[developers] smallish native DMRS grammar

[Emily M. Bender]

Matrix Grammarium is hilarious :)  I don't have any specific suggestions,
but some of the
grammars here might actually use ICONS:

http://www.delph-in.net/matrix/language-collage/

Emily

On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 3:23 PM, Michael Wayne Goodman <
goodmami at u.washington.edu> wrote:

> Thanks. I'm looking forward to the treatment of ICONS so I can update my
> own MRS-to-DMRS converter.
>
> As for non-ERG grammar suggestions: if you're looking for non-trivial
> grammars with ICONS support, check out the Zhong grammars (namely Mandarin:
> https://github.com/delph-in/zhong/tree/master/cmn); otherwise, Jacy is my
> usual source of semantic surprises. Emily may have some suggestions of
> interesting specimens from her Matrix Grammarium.
>
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 2:58 PM Ann Copestake <aac10 at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> Hi Mike,
>>
>> I'm thinking about ICONS and DMRS since we anyway need that with the
>> MRS->DMRS conversion.  The coindexed dropped arguments seems to me fixable
>> along the lines you suggest, but again, it's something we need to look at
>> for the MRS->DMRS conversion.  The comment about making sure we could
>> express everything we needed to was more directed at the need to find out
>> whether there's anything problematic when one is constructing DMRSs
>> directly.  So it would be great if someone would suggest a suitable grammar
>> to experiment with, before I just decide to use the ERG ...
>>
>> All best,
>>
>> Ann
>>
>>
>> On 05/01/2016 21:25, Michael Wayne Goodman wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ann,
>>
>> Thanks for sharing. I couldn't find the grammar at first because I was
>> looking in the LOGON tree instead of the separate LKB repository. If others
>> are searching, it's here:
>> <http://svn.delph-in.net/lkb/trunk/src/data/dmrscomp/>
>> http://svn.delph-in.net/lkb/trunk/src/data/dmrscomp/.
>>
>> I find DMRS more intuitive and more manageable than other *MRS
>> representations, so it's exciting to imagine a world where that is the
>> primary representation output by our grammars. I'm curious to see how this
>> works out with some larger grammars, but I can think of a couple of
>> challenges (based on my discussion in Singapore:
>> <http://moin.delph-in.net/SingaporeMrsWellformedness>
>> http://moin.delph-in.net/SingaporeMrsWellformedness).
>>
>> 1. We don't yet have a way to represent ICONS in DMRS
>>
>> 2. DMRS currently can't express coindexed dropped arguments (where in MRS
>> the 'i' variable of two arguments is the same; perhaps this can be
>> represented using ICONS instead, or by (re)introducing zero-pronouns)
>>
>> These are both difficulties with the resulting representation. I'm not
>> sure if there are other issues when implemented in the grammar. Sometime
>> soon it would be good to iron out these representational wrinkles.
>> Considering ICONS, I don't think we can just put a post-post-slash label on
>> a link (e.g. ARG1/NEQ/topic) because I don't think ICONS follow normal
>> dependency relations (Sanghoun could confirm).
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 9:46 AM Ann Copestake <aac10 at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> I have just checked in to the LKB svn repo a small grammar - dmrscomp -
>>> and some code that extracts simple DMRSs directly from the feature
>>> structures produced by that grammar rather than going via MRS and RMRS.
>>> This is based on the mrscomp grammar (though with some clean up and
>>> minor extension) - there's a fairly detailed README file.  There are a
>>> fair number of items on the TO-DO list - possibly the most
>>> time-consuming one would be to make the generator code work with this
>>> grammar, not because there's any big problem (that I can think of) but
>>> because the generator is quite complicated.  There is also a promise of
>>> more detailed notes, which I will supply relatively soon, I hope - this
>>> was an interesting exercise in thinking through semantic composition.
>>>
>>> If someone would like to collaborate on trying a similar exercise with a
>>> larger grammar, I'd be very interested.  It would help if it were a
>>> grammar which already had the characteristic variable property, in which
>>> case I think the main part of the conversion should be fairly easy.
>>>
>>> There are a number of potential advantages in constructing DMRS
>>> directly, including the ability to construct a DMRS forest directly from
>>> a parse forest.  I would argue that it also enforces some notions of
>>> semantic well-formedness more directly than is possible with MRS -
>>> obviously including the (equivalent of) characteristic variable
>>> property.  The semantic `fingerprint' of constructions can be expressed
>>> more simply, because DMRS removes much of the redundancy of MRS.  But,
>>> of course, this is only interesting if we really can express everything
>>> we want to with DMRS.
>>>
>>> All best,
>>>
>>> Ann
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>


-- 
Emily M. Bender
Professor, Department of Linguistics
Check out CLMS on facebook! http://www.facebook.com/uwclma
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.delph-in.net/archives/developers/attachments/20160105/a57d4a61/attachment-0001.html>