| { |
| "paper_id": "C00-1005", |
| "header": { |
| "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", |
| "date_generated": "2023-01-19T13:30:04.468223Z" |
| }, |
| "title": "An ontology of systematic relations for a shared grammar of Slavic", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Tania", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Avgustinova", |
| "suffix": "", |
| "affiliation": { |
| "laboratory": "", |
| "institution": "Saarland University", |
| "location": { |
| "postBox": "P. O. Box 151150", |
| "postCode": "D-66041", |
| "settlement": "Saarbr\u00fccken, Germany" |
| } |
| }, |
| "email": "avgustinova@coli.uni-sb.de" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Hans", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Uszkoreit", |
| "suffix": "", |
| "affiliation": { |
| "laboratory": "Language Technology Lab, DFKI Computational Linguistics", |
| "institution": "Saarland University Saarbr\u00fccken", |
| "location": { |
| "postCode": "D-66041", |
| "settlement": "Germany" |
| } |
| }, |
| "email": "uszkoreit@dfki.de" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": "", |
| "venue": null, |
| "identifiers": {}, |
| "abstract": "Sharing portions of grammars across languages greatly reduces the costs of multilingual grammar engineering. Related languages share a much wider range of linguistic information than typically assumed in standard multilingual grammar architectures. Taking grammatical relatedness seriously, we are particularly interested in designing linguistically motivated grammatical resources for Slavic languages to be used in applied and theoretical computational linguistics. In order to gain the perspective of a language-family oriented grammar design, we consider an array of systematic relations that can hold between syntactical units. While the categorisation of primitive linguistic entities tends to be language-specific or even construction-specific, the relations holding between them allow various degrees of abstraction. On the basis of Slavic data, we show how a domain ontology conceptualising morphosyntactic \"building blocks\" can serve as a basis of a shared grammar of Slavic.", |
| "pdf_parse": { |
| "paper_id": "C00-1005", |
| "_pdf_hash": "", |
| "abstract": [ |
| { |
| "text": "Sharing portions of grammars across languages greatly reduces the costs of multilingual grammar engineering. Related languages share a much wider range of linguistic information than typically assumed in standard multilingual grammar architectures. Taking grammatical relatedness seriously, we are particularly interested in designing linguistically motivated grammatical resources for Slavic languages to be used in applied and theoretical computational linguistics. In order to gain the perspective of a language-family oriented grammar design, we consider an array of systematic relations that can hold between syntactical units. While the categorisation of primitive linguistic entities tends to be language-specific or even construction-specific, the relations holding between them allow various degrees of abstraction. On the basis of Slavic data, we show how a domain ontology conceptualising morphosyntactic \"building blocks\" can serve as a basis of a shared grammar of Slavic.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Abstract", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "body_text": [ |
| { |
| "text": "In applied computational linguistics, the need for developing and utilising operational notions of shared grammars stems from multilingual grammar engineering. If considerable portions of existing grammars can be reused for the specification of new grammars, development efforts can be greatly reduced. A shared grammar also facilitates the difficult task of maintaining consistency within and across the individual parallel grammars. In machine translation, the specification of a shared grammar can furthermore be exploited for simplifying the transfer process. Without much ado, computational linguists engaged in multilingual grammar development have always tried to reduce their labour by importing existing grammar components in a simple \"copy-pastemodify\" fashion. But there were also a number of systematic attempts to create and describe shared grammars that are convincingly documented in publications. [Kam88] demonstrates the concept for a relatively restricted domain, the grammatical description of simple nominal expressions in five languages. [BOP88] were able to exploit the grammatical overlap of two Slavic languages, for the design of a lean transfer process in Russian to Czech machine translation. In multilingual application development within Microsoft research, grammar sharing has extensively been exploited \u00b1 [Pin96] , [GLPR97] . However, all these approaches are rather opportunistic in the sense that existing grammatical descriptions based on existing grammar models were explored. We went a step further and started grammar design with a notion of a shared grammar for a family of related languages. Pursuing the goal of designing linguistically motivated grammatical resources for Slavic languages to be used in computational linguistics, one is inevitably confronted with primary problems stemming from the fact that different linguistic theories cut up grammars in quite different ways, and grammar formalisms differ in their degree of granularity. It cannot be expected, therefore, that the minimal differences between two languages or their shared elements form easily identifiable units in the available language-specific grammars. Therefore, an ontology conceptualising morphosyntactic \"building blocks\" would offer a solid basis for a shared grammar of Slavic in the sense of [ASU99] . Our use of the term ontology is fairly pragmatic, namely, as representing a formal shared conceptualisation of a particular domain of interest. It describes concepts relevant for the domain, their relationships, as well as \"axioms\" about these concepts and relationships. Note that such a pragmatic approach does not presuppose any general all-encompassing ontology of language but rather \"mini-ontologies\" conceptualising the selected domain from various perspectives in a consistent way. The domain of interest in this project is the grammatical knowledge on Slavic morphosyntax contained in linguistic theories and linguistic descriptions. While the categorisation of primitive linguistic entities tends to be language-specific or even construction-specific, the relations holding between them allow various degrees of abstraction. In order to gain the perspective of language-family oriented grammar design, we will consider the array of systematic relations that can hold between syntactically significant items.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 913, |
| "end": 920, |
| "text": "[Kam88]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF9" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1059, |
| "end": 1066, |
| "text": "[BOP88]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1336, |
| "end": 1343, |
| "text": "[Pin96]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF10" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1346, |
| "end": 1354, |
| "text": "[GLPR97]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF8" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 2315, |
| "end": 2322, |
| "text": "[ASU99]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF0" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Introduction", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Systematic relations motivate shared patterns of variation cross-linguistically as well as across constructions. In a constraint-based theory like HPSG, where the grammatical properties of linguistic entities are typically revealed in complex taxonomies, nothing in the formal apparatus would actually exclude the possibility to organise also the relations holding in syntactic constructions in a type hierarchy. So, the type subsumption could be interpreted as modelling a continuum from general -and presumably universal -systematic relations to more and still more specific instances of these relations resulting from admissible cross-classifications. 1 In our view, two orthogonal types of systematic relations have to be distinguished: syntagmatics and alignment, since they appear to be universally relevant for the well-formedness of utterances in any language (Hierarchy 1). 2 Syntagmatic relations play a constitutive role in syntax by establishing instant connections between linguistic entities in various constructions. There is a covert, meaningful dimension of structural syntagmatics, and an overt, morphosyntactic, form-oriented dimension of combinatorial syntagmatics. The continuity of syntactic units can be realised as immediate constituency (i.e. of type continuous) or as long-distance constituency (i.e. of type discontinuous). The directionality accounts for situations where, e.g., the head either follows the dependent or precedes it. In turn, the periphery of a syntactically determined domain can be left or right.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Systematic relations", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The structural syntagmatic relations between two syntactic units is classified along two primary dimensions which we call centricity and taxis (Hierarchy 3). The chosen terms should be understood in the context of distinguishing, on the one hand, endocentric and exocentric relations, and on the other hand, hypotaxis and parataxis. The endocentricity of a structural syntagmatic relation (between, e.g., \u03b1 and \u03b2) presupposes that one of the syntactic items involved in this relation (e.g., \u03b1) plays a prominent role. In contrast, the exocentricity of a structural syntagmatic relation presupposes no assumptions in this respect, hence, it can be viewed as the unmarked member of the centricity opposition. The hypotaxis means that there is a depend-ency of subordination between the involved syntactic items, while the parataxis is neutral in this respect and is regarded as the unmarked member of the taxis opposition. Consequently, if two linguistic entities belong together from the viewpoint of structural syntagmatics, they are involved in one of the following relation types which are obtained via admissible crossclassifications (Hierarchy 4). Endocentric hypotaxis, or selection. The headdependent configuration can be identified unambiguously. The prominent element is also the dominating one in the subordination. Exocentric hypotaxis, or modification. There is no prominent element to unambiguously take over the role of a dominating item in the subordination. Note that this is where (theory-specific) linguistic conventions regarding the head-dependent configuration actually begin. Endocentric parataxis. There is a prominent element in this relation, but no head-dependent configuration. Exocentric parataxis. In the relation holding between the involved linguistic entities there is neither a prominent element nor a head-dependent configuration. This is the unmarked case with respect to both centricity and taxis. Due to the fact that there always is a principal or leading element in the endocentric relations, different linguistic theories typically agree on how to interpret these relations structurally. But there is no consensus -often even within the same linguistic theory -on the structural interpretation of the exocentric relations. So, additional factors are usually taken into consideration as supporting the introduction of particular conventions. The latter, however, are not always linguistically motivated, the choice is sometimes arbitrary and often due to theory-specific technical reasons.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Structural syntagmatics", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The combinatorial dimension in the proposed taxonomy (Hierarchy 5) In [Cann93] (p. 51) these morphosyntactic relation is formulated for some construction involving \u03b3 and \u03b4 in the following way: \u03b3 governs \u03b4 if (i) varying the inflectional form of \u03b4 while keeping \u03b3 constant leads to ungrammaticality, and (ii) varying the form of \u03b3 and keeping \u03b4 constant makes no difference to grammaticality. The systematic co-variation of linguistic forms is typically realised as feature congruity, i.e. compatibility of values of identical grammatical categories of syntactically combined linguistic items. In our view, two general covariation types must be distinguished (cf. Hierarchy 6), namely, asymmetric and symmetric co-variation, with only the former actually corresponding to the traditional directional concept of agreement, e.g., [Cor98] . Hierarchy 6: Morphosyntactic co-variation As the term suggests, the asymmetry of co-variation presupposes a controller-target configuration. This is to be contrasted with the symmetry of covariation which is not interpretable in these terms. Symmetric co-variation, in essence, would presume redundancy as if both co-varying syntactic items were controllers and targets at the same time.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 70, |
| "end": 78, |
| "text": "[Cann93]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 828, |
| "end": 835, |
| "text": "[Cor98]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF6" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 53, |
| "end": 66, |
| "text": "(Hierarchy 5)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Combinatorial syntagmatics", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The endocentric hypotaxis corresponds to the traditional notion of selection. Even though not directly observable, it underlies specific morphosyntactic realities interpreted in Hierarchy 7 as resulting from a cross-classification with the combinatorial syntagmatic relation types. The traditional notion of subcategorisation can thus be viewed as a selection that is realised via govern- Finally, what we call matching corresponds to a selection realised via symmetric co-variation. Its most typical instance can be found where there is compatibility in person, number or gender between (possibly multiple) auxiliaries and a main verb. Matching usually co-occurs with a marking relation (cf. Table 2 ) which, as shown in Hierarchy 7, is interpreted as a juxtaposed selection.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 693, |
| "end": 700, |
| "text": "Table 2", |
| "ref_id": "TABREF4" |
| } |
| ], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Endocentric hypotaxis (selection)", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The exocentric hypotaxis corresponds to the traditional notion of modification. It underlies specific morphosyntactic realities resulting from a crossclassification with combinatorial syntagmatic relation types (cf. Hierarchy 8). In all of them, we are confronted with a relation of subordination in which, however, there is no indisputable prominent element. In general we assume that there is no \"case agreement\". Rather, the regular compatibility of case specifications between the involved syntactic items is due to a modification relation realised in a governed environment. In other words, we can regard concordial case as a typical instance of a governed modification. The asymmetric co-variation realising a modification relation can be called concord, but let us refer to it -for the sake of simplicity -as agreement 2. In the majority of Slavic languages, but obviously not in Bulgarian, this relation occurs in combination with concordial case (cf. Table 3 ). Note that in our approach the treatment of nominal apposition would be parallel to that of the adjectivenoun relations. Interestingly, the well-known \"instrumental\" problem -i.e. whether we are confronted with a complement or a free adjunct -narrows down in our approach to a fluctuation between adjunction (juxtaposed modification -Hierarchy 8) and subcategorisation (governed selection -Hierarchy 7), with the crucial point being merely a different centricity interpretation. Also the secondary predication (referring, typically, to the relation holding between a verb and a secondary controlled predicative) is a subtype of juxtaposed modification, with the predicative case adjunction as a more specific instance. As to the relation holding between the secondary predicative and the subject or the object, it is an instance of control and presupposes coreference. The latter two concepts realise an endocentric parataxis and are introduced in Hierarchy 9.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 960, |
| "end": 967, |
| "text": "Table 3", |
| "ref_id": "TABREF6" |
| } |
| ], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Exocentric hypotaxis (modification)", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In the endocentric parataxis there is a prominent item but no subordination relation. This allows us to model concepts like co-reference, correlation, comarking (illustrated by ex. 6) and control as naturally resulting from a cross-classification with the combinatorial syntagmatic relation types.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Endocentric parataxis", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "If an endocentric parataxis is revealed by an asymmetric co-variation, this results in co-reference. This systematic relation is found in relativisation (i.e. between a nominal category and the relative pronoun introducing a relative clause that modifies this nominal category), in resumption (i.e. between a nominal category and the pronominal element resuming it in a different syntactic domain), and in binding (i.e. between a pronoun and its antecedent). When, however, an endocentric parataxis is revealed in a symmetric co-variation, we can speak of correlation. But in both instances of co-variation, we are confronted with pairing indices (or restricted parameters) of referential objects. What we propose to distinguish as co-marking corresponds to endocentric parataxis that is realised via juxtaposition. So, it contrasts with the systematic relation of marking (presented in Hierarchy 7) only along the taxis dimension of structural syntagmatics inasmuch as there is no subordination relation between the involved syntactic items. As to the systematic relation of syntactic control, it is registered in our taxonomy as an endocentric parataxis resulting in a form government. In Bulgarian, it co-occurs with co-reference \u00b1 ex. 3 and ex. 4. ", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Endocentric parataxis", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The exocentric parataxis is the actual unmarked case: there is neither a prominent element nor a subordination relation between the involved syntactic items. A cross-classification with combinatorial syntagmatic relation types allows us to encode further phenomena that are shown Hierarchy 10. ", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Exocentric parataxis", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "We have presented an approach of computational grammar design that supports the notion of grammar sharing and, moreover, lends itself to the formal linguistic description of individual languages as well as language families. The basic building blocks of such a grammar were demonstrated with the example of Slavic languages. Grammars of this type can straightforwardly be extended and employed in a number of development and runtime systems accommodating HPSG. Some of these systems have reached a parsing efficiency that makes them suited for a variety of applications, [FOTU2000] . Although the original motivation for the work came from applied research, the insights that were gained on the differences between Slavic languages, led to new results in comparative linguistic description. We expect that psycholinguistic research on bilingualism and second language acquisition will greatly benefit from opportunities of modelling shared grammatical knowledge. The insights gained by such models will in turn be useful for CALL applications and for the computational treatment of cross-language interference in grammar and style checking.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 571, |
| "end": 581, |
| "text": "[FOTU2000]", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Conclusion and prospects", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "ex. 1 (Russian) 'She turned out a healthy girl.'", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Sample analyses (relational charts)", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "\"TBAIPH UHODWLRQDO FDVH >120@ DJUHHPHQW >6*)@ ", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "2QD", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The two types of edges connecting types in our graphical representation of hierarchies -'square' and 'direct' -are significant. The former indicate possible conjunction of types, and thus introduce various dimensions of multiple inheritance. The latter indicate disjunction of types within the respective dimension of classification.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The intonational organisation of utterances by the way is another systematic relation exhibiting this trait. A more thorough investigation of the intonational aspect would be well beyond the morphosyntactic orientation of the present work.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "back_matter": [], |
| "bib_entries": { |
| "BIBREF0": { |
| "ref_id": "b0", |
| "title": "Typological similarities in HPSG: a case study on Slavic verb diathesis", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "T", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Avgustinova", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "W", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Skut", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "H", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Uszkoreit", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": null, |
| "venue": "Slavic in HPSG", |
| "volume": "1999", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "1--28", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Avgustinova, T., W. Skut and H. Uszkoreit. Typologi- cal similarities in HPSG: a case study on Slavic verb diathe- sis. In Przepi\u00f3rkowski, A. and R. Borsley (ed.) Slavic in HPSG. CSLI 1999: 1-28", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF2": { |
| "ref_id": "b2", |
| "title": "Clustering clitics in Bulgarian nominal constituents", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "T", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Avgustinova", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1997, |
| "venue": "Proceedings of FDSL-2", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Avgustinova, T. Clustering clitics in Bulgarian nomi- nal constituents. In: Proceedings of FDSL-2, Potsdam 1997", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF3": { |
| "ref_id": "b3", |
| "title": "Some problems of machine translation between closely related languages", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "A", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Bemovi", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "K", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Oliva", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "J", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Panevovi", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1988, |
| "venue": "Proceedings of COLING'88", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Bemovi, A., K. Oliva and J. Panevovi. Some prob- lems of machine translation between closely related lan- guages. In: Proceedings of COLING'88, Budapest 1988", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF4": { |
| "ref_id": "b4", |
| "title": "Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "B", |
| "middle": [ |
| "J" |
| ], |
| "last": "Blake", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Case", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1994, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Blake, B.J. Case. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguis- tics. Cambridge University Press, 1994", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF5": { |
| "ref_id": "b5", |
| "title": "Heads in grammatical theory", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "R", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Cann", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Patterns", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Headedness", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1993, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "44--72", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Cann, R. Patterns of headedness In: Corbett, G., N. Fraser and S. McGlashan (ed.) Heads in grammatical the- ory. Cambridge University Press, 1993. 44-72", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF6": { |
| "ref_id": "b6", |
| "title": "Comparative Slavic Morphosyntax: The State of the Art", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "G", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Corbett", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1998, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Corbett, G. Agreement in Slavic. Position paper for the workshop \"Comparative Slavic Morphosyntax: The State of the Art\", Indiana University, 1998", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF8": { |
| "ref_id": "b8", |
| "title": "Practical experience with grammar sharing in multilingual NLP", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "M", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Gamon", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": ".", |
| "middle": [ |
| "C" |
| ], |
| "last": "Lozano", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "J", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Pinkham", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "T", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Reutter", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1997, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Gamon, M., .C. Lozano, J. Pinkham and T. Reutter. Practical experience with grammar sharing in multilingual NLP. Technical report MSR-TR-97-16, Redmond 1997", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF9": { |
| "ref_id": "b9", |
| "title": "Atomization in grammar sharing", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "M", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Kameyama", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1988, |
| "venue": "Proceedings of 26th Annual Meeting of ACL", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Kameyama, M. Atomization in grammar sharing. In: Proceedings of 26th Annual Meeting of ACL, New York 1988", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF10": { |
| "ref_id": "b10", |
| "title": "Grammar Sharing in French and English", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "J", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Pinkham", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": null, |
| "venue": "Proceedings of IANLP 1996", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Pinkham, J. Grammar Sharing in French and English. In: Proceedings of IANLP 1996", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF11": { |
| "ref_id": "b11", |
| "title": "Kongruenz -Rektion -Adjunktion. Systematische und historische Untersuchungen zur allgemeinen Morphosyntax und zu den Wortf\u00fcgungen (slovoso\u00feetanija) im Russischen. Specimina Philologiae Slavicae", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "P", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Schmidt", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "W", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Lehfeldt", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1995, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Schmidt, P. and W. Lehfeldt. Kongruenz -Rektion - Adjunktion. Systematische und historische Untersuchungen zur allgemeinen Morphosyntax und zu den Wortf\u00fcgungen (slovoso\u00feetanija) im Russischen. Specimina Philologiae Slavicae. M\u00fcnchen: Otto Sagner 1995", |
| "links": null |
| } |
| }, |
| "ref_entries": { |
| "FIGREF0": { |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "uris": null, |
| "num": null, |
| "text": "hthvp" |
| }, |
| "FIGREF1": { |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "uris": null, |
| "num": null, |
| "text": "largely corresponds, in our understanding, to what [S&L95] regard as morphological signalling of direct syntactic relations. Combinatorial syntagmatics The combinatorial syntagmatic relation of juxtaposition presupposes no overt morphological indication. As to government, it is traditionally understood as the determination by one element of the inflectional form of the other, i.e. form government. Its classical instance is, of course, case government." |
| }, |
| "TABREF3": { |
| "num": null, |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "content": "<table><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>V\\QWDJPDWLFV</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>FRPELQDWRULDO</td><td>VWUXFWXUDO</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">entity a</td><td colspan=\"2\">entity b</td><td/><td/><td/><td>systematic relations</td><td>Slavic languages</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">noun INDEX 1</td><td colspan=\"2\">INFL 1 verb</td><td/><td/><td/><td>FRYDULDWLRQ agreement 1 with subject a relational case</td><td>FHQWULFLW\\ Russian, Polish, Czech</td><td>WD[LV</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>DV\\PPHWULF subcategorisation</td><td>V\\PPHWULF</td><td>JRYHUQPHQW Bulgarian MX[WDSRVLWLRQ</td><td>HQGR</td><td>H[R</td><td>K\\SR</td><td>SDUD</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>agreement 1 with subject a</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">noun HEAD|CASE 2 INDEX 1</td><td colspan=\"3\">\u2032 phrasal \u2032-lexeme HEAD|LEX-FORMANT</td><td colspan=\"2\">HEAD|CASE 2 INDEX 1</td><td>cross-referencing agreement 1 with experiencer a</td><td>ryrpv</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>htrrr\u00c3</td><td>hpuvt</td><td>hxvt</td><td>iphrtvhv</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">noun HEAD|CASE 2 INDEX 1</td><td colspan=\"4\">\u2032cliticized \u2032-verb CLITICS HEAD|CASE 2 INDEX 1</td><td>, ...</td><td>cross-referencing agreement 1 with complement a</td><td>prsrrpvt iwrp\u00c3pyvvpvhv</td><td>ryhvhy\u00c3phr</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">possessor -np</td><td colspan=\"2\">\u2032cliticized \u2032-noun</td><td/><td/><td/><td>Hierarchy 7: Selection</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">HEAD|CASE 2 INDEX 1</td><td colspan=\"2\">POSS-CLITIC</td><td colspan=\"3\">HEAD|CASE 2 INDEX 1</td><td>cross-referencing agreement 1 with specifier a</td></tr><tr><td>noun</td><td/><td>copula</td><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>relational case</td><td>Polish, Czech</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">INDEX 1</td><td colspan=\"2\">INFL 1</td><td/><td/><td/><td>agreement 1 with subject a</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>subcategorisation</td><td>Bulgarian</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>agreement 1 with subject a</td></tr><tr><td>copula</td><td/><td colspan=\"2\">predicative -noun</td><td/><td/><td/><td>Polish, Czech</td></tr><tr><td>INFL</td><td>NUMBER 1 GENDER 2</td><td colspan=\"3\">INDEX NUMBER 1</td><td/><td/><td>relational case agreement 1 with complement b</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"3\">predicative -adjective</td><td/><td/><td>Bulgarian</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>INFL</td><td colspan=\"2\">NUMBER 1 GENDER 2</td><td/><td/><td>subcategorisation agreement 1 with complement b</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">Table 1: Subcategorisation and agreement 1</td><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">entity a</td><td colspan=\"2\">entity b</td><td/><td/><td/><td>systematic relations</td><td>Slavic languages</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">auxiliary</td><td>verb</td><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>marking</td><td>Bulgarian</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">INFL 1</td><td colspan=\"2\">INFL 2</td><td/><td/><td/><td>matching</td><td>? (Russian, Czech, Polish)</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>subcategorisation</td><td>Russian, Czech, Polish</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>agreement 1 with complement b</td></tr></table>", |
| "text": "ment. Two general options are usually available across languages for externalising the governed selection (i.e. subcategorisation) of nominal categories in actual syntactic constructions. Bulgarian analytic verb forms between the main verb as a syntactic (and semantic) head and the possibly multiple auxiliary verbs as markers specifying it. The agreement between the verb and its subject or complement is interpreted in our taxonomy as a selection realised via asymmetric co-variation (agreement 1). It typically occurs in combination with the relation of subcategorisation (cf.Table 1) which in languages employing relational case is realised as case assignment, while in those employing cross-referencing as a syntactic function identification.", |
| "html": null |
| }, |
| "TABREF4": { |
| "num": null, |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "content": "<table/>", |
| "text": "Marking and matching", |
| "html": null |
| }, |
| "TABREF5": { |
| "num": null, |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "content": "<table><tr><td colspan=\"3\">constructions, provided appropriate categories are</td><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td>available. entity a</td><td>entity b</td><td>systematic relations</td><td/><td/><td colspan=\"4\">Slavic languages</td></tr><tr><td>adjective INFL CASE 1 NUMBER 2 GENDER 3</td><td>noun INDEX HEAD|CASE 1 GENDER 3 NUMBER 2</td><td colspan=\"2\">agreement 2 (concord) concordial case</td><td/><td colspan=\"4\">Russian, Polish, Czech</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>governed modification</td><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">Bulgarian</td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">agreement 2 (concord)</td><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td>noun INDEX NUMBER 2 HEAD|CASE 1</td><td>INDEX NUMBER 2 noun</td><td colspan=\"2\">agreement 2 (concord) concordial case</td><td/><td colspan=\"4\">Russian, Polish, Czech</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>governed modification</td><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">Bulgarian</td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">agreement 2 (concord)</td><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">V\\QWDJPDWLFV</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">FRPELQDWRULDO</td><td/><td/><td>VWUXFWXUDO</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">FRYDULDWLRQ</td><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">FHQWULFLW\\</td><td>WD[LV</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>DV\\PPHWULF</td><td colspan=\"2\">V\\PPHWULF</td><td>MX[WDSRVLWLRQ</td><td>JRYHUQPHQW</td><td>HQGR</td><td>H[R</td><td>K\\SR</td><td>SDUD</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>qvsvphv</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">htrrr\u00c3!</td><td>vvyr</td><td colspan=\"3\">whrq\u00c3qvsvphvv</td><td>trrq\u00c3qvsvphv</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>ppq</td><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">phr\u00c3hqwpv</td><td colspan=\"3\">rpqh\u00c3rqvphv</td><td>ppqvhy\u00c3phr</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"3\">rqvphvr\u00c3phr\u00c3hqwpv</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"4\">Hierarchy 8: Modification</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"7\">The main difference between the agreement 1</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"7\">(Hierarchy 7) and the agreement 2 (or concord)</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"7\">discussed here amounts to the fact that these co-</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"7\">variation relations exhibit different centricity.</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"7\">Cross-classifying exocentric hypotaxis with sym-</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"7\">metric co-variation results in what can be called</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"7\">simile and is typically observed in comparative</td></tr></table>", |
| "text": "This systematic relation differs from that of parallelism (distinguished in Hierarchy 10) in being hypotactic in nature, and thus, an actual instance of modification. Similarly to the asymmetric agreement 2 (concord), the simile relation co-occurs with concordial case, cf. ex. 6. The systematic relation of (case) adjunction is an instance of juxtaposed modification.", |
| "html": null |
| }, |
| "TABREF6": { |
| "num": null, |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "content": "<table/>", |
| "text": "Concordial case and agreement 2 (concord)", |
| "html": null |
| }, |
| "TABREF8": { |
| "num": null, |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "content": "<table><tr><td colspan=\"4\">dependence relation (cf. entity a entity b</td><td>systematic relations</td><td/><td/><td/><td>Slavic languages</td></tr><tr><td>noun</td><td/><td colspan=\"2\">predicative -noun</td><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td>INDEX</td><td>NUMBER 1 GENDER 2</td><td colspan=\"2\">INDEX NUMBER 1 predicative -adjective</td><td colspan=\"4\">co-dependence complement b agreement 3 (accord) between subject a and</td><td>(Russian ?), Bulgarian, Polish, Czech</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>INFL</td><td>NUMBER 1 GENDER 2</td><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td>noun</td><td/><td>noun</td><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td>INDEX</td><td>NUMBER 1 GENDER 2</td><td colspan=\"2\">INDEX NUMBER 1 GENDER 2 INFL NUMBER 1 adjective</td><td colspan=\"3\">co-dependence object a and secondary predicative b agreement 3 (accord) between subject /</td><td/><td>Russian, Bulgarian, Polish, Czech</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>V\\QWDJPDWLFV</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">FRPELQDWRULDO</td><td/><td>VWUXFWXUDO</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">FRYDULDWLRQ</td><td/><td/><td>FHQWULFLW\\</td><td>WD[LV</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>DV\\PPHWULF</td><td>V\\PPHWULF</td><td>MX[WDSRVLWLRQ</td><td colspan=\"2\">JRYHUQPHQW</td><td>HQGR</td><td>H[R</td><td>K\\SR</td><td>SDUD</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>rhh</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">htrrr\u00c3\"</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>hhyyryv</td><td colspan=\"2\">pqvhv</td><td>pqrrqrpr</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">hppq</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"4\">Hierarchy 10: Exocentric parataxis</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"5\">The relation of co-dependence plays a crucial role</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"5\">in a number of constructions. It is an exocentric</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"5\">parataxis that is realised via government, with a</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"5\">special requirement that all involved syntactic items</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"5\">have the same governor. In other words, these items</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"5\">are typically dependents of the same syntactic head.</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"5\">What we call agreement 3 (or accord) corresponds</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"5\">to an exocentric parataxis that is realised via asym-</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"5\">metric co-variation. It regularly presupposes a co-</td></tr></table>", |
| "text": "Table 4), and its most typical instance can be found as a compatibility in number or gender between the subject and the predicative in copular constructions. Another instance is the co-dependence relation holding between a dependent of the primary predicate (i.e. the verb) and a secondary predicative in ex. 1 and ex. 2.When exocentric parataxis is externalised by a symmetric co-variation, we are confronted with parallelism. It co-occurs in ex. 5 with codependence. The coordination relation is generally interpretable as an exocentric paratactic juxtaposition.", |
| "html": null |
| }, |
| "TABREF9": { |
| "num": null, |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "content": "<table/>", |
| "text": "Co-dependence and agreement 3 (accord)", |
| "html": null |
| }, |
| "TABREF10": { |
| "num": null, |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "content": "<table><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">UHODWLRQDO FDVH >120@</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">\"QGIPH</td><td>DJUHHPHQW >3/@</td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>YHOHOL</td><td colspan=\"2\">UHODWLRQDO FDVH >'$7@ VXEFDWHJRULVDWLRQ >,1)@</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>qrrqQG</td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>HPX</td><td>FRQWURO</td><td>FRGHSHQGHQFH</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>\"TBH96U</td><td>DJUHHPHQW DFFRUG >6*0@</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>SULMWL</td><td>SUHGLFDWLYH FDVH DGMXQFWLRQ >,167@</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>prDIA</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>XP\\W\\P</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>hurqTBHDITU</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">ex. 3 (Bulgarian) 'John saw Mary ill (reportedly).'</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>,YDQ</td><td/><td>VXEFDWHJRULVDWLRQ</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>Dh\"TBH</td><td/><td>DJUHHPHQW >6*0@</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">MD</td><td>REMHFW FOLWLFLVDWLRQ</td><td>FURVVUHIHUHQFLQJ</td><td>FRQWURO</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">688TBA</td><td>DJUHHPHQW >6*)@</td><td>FRUHIHUHQFH >6*)@</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>YLGMDO</td><td>VXEFDWHJRULVDWLRQ</td><td>VHFRQGDU\\ SUHGLFDWLRQ</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>h\"TBH</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>0DULD</td><td>FRQWURO</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>HhTBA</td><td>FRUHIHUHQFH >6*)@</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>EROQD</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>vyyTBA</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">ex. 4 (Bulgarian) 'You would come disguised (reportedly).'</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>7L</td><td/><td>VXEFDWHJRULVDWLRQ</td><td>FRQWURO</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>!TB</td><td/><td>DJUHHPHQW >6*@</td><td>FRUHIHUHQFH >6*@</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>VL</td><td colspan=\"2\">PDUNLQJ</td><td>PDUNLQJ</td><td>FRQWURO</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>6VY!TB</td><td colspan=\"2\">PDWFKLQJ >6*)@</td><td>PDWFKLQJ >6*)@</td><td>FRUHIHUHQFH >6*)@</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>\u00e3WMDOD</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">6VYTBA</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>GD</td><td>PDUNLQJ</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>hvpyr</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>GRMGH\u00e3</td><td>VHFRQGDU\\ SUHGLFDWLRQ</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>pr!TB</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>PDVNLUDQD</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>qvtvrqTBA</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">ex. 5 (Polish) 'I consider him to be nice / to be a fool.'</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>8ZD DP</td><td colspan=\"2\">UHODWLRQDO FDVH >$&&@</td><td>UHODWLRQDO FDVH >SUHSRVLWLRQDO $&&@</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">pvqr TB</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>JR</td><td>FRGHSHQGHQFH</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>\"TBH688</td><td>SDUDOOHOLVP >6*0 6*0@</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>]D</td><td>PDUNLQJ</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>s</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>PL\u00e1HJR GXUQLD</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>vprTBH688\u00c3\u00c3sy\"TBH688</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">ex. 6 (Russian) 'I suffered for him as for a son.'</td></tr><tr><td>-D</td><td colspan=\"2\">UHODWLRQDO FDVH >120@</td><td/></tr><tr><td>TB</td><td colspan=\"2\">DJUHHPHQW >6*@</td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>VWUDGDOD</td><td colspan=\"2\">UHODWLRQDO FDVH >SUHSRVLWLRQDO $&&@ DGMXQFWLRQ</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>ssrrqTBA</td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>]D s</td><td colspan=\"2\">PDUNLQJ RND]DODV rqTBA</td><td>QHJR \"TBH688 urhyuTBADITU ]GRURYRM</td><td>FRPDUNLQJ FRGHSHQGHQFH DJUHHPHQW DFFRUG >6*)@ FRQFRUGLDO FDVH >$&&@ UHODWLRQDO FDVH >,167@ VLPLOH >6*0@ DJUHHPHQW >6*)@ NDN PDUNLQJ FRQFRUGLDO FDVH >,167@ h DJUHHPHQW FRQFRUG >6*)@ ]D</td></tr></table>", |
| "text": "GHYR\u00feNRMtvyTBADITU ex. 2 (Russian) 'They ordered him to come washed.' 2QL", |
| "html": null |
| } |
| } |
| } |
| } |
