GitHub/gf-core
1
0
Fork 1
mirror of https://github.com/GrammaticalFramework/gf-core.git synced 2026-04-09 04:59:31 -06:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

API module titles, resource.txt corrections

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
aarne
2006-06-14 21:16:06 +00:00
parent fe529e0217
commit 17f5fad35d
16 changed files with 199 additions and 149 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

166
doc/final-resource.tex
View File

@@ -1,6 +1,8 @@
\documentclass[11pt,a4paper]{article}
\usepackage{amsfonts,graphicx}
\usepackage{isolatin1}
\usepackage[pdfstartview=FitH,urlcolor=blue,colorlinks=true,bookmarks=true]{hyperref}
%%\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc}
\pagestyle{plain} % do page numbering ('empty' turns off)
\frenchspacing % no aditional spaces after periods
\setlength{\parskip}{8pt}\parindent=0pt % no paragraph indentation
@@ -28,29 +30,34 @@ in order to use the library.
How to write one's own resource grammar (i.e. to implement the API for
a new language), is covered by a separate Resource-HOWTO document.
\section{Motivation}
\subsection*{Motivation}
The GF Resource Grammar Library contains grammar rules for
10 languages (some more are under construction). Its purpose
is to make these rules available for application programmers,
who can thereby concentrate on the semantic and stylistic
aspects of their grammars, without having to think about
grammaticality. The targeted level of application grammarians
is skilled programmer without knowledge linguistics, but with
a good knowledge of the target languages. Such a combination of
is that of a skilled programmer with
a practical knowledge of the target languages, but without
theoretical knowledge about their grammars.
Such a combination of
skills is typical of programmers who want to localize
software to new languages.
The current resource languages are
-\texttt{Dan}ish
-\texttt{Eng}lish
-\texttt{Fin}nish
-\texttt{Fre}nch
-\texttt{Ger}man
-\texttt{Ita}lian
-\texttt{Nor}wegian
-\texttt{Rus}sian
-\texttt{Spa}nish
-\texttt{Swe}dish
\begin{itemize}
\item \texttt{Dan}ish
\item \texttt{Eng}lish
\item \texttt{Fin}nish
\item \texttt{Fre}nch
\item \texttt{Ger}man
\item \texttt{Ita}lian
\item \texttt{Nor}wegian
\item \texttt{Rus}sian
\item \texttt{Spa}nish
\item \texttt{Swe}dish
\end{itemize}
The first three letters (\texttt{Dan} etc) are used in grammar module names.
@@ -83,7 +90,7 @@ variation is taken care of by the resource grammar function
\begin{verbatim}
fun AdjCN : AP -> CN -> CN
\end{verbatim}
and the resource grammar implementation of the rule adding properties
The resource grammar implementation of the rule adding properties
to kinds is
\begin{verbatim}
@@ -95,8 +102,8 @@ given that
lincat Prop = AP
lincat Kind = CN
\end{verbatim}
The resource library API is devided into language-specific and language-independet
parts. To put it roughly,
The resource library API is devided into language-specific
and language-independet parts. To put it roughly,
\begin{itemize}
\item the lexicon API is language-specific
@@ -111,9 +118,10 @@ pick a different linearization of \texttt{Song},
\end{verbatim}
But to linearize \texttt{PropKind}, we can use the very same rule as in German.
The resource function \texttt{AdjCN} has different implementations in the two
languages, but the application programmer need not care about the difference.
languages (e.g. a different word order in French),
but the application programmer need not care about the difference.
\subsection{A complete example}
\subsubsection*{A complete example}
To summarize the example, and also give a template for a programmer to work on,
here is the complete implementation of a small system with songs and properties.
The abstract syntax defines a "domain ontology":
@@ -129,7 +137,8 @@ The abstract syntax defines a "domain ontology":
American : Property ;
}
\end{verbatim}
The concrete syntax is defined independently of language, by opening
The concrete syntax is defined by a functor (parametrize module),
independently of language, by opening
two interfaces: the resource \texttt{Grammar} and an application lexicon.
\begin{verbatim}
@@ -153,14 +162,14 @@ the resource category system \texttt{Cat}.
american_A : A ;
}
\end{verbatim}
Each language has its own concrete syntax, which opens the inflectional paradigms
module for that language:
Each language has its own concrete syntax, which opens the
inflectional paradigms module for that language:
\begin{verbatim}
concrete MusicLexGer of MusicLex = CatGer ** open ParadigmsGer in {
lin
song_N = reg2N "Lied" "Lieder" neuter ;
american_A = regA "amerikanisch" ;
american_A = regA "Amerikanisch" ;
}
concrete MusicLexFre of MusicLex = CatFre ** open ParadigmsFre in {
@@ -169,8 +178,8 @@ module for that language:
american_A = regA "américain" ;
}
\end{verbatim}
The top-level \texttt{Music} grammars are obtained by instantiating the two interfaces
of \texttt{MusicI}:
The top-level \texttt{Music} grammars are obtained by
instantiating the two interfaces of \texttt{MusicI}:
\begin{verbatim}
concrete MusicGer of Music = MusicI with
@@ -189,8 +198,10 @@ Both of these files can use the same \texttt{path}, defined as
The \texttt{present} category contains the compiled resources, restricted to
present tense; \texttt{alltenses} has the full resources.
To localize the music player system to a new language, all that is needed is two modules,
one implementing \texttt{MusicLex} and the other instantiating \texttt{Music}. The latter is
To localize the music player system to a new language,
all that is needed is two modules,
one implementing \texttt{MusicLex} and the other
instantiating \texttt{Music}. The latter is
completely trivial, whereas the former one involves the choice of correct
vocabulary and inflectional paradigms. For instance, Finnish is added as follows:
@@ -238,10 +249,10 @@ gives its own definition of this function:
}
\end{verbatim}
\subsection{Parsing with resource grammars?}
\subsubsection*{Parsing with resource grammars?}
The intended use of the resource grammar is as a library for writing
application grammars. It is not designed for e.g. parsing newspaper text. There
are several reasons why this is not so practical:
application grammars. It is not designed for parsing e.g. newspaper text. There
are several reasons why this is not practical:
\begin{itemize}
\item Efficiency: the resource grammar uses complex data structures, in
@@ -265,15 +276,16 @@ details such as inflection, agreement, and word order.
It is for the same reasons that resource grammars are not adequate for translation.
That the syntax API is implemented for different languages of course makes
it possible to translate via it - but there is no guarantee of translation
equivalence. Of course, the use of parametrized implementations such as \texttt{MusicI}
equivalence. Of course, the use of functor implementations such as \texttt{MusicI}
above only extends to those cases where the syntax API does give translation
equivalence - but this must be seen as a limiting case, and real applications
equivalence - but this must be seen as a limiting case, and bigger applications
will often use only restricted inheritance of \texttt{MusicI}.
\section{To find rules in the resource grammar library}
\subsection{Inflection paradigms}
\subsection*{To find rules in the resource grammar library}
\subsubsection*{Inflection paradigms}
Inflection paradigms are defined separately for each language \textit{L}
in the module \texttt{Paradigms}\textit{L}. To test them, the command \texttt{cc} (= \texttt{compute\_concrete})
in the module \texttt{Paradigms}\textit{L}. To test them, the command
\texttt{cc} (= \texttt{compute\_concrete})
can be used:
\begin{verbatim}
@@ -310,15 +322,16 @@ For the sake of convenience, every language implements these four paradigms:
It is often possible to initialize a lexicon by just using these functions,
and later revise it by using the more involved paradigms. For instance, in
German we cannot use \texttt{regN "Lied"} for \texttt{Song}, because the result would be a
Masculine noun with the plural form \texttt{"Liede"}. The individual \texttt{Paradigms} modules
Masculine noun with the plural form \texttt{"Liede"}.
The individual \texttt{Paradigms} modules
tell what cases are covered by the regular heuristics.
As a limiting case, one could even initialize the lexicon for a new language
by copying the English (or some other already existing) lexicon. This will
by copying the English (or some other already existing) lexicon. This would
produce language with correct grammar but with content words directly borrowed from
English.
English - maybe not so strange in certain technical domains.
\subsection{Syntax rules}
\subsubsection*{Syntax rules}
Syntax rules should be looked for in the abstract modules defining the
API. There are around 10 such modules, each defining constructors for
a group of one or more related categories. For instance, the module
@@ -326,14 +339,16 @@ a group of one or more related categories. For instance, the module
Thus the proper place to find out how nouns are modified with adjectives
is \texttt{Noun}, because the result of the construction is again a common noun.
Browsing the libraries is helped by the gfdoc-generated HTML pages.
Browsing the libraries is helped by the gfdoc-generated HTML pages,
whose LaTeX versions are included in the present document.
However, this is still not easy, and the most efficient way is
probably to use the parser.
Even though parsing is not an intended end-user application
of resource grammars, it is a useful technique for application grammarians
to browse the library. To find out what resource function does some
particular job, you can just parse a string that exemplifies this job. For
instance, to find out how sentences are built using transitive verbs, write
to browse the library. To find out which resource function implements
a particular structure, one can just parse a string that exemplifies this
structure. For instance, to find out how sentences are built using
transitive verbs, write
\begin{verbatim}
> i english/LangEng.gf
@@ -369,7 +384,7 @@ This can be built by parsing "I have beer" in LanEng and then writing
\end{verbatim}
which uses ParadigmsIta.regGenN.
\subsection{Example-based grammar writing}
\subsubsection*{Example-based grammar writing}
The technique of parsing with the resource grammar can be used in GF source files,
endowed with the suffix \texttt{.gfe} ("GF examples"). The suffix tells GF to preprocess
the file by replacing all expressions of the form
@@ -402,8 +417,8 @@ However, the technique of example-based grammar writing has some limitations:
it may not be the intended one. The other parses are shown in a comment, from
where they must/can be picked manually.
\item Lexicality. The arguments of a function must be atomic identifiers, and are thus
not available for categories that have no lexical items. For instance, the \texttt{PropKind}
rule above gives the result
not available for categories that have no lexical items.
For instance, the \texttt{PropKind} rule above gives the result
\begin{verbatim}
lin
PropKind car_N old_A = AdjCN (UseN car_N) (PositA old_A) ;
@@ -418,9 +433,10 @@ all those categories that can be used as arguments, for instance,
and then use this lexicon instead of the standard one included in \texttt{Lang}.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Special-purpose APIs}
To give an analogy with a well-known type setting program, GF can be compared
with TeX and the resource grammar library with LaTeX. As TeX frees the author
\subsubsection*{Special-purpose APIs}
To give an analogy with the well-known type setting software, GF can be compared
with TeX and the resource grammar library with LaTeX.
Just like TeX frees the author
from thinking about low-level problems of page layout, so GF frees the grammarian
from writing parsing and generation algorithms. But quite a lot of knowledge of
\textit{how} to write grammars is still needed, and the resource grammar library helps
@@ -457,15 +473,16 @@ The implementation of this module is the functor \texttt{PredicationI}:
Of course, \texttt{Predication} can be opened together with \texttt{Grammar}, but using
the resulting grammar for parsing can be frustrating, since having both
ways of building clauses simultaneously available will produce spurious
ambiguities. Using \texttt{Predication} without \texttt{Verb} for parsing is a better idea,
since parsing is also made more efficient without rules for the \texttt{VP} category.
ambiguities. But using just \texttt{Predication} without \texttt{Verb}
for parsing is a good idea,
since parsing is more efficient without rules producing verb phrases.
The use of special-purpose APIs is to some extent just an alternative
to grammar writing by parsing, and its importance may decrease as parsing
with resource grammars gets more efficient.
with resource grammars becomes more practical.
\section{Overview of syntactic structures}
\subsection{Texts. phrases, and utterances}
\subsection*{Overview of syntactic structures}
\subsubsection*{Texts. phrases, and utterances}
The outermost linguistic structure is \texttt{Text}. \texttt{Text}s are composed
from Phrases (\texttt{Phr}) followed by punctuation marks - either of ".", "?" or
"!" (with their proper variants in Spanish and Arabic). Here is an
@@ -502,7 +519,7 @@ What is the difference between Phrase and Utterance? Just technical:
a Phrase is an Utterance with an optional leading conjunction ("but")
and an optional tailing vocative ("John", "please").
\subsection{Sentences and clauses}
\subsubsection*{Sentences and clauses}
The richest of the categories below Utterance is \texttt{S}, Sentence. A Sentence
is formed from a Clause (\texttt{Cl}), by fixing its Tense, Anteriority, and Polarity.
The difference between Sentence and Clause is thus also rather technical.
@@ -570,13 +587,15 @@ many constructors:
ComplV2 love_V2 this_NP John loves this.
\end{verbatim}
\subsection{Parts of sentences}
\subsubsection*{Parts of sentences}
The linguistic phenomena mostly discussed in both traditional grammars and modern
syntax belong to the level of Clauses, that is, lines 9-13, and occasionally
to Sentences, lines 5-13. At this level, the major categories are
\texttt{NP} (Noun Phrase) and \texttt{VP} (Verb Phrase). A Clause typically consists of just an
\texttt{NP} and a \texttt{VP}. The internal structure of both \texttt{NP} and \texttt{VP} can be very complex,
and these categories are mutually recursive: not only can a \texttt{VP} contain an \texttt{NP},
\texttt{NP} (Noun Phrase) and \texttt{VP} (Verb Phrase). A Clause typically
consists of just an \texttt{NP} and a \texttt{VP}.
The internal structure of both \texttt{NP} and \texttt{VP} can be very complex,
and these categories are mutually recursive: not only can a \texttt{VP}
contain an \texttt{NP},
\begin{verbatim}
[VP loves [NP Mary]]
@@ -612,7 +631,8 @@ The most frequent ways are
\end{itemize}
\textbf{Verb}.
How to construct VPs. The main mechanism is verbs with their arguments, for instance,
How to construct VPs. The main mechanism is verbs with their arguments,
for instance,
\begin{itemize}
\item one-place verbs: "walks"
@@ -645,10 +665,12 @@ How to construct \texttt{Adv}s. The main ways are
\begin{itemize}
\item from adjectives: "slowly"
\item as prepositional phrases: "in the car"
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Modules and their names}
The resource modules are named after the kind of phrases that are constructed in them,
\subsubsection*{Modules and their names}
The resource modules are named after the kind of
phrases that are constructed in them,
and they can be roughly classified by the "level" or "size" of expressions that are
formed in them:
@@ -663,7 +685,8 @@ Because of mutual recursion such as in embedded sentences, this classification i
not a complete order. However, no mutual dependence is needed between the
modules in a formal sense - they can all be compiled separately. This is due
to the module \texttt{Cat}, which defines the type system common to the other modules.
For instance, the types \texttt{NP} and \texttt{VP} are defined in \texttt{Cat}, and the module \texttt{Verb} only
For instance, the types \texttt{NP} and \texttt{VP} are defined in \texttt{Cat},
and the module \texttt{Verb} only
needs to know what is given in \texttt{Cat}, not what is given in \texttt{Noun}. To implement
a rule such as
@@ -683,7 +706,7 @@ category-specific modules is as follows:
abstract Verb = Cat ** {...}
\end{verbatim}
\subsection{Top-level grammar and lexicon}
\subsubsection*{Top-level grammar and lexicon}
The module \texttt{Grammar} collects all the category-specific modules into
a complete grammar:
@@ -698,7 +721,8 @@ The module \texttt{Idiom} is a collection of idiomatic structures whose
implementation is very language-dependent. An example is existential
structures ("there is", "es gibt", "il y a", etc).
The module \texttt{Lang} combines \texttt{Grammar} with a \texttt{Lexicon} of ca. 350 content words:
The module \texttt{Lang} combines \texttt{Grammar} with a \texttt{Lexicon} of
ca. 350 content words:
\begin{verbatim}
abstract Lang = Grammar, Lexicon
@@ -709,7 +733,7 @@ help testing the resource library. It does not seem possible to maintain
a general-purpose multilingual lexicon, and this is the form that the module
\texttt{Lexicon} has.
\subsection{Language-specific syntactic structures}
\subsubsection*{Language-specific syntactic structures}
The API collected in \texttt{Grammar} has been designed to be implementable for
all languages in the resource package. It does contain some rules that
are strange or superfluous in some languages; for instance, the distinction
@@ -725,19 +749,23 @@ rules. The top level of each languages looks as follows (with English as example
abstract English = Grammar, ExtraEngAbs, DictEngAbs
\end{verbatim}
where \texttt{ExtraEngAbs} is a collection of syntactic structures specific to English,
and \texttt{DictEngAbs} is an English dictionary (at the moment, it consists of \texttt{IrregEngAbs},
and \texttt{DictEngAbs} is an English dictionary
(at the moment, it consists of \texttt{IrregEngAbs},
the irregular verbs of English). Each of these language-specific grammars has
the potential to grow into a full-scale grammar of the language. These grammar
can also be used as libraries, but the possibility of using functors is lost.
To give a better overview of language-specific structures, modules like \texttt{ExtraEngAbs}
are built from a language-independent module \texttt{ExtraAbs} by restricted inheritance:
To give a better overview of language-specific structures,
modules like \texttt{ExtraEngAbs}
are built from a language-independent module \texttt{ExtraAbs}
by restricted inheritance:
\begin{verbatim}
abstract ExtraEngAbs = Extra [f,g,...]
\end{verbatim}
Thus any category and function in \texttt{Extra} may be shared by a subset of all
languages. One can see this set-up as a matrix, which tells what \texttt{Extra} structures
languages. One can see this set-up as a matrix, which tells
what \texttt{Extra} structures
are implemented in what languages. For the common API in \texttt{Grammar}, the matrix
is filled with 1's (everything is implemented in every language).

134
doc/resource.txt
View File

@@ -27,27 +27,28 @@ is to make these rules available for application programmers,
who can thereby concentrate on the semantic and stylistic
aspects of their grammars, without having to think about
grammaticality. The targeted level of application grammarians
is skilled programmer without knowledge linguistics, but with
a good knowledge of the target languages. Such a combination of
is that of a skilled programmer with
a practical knowledge of the target languages, but without
theoretical knowledge about their grammars.
Such a combination of
skills is typical of programmers who want to localize
software to new languages.
The current resource languages are
-``Dan``ish
-``Eng``lish
-``Fin``nish
-``Fre``nch
-``Ger``man
-``Ita``lian
-``Nor``wegian
-``Rus``sian
-``Spa``nish
-``Swe``dish
- ``Dan``ish
- ``Eng``lish
- ``Fin``nish
- ``Fre``nch
- ``Ger``man
- ``Ita``lian
- ``Nor``wegian
- ``Rus``sian
- ``Spa``nish
- ``Swe``dish
The first three letters (``Dan`` etc) are used in grammar module names.
To give an example application, consider
music playing devices. In the application,
we may have a semantical category ``Kind``, examples
@@ -75,7 +76,7 @@ variation is taken care of by the resource grammar function
```
fun AdjCN : AP -> CN -> CN
```
and the resource grammar implementation of the rule adding properties
The resource grammar implementation of the rule adding properties
to kinds is
```
lin PropKind kind prop = AdjCN prop kind
@@ -85,8 +86,8 @@ given that
lincat Prop = AP
lincat Kind = CN
```
The resource library API is devided into language-specific and language-independet
parts. To put it roughly,
The resource library API is devided into language-specific
and language-independet parts. To put it roughly,
- the lexicon API is language-specific
- the syntax API is language-independent
@@ -98,7 +99,8 @@ pick a different linearization of ``Song``,
```
But to linearize ``PropKind``, we can use the very same rule as in German.
The resource function ``AdjCN`` has different implementations in the two
languages, but the application programmer need not care about the difference.
languages (e.g. a different word order in French),
but the application programmer need not care about the difference.
===A complete example===
@@ -117,7 +119,8 @@ The abstract syntax defines a "domain ontology":
American : Property ;
}
```
The concrete syntax is defined independently of language, by opening
The concrete syntax is defined by a functor (parametrize module),
independently of language, by opening
two interfaces: the resource ``Grammar`` and an application lexicon.
```
incomplete concrete MusicI of Music = open Grammar, MusicLex in {
@@ -139,13 +142,13 @@ the resource category system ``Cat``.
american_A : A ;
}
```
Each language has its own concrete syntax, which opens the inflectional paradigms
module for that language:
Each language has its own concrete syntax, which opens the
inflectional paradigms module for that language:
```
concrete MusicLexGer of MusicLex = CatGer ** open ParadigmsGer in {
lin
song_N = reg2N "Lied" "Lieder" neuter ;
american_A = regA "amerikanisch" ;
american_A = regA "Amerikanisch" ;
}
concrete MusicLexFre of MusicLex = CatFre ** open ParadigmsFre in {
@@ -154,8 +157,8 @@ module for that language:
american_A = regA "américain" ;
}
```
The top-level ``Music`` grammars are obtained by instantiating the two interfaces
of ``MusicI``:
The top-level ``Music`` grammars are obtained by
instantiating the two interfaces of ``MusicI``:
```
concrete MusicGer of Music = MusicI with
(Grammar = GrammarGer),
@@ -172,8 +175,10 @@ Both of these files can use the same ``path``, defined as
The ``present`` category contains the compiled resources, restricted to
present tense; ``alltenses`` has the full resources.
To localize the music player system to a new language, all that is needed is two modules,
one implementing ``MusicLex`` and the other instantiating ``Music``. The latter is
To localize the music player system to a new language,
all that is needed is two modules,
one implementing ``MusicLex`` and the other
instantiating ``Music``. The latter is
completely trivial, whereas the former one involves the choice of correct
vocabulary and inflectional paradigms. For instance, Finnish is added as follows:
```
@@ -222,8 +227,8 @@ gives its own definition of this function:
===Parsing with resource grammars?===
The intended use of the resource grammar is as a library for writing
application grammars. It is not designed for e.g. parsing newspaper text. There
are several reasons why this is not so practical:
application grammars. It is not designed for parsing e.g. newspaper text. There
are several reasons why this is not practical:
- Efficiency: the resource grammar uses complex data structures, in
particular, discontinuous constituents, which make parsing slow and the
parser size huge.
@@ -245,9 +250,9 @@ details such as inflection, agreement, and word order.
It is for the same reasons that resource grammars are not adequate for translation.
That the syntax API is implemented for different languages of course makes
it possible to translate via it - but there is no guarantee of translation
equivalence. Of course, the use of parametrized implementations such as ``MusicI``
equivalence. Of course, the use of functor implementations such as ``MusicI``
above only extends to those cases where the syntax API does give translation
equivalence - but this must be seen as a limiting case, and real applications
equivalence - but this must be seen as a limiting case, and bigger applications
will often use only restricted inheritance of ``MusicI``.
@@ -257,7 +262,8 @@ will often use only restricted inheritance of ``MusicI``.
===Inflection paradigms===
Inflection paradigms are defined separately for each language //L//
in the module ``Paradigms``//L//. To test them, the command ``cc`` (= ``compute_concrete``)
in the module ``Paradigms``//L//. To test them, the command
``cc`` (= ``compute_concrete``)
can be used:
```
> i -retain german/ParadigmsGer.gf
@@ -292,13 +298,14 @@ For the sake of convenience, every language implements these four paradigms:
It is often possible to initialize a lexicon by just using these functions,
and later revise it by using the more involved paradigms. For instance, in
German we cannot use ``regN "Lied"`` for ``Song``, because the result would be a
Masculine noun with the plural form ``"Liede"``. The individual ``Paradigms`` modules
Masculine noun with the plural form ``"Liede"``.
The individual ``Paradigms`` modules
tell what cases are covered by the regular heuristics.
As a limiting case, one could even initialize the lexicon for a new language
by copying the English (or some other already existing) lexicon. This will
by copying the English (or some other already existing) lexicon. This would
produce language with correct grammar but with content words directly borrowed from
English.
English - maybe not so strange in certain technical domains.
@@ -311,14 +318,16 @@ a group of one or more related categories. For instance, the module
Thus the proper place to find out how nouns are modified with adjectives
is ``Noun``, because the result of the construction is again a common noun.
Browsing the libraries is helped by the gfdoc-generated HTML pages.
Browsing the libraries is helped by the gfdoc-generated HTML pages,
whose LaTeX versions are included in the present document.
However, this is still not easy, and the most efficient way is
probably to use the parser.
Even though parsing is not an intended end-user application
of resource grammars, it is a useful technique for application grammarians
to browse the library. To find out what resource function does some
particular job, you can just parse a string that exemplifies this job. For
instance, to find out how sentences are built using transitive verbs, write
to browse the library. To find out which resource function implements
a particular structure, one can just parse a string that exemplifies this
structure. For instance, to find out how sentences are built using
transitive verbs, write
```
> i english/LangEng.gf
@@ -381,8 +390,8 @@ However, the technique of example-based grammar writing has some limitations:
it may not be the intended one. The other parses are shown in a comment, from
where they must/can be picked manually.
- Lexicality. The arguments of a function must be atomic identifiers, and are thus
not available for categories that have no lexical items. For instance, the ``PropKind``
rule above gives the result
not available for categories that have no lexical items.
For instance, the ``PropKind`` rule above gives the result
```
lin
PropKind car_N old_A = AdjCN (UseN car_N) (PositA old_A) ;
@@ -400,8 +409,9 @@ and then use this lexicon instead of the standard one included in ``Lang``.
===Special-purpose APIs===
To give an analogy with a well-known type setting program, GF can be compared
with TeX and the resource grammar library with LaTeX. As TeX frees the author
To give an analogy with the well-known type setting software, GF can be compared
with TeX and the resource grammar library with LaTeX.
Just like TeX frees the author
from thinking about low-level problems of page layout, so GF frees the grammarian
from writing parsing and generation algorithms. But quite a lot of knowledge of
//how// to write grammars is still needed, and the resource grammar library helps
@@ -436,12 +446,13 @@ The implementation of this module is the functor ``PredicationI``:
Of course, ``Predication`` can be opened together with ``Grammar``, but using
the resulting grammar for parsing can be frustrating, since having both
ways of building clauses simultaneously available will produce spurious
ambiguities. Using ``Predication`` without ``Verb`` for parsing is a better idea,
since parsing is also made more efficient without rules for the ``VP`` category.
ambiguities. But using just ``Predication`` without ``Verb``
for parsing is a good idea,
since parsing is more efficient without rules producing verb phrases.
The use of special-purpose APIs is to some extent just an alternative
to grammar writing by parsing, and its importance may decrease as parsing
with resource grammars gets more efficient.
with resource grammars becomes more practical.
@@ -556,9 +567,11 @@ many constructors:
The linguistic phenomena mostly discussed in both traditional grammars and modern
syntax belong to the level of Clauses, that is, lines 9-13, and occasionally
to Sentences, lines 5-13. At this level, the major categories are
``NP`` (Noun Phrase) and ``VP`` (Verb Phrase). A Clause typically consists of just an
``NP`` and a ``VP``. The internal structure of both ``NP`` and ``VP`` can be very complex,
and these categories are mutually recursive: not only can a ``VP`` contain an ``NP``,
``NP`` (Noun Phrase) and ``VP`` (Verb Phrase). A Clause typically
consists of just an ``NP`` and a ``VP``.
The internal structure of both ``NP`` and ``VP`` can be very complex,
and these categories are mutually recursive: not only can a ``VP``
contain an ``NP``,
```
[VP loves [NP Mary]]
```
@@ -588,7 +601,8 @@ The most frequent ways are
**Verb**.
How to construct VPs. The main mechanism is verbs with their arguments, for instance,
How to construct VPs. The main mechanism is verbs with their arguments,
for instance,
- one-place verbs: "walks"
- two-place verbs: "loves Mary"
- three-place verbs: "gives her a kiss"
@@ -613,12 +627,13 @@ How to constuct ``AP``s. The main ways are
**Adverb**.
How to construct ``Adv``s. The main ways are
- from adjectives: "slowly"
- as prepositional phrases: "in the car"
===Modules and their names===
The resource modules are named after the kind of phrases that are constructed in them,
The resource modules are named after the kind of
phrases that are constructed in them,
and they can be roughly classified by the "level" or "size" of expressions that are
formed in them:
- Larger than sentence: ``Text``, ``Phrase``
@@ -631,7 +646,8 @@ Because of mutual recursion such as in embedded sentences, this classification i
not a complete order. However, no mutual dependence is needed between the
modules in a formal sense - they can all be compiled separately. This is due
to the module ``Cat``, which defines the type system common to the other modules.
For instance, the types ``NP`` and ``VP`` are defined in ``Cat``, and the module ``Verb`` only
For instance, the types ``NP`` and ``VP`` are defined in ``Cat``,
and the module ``Verb`` only
needs to know what is given in ``Cat``, not what is given in ``Noun``. To implement
a rule such as
```
@@ -665,7 +681,8 @@ The module ``Idiom`` is a collection of idiomatic structures whose
implementation is very language-dependent. An example is existential
structures ("there is", "es gibt", "il y a", etc).
The module ``Lang`` combines ``Grammar`` with a ``Lexicon`` of ca. 350 content words:
The module ``Lang`` combines ``Grammar`` with a ``Lexicon`` of
ca. 350 content words:
```
abstract Lang = Grammar, Lexicon
```
@@ -693,18 +710,22 @@ rules. The top level of each languages looks as follows (with English as example
abstract English = Grammar, ExtraEngAbs, DictEngAbs
```
where ``ExtraEngAbs`` is a collection of syntactic structures specific to English,
and ``DictEngAbs`` is an English dictionary (at the moment, it consists of ``IrregEngAbs``,
and ``DictEngAbs`` is an English dictionary
(at the moment, it consists of ``IrregEngAbs``,
the irregular verbs of English). Each of these language-specific grammars has
the potential to grow into a full-scale grammar of the language. These grammar
can also be used as libraries, but the possibility of using functors is lost.
To give a better overview of language-specific structures, modules like ``ExtraEngAbs``
are built from a language-independent module ``ExtraAbs`` by restricted inheritance:
To give a better overview of language-specific structures,
modules like ``ExtraEngAbs``
are built from a language-independent module ``ExtraAbs``
by restricted inheritance:
```
abstract ExtraEngAbs = Extra [f,g,...]
```
Thus any category and function in ``Extra`` may be shared by a subset of all
languages. One can see this set-up as a matrix, which tells what ``Extra`` structures
languages. One can see this set-up as a matrix, which tells
what ``Extra`` structures
are implemented in what languages. For the common API in ``Grammar``, the matrix
is filled with 1's (everything is implemented in every language).
@@ -735,7 +756,6 @@ has only been exploited in a very small scale so far.
%!include: ../lib/resource-1.0/abstract/Idiom.txt
%!include: ../lib/resource-1.0/abstract/Noun.txt
%!include: ../lib/resource-1.0/abstract/Numeral.txt
%!include: ../lib/resource-1.0/abstract/OldLexicon.txt
%!include: ../lib/resource-1.0/abstract/Phrase.txt
%!include: ../lib/resource-1.0/abstract/Question.txt
%!include: ../lib/resource-1.0/abstract/Relative.txt

2
lib/resource-1.0/abstract/Adjective.gf
View File

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
--1 Adjectives and adjectival phrases
--1 Adjective: Adjectives and Adjectival Phrases
abstract Adjective = Cat ** {

2
lib/resource-1.0/abstract/Adverb.gf
View File

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
--1 Adverbs and adverbial phrases
--1 Adverb: Adverbs and Adverbial Phrases
abstract Adverb = Cat ** {

2
lib/resource-1.0/abstract/Cat.gf
View File

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
--1 The category system
--1 Cat: the Category System
-- The category system is central to the library in the sense
-- that the other modules ($Adjective$, $Adverb$, $Noun$, $Verb$ etc)

2
lib/resource-1.0/abstract/Common.gf
View File

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
--1 Infrastructure with common implementations.
--1 Common: Structures with Common Implementations.
-- This module defines the categories that uniformly have the linearization
-- ${s : Str}$ in all languages.

2
lib/resource-1.0/abstract/Conjunction.gf
View File

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
--1 Coordination
--1 Conjunction: Coordination
-- Coordination is defined for many different categories; here is
-- a sample. The rules apply to *lists* of two or more elements,

2
lib/resource-1.0/abstract/Grammar.gf
View File

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
--1 The Main Module of the Resource Grammar
--1 Grammar: the Main Module of the Resource Grammar
-- This grammar a collection of the different grammar modules,
-- To test the resource, import [Lang Lang.html], which also contains

2
lib/resource-1.0/abstract/Idiom.gf
View File

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
--1 Idiomatic expressions
--1 Idiom: Idiomatic Expressions
abstract Idiom = Cat ** {

8
lib/resource-1.0/abstract/Lang.gf
View File

@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
--1 The Main Module of the Resource Grammar
--1 Lang: a Test Module for the Resource Grammar
-- This grammar is just a collection of the different modules,
-- and the one that can be imported when one wants to test the
-- grammar. A module without a lexicon is [Grammar Grammar.html],
-- This grammar is for testing the resource as included in the
-- language-independent API, consisting of a grammar and a lexicon.
-- The grammar without a lexicon is [Grammar Grammar.html],
-- which may be more suitable to open in applications.
abstract Lang =

2
lib/resource-1.0/abstract/Noun.gf
View File

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
--1 The construction of nouns, noun phrases, and determiners
--1 Noun: Nouns, noun phrases, and determiners
abstract Noun = Cat ** {

2
lib/resource-1.0/abstract/Phrase.gf
View File

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
--1 Phrases and utterances
--1 Phrase: Phrases and Utterances
abstract Phrase = Cat ** {

2
lib/resource-1.0/abstract/Question.gf
View File

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
--1 Questions and interrogative pronouns
--1 Question: Questions and Interrogative Pronouns
abstract Question = Cat ** {

2
lib/resource-1.0/abstract/Sentence.gf
View File

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
--1 Sentences, clauses, imperatives, and sentential complements
--1 Sentence: Sentences, Clauses, and Imperatives
abstract Sentence = Cat ** {

4
lib/resource-1.0/abstract/Structural.gf
View File

@@ -1,7 +1,5 @@
--1 GF Resource Grammar API for Structural Words
--1 Structural: Structural Words
--
-- AR 21/11/2003 -- 30/11/2005
--
-- Here we have some words belonging to closed classes and appearing
-- in all languages we have considered.
-- Sometimes they are not really meaningful, e.g. $we_Pron$ in Spanish

14
lib/resource-1.0/abstract/Text.gf
View File

@@ -1,11 +1,15 @@
--1 Texts
--1 Text: Texts
-- Texts are built from an empty text by adding $Phr$ases,
-- using as constructors the punctuation marks ".", "?", and "!".
-- Any punctuation mark can be attached to any kind of phrase.
abstract Text = Common ** {
fun
TEmpty : Text ;
TFullStop : Phr -> Text -> Text ;
TQuestMark : Phr -> Text -> Text ;
TExclMark : Phr -> Text -> Text ;
TEmpty : Text ; --
TFullStop : Phr -> Text -> Text ; -- John walks. ...
TQuestMark : Phr -> Text -> Text ; -- Are you OK? ...
TExclMark : Phr -> Text -> Text ; -- John walks! ...
}