Update 10-3.cgel

[mebwells]

No description provided.

[bwaldon]

• Status of of-PPs in relational nouns (e.g., resident) may warrant more discussion. (As we discussed on 08/29). Two SIEG-inspired arguments for analyzing “of the district…” as :Comp not :Mod (see Section 5.4.1):

1. “of the district…” corresponds to an argument of the verbal form reside (e.g., He resided in the district…).

2. “of the district…” is ‘obligatory’ in the same way that an of-PP is ‘obligatory’ for the noun feasibility, as discussed in SIEG:

even when someone does say something like What’s the feasibility? we have to understand them as having asked about the feasibility of some particular planned action that was clear from the preceding context.

As discussed on 08/29, though, there’s a prima facie tension with analyzing this of-PP as :Comp when other, similarly ‘relational’ nouns (e.g., paragraph in [1]; schedule in [2]) supposedly can attach to :Mod of-PPs that correspond to one entity in the ‘relation’.

[1] https://github.com/nert-nlp/legal-cgel/blob/main/datasets/oneoff/9-2.cgel
[2] https://github.com/nert-nlp/cgel/blob/dec764379cf81f0915c8f81599d803ecc047ce89/datasets/ewt.cgel#L606C3-L606C38

[bwaldon]

• That said, of-PPs following service and notice should be:Comp not :Mod since they are nominalizations of verbs that would express these PPs as objects.
• Does *for service of... * attach higher (i.e., at prescribed)? (TODO: discuss)
• Multiple possible attachment sites for in an action in the same court? (TODO: discuss)

[bwaldon]

Does in an action in the same court have multiple attachment sites? Otherwise looks ready to merge in

[mebwells]

Upon review, I think there are potentially many attachment sites (one could argue that almost every preposition in that statement could have several different attachments...), but out of context I'm not sure which ones are valid interpretations in terms of what the law is trying to say