Lab 4 Grading Rubric


Notes:

The definition of all-adjective-lex should inherit from
intersective-mod-lex, rather than stipulating the INDEX/ARG1
identity on its own.

Your description of object INI makes it sound like objects
can generally be omitted, in contradiction the previous paragraph.
Is it lexically governed, or not?

Marking for grammaticality should reflect reality
as you understand it, and not the current state of your
grammar.

I'm not sure what this means:

>Another exception is illustrated in the above example where the adverb
>in "po ok ovojn tage" ('eight eggs a day') is attached to its left.

or this:

>could both mean either 'He spoke believably' or 'He probably
>spoke'. (And the first of these could also mean 'It's probably he that
>spoke'.)

('It's probably that he spoke' is not grammatical for me in English.)


From your description of the distribution of adverbs, it seems
that there is some lexical specificity to their distribution.  That
is, some adverbs can only have the most restricted distribution,
some float more freely, and some only appear on the opposite side
of their modifiees from most.  This would not be unusual, nor
hard to handle (imagine separate lexical types for different
kinds of adverbs with different MOD and POSTHEAD values.)
It would also not be surprising, as you suggest, that scopal modifiers
have different distributions from intersective ones.  

It doesn't look like you are using [incr tsdb()], from what
you turned in.  Are there specific issues keeping you from using
it that I could assist with?  You have developed a nice testsuite,
and I think you would find it very useful to have good visualization
tools for your coverage of the testsuite.