<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
I'd like to come back to this point that Mike raised, since it also
relates to ICONS and anaphora. I decided not to include unexpressed
arguments in DMRS from the ERG because:<br>
a) clutter<br>
b) shouldn't be needed in any application I could think of (they
really shouldn't be needed in input to realization<br>
and they can always be reintroduced via the SEM-I)<br>
c) lack of clarity about precisely what they convey <br>
Apologies if this has changed - also I know this issue has been
discussed at some Summit meetings, and I haven't gone back over all
such discussion, so sorry if the discussion is all old.<br>
<br>
to expand on c) - there are (at least) the following cases (where I
don't want to claim the division is clearcut):<br>
<br>
i) syntactically optional argument unexpressed but (in the real
world) something has to be there:<br>
either - with default understood argument - e.g., I already ate -
see Fillmore (and also Lascarides + Copestake) <br>
or no default - e.g., I understand <br>
ii) syntactically and denotationally optional - e.g. the donkey
kicked - may or may not have kicked something,<br>
- e.g., I ran (maybe a race)<br>
<br>
There are also cases where there's an obligatory entity in the real
world but it can't be expressed by a syntactic object - e.g., I
dined <br>
where I have to have eaten something but I'm not telling you what it
is (I know one can say `I dined on salmon' or whatever, but
according to the ERG, that's an adjunct not an argument).<br>
<br>
[ There have also, in the past, also been cases where the ERG has a
single predicate for two senses even though the verb is obligatorily
(in)transitive in one. I can't think of any examples offhand and
this may have changed. But that was a reason not to include them in
the DMRS originally. ] <br>
<br>
Current question - does this interact with pronouns? If pronouns
were possible with syntactically unexpressed arguments but not with
the cases where the entity is denotationally required (like `dine'),
then this would be a reason to keep them. My intuition is that this
is not the case for English.<br>
<br>
I already ate.<br>
It was spicy.<br>
<br>
I already dined.<br>
It was spicy.<br>
<br>
For me, both are a bit iffy, though possible with the right context
(I'll let you make up your own contexts ...) <br>
`It was nice.' is OK (after both) but that could refer to the
activity of dining/eating. I think:<br>
<br>
My stomach is full.<br>
It was spicy.<br>
<br>
is worse, but that may be because of the possible antecedent
`stomach' giving a garden path or something.<br>
<br>
Does anyone have cases where there seems to be a clearer
difference? Or another reason to include dropped arguments?<br>
<br>
For Mike's examples, where the dropped arguments are necessarily
coindexed, the case for representing this in the DMRS is more
compelling. So my thoughts are that the DMRS simply includes a node
with a standard predicate (e.g., `unexp', but any name you all want
as long as it doesn't clash with something already in use) which is
a grammar pred and is linked to in the usual way. So more-or-less
equivalent to the zero pronoun analysis, assuming the zero pronouns
don't have quantifiers. Is this done with EDS? I'll match
terminology etc if so.<br>
<br>
I would be interested in knowing whether this is something where
subsequent pronominal reference to that is possible/easy or not. <br>
<br>
If I do this, I can also implement the option to introduce nodes
when there's a non-coindexed unexpressed argument. I'll probably
put the code in anyway but may not document the option unless
someone comes up with a good argument!<br>
<br>
All best,<br>
<br>
Ann<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 05/01/2016 21:25, Michael Wayne
Goodman wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAGXBFArEqUXsSSZ=HK_EiR2vVueK9srBEo_qXQvhENJzODkPkQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Hi Ann,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://svn.delph-in.net/lkb/trunk/src/data/dmrscomp/"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://svn.delph-in.net/lkb/trunk/src/data/dmrscomp/">http://svn.delph-in.net/lkb/trunk/src/data/dmrscomp/</a></a>.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://moin.delph-in.net/SingaporeMrsWellformedness"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://moin.delph-in.net/SingaporeMrsWellformedness">http://moin.delph-in.net/SingaporeMrsWellformedness</a></a>).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>1. We don't yet have a way to represent ICONS in DMRS</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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).</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr">On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 9:46 AM Ann Copestake
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:aac10@cl.cam.ac.uk" target="_blank">aac10@cl.cam.ac.uk</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I have
just checked in to the LKB svn repo a small grammar -
dmrscomp -<br>
and some code that extracts simple DMRSs directly from the
feature<br>
structures produced by that grammar rather than going via
MRS and RMRS.<br>
This is based on the mrscomp grammar (though with some
clean up and<br>
minor extension) - there's a fairly detailed README file.
There are a<br>
fair number of items on the TO-DO list - possibly the most<br>
time-consuming one would be to make the generator code
work with this<br>
grammar, not because there's any big problem (that I can
think of) but<br>
because the generator is quite complicated. There is also
a promise of<br>
more detailed notes, which I will supply relatively soon,
I hope - this<br>
was an interesting exercise in thinking through semantic
composition.<br>
<br>
If someone would like to collaborate on trying a similar
exercise with a<br>
larger grammar, I'd be very interested. It would help if
it were a<br>
grammar which already had the characteristic variable
property, in which<br>
case I think the main part of the conversion should be
fairly easy.<br>
<br>
There are a number of potential advantages in constructing
DMRS<br>
directly, including the ability to construct a DMRS forest
directly from<br>
a parse forest. I would argue that it also enforces some
notions of<br>
semantic well-formedness more directly than is possible
with MRS -<br>
obviously including the (equivalent of) characteristic
variable<br>
property. The semantic `fingerprint' of constructions can
be expressed<br>
more simply, because DMRS removes much of the redundancy
of MRS. But,<br>
of course, this is only interesting if we really can
express everything<br>
we want to with DMRS.<br>
<br>
All best,<br>
<br>
Ann<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>