-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 245
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
:tmod in English #893
Comments
It would be a little sad to throw out |
I don't know if this is the way how it's understood by the peopole who use |
If we want semantics wherever it might be useful for applications, we should have semantic roles. :) But I don't see that as the purpose of deprels. In English we have a policy that obl and nmod dependents are normally PPs, and need to be subtyped otherwise (as possessive |
Exactly - and I do see value in this, since it makes it possible to easily find PPs, which are definitely a syntactic class. The temporal thing is less justified as a syntactic label and somewhat redundant with entity types, which is a non-syntactic annotation. But just for stability and since it doesn't really hurt, I don't mind keeping the tmod subtype. |
Can't you easily find them looking for the |
There is, for instance, preposition stranding where the preposition gets promoted to |
In Croft's terms (as I understand them), the overarching category Note that the presence of a preposition is also a key criterion in determining the coreness of clausal dependents in English (any preposition-marked nominal is automatically |
Agreed @nschneid . Basically the shift in English subtype deprels is an indirect result of the prohibition on advmod with non-ADV IMO - if I had to merge obl:npmod/tmod with something, I would much rather see them merged with advmod than with obl/nmod, which are the canonical way to tag PPs in English. If we didn't have a clear label for PP heads I would see it as a big caveat to using UD for English. |
Just to give an external perspective, some time ago we have begun to introduce the I think that, judging from the current state of things, there is no problem in having a semantic subtype: this is what I also agree with @dan-zeman in not fully understanding what is the use of tagging the head of a prepositional phrase, which is tautologically such for already having a |
That's exactly how I've been using it in Scottish Gaelic but I think Irish does it semantically. |
Yup, the latest UD Hebrew corpus also does it this way (only when no preposition is there), so I think there are probably a few other corpora like that. |
I have had some trouble interpreting the
{obl,npmod}:tmod
as currently implemented in EWT. If:tmod
is part of the deprel, I would have assumed it was to distinguish certain constructions that have special syntax because they are temporal (such as prepositionless oblique nominal modifiers), basically as a temporal counterpart to the:npmod
relations. However, this is not a universal opinion:Originally posted by @dan-zeman in #508 (comment):
The guidelines quoted above make it sound like purely a semantic class distinction. Why, then, does it belong in a deprel?
There are in-between cases like measure phrases which appear in the
:npmod
docs but can be temporal ("5 miles longer/away" vs. "5 years later/ago", "10 dollars an hour" vs. "once a month").Section 7 of the Mischievous Nominal Constructions paper discussed
:npmod
and:tmod
and argued that both should be limited to adverbial (prepositionless) nominals. A different approach that might be simpler to interpret would be to limit:tmod
to certain temporally specific constructions like dates.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: