Upload
margaret-bridget-walton
View
220
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Resemblances between Meaning-Text Theory and
Functional Generative Description
Zdeněk Žabokrtský
Institute of Formal and Applied LinguisticsCharles University, Prague
Functional Generative Description
• developed in Prague since mid 60’s (Sgall,1967)
• sharing most of the „peculiarities of the MTM“ (Bolshakov and Gebulkh,2000):– “multilevel character of the model”– “orientation to synthesis”– “distinguishing deep and surface syntactic representation” – “accounting of communicative structure” – “orientation to languages of a type different from English” – “labeling syntactic relations between words” – “keeping traditions and terminology of classical linguistics”
Levels of representationin MTT and FGD
semantic
deep-syntactic
surface-syntactic
deep-morphological
surface-morphological
deep-phonological
surface-phonological
tectogrammatical
surface-syntactic
morphological
morphonological
phonetic
DSyntR vs. tectogrammatics
• in both– skelet of the representation – dependency tree (plus
non-tree relations of co-reference)– nodes ~ semantically full lexemes– inflectional meanings: grammemes/grammatemes– ficitious lexemes– valency: actants vs. circumstantials
• in DSyntR– DSynt prosodic structure
• in TGTS– semantically motivated inventory of dependency
relations, so called functors (ACT, PAT, ADDR, ORIG, EFF, CAUS, DIR?, LOC, TWHEN, CAUS, BEN...)
Side remark: re-inventing the DSyntR/TGTS in PropBank
(1) 2002 – annotated propositions: only verbs and their arguments
(2) adding ‘modifiers of event variables’
(3) adding arguments of nouns
(4) adding discourse connectives
FGD implementation:Prague Dependency
Treebank• long-term research project aimed at creating a
syntactically annotated corpus based on the framework of FGD
• since 1995, inspired by Penn Treebank
• manually annotated Czech newspaper texts
• layered annotation scheme
• PDT 1.0 released in 2001 (distributed by LDC)
• PDT 2.0 to appear in 2006
Layered annotation scenarioof PDT 2.0
• 3 layers of annotation– t-layer - tectogrammatical
layer– a-layer – analytical layer– m-layer – morphological layer
• original text– w-layer – original sentence
m-layer sampleForm Lemma Morphological tag
Některé některý PZFP1----------
kontury kontura NNFP1-----A----
problému problém NNIS2-----A----
se se_^(zvr._zájmeno/částice) P7-X4----------
však však J^-------------
po po-1 RR--6----------
oživení oživení_^(*3it) NNNS6-----A----
Havlovým Havlův_;S_^(*3el) AUIS7M---------
projevem projev NNIS7-----A----
zdají zdát VB-P---3P-AA---
být být Vf--------A----
jasnější jasný AAFP1----2A----
. . Z:-------------
(Some contours of the problem seem to be clearer after the resurgence by Havel's speech.)
a-layer sample
t-layer sample
Coordination in dependency trees in PDT
• physically still a tree structure, but tree edges do not always directly correspond to dependencies
• the real dependency and coordination relations can be (deterministically) derived by edge composition
• direct vs. effective parent/children
PDT 2.0 – amount of the data
Summary
• FGD – similar to MTT in several aspects
• PDT – implementation of FGD framework on a large data