anim-sg-lex-rule &
  [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX.PNG [ PERNUM 3SG,
                                       OBVIATION prox,
                                       GEND anim ] ].

A new dtr rule was defined in order to eventually input multiple slots

prenoun-dtr := class1-anim-sg-morph-lex.

;;; changed to allow for ccont
prenoun-lex-rule := infl-ltow-rule & add-only-rule & 
  [ DTR prenoun-dtr ].

;;; added c-cont hcons as per Go Post	
prenoun-morph-lex-rule := prenoun-lex-rule & 
  [ C-CONT.HCONS <! !> ].

prenoun-lex := prenoun-morph-lex-rule.

The relation was added in the irules.tdl

prenoun-morph-1-prefix :=
%prefix (* waabi-)
prenoun-morph-lex-rule & 
  [ C-CONT [ RELS <! [ PRED "_white_a_rel" ] !> ]].

Again, this solution did not work and was removed from the grammar.

Adverbs
-------

The adverb-lex type was automatically entered into our grammar by the questionnaire:

adverb-lex := basic-adverb-lex & intersective-mod-lex &
  [ SYNSEM [ LOCAL [ CAT [ HEAD.MOD < [ LOCAL.CAT.HEAD verb ]>,
			   VAL [ SPR < >,
				 SUBJ < >,
				 COMPS < >,
				 SPEC < > ]]]]].

The adverbs from our test sentences parsed and the correct predication was added to the MRS as well as the correct indexing on the ARG of the verb.

Adjective Agreement
------------------

The Prenouns in our language do not need to agree with the nouns they complement.

Lexical Rules
--------------

We created a fairly comprehensive inflectional pipeline for our different verbs using the questionnaire. We utilized OPT in our base verb types:

For example:

verb-class-VTA-verb-lex := dir-inv-transitive-verb-lex &
  [ INFLECTED - ].

We also created a number of DTR types to handle the "pipeline" of slots:

For example:

theme-lex-rule := tense-rule-dtr & negation-rule-dtr & aspect-rule-dtr & infl-add-only-no-ccont-ltol-rule &
  [ DTR theme-rule-dtr ].

And also many different lexical rules specific to pernum, gender, and direct/inverse:

For example:

vta-actor-1-goal-3-morph-lex-rule := person-prefix-lex-rule &
  [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT.VAL [ SUBJ.FIRST.LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX.PNG [ PERNUM 1st,
                                                                  GEND anim ],
                           COMPS.FIRST.LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX.PNG [ PERNUM 3rd,
                                                                   GEND anim ] ] ].

Demonstratives and Definiteness
--------------------------------

The basics
----------

Added constraints to our personal pronouns in Nishnabemwin.tdl:

personal-pronoun-1SG-noun-lex := no-spr-noun-lex &
  [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX [ PNG [ PERNUM 1SG,
                                         GEND anim ],
                                         COG-ST activ+fam,
                                         SPECI + ] ].

personal-pronoun-2SG-noun-lex := no-spr-noun-lex &
  [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX [ PNG [ PERNUM 2SG,
                                         GEND anim ],
                                         COG-ST activ+fam,
                                         SPECI + ] ].

personal-pronoun-3SG-noun-lex := no-spr-noun-lex &
  [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX [ PNG [ PERNUM 3SG,
                                         GEND anim ],
                                         COG-ST activ+fam,
                                         SPECI + ] ].

Demonstratives
--------------

In Nishnaabemwin, demonstrative pronouns play the role of demonstratives like in the English 'this(one)' and 'that(one)'. They do so based on their proximity to the place of speaking, the location of the speaker, or to some other point the speaker chooses to make the point of reference.

These demonstrative pronouns index the nominal categories of Gender, Number, and Obviation.

There are three types of demonstrative pronouns that reflect distance:

- Proximal
- Distal
- Remote

* complexity is that there are dialectical variations in the sample sentences that the author does not call out (only traceable by the dialect reference associated with the sentence).

We will use the basic type hierarchy described in the instructions for Lab 5 in our tdl to differentiate these pronouns (which we have classified as determiners in our grammar)

demonstrative_a_rel := predsort.
proximal+dem_a_rel := demonstrative_a_rel. ; close to speaker
distal+dem_a_rel := demonstrative_a_rel. ; away from speaker
remote+dem_a_rel := distal+dem_a_rel. ; away from speaker and hearer

Given our new hierarchy, we had to go back and refactor our demonstrative pronoun types to separate our proximal, distal, and remote types. Our original types only dealt with gener, number, and obviation distinctions.

Another confounding issue is that we created these demonstratives as determiners in the questionnaire. The result is that we had to make a choice about det-noun or noun-det without truly analyzing if these distinctions make sense for our demonstrative pronouns.

; proximal demonstrative pronouns

In  the lexicon, each demonstrative pronoun determiner has an associated demonstrative_a_rel value in its ALTKEYS.PRED

maaba := det-dem-prn-anim-3SGProx-determiner-lex &
  [ STEM < "maaba" >,
    SYNSEM.LKEYS.KEYREL.PRED "_this_det_rel",
    SYNSEM.LKEYS.ALTKEYREL.PRED proximal+dem_a_rel ].

Definiteness
------------

Definiteness in Nishnaabemwin is realized by a nominal expression consisting of a demonstrative pronoun and a noun. The demonstrative pronouns are required to agree with the noun in number, gender, and obviation.

the most common ordering is for a demonstrative to immediately precede the noun, however in cases where a participle must be in second position, the noun and demonstrative are separated:

Giw dash Kweway wgii-gnawenmaawaan niw binoojiinyan.
those.PR.3PL.Prox and.AV women.AN.3PL.Prox took+care+of.VTA.IND.3PL.Prox those.PR.3.OBV children.AN.3.OBV

Indefinites pronouns are either the animate waya or inanimate gegoo alone or in combination with other words:

waya - anyone
gegoo - anything

Many speakers do not inflect these pronouns for number or obviation.

They can also modify nouns, nominal phrases like "any people"

We have not implemented indefinite pronouns comprehensively in our grammar and have not assigned the appropriate COG-ST values.

Demonstrative Adjectives
------------------------

There are no demonstrative adjectives in our language.

Demonstrative Determiners
-------------------------

We may have incorrectly intrepreted demonstrative determiners in our language. We implemented the requirements of the Lab on our demonstrative pronoun determiners in our grammar. The MRS results from our test sentences are fairly consistent for our demonstrative determiners, only a few of them do not assign the proper number of relations and indexing.

determiner-lex-supertype := norm-hook-lex-item & basic-zero-arg &
  [ SYNSEM [ LOCAL [ CAT [ HEAD det,
               VAL[ SPEC.FIRST.LOCAL.CONT.HOOK [ INDEX #ind,
                                   LTOP #larg ],
                                SPR < >,
                                SUBJ < >,
                                COMPS < >]],
             CONT.HCONS < ! qeq &
                 [ HARG #harg,
                   LARG #larg ] ! > ],
         LKEYS.KEYREL quant-relation &
           [ ARG0 #ind,
             RSTR #harg ] ] ].


determiner-dem-prn-lex := determiner-lex-supertype &
  [ SYNSEM [ LOCAL [ CAT.VAL.SPEC.FIRST.LOCAL.CONT.HOOK [ INDEX #ind & [COG-ST activ+fam],
                                LTOP #ltop ],
                              CONT.RELS.LIST.REST #altkeyrel ],
             LKEYS.ALTKEYREL #altkeyrel & [ ARG1 #ind, LBL #ltop ]]].

The above pattern is then applied to all of our demonstrative pronoun determiners:

det-dem-prn-anim-3SGProx-determiner-lex := determiner-dem-prn-lex & proximal+dem_a_rel &
  [ SYNSEM.LOCAL.CAT.VAL.SPEC.FIRST.LOCAL.CONT.HOOK.INDEX.PNG [ PERNUM 3SG,
                                                                GEND anim,
                                                                OBVIATION prox ] ].

Optional Arguments
-----------------

We were unsure of how to deal with optional arguments in our language. Our unexpressed arguments on verbs are not really dropped subjects. The addition of indefinite pronouns and an analysis of the unspecified actor could greatly contribute to our understanding of the correct COG-ST values that are required. We did not implement any COG-ST values in our optional argument framework for this Lab. 

Test Suite Analysis
------------------

Due to our omission of key classes of phenomena in last week's Lab, we needed to spend time this week adding to our test suite in order to run a true baseline against the Lab 4 grammar. Below is the baseline test suite run against Lab 4 and Lab 5 grammars

Baseline Test Suite with Lab 4 Grammar
------------------------------------
Coverage Profile
---------------

Total Items         294
positive items      222
word string         2.64
lexical items       8.42
distinct analyses   2.26
total results        43
overall coverage    19.4%

Overgeneration Profile
-----------------

Total Items         294
Negative Items      72
word string         3.36
lexical items       9.58
distinct analyses   4.00
total results        3
overall coverage    4.2%

166 no analysis errors

Baseline Test Suite with Lab 5 Grammar

Coverage Profile
---------------

Total Items         294
positive items      222
word string         2.64
lexical items      11.08
distinct analyses   3.56
total results       155
overall coverage   69.8%

Overgeneration Profile
-----------------

Total Items         294
Negative Items      72
word string         3.36
lexical items       9.76
distinct analyses   3.40
total results        10
overall coverage    13.9%

59 reported no-analysis errors
1  reported missing type error (participle lexicon item added late with no matching type in the grammar)

Below is a new baseline for Lab 5 that includes additional sentences developed during the last day of development as well and a slightly changed grammar (prenoun lexical rules removed)

New Baseline Test Suite for Lab 5
-----------------

Coverage Profile
---------------

Total Items         349
positive items      229
word string         2.69
lexical items      11.07
distinct analyses   3.57
total results       154
overall coverage   67.2%

Overgeneration Profile
-----------------

Total Items         349
Negative Items      120
word string         3.21
lexical items      10.19
distinct analyses   3.27
total results        11
overall coverage    9.2%

96 reported no-analysis errors
1  reported missing type error (participle lexicon item added late with no matching type in the grammar)

Left Over Tasks
--------------

Negation
---------

- we need to map the adverb for negation to the required negation suffix

Prenouns as Adjectives
----------------------

- a complete re-analysis of this phenomena is required

Descriptive Intransitive Verbs
------------------------------

- we need to analyse the descriptive intransitive verbs in our language

Yes/No Questions
----------------

- yes/no is still not parsing in our grammar. We will need to "wire up" the rules for yes/no in our grammar

Unspecified Actor
-----------------

- add unspecified actor as fourth person to our inflection lexical rules for verbs

Direct/Inverse
--------------

- research Valentine coverage of reflexive/reciprocal inflectional rules for our VTA verbs
- include unspecified actor in inflection lexical rules
- factor the -0 in the VTA suffix chart
- add ungrammatical test sentences

Argument Optionality
--------------------

- determine COG-ST for our unexpressed arguments

























