diff --git a/lib/resource/doc/spraakdata2005.html b/lib/resource/doc/spraakdata2005.html index fad49cdc0..1e4219c0c 100644 --- a/lib/resource/doc/spraakdata2005.html +++ b/lib/resource/doc/spraakdata2005.html @@ -437,12 +437,173 @@ with compound analysis, 50,000 without + + +

Syntax case study: Swedish noun phrases

+ +Problem: describe agreement and inheritance of definiteness +when a determiner is added to a common noun, possibly modified by +an adjective: +

+ +en bil
+bilen

+en stor bil
+den stora bilen

+denna bil
+denna stora bil +
+

+ + + +

Abstract syntax for noun phrases

+ +The abstract syntax of a GF grammar defines what grammatical +structures there are, without telling how they are defined. + +

+ +The relevant fragment consists of 4 categories and +3 functions +

+  cat 
+    N ;   -- simple (lexical) common noun, e.g. "bil"
+    CN ;  -- possibly complex common noun, e.g. "stor bil"
+    Det ; -- determiner,                   e.g. "denna"          
+    NP ;  -- noun phrase,                  e.g. "bilen"
+    AP :  -- adjectival phrase,            e.g. "stor"
+  fun
+    UseN  : N -> CN ;    
+    UseA  : A -> AP ;    
+    DetCN : Det -> CN -> NP ;
+    ModA  : A -> CN -> CN ;
+
+ + + + +

Types of complex nouns and noun phrases

+ +Just like to words, we assign linearization types to +phrase categories. They are similar to the lexical types, +but often with some extra information. +
+  lincat
+    CN  = {s : Number => SpeciesP => Case => Str ; g : Gender ; isComplex : Bool} ;
+    NP  = {s : NPForm => Str ; g : Gender ; n : Number ; p : Person} ;
+    Det = {s : Gender => Str ; n : Number ; b : SpeciesP} ;
+    AP  = {s : AdjFormPos => Case => Str} ; 
+
+Here we use some new parameter types: +
+  param
+    SpeciesP   = IndefP | DefP Species ;  
+    NPForm     = PNom | PAcc | PGen GenNum ;
+    GenNum     = ASg Gender | APl ;
+    AdjFormPos = Strong GenNum | Weak ;
+
+ + + + + + +

Building noun phrases with a determiner

+ +Mutual agreement: + +
+  DetCN : Det -> CN -> NP = \en, man -> 
+    {s = \\c => en.s ! man.g ++ 
+                man.s ! en.n ! en.b ! npCase c ;
+     g = genNoun man.g ; 
+     n = en.n ; 
+     p = P3
+    } ;
+
+ + + +

+ + + +

+ + +

Syntax case study: Swedish sentence structure

+Data: freedom in word order in main clause +

+ +jag har inte sett dig idag
+dig jag har inte sett idag
+idag har jag inte sett dig
+inte har jag sett dig idag
+sett har jag inte dig idag (??)
+sett dig har jag inte idag

+ +Rigid order in questions... +

+ +har jag inte sett dig idag + +

+... and in subordinate clauses +

+ +jag inte har sett dig idag + +

+ + +

The topological model

+ + + +

The Sats data type

+ + + + +

Building clauses from Sats

+ + + + +

Construction of Sats

+ +Notice: we want to treat Sats as an abstract data type. + + + +

Verb subcategorization patterns formalized

+ + + + +

Adding adverbials

+ + + + +

Coverage of verb patterns in Swedish Academy Grammar

+ + + + + +

Remaining problems

+