Ah, so comfortable.

Smooth.

Mm - hmm. Good. I know that he's going to like, Taiwan and other places to eat. So.

On? Am I on?

Yep. Yep.

I think I'm on?

Yeah.

Good. Good.

Bye.

Actually.

I just had one of the most frustrating meetings of my career.

It's definitely not the most frustrating meeting I've ever had.

You a You're you remember you're being recorded at this point.

Oh, yeah, so, w we didn't yet specify with whom.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Right.

But um.

Uh, right.

So that's why Keith and I are going to be a little dazed for the first half m the meeting.

Uh.

Huh. Yeah, I'm just gonna sit here and

Right. Yeah, I I I avoided that as long as I could for you guys,

growl.

but, uh.

Yeah.

Mm - hmm.

For which we thank you, by the way.

Are very appreciative, yeah.

Right.

I know you were you were doing that, but, anyway.

Oh yeah, how di how d exactly did, uh, that paper lead to anti - lock brakes?

Oh, I could tell you had a rough day, man!

Nah.

What?

I love that story.

Yeah, it's a great story.

OK.

Oh my goodness.

Oh yeah, um, Liz suggested we could start off by uh, doing the digits all at the same time.

What?

All at the same time. I don't know if I would get distracted and confused, probably.

e

Really? Do we have to like, synchronize?

Well, I think you're supposed to OK. We can do this.

Are you being silly?

Oh wait do we have t

Everybody's got different digits,

Yep.

right?

Yeah, do we have to time them at the same time or just overlapping.

Uh.

You're kidding.

No, no, just just start whenever you want.

No.

And any rate?

e yeah, the

Alright.

Well, they they have s they have the close talking microphones for each of us,

Yeah, that's true.

so.

Yeah.

yeah, there's separate channels.

Alright.

OK.

Yeah.

So when I say

Just plug one ear.

You lose.

OK.

OK, bye! That was a great meeting!

Right.

Alright.

So - Now, uh, why?

Just to save time.

OK.

Does matter for them.

Are we gonna start all our meetings out that way from now on?

No.

Oh. Too bad. I kinda like it.

Well, could we?

It's strangely satisfying.

Yeah. It's a ritual.

Are we to r Just to make sure I know what's going on, we're talking about Robert's thesis proposal today? Is that

We could.

true?

We are?

We might.

OK.

Is.

Well, you you had s you said there were two things that you might wanna do. One was rehearse your i i talk.

Oh yes, and that too.

Not not rehearse, I mean, I have just not spent any time on it, so I can show you what I've got, get your input on it, and maybe some suggestions, that would be great. And the same is true for the proposal. I will have time to do some revision and some additional stuff on various airplanes and trains. So, um. I don't know how much of a chance you had to actually read it

I haven't looked at it

because.

yet,

but you could always send me comments per electronic mail

but I will.

and they will be incorporated.

OK.

Um, the It basically says, well " this is construal ", and then it continues to say that one could potentially build a probabilistic relational model that has some general, domain - general rules how things are construed, and then the idea is to use ontology, situation, user, and discourse model to instantiate elements in the classes of the probabilistic relational model to do some inferences in terms of what is being construed as what

Hmm.

in our beloved tourism domain. But, with a focus on

Can I s Sorry.

I think I need a copy of this, yes.

Hmm?

OK, we can we can we can pass pass my, uh we can pass my extra copy around.

I is there an extra copy around?

Uh. He sent it. OK. You can keep it.

Er, actually, my only copy, now that I think about it,

Alrigh

OK.

Um, I don't I, uh I don't need it.

but. I already read half of it, so it's OK.

Um, actually this is the the newest version after your comments,

OK.

and.

Yeah, no I s I s I see this has got the castle in it, and stuff like that.

Yeah.

Yep.

Oh, maybe the version I didn't have that I mine the w did the one you sent on the email have the.

Yeah.

That was the most recent one?

Uh, yeah, I think so.

Yep.

OK. Cuz I read halfway but I didn't see a castle thing.

I'm changing this. Just so you know.

Yeah,

But, anyway.

um, if you would have checked your email you may have received a note from Yees asking you to send me the, uh, up - to - d

Oh. Oh, sorry. OK. Sorry.

current formalism thing that you presented.

OK. I will. OK. OK. OK.

But for this it doesn't matter. But, uh.

We can talk about it later. That's not even ready, so. Um, OK! Go on t to, uh, whatever.

And.

I'm making changes. " Don't worry about that. " OK. Mmm - mmm. Oh! OK, sorry, go on.

And any type of comment whether it's a spelling or a syntax or

Mm - hmm.

readability.

There's only one " S " in " interesting ".

Hmm?

There's only one " S " in " interesting ". On page five.

Interesting.

Anyway. And y uh, email any time, but most usefully before.

The twenty - first I'm assuming.

The twenty - first?

Twenty - ninth.

No, this is the twenty - first.

That's.

What, today's the twenty - first?

Well, better hurry up then!

Oh, man!

Before the twenty - ninth,

The twenty - ninth.

OK.

OK.

That's when I'm meeting with Wolfgang Wahlster to sell him this idea.

Mm - hmm. OK.

OK? Then I'm also going to present a little talk at EML, about what we have done here and so of course, I'm I'm gonna start out with this slide, so the most relevant aspects of our stay here, and um, then I'm asking them to imagine that they're standing somewhere in Heidelberg and someone asks them in the morning The Cave Forty - Five is a is a well - known discotheque which is certainly not open at that that time. And so

OK.

they're supposed to imagine that, you know, do they think the person wants to go there, or just know where it is? Uh, which is probably not, uh, the case in that discotheque example, or in the Bavaria example, you just want to know where it is. And so forth. So basically we can make a point that here is ontological knowledge but if it's nine nine PM in the evening then the discotheque question would be, for example, one that might ask for directions instead of just location. Um, and so forth and so forth. That's sort of motivating it. Then what have we done so far? We had our little bit of, um, um, SmartKom stuff, that we did, um, everth

Oh, you've got the parser done. Sorry.

That's the not the construction parser. That's the, uh, tablet - based parser,

OK.

Easy parser.

OK.

and the generation outputter.

Halfway done? Yeah.

That's done.

Mmm.

You have to change those strategies,

OK.

right? That's, ten words?

Yeah. Well, i it, you know. Maybe twelve.

Twelve? OK. And, um, and Fey is doing the synthesis stuff as we speak. That's all about that. Then I'm going to talk about the data, you know these things about uh, actually I have an example, probably. Two s Can you hear that? Or should I turn the l volume on.

Mm - hmm.

I could hear it.

I I can hear it.

I heard it.

They might not hear it in the well maybe they will. I don't know.

This was an actual, um, subject? Ah.

Mm - hmm.

Sounds like Fey.

Yeah.

But they're they're mimicking the synthesis when they speak to the computer,

Oh, OK.

the you can observe that all the time, they're trying to match their prosody onto the machine.

Oh really. Interesting. Oh, it's pretty slow.

Yeah, you have to.

Wh

The system breaking.

What is the s? Oh!

OK. And so forth and so forth. Um, I will talk about our problems with the rephrasing, and how we solved it, and some preliminary observations, also, um, I'm not gonna put in the figures from Liz, but I thought it would interesting to, uh, um, point out that it's basically the same. Um, as in every human - human telephone conversation, and the human - computer telephone conversation is of course quite d quite different from, uh, some first, uh, observations. Then sort of feed you back to our original problem cuz, uh how to get there, what actually is happening there today, and then maybe talk about the big picture here, e tell a little bit as much as I can about the NTL story. I I wa I do wanna, um I'm not quite sure about this, whether I should put this in, um, that, you know, you have these two sort of different ideas that are or two different camps of people envisioning how language understanding works, and then, talk a bit about the embodied and simulation approach favored here and as a prelude, I'll talk about monkeys in Italy. And, um, Srini was gonna send me some slides but he didn't do it, so from but I have the paper, I can make a resume of that, and then I stole an X - schema from one of your talks I think.

Oh. I was like, " where'd you get that? " OK.

Yeah, that looks familiar.

" Looks familiar. "

I think that's Bergen, Chang, something, or the other.

Uh.

Whatever.

OK.

Um, and that's now I'm not going to bring that. So that's basically what I have, so far, and the rest is for airplanes. So X - schemas, then, I would like to do talk about the construction aspect and then at the end about our Bayes - net.

Mm - hmm.

End of story. Anything I forgot that we should mention? Oh, maybe the FMRI stuff. Should I mention the fact that, um, we're also actually started going to start to look at people's brains in a more direct way?

You certainly can. I mean I y I you know, I don't know.

You might just wanna like, tack that on, as a comment, to something.

Right, um.

" Future activities " something.

Well, the time to mention it, if you mention it, is when you talk about mirror neurons, then you should talk about the more recent stuff, about the kicking

Yeah.

and, you know, the yeah, yeah and that the plan is to see to what extent the you'll get the same phenomena with stories about this, so that.

Mm - hmm.

and that we're planning to do this, um, which, we are. So that's one thing. Um. Depends. I mean, there is a, um, whole language learning story, OK?

Yeah.

which, uh, actually, i i even on your five - layer slide, you you've got an old one that that leaves that off.

Yeah, I I I do have it here.

Hmm.

Yeah.

Um. And, of course, you know, the the big picture is this bit.

Right.

But, you know, it would But I don't think I I am capable of of do pulling this off and doing justice to the matter. I mean, there is interesting stuff in her terms of how language works, so the emergentism story would be nice to be you know, it would be nice to tell people how what's happening there, plus how the, uh, language learning stuff works,

OK, so, so anyway, I I agree that's not central.

but.

Mm - hmm.

What you might wanna do is, um, and may not, but you might wanna this is rip off a bunch of the slides on the anal there the there we've got various i generations of slides that show language analysis, and matching to the underlying image schemas, and, um, how the construction and simulation that ho that whole th

Yeah, th that that's c that comes up to the X - schema slide,

OK, right.

so basically I'm gonna steal that from Nancy,

OK, I can give you a more recent if you want.

one of Nancy's st

well, that might have enough.

Uh, I yeah, but I also have stuff you trash you left over,

OK.

your quals and your triple - AI.

The quals w the the the quals slides would be fine.

Yeah.

You could get it out of there, or some

Which I can even email you then, you know, like there probably was a little few changes, not a big deal. Yeah, you could steal anything you want, I don't care. Which you've already done, obviously. So. Sorry

Well, I I don't feel bad about it at all

No, you shouldn't.

because because you are on the, uh, title.

Oh, that's great, that's great.

I mean on the the, you're that's see, that's you.

I'm glad to see propagation.

Yeah. Yeah.

Mmm.

Hmm? Propagated?

Yes.

I mean I might even mention that this work you're doing is sort of also with the MPI in Leipzig, so.

It's it's certainly related, um,

Because, um, EML is building up a huge thing in Leipzig.

might wanna say. Is it?

So it It's on biocomputation. Would.

Yeah, it's different, this is the, uh, DNA building, or someth the double helix building.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Kind of a different level of analysis.

The yeah it was it turns out that if if you have multiple billions of dollars, y you can do all sorts of weird things, and.

Wait, they're building a building in the shape of DNA,

What?

is that what you said?

Roughly, yeah.

Oh! Oh boy!

O

Including cr cross - bridges,

What?

and

Oh my god!

That's brilliant! Hhh.

You d you really now I I spent the last time I was there I spent maybe two hours hearing this story which is, um.

Of what

Y You definitely wanna w don't wanna waste that money on research,

the building?

you know?

Right.

That's horrible.

Right. Well, no, no, y i there's infinite money. See you th you th you then fill it with researchers.

And give them more money. They just want a fun place for them to to work.

Right. Right.

And everybody gets a trampoline in their office.

Well, the the offices are actually a little the, think of um, ramps, coming out of the double helix and then you have these half - domes, glass half - domes, and the offices are in in the glass half - dome.

Really?

Yeah.

Alright, let's stop talking about this.

Does it exist yet?

Yeah.

They are w now building it?

Uh, as a model.

Hmm.

But I th

So, yeah, I think that's that's a good point, th th that the date, the, uh, a lot of the this is interacting with, uh, people in Italy but also definitely the people in Leipzig and the the b the combination of the biology and the Leipzig connection might be interesting to these guys, yeah. OK. OK. Anyway! Enough of that, let's talk about your thesis proposal.

Yeah, if somebody has something to say.

Yep.

You might want to, uh, double - check the spellings of the authors' names on your references, you had a few, uh, misspells in your slides, there. Like I believe you had " Jackendorf ".

Um.

Uh, unless there's a person called " Jackendorf ",

On that one?

No, no, no.

yeah. But that's the only thing I noticed in there.

In the presentation?

In the presentation.

I'll probably I c might have I'll probably have comments for you separately, not important. Anyway.

Oh, in the presentation here.

Yeah, that's what he was talking about.

Yeah.

I was ac actually worried about bibtex. Uh. No, that's quite possible. That's copy and paste from something.

So I did note i i it looks like the, uh, metaphor didn't get in yet.

Uh, it did, there is a reference to Srini.

Well, s reference is one thing, the question is is there any place Oh, did you put in something about,

Metonymy and metaphor here, right?

uh, the individual, we'd talked about putting in something about people had, uh Oh yeah, OK. Good. I see where you have it. So the top of the second of pa page two you have a sentence.

Mm - hmm.

But, what I meant is, I think even before you give this, to Wahlster, uh, you should, unless you put it in the text, and I don't think it's there yet, about we talked about is the, um, scalability that you get by, um, combining the constructions with the general construal mechanism. Is that in there?

Yeah, mmm. Um.

Uh, OK, so where where is it, cuz I'll have to take a look.

Um, but I I did not focus on that aspect but, um Ehhh, um, it's just underneath, uh, um, that reference to metaphor. So it's the last paragraph before two. So on page two, um, the main focus.

Uh, OK. Yeah.

But that's really.

That's not about that, is it?

Yeah.

No, it it it s says it but it doesn't say it doesn't it d it d

Why.

yeah, it doesn't give the punch line.

Mm - hmm.

Cuz let me tell the gang what I think the punch line is, because it's actually important, which is, that, the constructions, that, uh, Nancy and Keith and friends are doing, uh, are, in a way, quite general but cover only base cases. And to make them apply to metaphorical cases and metonymic cases and all those things, requires this additional mechanism, of construal. And the punch line is, he claimed, that if you do this right, you can get essentially orthogonality, that if you introduce a new construction at at the base level, it should com uh, interact with all the metonymies and metaphors so that all of the projections of it also should work.

Mm - hmm.

And, similarly, if you introduce a new metaphor, it should then uh, compose with all of the constructions.

Mm - hmm. Yeah.

And it to the extent that that's true then then it's a big win over anything that exists.

So does that mean instead of having tons and tons of rules in your context - free grammar you just have these base constructs and then a general mechanism for coercing them.

Yeah.

Mm - hmm. So that, you know, for example, uh, in the metaphor case, that you have a kind of direct idea of a source, path, and goal and any metaphorical one and abstract goals and all that sort of stuff  you can do the same grammar.

Mmm.

And it is the same grammar. But, um, the trick is that the the way the construction's written it requires that the object of the preposition for example be a container. Well, " trouble " isn't a container, but it gets constr construed as a c container.

Right.

Et cetera. So that's that's where this, um,

So with construal you don't have to have a construction for every possible thing that can fill the rule.

Right. So's it's it it's a very big deal, i i in this framework, and the thesis proposal as it stands doesn't, um, I don't think, say that as clearly as it could.

No, it doesn't say it at all. No. Even though One could argue what if there are basic cases, even. I mean, it seems like nothing is context - free.

Oh, nothing is context - free, but there are basic cases. That is, um, there are physical containers, there are physical paths, there you know, et cetera.

But " walked into the cafe and ordered a drink, " and " walked into the cafe and broke his nose, " that's sort of.

Oh, it doesn't mean that they're unambiguous.

Mmm. Yeah.

I mean, a cafe can be construed as a container, or it can be construed you know as as a obstacle,

Uh - huh.

or as some physical object. So there are multiple construals. And in fact that's part of what has to be done. This is why there's this interaction between the analysis and the construal.

Mm - hmm. Yep.

The b the the double arrow.

Yep.

So, uh, yeah, I mean, it doesn't magically make ambiguity go away.

No.

But it does say that, uh, if you walked into the cafe and broke your nose, then you are construing the cafe as an obstacle.

Mm - hmm.

And if that's not consistent with other things, then you've gotta reject that reading.

Yep.

You con you conditioned me with your first sentence, and so I thought, " Why would he walk into the cafe and then somehow break his nose? " uh, oh, uh.

He slipped on the wet floor.

Right.

You don't find that usage, uh uh, I checked for it in the Brown national corpus.

Yeah.

The " walk into it " never really means, w as in walked smack.

But " run into " does.

Yeah, but, y y if you find " walked smacked into the cafe " or " slammed into the wall ".

Yeah, no, but " run into " does.

Mm - hmm.

Because you will find " run into, " uh,

Cars run into telephone poles all the time.

well, or " into the cafe " for that m

Right.

you know " His car ran into the cafe. "

Yeah. Or you can run into an old friend, or run.

Well, you can " run into " in that sense too.

Yeah, " run into " might even be more impact sense than, you know, container sense.

But, uh, Right.

Depends.

But Like, " run into an old friend ", it probably needs its own construction. I mean, uh, you know, George would have I'm sure some exa complicated ex reason why it really was an instance of something else

Mm - hmm. Mm - hmm.

and maybe it is, but, um, there are idioms and my guess is that's one of them, but, um I don't know.

All contact. I mean, there there's contact that doesn't social contact, whatever. I mean.

Uh.

Sudden surprising contact,

Yeah, but it's it's it's it's Right. i Yeah, it's more.

right?

Forceful.

But of course, no, i i I mean it has a life of its own. It's sort of partially inspired by the spatial.

Well, this is this motivated but yeah.

Yeah.

oh yeah, mo for sure, motivated, but then you can't parse on motivated.

Yeah. Yeah. Right.

Uh,

Too bad.

You should get a T - shirt that says that.

OK.

There's there's lots of things you could make T - shirts out of, but, uh, this has gotten I mean wh We don't need the words to that.

Pro - probably not your marks in the kitchen, today.

What? Oh, no no no no no no no no no, we're not going there.

Not not your marks.

OK.

OK, so, um,

In other news.

anything else you want to ask us about the thesis proposal, you got.

Well,

We could look at a particular thing and give you feedback on it.

Well there actually the i what would have been really nice is to find an example for all of this, uh, from our domain. So maybe if we w if we can make one up now, that would be c incredibly helpful.

So, w where it should illustrate

OK.

uh wh when you say all this, do you mean, like, I don't know, the related work stuff,

How.

as well as, mappings?

w Well we have, for example, a canonical use of something

Right right r

and y it's, you know, we have some constructions and then it's construed as something, and then we we may get the same constructions with a metaphorical use that's also relevant to the to the domain.

OK, f let's let's suppose you use " in " and " on ". I mean, that's what you started with.

Mm - hmm.

So " in the bus " and " on the bus, " um, that's actually a little tricky in English because to some extent they're synonyms. OK.

I had two hours w with George on this, so it,

OK, what did he say.

Did you?

um Um.

Join the club.

Right. Oh, h that's.

" On the bus " is a m is a metaphorical metonymy that relates some meta path metaphorically and you're on on that path and th w I mean it's he there's a platform notion,

Yeah, I I believe all that, it's just.

right? " he's on the standing on the bus waving to me. "

Yeah.

But th the regular as we speak " J Johno was on the bus to New York, "

Yeah. Yeah.

um, uh, he's that's, uh, what did I call it here, the transportation schema, something,

Yeah.

where you can be on the first flight, on the second flight,

Yeah.

and you can be, you know, on the wagon.

Right. So so that that may or may not be what you what you want to do. I mean you could do something much simpler

Yeah.

like " under the bus, " or something, where.

But it's it's unfortunately, this is not really something a tourist would ever say. So.

Well, unless he was repairing it or something,

Yeah.

but yeah.

But um.

Uh, but OK.

So in terms of the this.

I see.

We had we had initially we'd started discussing the " out of film. "

Right.

And there's a lot of " out of " analysis, so, um,

Right.

could we capture that with a different construal of.

Yeah, it's a little it's, uh we've thought about it before, uh t uh to use the examples in other papers, and it's it's a little complicated. Cuz you're like, it's a state of there's resource,

Out of out of film, in particular.

right, and like, what is film,

Yeah.

the state you know. You're out of the state of having film, right? and somehow film is standing for the re the resour the state of having some resource is just labeled as that resource.

It's.

I mean.

yeah, I mean,

It's a little bit.

but and plus the fact that there's also s I mean, can you say, like, " The film ran out " you know, or, maybe you could say something like " The film is out "

Yeah, is film the trajector?

so like the the film went away from where it should be, namely with you, or something, right? You know. The the film the film is gone, right? Um, I never really knew what was going on, I mean I I find it sort of a little bit farfetched to say that that " I'm out of film " means that I have left the state of having film or something like that,

It's weird. That.

but.

Or, " having " is also, um, associated with location,

Uh.

right?

Yeah. Yeah.

so if the film left, you know state is being near film.

So running running out of something is different from being out of somewhere.

Or being out of something as, uh as well. So " running out of it " definitely has a process aspect to it.

Mm - hmm. But that's from run, yeah.

So,

Mm - hmm.

b that's OK,

Yeah.

I mean b but the difference

Is the d the final state of running out of something is being out of it.

is.

Yeah. So th

Right.

Yeah. You got there.

That part is fine.

You got to out of it.

Yeah.

Yeah.

But, uh.

Hmm!

Yeah, so so nob so no one has in in of the, uh, professional linguists,

Uh.

they haven't there was this whole thesis on " out of ".

There was? Who?

Well, there I thought or there was a paper on it.

Out.

Huh?

There was one on on " out " or " out of "?

There was a Well, it may be just " out ". Yeah.

OK.

I think there was " over " but there was also a paper on " out ".

Yeah, Lind - Susan Lindner,

Oh, yeah, you're right. Yeah.

Or something.

right? The the " the syrup spread out "?

Yeah, and all that sort of stuff.

That kind of thing?

Yeah. And undoubtably there's been reams of work about it in cognitive linguistics,

OK. But anyway. We're not gonna do that between now and next week.

but. Yeah.

Yeah.

OK. So, um.

It's not one of the y it's more straightforward ones forward ones to defend, so you probably don't want to use it for the purposes.

Mm - hmm.

Right.

th these are you're addressing like, computational linguists,

OK.

right. Or are you?

There's gonna be four computational linguists,

OK. But more emphasis on the computational? Or emphasis on the linguist?

computer it's More there's going to be the just four computational linguists, by coincidence, but the rest is, whatever, biocomputing people and physicists.

Oh, OK.

No no no, but not for your talk. I'm - we're worrying about the th the thes

Oh, the thesis!

Oh, I meant this,

it's just for one guy.

That's that's computa should be very computational,

you know, like OK. So I would try to I would stay away from one that involves weird construal stuff.

and, uh, someth

Yeah.

Yeah.

Right.

You know, it's an obvious one.

Totally weird stuff.

I mean the the old bakery example might be nice,

but, uh.

" Is there a bakery around here ". So if you c we really just construe it as a.

Yeah.

Around?

No, it's the bakery itself.

Oh.

is it a building? uh, that you want to go to? or is it something to eat that you want to buy?

Oh, oh yeah. Yeah, we've thought about that. Right. Right.

And then.

Nnn. No. What? " Bakery " can't be something you're gonna eat.

No, no. The question is d do you wanna do you wanna construe do you wanna constr - strue

Sh

It's a speech - act.

r Exactly. It's because do you wanna c do you want to view the bakery as a p a place that that i for example, if y

Yeah. Where you can get baked goods.

Well th well, that's one. You want to buy something. But the other is, uh, yo you might have smelled a smell and are just curious about whether there'd be a bakery in the neighborhood, or,

Mm - hmm.

um, pfff you know, you wonder how people here make their living, and there're all sorts of reasons why you might be asking about the existence of a bakery

Yeah.

that doesn't mean, " I want to buy some baked goods. "

OK.

But um, those are interesting examples but it's not clear that they're mainly construal examples.

So it's a lot of pragmatics, there, that

Yeah.

Mmm.

There's all sorts of stuff going on.

might be beyond what you want to do.

So let's so let's think about this from the point of view of construal. So let's first do a So the metonymy thing is probably the easiest and a and actually the Though, the one you have isn't quite.

You mean the s You mean " the steak wants to pay "?

N no not that one, that's that's a the sort of background. This is the t uh, page five.

About Plato and the book?

Oh.

No.

Um.

No.

How much does it cost?

Just beyond that.

Onward.

Where is the castle?

Yeah.

A castle.

How old is it? How much does it cost?

Oh.

Mm - hmm.

To go in, that's like.

Two hundred million dollars.

Right. It's not for sale. Uh. So

Yeah, I think that's a good example, actually.

S

Yeah, that's good. u

But as Nancy just su suggested it's probably ellipticus.

Ellipsis.

Huh.

Like, " it " doesn't refer to " thing, " it refers to acti you know, j thing standing for activ most relevant activity for a tourist you could think of it that way, but.

Yeah.

Well, shoot, isn't that I mean, that's what.

Well, I mean, my argument here is it's it's it's the same thing as " Plato's on the top shelf, "

figuring that out is what this is about.

Yeah, yeah, no, I I agree.

I'm con you know, th that you can refer to a book of Plato by using " Plato, "

Yeah. No no, I I'm agreeing that this is a good, um.

and you can refer back to it, and so you can Castles have as tourist sites, have admission fees, so you can say " Where is the castle, how much does it cost? " Um. " How far is it from here? "

Mm - hmm.

So, You're also not referring to the width of the object, or so,

Hmm. Mm - hmm.

Mmm.

OK. Can we think of a nice metaphorical use of " where " in the tourist's domain? Um.

Hmm.

So you know it's you you can sometimes use " where " f for " when "

O

in the sense of, you know, um, where wh where where was, um, " where was Heidelberg, um, in the Thirty Years' War? " Or something.

Mm - hmm.

Uh, yeah.

You know, or some such thing. Um.

Like what side were they on,

What?

Yeah. Essentially, yeah.

or?

OK. I was like, " Huh? It was here. " Like  Um.

But anyway th so there are there are cases like that. Um,

Ah! Or like its developmental state or something like that, you could I guess you could get that.

Yeah.

Um.

Um.

I mean, there's also things like I mean, s um, I guess I could ask something like " Where can I find out about blah - blah - blah " in a sort of doesn't nece I don't necessarily have to care about the spatial location, just give me a phone number

Yeah. There certainly is that, yeah.

and I'll call them or something like that?

You know, " Where could I learn its opening hours, " or something.

Yeah.

But that's not metaphorical.

Hmm.

It's another.

Yeah.

So we're thinking about, um, or we could also think about, uh.

Well, I I I.

How about " I'm in a hurry "?

State.

It i But it's a state and the the issue is, is that it may be just a usage,

Hmm?

you know, that it's not particularly metaphorical, I don't know.

Mmm.

Right. So you want a more exotic one version of that.

Oh.

Yeah. Yeah, right.

I'm really into.

Ah! How about I I I you know, " I'm in I'm in a state of exhaustion "?

Do you really say that?

or something like that, which a tourist w Huh?

Would you really say that?

A st uh, well, you can certainly say, um, you know, " I'm in overload. " Tu - stur tourists will often say that.

Yeah.

I I'm really into art.

Yeah, I was gonna say, like.

Uh.

Oh, you can do that? Really? Of course that's that that's definitely a, uh.

Fixed.

A fixed expression, yeah.

that's a, uh Right. But..

There're too there're all sorts of fixed expressions I don't like uh " I'm out of sorts now! "

Right.

Like  " I'm in trouble! "

Well I when, uh just f u the data that I've looked at so far that rec

Yeah.

I mean, there's tons of cases for polysemy.

Right.

Uh - huh.

So, you know, mak re making reference to buildings as institutions, as containers, as build

Right.

you know, whatever. Um, so ib in mus for example, in museums, you know, as a building or as something where pictures hang versus, you know, ev something that puts on exhibits, so forth.

Right. As an institution,

But.

yeah.

Um.

Why don't you want to use any of those?

Hmm?

So y you don't wanna use one that's.

Yeah, well No, but this that's what I have, you know, started doing.

The castle the that old castle one is sort of.

Metonymy, polysemy.

I love Van Gogh.

Yeah.

" I wanna go see the Van Gogh. "

Ah!

Oh geez.

Anyway, I'm sorry.

But I think the argument should be uh, can be made that, you know, despite the fact that this is not the most met metaphorical domain, because people interacting with HTI systems try to be straightforward and less lyrical,

Yeah.

construal still is, uh, you know, completely, um, key in terms of finding out any of these things, so, um.

Right. So that's that's that's a that's a reasonable point, that it in this domain you're gonna get less metaphor and more metonymy.

We, uh I with a I looked with a student I looked at the entire database that we have on Heidelberg for cases of metonymy.

And polysemy, and stuff like that. Yeah.

Hardly anything. So not even in descriptions w did we find anything, um, relevant.

I have to go.

Alright. Yeah.

But OK this is just something we'll we'll see, um,

Right. s See you.

and deal with.

OK, well. I guess if anybody has additional suggestions,

I mean maybe the " where is something " question as a whole, you know, can be construed as, u i locational versus instructional request.

w Yeah.

So, if we're not talk about the lexic

Location versus what?

instruction.

Instruction. Oh, directions? Yeah.

Sure.

Oh, I thought that was definitely treated as an example of construal.

Yeah.

Right?

Yeah but then you're not on the lexical level, that's sort of one level higher.

Oh, you want a lexical example.

But I don't need it.

Well, you might want both.

Mm - hmm.

Yeah.

Also it would be nice to get ultimately to get a nice mental space example,

We.

so, even temporal references are just in the spatial domain are rare.

But it's it's easy to make up plausible ones.

When when you're getting information on objects.

You know.

So, I mean.

Right, you know you know, where r Yeah. What color was this in in in the nain nineteenth century.

Yeah.

What was this p instead of wh what you know how was this painted, what color was this painted, um, was this alleyway open.

Yeah, maybe we can include that also in our second, uh, data run.

Uh.

We c we can show people pictures of objects and then have then ask the system about the objects and engage in conversation on the history and the art and the architecture and so forth.

Mm - hmm. OK. So why don't we plan to give you feedback electronically. Wish you a good trip. All success.

For some reason when you said " feedback electronically " I thought of that you ever see the Simpsons where they're like the family's got the buzzers and they buzz each other when they don't like what the other one is saying?

Yeah. That's the first one, I think. The very very first one.

It was a very early one. I don't know if it's the first one.

Mmm. Mmm.

Question: Did the participants discuss the current formalism thing that was presented?

Response: Yes, the participants discussed the current formalism thing that was presented.

Question: In the meeting, what was the benefit of combining constructions with a general construal mechanism?

Response: The participants discussed that by combining constructions with a general construal mechanism, they can achieve scalability. This means that if they introduce a new construction at the base level, it should interact with all the metonymies and metaphors so that all of the projections of it also should work. Similarly, if they introduce a new metaphor, it should then compose with all of the constructions.

Question: What did the participants intend to achieve during the meeting?

Response: The participants intended to talk about Robert's thesis proposal, rehearse their talk, and discuss the current formalism thing that was presented.

Question: Can you summarize everything <Professor> said in the meeting?

Response:
- Professor E. presented the proposal of a joint activity with EML in Leipzig, where they will apply the same methodology used in the current project in a new building that is shaped as a double helix.
- Professor E. emphasized the strength of the thesis proposal and shared a suggestion to include a section that presents the scalability that is obtained by combining the constructions with the general construal mechanism.
- They also discussed the usage of the preposition "on" and "in" in the context of transportation, and whether the expressions "out of film" or "running out of film" can be used as examples of construal.
- Professor E. mentioned that there is an upcoming thesis defense in front of a committee composed of four computational linguists and the rest of the audience will be composed of biocomputing people and physicists.
- The participants agreed to share feedback regarding the thesis proposal electronically.

Question: Were there any questions or concerns raised during the meeting that remained unresolved or unanswered?

Response: There were no questions or concerns raised during the meeting that remained unresolved or unanswered.

Question: Why did Professor E. believe that including a section about the scalability obtained from combining constructions with the general construal mechanism would strengthen the thesis proposal?

Response: Professor E. believed that including a section about the scalability obtained from combining constructions with the general construal mechanism would strengthen the thesis proposal because it is a big win over anything that exists. By introducing a new base-level construction, it should interact with all metaphors and metonymies, and all of its projections should also work. The same goes for introducing a new metaphor, it should compose with all constructions.

Question: Why did the participants agree to share feedback regarding the thesis proposal electronically?

Response: It is not clear from the meeting that why participants agreed to share feedback regarding the thesis proposal electronically.

Question: What did the participants agree to do regarding the thesis proposal?

Response:
The participants agreed to share feedback regarding the thesis proposal electronically.
* This would allow them to provide feedback in a timely and efficient manner.
* It would also allow them more time to review the proposal and formulate their thoughts.

Question: What are some specific tasks people in the meeting agreed they should do?

Response:
The participants discussed the following tasks:
* Rehearsing their talk.
* Discussing the current formalism thing that was presented.
* Sending Professor E. the relevant aspects of their stay.
* Gathering data for the proposal.
* Reading and sending comments to Robert regarding the thesis proposal.

Question: What was decided regarding the reports concerning the FMRI stuff?

Response: The participants did not decide anything regarding the reports concerning the FMRI stuff