forked from GitHub/gf-rgl
8fb8ddd808
- NP: added field isLight in order to push negation behind light nps;
this had been done in gf-3.9 using field isPron, but isPron is now
used to put accusative pronoun before dative pronoun. Removed field
adv: adverbial extensions cannot be extracted (todo: also for CN).
Reduced isLight*isPron to w:Weight with 3 values: WPron, WLight, WHeavy.
- added param Control and field ctrl:Control to classify V2V-verbs into
subject- and object-contol verbs, use ctrl to make reflexives agree
with subject resp. object in VPSlash, and refine ComplSlash.
- Verb: new versions of ComplVV, SlashV2V and SlashVV to give better
(nested) infinitives (extracting infzu and correcting object order).
a) nested SlashVV doesn't work properly;
b) SlashV2VNP may have to be commented out to prevent a stack overflow
when compiling.
Intended change of SlashV2VNP in tests/german/TestLangGer could not
be tested due to size problems with the compiler.
- VP: changed field a1 : Polarity => Str to a1:Str to collect the adverbs
coming before negation, using (negation : Polarity => Str) in mkClause.
Use objCtrl:Bool instead of missingAdv to let reflexives agree with object.
- ResGer: insertObjNP reorganized, infzuVP added
- DictVerbsGer: some corrections (helft -> hilft, *sprecht -> *spricht)
- Some potential passive rules in tests/german/TestLangGer|Eng
- ExtraGer needs to be cleaned up with repect to the modified mkClause.
282 lines
13 KiB
Plaintext
282 lines
13 KiB
Plaintext
Implementing pronoun switch e.a. in LangGer HL 13.6.2019 -- 20.6.2019
|
|
-------------------------------------------
|
|
Ternary verbs v:V3 with two objects of category NP order them
|
|
depending on their being (personal) pronouns or not. Basically
|
|
|
|
non-pronoun order: NonPronNP.dat < NonPronNP.acc
|
|
pronoun/nonpronoun: Pron < NonPronNP
|
|
pronoun order: Pron.acc < Pron.dat
|
|
|
|
See also (section II):
|
|
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~deutsch/Grammatik/WordOrder/WordOrder.html
|
|
|
|
What about verbs with other complement cases? Apparently we have
|
|
- NP.acc < NP.gen: wir verdächtigen ihn|den Mann ihrer|der Tat
|
|
- NP.acc[indir] < NonPronNP.acc[dir]: wir lehren ihn|den Studenten die Kunst
|
|
- Pron.acc[dir] < Pron.acc[indir]: wir lehren sie ihn (?)
|
|
|
|
A collection of relevant example sentences to do some regression tests is
|
|
contained in examples.txt. (Definiteness seems to be relevant to order, too.)
|
|
|
|
============== Main changes made: (cf. discussion below) ======================
|
|
|
|
1. Categories VP and VPSlash have nn : Agr => Str * Str * Str * Str, where now
|
|
|
|
nn.p1 contains refl+pron (pron.acc < refl, refl < pron.dat, refl < pron.gen),
|
|
nn.p2 contains nonpron NPs (np.dat < np.acc | np.gen) (cf. insertObjNP below)
|
|
nn.p3 contains prep NPs
|
|
nn.p4 contains predicative A | CN | Adv (inserted by UseComp)
|
|
|
|
Note: keeping complements in 4 nn-fields may be useful to insert adverbs in between
|
|
(not done yet), besides ordering them relative to negation (see below).
|
|
|
|
Note: become_VA is not treated like a copula (i.e. not using CompAP) (also in Eng):
|
|
"bin alt" = (UseComp (CompAP adj)) adds adj to nn.p3 (was:nn.p2),
|
|
"werde alt" = (ComplVA become_VA adj), inserts adj into vp.adj
|
|
So there is no uniform treatment of copula verbs "sein", "werden", "bleiben".
|
|
|
|
2. Pronoun switch is done by (insertObjectNP np vp.c vp), such that pron.acc < refl < pron.dat|gen:
|
|
|
|
(insertObjNP pron acc vp).nn = <pron.acc ++ vp.nn.p1(refl), vp.nn.p2, vp.nn.p3, vp.nn.p4>
|
|
(insertObjNP pron case vp).nn = <vp.nn.p1(refl) ++ pron!case, vp.nn.p2, vp.nn.p3, vp.nn.p4>
|
|
|
|
For other object np's, we enforce np.dat < np.acc|gen: (this doesn't enforce np.acc < np.gen)
|
|
|
|
(insertObjNP np dat vp).nn = <vp.nn.p1, np!dat ++ vp.nn.p2, vp.nn.p3, vp.nn.p4>
|
|
(insertObjNP np case vp).nn = <vp.nn.p1, vp.nn.p2 ++ np!case, vp.nn.p3, vp.nn.p4>
|
|
|
|
Object pp's are collected in nn.p3:
|
|
|
|
(insertObjNP np prep vp).nn = <vp.nn.p1, vp.nn.p2, vp.nn.p3 ++ app(prep,np), vp.nn.p4>
|
|
|
|
Complements (AP|Adv|CN) are collected in vp.nn.p4, using the existing insertObj:
|
|
(insertObj compl vp).nn = <vp.nn.p1, vp.nn.p2, vpnn.p3, compl ++ vp.nn.p4>
|
|
|
|
For verbs v:V3 with 2 acc-arguments, "ich lehre ihn sie|die Mathematik", we can't distinguish
|
|
direct object (acc: die Mathematik) from indirect object (acc: ihn), so we get two trees.
|
|
|
|
Bug: ConstructionGer (mkVP have_V2 (mkNP n:N)) (for "Angst|Recht haben") puts n into nn.p2,
|
|
which comes before negation.
|
|
(Maybe we need np.isLight to prevent this and put n in nn.p3, or apply UseComp with n.)
|
|
|
|
3. The ordering of objects, complements and negation in mkClause is changed !!!
|
|
|
|
The "default" order (if it exists) is subtle, depending on whether objects are
|
|
definite, indefinite Sg, indefinitePl, pron, quantified, negated indefinite. We now have
|
|
|
|
(mkClause subj agr vp) : Clause =
|
|
let
|
|
obj1 = (vp.nn ! agr).p1 ++ (vp.nn ! agr).p2; -- refl,pronouns < nonpronouns
|
|
obj2 = (vp.nn ! agr).p3 ; -- (prep + np)s
|
|
compl = (vp.nn ! agr).p4 ++ vp.adj ++ vp.a2 ; -- compl via useComp
|
|
in
|
|
Main => subj ++ verb.fin ++ obj1 ++ neg ++ obj2 ++ compl ++ vp.infExt ++ infs ++ extra ;
|
|
Inv => verb.fin ++ subj ++ obj1 ++ neg ++ obj2 ++ compl ++ vp.infExt ++ infs ++ extra ;
|
|
Sub => subj ++ obj1 ++ neg ++ obj2 ++ compl ++ vp.infExt ++ inffin ++ extra
|
|
|
|
I have *removed* the difference between "light" and "heavy" complements, which gave the
|
|
ordering light < neg < heavy. It was using np.isPron=True as "light", but also set
|
|
indefinite nps (and DetNPs) as heavy. But this ignored the number, which is also relevant:
|
|
|
|
ich sehe den Mann nicht ; ich sehe nicht einen Mann
|
|
but ich liebe Männer nicht ; * ich liebe nicht Männer
|
|
|
|
The change now gives: nonpronNP < neg,
|
|
|
|
ich sehe einen Mann nicht [ ich sehe keinen Mann: via no_Predet ]
|
|
ich trinke warmes Bier nicht [ ich trinke nicht Bier: via no_Predet ]
|
|
|
|
The order accPron < refl < (gen|dat)Pron < neg < nonpronNP sometimes sounds
|
|
better, but expresses a different meaning (often available via no_Predet):
|
|
|
|
sie hat sich nicht alle|viele|?mehrere Namen gemerkt
|
|
sie hat sich alle?|viele|mehrere Namen nicht gemerkt
|
|
|
|
The implemented order nonpronNP < neg gives negation narrow scope relative to the
|
|
quantifiers in the objects (a meaning that cannot otherwise be expressed):
|
|
|
|
einige Lehrer haben jedem Studenten viele Bücher nicht geschickt|empfohlen
|
|
=?= some teachers haven't sent|recommended many books to every student
|
|
|
|
For tests, see examples.txt and how to do regression tests (see below).
|
|
|
|
Rem.: Having more nn-fields may be useful to put adverbs in between (with
|
|
additional scope problems).
|
|
|
|
4. For reflexive V2's (ich bediene mich einer Sache, ich merke mir eine Sache) or
|
|
reflexive V3's (ich entschuldige mich bei dat für acc, ich leihe mir acc bei dat),
|
|
some tests are in examples.txt and TestLangGer|Eng. We have enforced refl < neg.
|
|
|
|
TestLangGer introduces ternary predicates VPSlashSlash. These can be built by
|
|
Slash2V4, Slash3V4, Slash4V4 from quaternary verbs v:V4 and a noun phrase np:NP.
|
|
(A function SlashV3a : V3 -> VPSlashSlash is omitted to reduce ambiguities.)
|
|
|
|
SlashV2a turns a (DictVerbsGer-) verb_rV2:V2 into a reflexive VPSlash:
|
|
|
|
SlashV2a bedienen_gen_rV2 : VPSlash = sich einer Sache bedienen
|
|
|
|
A reflexive VPSlash can also be built from a V3 by
|
|
|
|
ReflVPSlash : V3 -> VPSlash,
|
|
|
|
but maybe this is unnecessary, as
|
|
|
|
(ComplSlash (ReflVPSlash v3) np) = (ReflVP (Slash3V3 v3 np)).
|
|
|
|
Todo: Some of this ought to go to ExtraGer.gf.
|
|
|
|
5. I changed ParadigmsGer.accdatV3 from "mkV3 v dat acc" to "mkV3 v acc dat"
|
|
= dirV3 v dat, so that it fits to "dirV3 v p" in Eng and gives the corresponding
|
|
trees for sentences with main verb v:V3.
|
|
|
|
============= Motivating discussion of the situation in gf-3.9 / gf-rgl ==============
|
|
|
|
LexiconGer has those V3s:
|
|
add_V3 = dirV3 (prefixV "hinzu" (regV "fügen")) zu_Prep ;
|
|
give_V3 = accdatV3 Irreg.geben_V ;
|
|
sell_V3 = accdatV3 (no_geV (regV "verkaufen")) ;
|
|
send_V3 = accdatV3 (regV "schicken") ;
|
|
talk_V3 = mkV3 (regV "reden") datPrep von_Prep ;
|
|
|
|
ParadigmsGer defines
|
|
mkV3 = overload {
|
|
mkV3 : V -> V3 = \v -> lin V3 (v ** {c2 = accPrep ; c3 = datPrep}) ;
|
|
mkV3 : V -> Prep -> Prep -> V3 = \v,c,d -> lin V3 (v ** {c2 = c ; c3 = d}) ;
|
|
} ;
|
|
dirV3 v p = mkV3 v accPrep p ; -- v ** {c2=accPrep; c3=p}
|
|
accdatV3 v = mkV3 v datPrep accPrep ; -- v ** {c2=datPrep; c3=accPrep}
|
|
|
|
LexiconEng says, using, roughly, dirV3 v p = v ** {c2=noPrep ; c3=p}:
|
|
give_V3 = mkV3 give_V noPrep noPrep ;
|
|
sell_V3 = dirV3 (irregV "sell" "sold" "sold") toP ;
|
|
send_V3 = dirV3 (irregV "send" "sent" "sent") toP ;
|
|
|
|
Apparently, the idea is:
|
|
(Ger) direct object = acc = c2; indirect object = dat|gen = c3
|
|
(Eng) direct object = noPrep = c2; indirect object = toPrep = c3
|
|
|
|
BUT then, accdatV3 v should be = dirV3 v datPrep = v**{c2=accPrep,c3=datPrep} !!
|
|
|
|
Which object is bound "closer" to the verb? Is this regulated by using
|
|
Slash2V3 versus Slash3V3, and does this binding strength manifest
|
|
itself outside of extraction phenomena?
|
|
|
|
abstract/Verb.gf says:
|
|
|
|
ComplSlash : VPSlash -> NP -> VP ; -- love it
|
|
SlashV2a : V2 -> VPSlash ; -- love (it)
|
|
|
|
Slash2V3 : V3 -> NP -> VPSlash ; -- give it (to her)
|
|
Slash3V3 : V3 -> NP -> VPSlash ; -- give (it) to her
|
|
|
|
Roughly, gf-3.9/../VerbGer.gf has:
|
|
|
|
Slash2V3 v np = insertObjc np!v.c2 (predVc v) ** {c2 = v.c3}
|
|
Slash3V3 v np = insertObjc np!v.c3 (predVc v) ** {c2 = v.c2}
|
|
|
|
So, regardless if any object comes with a preposition,
|
|
|
|
Slash2V3 v np binds direct object c2 to the verb,
|
|
Slash3V3 v np binds indirect object c3 to the verb.
|
|
|
|
But which is direct, which indirect for acc+acc-verbs:
|
|
sie lehrt ihn die Kunst, probably: c2=die Kunst, c3=ihn
|
|
And which object is direct, which indirect, for prep+prep-verbs?
|
|
sie redet mit ihm über die Kunst: c2=die Kunst, c3=ihm ?
|
|
|
|
PROBLEM: who tells the user which argument is direct, which not?
|
|
|
|
Eng: sell_V3 = dirV3 sell_V toP, so c2="", c3="to"
|
|
talk_V3 = mkV3 (regV "talk") toP aboutP, so c2="to", c3="about"
|
|
(Isn't this inconsistent? Shouldn't we have "mkV3 v dir indir"?)
|
|
Ger: sell_V3 = accdatV3 verkaufen_V
|
|
= mkV3 verkaufen_V datPrep accPrep, so c2=dat, c3=acc
|
|
|
|
To get trees with similar meaning, I CHANGED accdatV3 to "mkV3 v acc dat"
|
|
in ParadigmsGer (so that it fits to "dirV3 v p" in Eng).
|
|
|
|
The best would be if mkV3 (with acc-obj) were only available through
|
|
dirV3 v p, so one could not use (mkV3 v datPrep accPrep) etc.
|
|
|
|
---------------- word order in ResGer.mkClause in gf-rgl -------------------
|
|
|
|
In gf-3.9 resp. gf-rgl, VP.nn : Str*Str collects the nominal (and
|
|
adjectival) objects; those object-NPs with flag
|
|
|
|
isPron = True ; --- means: this is not a heavy NP, but comes before negation
|
|
|
|
are put before the negation in mkClause:
|
|
|
|
obj0 = (vp.nn ! agr).p1 ;
|
|
obj = (vp.nn ! agr).p2 ;
|
|
compl = obj0 ++ neg ++ vp.adj ++ obj ++ vp.a2 ; -- adj added
|
|
inf = vp.inf ++ verb.inf.p1 ; -- not used for linearisation of Main/Inv
|
|
extra = vp.ext ;
|
|
inffin : Str = case <a,vp.isAux> of {
|
|
<Anter,True> => verb.fin ++ inf ; -- double inf --# notpresent
|
|
_ => inf ++ verb.fin --- or just auxiliary vp
|
|
} ;
|
|
in case o of {
|
|
Main => subj ++ verb.fin ++ compl ++ vp.infExt ++ verb.inf ++ extra ++ vp.inf ;
|
|
Inv => verb.fin ++ subj ++ compl ++ vp.infExt ++ verb.inf ++ extra ++ vp.inf ;
|
|
Sub => subj ++ compl ++ vp.infExt ++ inffin ++ extra
|
|
|
|
This is too simple:
|
|
|
|
DetCN creates an NP with
|
|
isPron = det.isDef ; -- ich sehe den Mann nicht vs. ich sehe nicht einen Mann
|
|
|
|
i.e. (definite article + CN | pronoun) are put in nn.p1, to come before negation
|
|
|
|
ich sehe ihn nicht, ich sehe den Mann nicht: compl = (nn.p1 + neg + ..)
|
|
ich sehe nicht einen Mann : compl = neg ++ nn.p2
|
|
=? ich sehe keinen Mann
|
|
|
|
But: plural indefinite NPs behave different:
|
|
I don't see men: ich sehe Männer nicht
|
|
ich sehe *(nicht Männer) | keine Männer
|
|
Also, singular mass-NPs behave different:
|
|
ich trinke nicht *((kaltes) Bier)
|
|
ich trinke (kaltes) Bier nicht | ich trinke kein (kaltes) Bier
|
|
|
|
PROBLEM: do V2 + neg behave the same as V3 + neg? Aren't the relative
|
|
scopes of negation and quantifiers fixed (or restricted) by intonation?
|
|
|
|
------------- Generating some example trees and linearize them (LangGer|Eng) -----------
|
|
|
|
gr -tr -number=4 UseCl (TTAnt ? ?) ? (PredVP (UsePron i_Pron) (ComplSlash (SlashVV want_VV (SlashV2a see_V2)) (DetCN (DetQuant ? ?) (UseN man_N)))) | l
|
|
|
|
Pronoun switch with V3 and Slash?V2 works:
|
|
|
|
l UseCl (TTAnt TPast AAnter) PPos (PredVP (UsePron i_Pron) (ComplSlash (Slash3V3 sell_V3 (DetCN (DetQuant IndefArt NumSg) (UseN woman_N))) (DetCN (DetQuant DefArt NumSg) (UseN book_N))))
|
|
I had sold the book to a woman
|
|
ich hatte einer Frau das Buch verkauft
|
|
|
|
l UseCl (TTAnt TCond ASimul) PNeg (PredVP (UsePron i_Pron) (ComplSlash (Slash3V3 sell_V3 (UsePron she_Pron)) (UsePron it_Pron)))
|
|
I wouldn't sell it to her
|
|
ich würde es ihr nicht verkaufen
|
|
|
|
------ Regression tests: use gf --run < object-order.gfs or gf> eh object-order.gfs
|
|
|
|
Form Ger to Eng:
|
|
|
|
example.txt contains german example sentences marked "positive", "negative", "dubious",
|
|
some with two marks. The marks may not always be convincing, as some orderings of negation
|
|
and quantified nps afford particular intonation and meaning. (Also, there are incorrect
|
|
parse trees due to misuse of MassNP etc., so it needs some inspection to see if the content
|
|
of examples.*.out is as it ought to be.)
|
|
|
|
Part of examples.txt needs TestLangGer|Eng for parsing and translation, in particular
|
|
those with reflexive ternary verbs or quaternary verbs (which are not in the RGL).
|
|
|
|
From Eng to Ger:
|
|
|
|
examples.eng.txt could also be parsed using LangEng instead of TestLangEng|Ger.
|
|
|
|
Lang> rf -file=examples.eng.txt -lines | p -lang=LangEng | l -lang="Eng,Ger" -treebank | wf -file=examples.eng.tmp
|
|
Lang> rf -file=examples.eng.txt -lines | p -lang=LangEng | l -lang="Eng,Ger" | wf -file=examples.eng2ger.new
|
|
|
|
Using give_V3 is confusing, as both objects are connected with noPrep. The examples are
|
|
repeated using send_V3, which attaches its indirect object with toPrep.
|
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------End
|