[developers] smallish native DMRS grammar

[Michael Wayne Goodman]

I also forgot to mention Joshua's Lushootseed grammar, which had the
strange valence-changing morphology. At one point he was interested in
basing it off of the RMRS-native grammar, so maybe a DMRS-native grammar
would be similarly appealing? Unfortunately I don't know the current state
of his grammar.



On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 3:27 PM Emily M. Bender <ebender at uw.edu> wrote:

> 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/20160105/83bf4349/attachment.html>