-
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
Update guidelines for fixed, flat, compound and be more careful about the term "multiword expression" #989
Comments
^ adds a new heading to illustrate fixed/flat vs. compound. If we keep this a link should be added in the outline at the top of the page. But there's still no real explanation in the syntax overview of what |
I am not sure such an explanation is needed in the syntax overview, which does not provide an exhaustive discussion of all relations, but is a construction-oriented description focusing on major construction types like nominals and clauses. In the case of compound, I think the relation definition is sufficient in itself. Moreover, since compounding is not restricted to nouns, it doesn't really belong in the nominals section either (except if we want to mention the special case of the nominal head being a noun-noun compound). A general discussion of compounding would have to go into a (new) section on "word formation" or "lexical relations". |
How about ^ this? It generalizes the MWE section to also cover compounds and headless structures. |
I see the point of doing this, but the current version is a bit of a rag-bag. Compounds and MWEs sort of fit together as "things that behave like single words", but flat expressions go beyond this (because they may be composed of phrases). |
I do think most flat expressions, like compounds and fixed expressions, are "quasi-lexical"—they tend to be proper names, or else borrowed foreign phrases that would be listed in a dictionary. The main exception is quoted foreign material. But apart from that, if two large units (e.g. sentences) appear next to each other without grammatical linkage, we don't call it |
Removed recommendation of Pages updated so far: |
Thanks, Nathan. The relation definitions look good to me now. However, I still find the initial paragraph on the “compound” relation out of place in the section on lexical relations, etc. I don’t see why we need to characterize the “compound” relation before explaining how it is (not) used, when we don’t do the same for “fixed” or “flat”. I would refer to simply remove this paragraph and rename the section “Multiword expressions and headless structures”. I think it reads much better that way, but I am curious to hear what others think.
Joakim
|
The definition start by "Structures analyzed with fixed and flat are headless by definition"
|
I'm open to suggestions on reorganizing/changing examples. I just think it would be strange not to acknowledge Just noticed this page also needs updating: https://universaldependencies.org/u/overview/syntax.html In fact, does all the discussion of MWEs belong there rather than under Other Constructions? |
Examples for |
@sylvainkahane I agree that the English |
I think that's a language-specific guidelines choice. In the case of these English items I agree that they are parallel to other constructions which are analyzed transparently, but this is true for almost any language - in UD French GSD we have "en ->fixed vigueur", which has a special legal meaning (a law is "in force"), but there is nothing special about the syntax AFAIK. In the English case we have some legacy choices from older editions of UD, and maybe those should have been decided differently, but I do not think it's unusual for fixed expressions to have some historically transparent syntax. As a matter of principle, I think once we say something is |
OK, I've merged the revised content into https://universaldependencies.org/u/overview/syntax.html and removed it from Other Constructions. Did my best to take into account the above suggestions to make things clearer. Also improved cross-linking within and across pages. How does that look? |
Thanks @nschneid. I am ok with this version (and I agreed with @amir-zeldes too). I am not sure it is useful to have two separate sections, one on Multiword function word and another, farther, on Multiword expressions and headless structures, especially because only multiword function words are annotated as MWEs in UD (which could be explicitly said). |
Thanks, Nathan. Looks good to me too. I think the section on “Multiword function words” is still justified, because it describes one of four listed exceptions to the rule that function words do not have dependents.
Joakim
|
I modified the overview table by moving “compound” to the “Special” group and replacing “MWE” with “Headless”, which seems appropriate for the two remaining relations in that group (“fixed” and “flat”). Since none of the other proposals was completely convincing, I agree with the comment by Marie that it is preferable to make a minimal change, so that people will recognize most of the table. |
It was agreed at the May 2023 Dagstuhl Seminar that the UD guidelines are not clear enough about the distinction between MWEs marked by semantic idiosyncrasy, which may be associated with a variety of kinds of expressions, and syntactic criteria for the
fixed
,flat
, andcompound
relations. (Dagstuhl report, p. 45)@jnivre has led a rewrite effort. This issue will track the guidelines updates.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: