MWEs Metagrammar Adding MWEs Evaluation Conclusions App A: Variability measure App B: annotation Bibliography La syntaxe des expressions polylexicales: codage lexical, annotation et flexibilité syntaxique Agata Savary Université de Tours Linglunch Paris Diderot, 12 avril 2018, Paris 1/23
MWEs Metagrammar Adding MWEs Evaluation Conclusions App A: Variability measure App B: annotation Bibliography Multiword expressions Word combinations, which exhibit lexical, syntactic, semantic, pragmatic and/or statistical irregularities . Examples: all of a sudden , a hot dog , to pay a visit , to pull one’s leg Encompass heterogeneous objects : idioms, compounds, light verb constructions, rhetorical figures, institutionalised phrases or named entities Pervasive feature: non-compositional semantics - the meaning of an MWE cannot be deduced from the meanings of its components, and from its syntactic structure, in a way deemed regular for the given language. Varying degree of syntactic variability ( flexibility ), especially in verbal MWEs (VMWEs). 2/23
MWEs Metagrammar Adding MWEs Evaluation Conclusions App A: Variability measure App B: annotation Bibliography Defective and restrictive properties of MWEs [Lichte et al. (2018)] Defective properties exclude a literal interpretation of the MWE: Defective agreement: a cross-roads Defective syntactic structure: j’ ai beau chercher ‘ I have beautiful search. inf’ ⇒ ‘I search in vain’ Restrictive properties reduce the number of possible surface realizations of the MWE with respect to the literal reading, e.g.: Restrictive lexical selection: to make ends meet vs. #to make edges come together Restrictive agreement: I cross my fingers vs. #I cross his fingers Restrictive diathesis: the die is cast vs. #one casts the die Restrictive modification: he lives a life of luxury vs. #he lives a life 3/23
MWEs Metagrammar Adding MWEs Evaluation Conclusions App A: Variability measure App B: annotation Bibliography Scale-wise regularity of properties [Lichte et al. (2018)] More regular ( ≻ ) = admitted by more objects (in a set) sample set: English Subj-Verb-Obj expressions ( John pulled the door ) “allow any head verb” ≻ “allow only the verb kick ” “allow passive” ≻ “prohibt passive” “allow a possessive determiner” John pushed the/my door ≻ “impose a possessive determiner” John broke his/our fall ‘John made his/our fall less forceful’ ≻ “impose a possessive agreeing with Subj” John crossed his fingers ‘John hoped for good luck’ John held his tongue ‘John refrained from expressing his view’ Idiosyncratic = irregular (shared by no two objects) Usually only the restrictive lexical selection is truly idiosyncratic (except in polysemous MWEs: go on ‘continue/happen’) 4/23
MWEs Metagrammar Adding MWEs Evaluation Conclusions App A: Variability measure App B: annotation Bibliography Scale-wise regularity of VMWEs [Gross(1986), Gross(1988)] Noun modification Det. alternation Noun inflection Verb reduction Verb inflection Free subject Free object Free verb Passive N 0 V ( DetN ) 1 expression N prend la pomme � � � � � � � � � ‘ N takes an apple ’ N prend une décision � � � � � � � ‘ N takes a decision ’ ⇒ ‘N makes a decision’ N tourne la page ‘ N turns the page ’ ⇒ ‘N stops dealing with sth.’ � � ? � � ? N prend la porte ‘ N takes the door ’ ⇒ ‘N leaves (because forced)’ � � 5/23
MWEs Metagrammar Adding MWEs Evaluation Conclusions App A: Variability measure App B: annotation Bibliography Lexical encoding of MWE variability/regularity – SOA Axis 1: Formalization of the lexicon-grammar interaction generic but insufficiently formalized MWE lexicons [Gross(1986), Mel’čuk et al. (1988), Grégoire(2010), Przepiórkowski et al. (2014), McShane et al. (2015)] formalized but grammar-bound MWE lexicons: HPSG [Sag et al. (2002), Copestake et al. (2002), Villavicencio et al. (2004), Bond et al. (2015), Herzig Sheinfux et al. (2015)], LFG [Attia(2006)], TAG [Abeillé and Schabes(1989), Abeillé and Schabes(1996), Vaidya et al. (2014), Lichte and Kallmeyer(2016)] Axis 2: Existence of factorization mechanisms no generalization of the MWE behavior [Al-Haj et al. (2014)] shallow generalization (limited degree of recursiveness) [Savary(2009), Grégoire(2010), Przepiórkowski et al. (2014), Herzig Sheinfux et al. (2015)] CFG-like metagrammar with FSs and unification for continuous MWEs [Jacquemin(2001)] 6/23
MWEs Metagrammar Adding MWEs Evaluation Conclusions App A: Variability measure App B: annotation Bibliography Lexical encoding of MWE variability/regularity – challenges Account for the scale-wise (ir)regularity of a MWE, while avoiding redundancy . Offer a perfectly formalized lexicon-grammar interface. Use a (relatively) theory-independent framework to mutualize VMWE lexicons. 7/23
MWEs Metagrammar Adding MWEs Evaluation Conclusions App A: Variability measure App B: annotation Bibliography XMG [Crabbé et al. (2013), Petitjean et al. (2016)] a language object-oriented – objects, classes, inheritance declarative – grammaticality is defined in terms of constraints rather than procedures notationally expressive - modularity, inheritance, conjunction/disjunction of tree fragments, namespaces extensible to new dimensions (semantics, frames etc.), formalisms (IG, etc.), linguistic principles (e.g. clitic ordering) a metagrammar compiler (for each target language, here FS-LTAG) – constraint solver: produces minimal tree models respecting the constraints 8/23
MWEs Metagrammar Adding MWEs Evaluation Conclusions App A: Variability measure App B: annotation Bibliography FrenchTAG – French XMG metagrammar [Crabbé et al. (2013)] XMG implementation of the syntactic TAG grammar of French by [Abeillé(2002)] 285 XMG classes, 96 families (classes assigned to lexemes), compiled into 9045 TAG trees toy lexicon of 555 lexemes, including 248 verbs Example Jean prend la porte ‘ John takes the door ’ ⇒ ‘John leaves because he is forced to’ XMG covers literal readings (by compositionality) XMG does not cover idiomatic readings 9/23
MWEs Metagrammar Adding MWEs Evaluation Conclusions App A: Variability measure App B: annotation Bibliography Morphology (simplified) 10/23
MWEs Metagrammar Adding MWEs Evaluation Conclusions App A: Variability measure App B: annotation Bibliography Lemmas Trivial classes stddeterminer → N propename → noun → CliticT → N ⋄ N ⋄ CL ⋄ D ⋄ N ∗ 11/23
MWEs Metagrammar Adding MWEs Evaluation Conclusions App A: Variability measure App B: annotation Bibliography From metagramar to parsing: n0Vn1 ( Jean prend la porte ) Metagrammar tree fragments inherited by n0Vn1 Grammar tree activeVerbMorphology → S CanonicalSubject → CanonicalObject → S VN S N ↓ N ↓ VN V ⋄ VN Derivation tree Derived tree 12/23
MWEs Metagrammar Adding MWEs Evaluation Conclusions App A: Variability measure App B: annotation Bibliography From metagramar to parsing: n0Vn1 ( Jean la prend ) Metagrammar tree fragments inherited by n0Vn1 Grammar tree activeVerbMorphology → S CanonicalSubject → CliticObject → S VN S . . . N ↓ CL ↓ VN V ⋄ VN Derivation tree Derived tree 13/23
MWEs Metagrammar Adding MWEs Evaluation Conclusions App A: Variability measure App B: annotation Bibliography XMG classes 14/23
MWEs Metagrammar Adding MWEs Evaluation Conclusions App A: Variability measure App B: annotation Bibliography Class hierarchy conjunction of classes TopLevelClass disjunction of classes VerbalArgument NonInvertedNominalSubject SubjectAgreement CanonicalArgument Clitic RealizedNonExtractedSubject CanonicalNonSubjectArg NonReflexiveClitic . . . CanonicalObject CliticObject3 . . . CanonicalSubject CliticSubject VerbalMorphology Subject ActiveVerbMorphology Object . . . . . . dian0Vn1ShortPassive dian0Vn1Passive dian0Vn1Active n0Vn1 15/23
MWEs Metagrammar Adding MWEs Evaluation Conclusions App A: Variability measure App B: annotation Bibliography Adding MWEs to the metagrammar [Savary et al. (sub)] Strategy add lexical entries for MWEs with co-anchors , use interface filters to express restrictive properties, reuse existing tree fragments for the (more) regular properties, decorate them with interface features , create new tree fragments for defective properties and for lexicalized arguments of various syntactic structures 16/23
MWEs Metagrammar Adding MWEs Evaluation Conclusions App A: Variability measure App B: annotation Bibliography MWE lemmas with co-anchors and filters 17/23
MWEs Metagrammar Adding MWEs Evaluation Conclusions App A: Variability measure App B: annotation Bibliography Previous tree fragments decorated with interface features 18/23
MWEs Metagrammar Adding MWEs Evaluation Conclusions App A: Variability measure App B: annotation Bibliography New XMG classes for lexicalized arguments 19/23
MWEs Metagrammar Adding MWEs Evaluation Conclusions App A: Variability measure App B: annotation Bibliography From metagramar to parsing: mwen0Vn1 ( Jean prend la porte ) Tree fragments inherited by mwen0Vn1 Grammar tree activeVerbMorphology → mweCanonicalObjectLex → S CanonicalSubject → mweDetNoun → S S VN N VN N N ↓ VN V ⋄ (no ↓ ) D ⋄ N ⋄ Derivation tree Derived tree 20/23
Recommend
More recommend
