I've got a construction looks funny – representing and recovering non-standard constructions in UD

What it is about

The authors argue that bilexical UD relations miss constructions that are common in spoken language and social media, and discuss how basic and enhanced UD might represent them. They look at five cases: conditional coordination, where a declarative "and" construction reads as "if"; German non-finite predication with und; presentational relative clauses, which carry the assertion in the relative; the presentational amalgam, where an existential or have-clause is fused with a following VP; and the double-is construction. The last two produce structures that are not trees. For each case they set out the options: enhanced relations only, a new subtype (conj:advcl, acl:presrel, acl:presrelbare), or a new relation, and weigh sparsity against expressiveness. The paper has no measurements. It is a proposal for discussion, with examples from ukWaC, Twitter and UD-EWT.

Ideas

• I1. Count the conditional-coordination pattern (a declarative or imperative first conjunct, then "and", then a declarative with a modal or future) in the spoken training data (ESLSpok, CHILDES), and check whether the en parser attaches the first conjunct as conj or advcl; report the share on dev.
• I2. The mova dialect's relative-clause conversion: mark presentational relatives (a there- or have-clause head with a relative clause that has no pronoun gap) as a subtype, and count them in EWT and ESLSpok dev.
• I3. Measure en LAS on about 20 such sentences taken from our own spoken dev, with and without the subtype, and decide on dev.
• I4. Record the constructions as sentence-type metadata (as the paper's GUM example does) in the world frame output instead of creating new labels, and check whether prag frames improve on the construction subset.

For Mova

The UD relation inventory is fixed, but subtypes and MISC fields are cheap in Mova. The ideas touch 21. The simple clause, 24-coordination-subordination.md, 25-relative-clauses.md and 38-dialogue-and-discourse-markers.md. Use spoken data Mova already holds; the paper's examples are not to be copied.

Topics: Universal Dependencies

Cite

The paper itself, not this card. BibTeX from the library's record of the work.

@inproceedings{ruppenhofer2020i,
  title = {{I've got a construction looks funny – representing and recovering non-standard constructions in UD}},
  author = {Ruppenhofer, Josef and Rehbein, Ines},
  booktitle = {Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Universal Dependencies (UDW 2020)},
  year = {2020},
  url = {https://aclanthology.org/2020.udw-1.16/}
}

References

40 references, 4 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

1. Adrian Akmajian. 1984. Sentence types and the form-function fit. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 2(1):1–23. find
2. Mailin Antomo and Markus Steinbach. 2010. Desintegration und Interpretation: Weil-V2-Sätze an der Schnittstelle zwischen Syntax, Semantik und Pragmatik. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 29(1):1–37. find
3. Marco Baroni, Silvia Bernardini, Adriano Ferraresi, and Eros Zanchetta. 2009. The wacky wide web: a collection of very large linguistically processed web-crawled corpora. Language Resources and Evaluation, 43(3):209– 226, September. find
4. Otto Behaghel. 1928. Deutsche Syntax: eine geschichtliche Darstellung, volume 3. Carl Winters’s Universitäts-buchhandlung, Heidelberg. find
5. Kristine Bentzen. 2014. Embedded verb second (v2). Nordic Atlas of Language Structures Journal, 1(1). find
6. Christophe Benzitoun. 2013. Faut-il remettre les pendules de la subordination temporelle à l’heure ? Description de deux fonctionnements de quand et avant que/de. Cahiers Chronos, 26:419–435. find
7. Emanuel Borges Völker, Maximilian Wendt, Felix Hennig, and Arne Köhn. 2019. HDT-UD: A very large universal dependencies treebank for German. In Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Universal Dependencies (UDW, SyntaxFest 2019), pages 46–57, Paris, France, August. Association for Computational Linguistics. find
8. Jason M Brenier and Laura A Michaelis. 2005. Optimization via syntactic amalgam: Syntax-prosody mismatch and copula doubling. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1(1):45–88. find
9. Jörg Bücker. 2012. Sprachhandeln und Sprachwissen [Linguistic Action and Linguistic Knowledge]. De Gruyter, Berlin, Boston. find
10. Çağrı Çöltekin, Ben Campbell, Erhard Hinrichs, and Heike Telljohann. 2017. Converting the TüBa-d/z treebank of German to universal dependencies. In Proceedings of the NoDaLiDa 2017 Workshop on Universal Dependencies (UDW 2017), pages 27–37, Gothenburg, Sweden, May. Association for Computational Linguistics. find
11. Elizabeth Coppock, Jason Brenier, Laura Staum, and Laura Michaelis. 2006. Isis: It’s not disfluent, but how do we know that? In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA. find
12. Silvio Cruschina. 2018. Setting the boundaries: Presentational ci-sentences in Italian. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 32(1):53–85. find
13. Peter Culicover and Ray Jackendoff. 1997. Semantic Subordination Despite Syntactic Coordination. Linguistic Inquiry, 28:195–217, 06. find
14. Peter Culicover and Ray Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler Syntax. Oxford linguistics. Oxford University Press. find
15. Marie-Catherine de Marneffe and Joakim Nivre. 2019. Dependency grammar. Annual Review of Linguistics, 5(1):197–218. find
16. Marie-Catherine de Marneffe, Timothy Dozat, Natalia Silveira, Katri Haverinen, Filip Ginter, Joakim Nivre, and Christopher D. Manning. 2014. Universal Stanford dependencies: A cross-linguistic typology. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’14), pages 4585–4592, Reykjavik, Iceland, May. European Language Resources Association (ELRA). find our card
17. Arnulf Deppermann. 2007. Grammatik und Semantik aus gesprächsanalytischer Sicht [Grammar and Semantics from a Conversation Analytic Perspective]. De Gruyter, Berlin, Boston. find
18. Cecily Jill Duffield, Jena D Hwang, and Laura A Michaelis. 2010. Identifying assertions in text and discourse: The presentational relative clause construction. In Proceedings of the NAACL HLT Workshop on Extracting and Using Constructions in Computational Linguistics, pages 17–24. find
19. Ricardo Etxepare and Kleanthes K Grohmann. 2005. Towards a grammar of adult root infinitives. In Proceedings of the 24th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, pages 129–137. find
20. Charles Fillmore, Russell Lee-Goldman, and Russell Rhomieux. 2012. The framenet constructicon. In Sign-Based Construction Grammar. find
21. Susanne Flach. 2017. Idiomatic singleton or prototype? a productivity analysis of be-adj-and-v. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 5(1):129 – 142. find
22. Egbert Fortuin and Ronny Boogaart. 2009. Imperative as conditional: From constructional to compositional semantics. Cognitive Linguistics, 20, 01. find
23. Mirjam Fried. 2015. Construction grammar. In T. Kiss and A. Alexiadou, editors, Syntax - Theory and Analysis. Volume 2, Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft / Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science (HSK), pages 974–1003. De Gruyter. find
24. Hans-Martin Gärtner and Jens Michaelis. 2010. On modeling the distribution of declarative V2-clauses: The case of disjunction. Judgements and propositions, pages 11–25. find
25. Susanne Günthner. 1996. From subordination to coordination? Verb-second position in German causal and concessive constructions. Pragmatics, 6(3):323–356. find
26. Rodney D. Huddleston and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge University Press. find our card
27. Anne Lacheret, Sylvain Kahane, Julie Beliao, Anne Dister, Kim Gerdes, Jean-Philippe Goldman, Nicolas Obin, Paola Pietrandrea, and Atanas Tchobanov. 2014. Rhapsodie: a prosodic-syntactic treebank for spoken french. In Nicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Thierry Declerck, Hrafn Loftsson, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Asunción Moreno, Jan Odijk, and Stelios Piperidis, editors, Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC 2014, Reykjavik, Iceland, May 26-31, 2014, pages 295–301. European Language Resources Association (ELRA). find
28. Knud Lambrecht. 1988. There was a farmer had a dog: Syntactic amalgams revisited. In Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, volume 14, pages 319–339. find
29. Knud Lambrecht. 1990. “What, me worry?”–‘Mad Magazine Sentences’ Revisited. In Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, volume 16, pages 215–228. find
30. Knud Lambrecht. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics. Cambridge University Press. find
31. Ryan McDonald, Joakim Nivre, Yvonne Quirmbach-Brundage, Yoav Goldberg, Dipanjan Das, Kuzman Ganchev, Keith Hall, Slav Petrov, Hao Zhang, Oscar Täckström, Claudia Bedini, Núria Bertomeu Castelló, and Jungmee Lee. 2013. Universal Dependency annotation for multilingual parsing. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 92–97, Sofia, Bulgaria, August. Association for Computational Linguistics. find
32. Line Mikkelsen. 2005. Copular clauses: Specification, predication and equation, volume 85. John Benjamins Publishing. find
33. Randolph Quirk, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Longman, London. find
34. Marga Reis. 2013. „Weil-V2 “-Sätze und (k) ein Ende? Anmerkungen zur Analyse von Antomo & Steinbach (2010). Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 32(2):221–262. find
35. Manuela Sanguinetti, Cristina Bosco, Alberto Lavelli, Alessandro Mazzei, Oronzo Antonelli, and Fabio Tamburini. 2018. PoSTWITA-UD: an Italian Twitter Treebank in Universal Dependencies. In Nicoletta Calzolari (Conference chair), Khalid Choukri, Christopher Cieri, Thierry Declerck, Sara Goggi, Koiti Hasida, Hitoshi Isahara, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Hélène Mazo, Asuncion Moreno, Jan Odijk, Stelios Piperidis, and Takenobu Tokunaga, editors, Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018), Miyazaki, Japan, May 7-12, 2018. European Language Resources Association (ELRA). find
36. Sebastian Schuster and Christopher D. Manning. 2016. Enhanced English Universal Dependencies: An Improved Representation for Natural Language Understanding Tasks. In Proceedings of the 10th Language Resource and Evalutation Conference (LREC 2016), pages 2371–2378. ELRA. find our card
37. Natalia Silveira, Timothy Dozat, Marie-Catherine de Marneffe, Samuel Bowman, Miriam Connor, John Bauer, and Christopher D. Manning. 2014. A gold standard dependency corpus for English. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-2014). find
38. Anna-Lena Wiklund. 2009. In search of the force of dependent V2: A note on Swedish. Working papers in Scandinavian syntax, 83:27–36. find
39. Amir Zeldes and Dan Simonson. 2016. Different flavors of GUM: Evaluating genre and sentence type effects on multilayer corpus annotation quality. In Proceedings of the 10th Linguistic Annotation Workshop held in conjunction with ACL 2016 (LAW-X 2016), pages 68–78, Berlin, Germany, August. Association for Computational Linguistics. find our card
40. Amir Zeldes. 2017. The GUM corpus: Creating multilayer resources in the classroom. Language Resources and Evaluation, 51(3):581–612. ↗

This page in Markdown → https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/ud-2020-ruppenhofer-i-ve-got-construction-looks/