[Fwd: Re: [developers] processing of lexical rules]

Ann Copestake Ann.Copestake at cl.cam.ac.uk
Thu Feb 17 14:45:57 CET 2005

Thanks for those comments.  I guess I should say that I'm assuming we'll use 
the LKB to try a few things out - I'd expect to keep the implementation as 
general as possible and for developers to use the FSs to constrain application 
ordering etc.

As far as clitics go - with the 2b option (i.e., morphology doesn't do 
retokenisation), I think that clitics either have to be handled in the prior 
tokenisation step (which may not be possible without building in a lot of 
linguistic knowledge) or treated as something which brackets with the thing 
they are tokenised as attaching to.  But I don't know much about how people 
treat clitics in computational systems - I may be missing an option.

BTW, as far a `generative grammarian' goes - personally I think that 
`generative grammar' is lexicalised as a MWE and that `ian' is attaching to 
that.  Which is something that we currently allow (sort of) and I'd expect to 
allow in a reimplementation.  That is, `generative grammar' is an entry in the 
lexicon, morphology operates to give

`generative' (ian-rule `grammar')

`grammar' is recognised as a rightmost bit of a MWE, and we end up with 
something which is equivalent to (ian-rule `generative grammar')

So there is a way of allowing for something which is tokenised as two tokens 
to correspond to a single lexeme, at least under certain conditions.  I have 
to work out exactly what the conditions are - but e.g. I don't think we could 
allow prefixation on the first element where that licenced suffixation on the 
second element.


More information about the developers mailing list