Leonid Iomdin Institute for Information Transmission Problems, Russian Academy of Sciences [email protected], [email protected] Program Overview: p. 1 1. Basic Principles of The Meaning-Text theory by Igor Meluk. Language as a Universal Translator of Senses to Texts and Texts to Senses. Text analysis and text generation. The theory of integral linguistic description by Juri Apresjan. The grammar
and the dictionary of language. 2. Two syntactic levels of sentence representation: surface syntax and deep syntax. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 2 Program Overview: p. 2 3. The dependency tree structure as a syntactic representation of the sentence. Dependency tree vs. Constituent tree: advantages and drawbacks of both types of
representation. Limits of the dependency tree. The hypothesis of two syntactic starts. 4. The notions of syntactic relation. Major classes of syntactic relations: actant, attributive, coordinative and auxiliary relation classes. 5. The notion of syntactic feature. Syntactic features vs. Semantic features. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 3 Program Overview: p. 3 6. Actants and valencies. Active, passive and distant
valencies. The government pattern of a dictionary entry. An overview of actant syntactic relations. The predicative relation. The agentive relation. Completive relations. 7. An overview of attributive syntactic relations. Grammatical Agreement. Numerals and Quantitative Constructions. The system of Quantification Syntax of Russian. 8. Grammatical coordination as a type of grammatical subordination. An overview of coordinative syntactic relations. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 4
Program Overview: p. 4 9. Auxiliary syntactic relations. Analytical grammatical forms as an object of syntax. 10. Microsyntax of Language. Minor Type Sentences. Syntactic Idioms. 11. Lexical Functions in the Dictionary and the Grammar. 12. Syntactic description and syntactic rules. Dependency Syntax in NLP. Dependency Syntax in Machine Translation. Syntactically Tagged Corpus of Texts. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14
5 Lexical Functions Substitute LF synonyms, antonyms, converse terms, derivatives Collocate LF MAGN = 'a high degree of what is denoted by X OPER/FUNC ...
December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 6 Lexical Functions: Magn MAGN (disease) MAGN (fog) MAGN (control) = grave = heavy = strict MAGN ()
MAGN () = = MAGN () = December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 7 Lexical Functions: Oper / Func Family INVITATION issues
1 the minister 2 receives the ambassador December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 8
Examples of LF Oper Oper1 (invitation) = issue Oper2 (invitation) = receive Oper1 (defeat) = suffer Oper2 (resistence) = encounter Oper2 (respect) = enjoy December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 9 Examples of LF Func Func1 (fear) = possess Func2 (decision) = concern
Func1 (responsibility) = rest (with) Func2 (vengeance) = fall (upon) December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 10 General Properties of Lexical Functions Universality Intralinguistic idiomaticity grave disease, heavy fog
*heavy disease, *grave fog. Cross-linguistic idiomaticity Rus. tjazhelaja bolezn heavy disease Rus. gustoj tuman dense fog December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 11 General Properties of Lexical Functions (cont.) Paraphrasing Potential:
He respects [X] his teachers He has [OPER1 (S0 (X))] respect [S0 (X)] for his teachers He treats [LABOR12 (S0 (X))] his teachers with respect His teachers enjoy [OPER2 (S0 (X))] his respect December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 12
LF in Practical Applications Syntactic and Lexical Ambiguity Resolution in Parsers Idiomatic Translation of a Large Class of Set Expressions in Machine Translation Sentence Paraphrasing December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 13 Lexical Ambiguity Resolution to draw a distinction - provodit'
razlichie Both verbs are extremely ambiguous: draw - more than 50 meanings provodit - more than 10 meanings December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 14 Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution support of the army 'support by the army' 'support (given) to the army'
The president had [Y=OPER2(X)] the support [X] of the army December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 15 Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution The fear [X] of his wife
possessed [Y = FUNC1 (X)] Peter The fears of his wife infected Peter. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 16 Idiomatic translation: LF Temp March: in Tuesday: on
dawn: at moment: at Easter: at mart: v2 vtornik: v1 rassvet: na2 moment:v1
pasxa: na1 December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 17 Sentence Paraphrasing X = CONV12 (X) This group consists of 20 persons Twenty persons comprise this group; X + Y = ANTI1(X) + ANTI2(Y) He began to observe the rules
He stopped violating the rules X = LABOR12 + S0(X) He respects his parents He treats his parents with respect December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 18 ETAP-3 Options 1. Machine Translation 2. Deeply Annotated Text Corpus of Russian 3. 4. 5.
6. (SynTagRus) Translation System Based on UNL (Universal Networking Language) Interlingua Synonymous and Quasi-Synonymous Paraphrasing of Utterances Computer-Aided Language Learning Tool New Developments: Semantics and Ontologies December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 19
SynTagRus Currently the treebank contains over 42,000 sentences (ca. over 600,000 words) belonging to texts of a variety of genres (contemporary fiction, popular science, newspaper and journal articles dated between 1960 and 2009, texts of online news etc.) and is steadily growing. It is an integral but fully autonomous part of the Russian National Corpus developed in a nationwide research project. It can be freely consulted on the Web (www.ruscorpora.ru). December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14
20 SynTagRus Since Russian is a language with relatively free word order, SYNTAGRUS adopted a dependencybased annotation scheme, in a way parallel to the Prague Dependency Treebank (see e.g. Haji et al. 2000). December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 21 SynTagRus
December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 22 SynTagRus What we have just seen is a screenshot of the dependency tree for the sentence (1) , It was the continuing growth of petrol prices set by oil companies that caused the greatest indignation of the participants of
the meeting. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 23 SynTagRus Here, nodes represent words (lemmas) assigned morphological and part-of-speech tags, whilst arcs are labeled with names of syntactic links. The tagging uses about 75 syntactic
links, half of them proposed in Igor Meluks Meaning Text Theory (Meluk 1988). December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 24 SynTagRus Normally, one token corresponds to one node in the dependency tree. There are however a noticeable number of exceptions. The main types of exceptions include:
December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 25 1)composite words like fifty-storeyed where one token corresponds to two or more nodes; 2)so-called phantom nodes
for the representation of hard cases of ellipsis which do not correspond to any particular token in the sentence (cf. , lit. I bought a shirt and he a tie, which is expanded into , PHANTOM I bought a shirt and he bought PHANTOM a tie; 3)multiword expressions like SynTagRus
December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 26 SynTagRus Morphological Tagging of SYNTAGRUS is based on a comprehensive morphological dictionary of Russian that counts about 130,000 entries (over 4 million word forms). ETAP-3 morphological analyzer uses the dictionary to produce morphological annotation of words belonging to the
corpus, which includes the lemma, POS tags, and, depending on POS, a set of morphological features. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 27 Syntactic Markup Language The syntactic markup language of the corpus is XML, because it is universally accepted and because it satisfies certain important requirements that the corpus must meet:
December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 28 Syntactic Markup Language 1) the corpus must feature several layers of linguistic data that can be extracted from the annotation independently of each other; 2) it should be scalable and incrementable both quantitatively and qualitatively so that new types of information could be added easily; 3)it must be supplied by standard programming
means for text parsing, sophisticated search, and conversion. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 29 Structure Editor It is a complex software environment aimed at 1.automatic generation of morpho-syntactic and lexical functional annotation of texts, 2.manual editing of annotation results, and 3.fully manual annotation.
Automatic generation is only possible for texts in natural languages that are supported by the ETAP-3 linguistic processor . December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 30 Structure Editor In principle, Structure Editor is not language-specific and can be used for annotation of texts in any natural language, primarily one with rich
morphology. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 31 Structure Editor StrEd allows the annotator to use diverse dialog interfaces in order to 1.view the whole text; 2.view a sentence as a table in which every line corresponds to a particular word of the sentence; 3.view the syntactic dependency tree for a sentence;
4.to view information on a particular word of the sentence; 5.view the discrepancies within the results of automatic tagging and manual tagging of a sentence. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 32 Structure Editor StrEd view presenting the sample text at an initial stage with no morphosyntactic tagging performed.
December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 33 Structure Editor As a rule, the first step of text annotation is automatic tagging. After it is obtained, the sentences are revised by the annotator, who detect and corrects the errors. To conveniently view the dependency tree structure and manipulate with it, Edit Structure dialog can be used.
December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 34 Structure Editor December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 35 Structure Editor In this view, the annotator can perform all typical actions that modify the original tagging; in
particular, the editor can rearrange the structure or delete the syntactic relations by simple mouse gestures, alter the lemmas, syntactic links, or grammatical features. If these operations do not suffice to obtain the desirable results, the annotator may continue the editing by switching to another dialog, intended for sentence properties viewing and manipulation, which allows performing less typical operations with the sentence. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 36
Structure Editor December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 37 Morpho-syntactic annotation
. Beehives and ant colonies serve as a good example: despite a relative simplicity of the body of individual insects and insignificant potentials of their brains, the social medium formed by them is a very complex system which is distinguished by exceptional strength and harmony of functioning. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 39 Morpho-syntactic annotation
December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 40 Lexical Functional Annotation The newest version of SYNTAGRUS contains partial lexical functional annotation: for collocations that could be presented with the apparatus of lexical functions, the tagging includes information on values and attributes of such lexical functions. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14
41 Lexical Functional Annotation December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 42 Lexical Functional Annotation December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 43
Lexical Functional Annotation Lexical functional annotation of a corpus sentence 1. 2. 3. can be produced in three ways: automatically, together with syntactic parsing by running the ETAP-3 parser on the sentence; automatically, by running a subset of ETAP-3 rules on the ready syntactic structure of the sentence
approved by the expert; using the StrEd option Let ETAP find them (LFs), manually. The list of LF argument and values, irrespective of the way it was produced, can be manually edited: information on functions can be modified, added, or removed. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 44 Annotation Tools Considering the significant size of
SYNTAGRUS (over 500,000 words ) the annotation process has to be automated to the fullest extent possible. On the other hand, automatic annotation has to allow for verification and, if need be, correction by a human expert. This means that the environment has to provide for comfortable viewing and editing of annotated texts. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 45 Intellectual Debugger
In order to diagnose nontrivial annotation errors, a powerful instrument, Intellectual Debugger (IntelDeb), was specially created to verify, in one quick step, whether the current syntactic annotation of a sentence (probably the result of several human interventions) is compatible with at least one of the parsing in principle achievable through the automatic ETAP-3 parser. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 46
Intellectual Debugger IntelDeb can be considered as a specific parser which, unlike the regular ETAP parser, does not produce multiple parses of a sentence. Instead, if the IntelDeb finds that the structure being subject to verification is inadmissible, its goal is to diagnose the cause, or causes, of the situation as precisely as possible. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 47
Intellectual Debugger The underlying idea is to run the parser consecutively on all binary subtrees as presented by the annotation and see whether the existing syntactic rules and dictionaries permit the construction of such subtrees. The algorithm checks all rules with regard to a specific syntactic link (there may be dozens of such rules and all possible lemmas for the given pair of words, starting with the rules and lemmas cited in the annotation but gradually loosening the grip and resorting to other rules and lemmas if the current
choice cannot be confirmed. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 48 The Hypothesis of Two Syntactic Starts We will be dealing with a special type of sentences with embedded (semi-)phraseological expressions like He does the Devil knows what or its Russian equivalent . December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14
49 The Hypothesis of Two Syntactic Starts It is very difficult to build adequate syntactic representations for such sentences. A controversial solution is proposed for this problem, admitting that sentences of this type have two syntactic starts, or syntactic heads. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 50
Problem (1) (2) He does the Devil knows what (3) / / ! (Marina Tsvetayeva) (4) I felt so flattered to climb after you God knows where December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 51 References
Haspelmath, Martin. Indefinite pronouns. Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. Lakoff, George. Syntactic Amalgams. // Papers from the 10th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic society, 1974, pp. 321-344. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 52 References Testelets Y., E. Bylinina. Sluicing-Based
Indefinites in Russian. // Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 13: The South Carolina Meeting. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications. 2005, 355-364. , .., .. : . (Constructions of the NEGDE SPAT' type in Russian: Syntax and semantics.) Semiotika i informatika, No. 29. Moscow, 1990, pp. 3-89. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 53
Why is it difficult to build adequate surface syntactic representations for these sentences? Because it is unclear what the syntactic role of the verb or know in (1)-(4). This verb cannot be the absolute head of the surface syntactic tree as in (1) , or (2) The devil only knows what he does where and knows are the tops of the trees. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 54
Indeed, if we compare (2) and (2) (2) He does the Devil knows what (2) The devil only knows what he does we will see that (2) is neither syntactically nor semantically equivalent to (2): John only knows what he does *He does John knows what (2), in contrast to (2), expresses disapproval, negative attitude of the speaker toward the subject and his activity December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14
55 There is no reasonable syntactic governor for knows in (1) and (2). If we subordinate it to the main verb of the sentence we shall face the problem of what the syntactic relation between the verbs is. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14
56 We might view the syntactic governor of knows in the pronoun where. Phraseological expressions like devil knows may be suspected of having transformed into merged lexical units equivalent to indefinite particles like ever. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14
57 Such a solution does not hold, since the embedded constructions of this type are not confined to phraseological expressions cited and may include rather free clauses formed with different verbs. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 58
, . When I was a youth I was deeply impressed by the story of the Panama adventure that I read in I dont remember which book (Novoye Vremya) December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14
59 Even the second parts of these constructions are not necessarily interrogative pronominal words. They may be represented, in Russian, by conjunction or or the particle whether December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 60
, lit. He is being tried for a crime which it is not clear if he committed or not December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 61
, , Besides, there are such deterrent factors as the presence of North Korea with nuclear weapons that it might or might not have lit. the presence of North
Korea with it-is-unclear-whether-availableto-it nuclear weapons December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 62 Whilst there is no evident syntactic governor for the second verbs of the sentences considered, the pronominal words have as many as two plausible candidates for governor.
December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 63 (2) He does the Devil knows what December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 64 n the one hand, one may suggest
that what instantiates the 1st completive valency of do. In the Russian example (1), it is the only word of sentence (1) that stands in the instrumental case exactly the one that is required by . December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 65 On the other hand, the same
pronominal word may be viewed as instantiating the 1st completive valency of the verb know, the way it does in isolated (elliptic) sentences like I know what. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 66 So, the syntactic structure of
(1) has two oddities at a time: one word in need of a syntactic parent (know) has no good candidate while another word (what) has two. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 67 Solution The duality of syntactic dominance for what in (2) is far from trivial and requires
further reasoning. In simple single-clause sentences pronominal words like what cannot depend on verbs that, unlike know, do not take propositional complements: *I do what December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 68 Such pronouns may either form a special question like What do you do? in which case the pronoun is interrogative too. In Russian, there can also be a highly
colloquial general question like ? Do you do anything? where is an indefinite pronoun and really means anything December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 69 Assuming that (2) is not a singleclause sentence, we should define what clauses it may consist of. The most natural assumption is that (2) consists of two clauses, one constituted by verb does and the
other constituted by verb knows. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 70 Where are the boundaries of the two clauses? The left-hand boundaries of both clauses are evident: for the first clause it is the beginning of the whole sentence and for the second clause it is the word devil which is the subject of the verb knows. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14
71 Hypothesis: the right-hand boundaries of both clauses are the same and coincide with the end of the sentence, so that the pronominal word what belongs to both clauses. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 72
If we now compare (2) with (5) John know what he does, we will see that December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 73 the lack of such subordination distinguishes the second clause of (2) from the subordinate clause of (5). The head of the second clause
of (2) remains without a syntactic parent at all. This is the most crucial characteristic of this type of sentences. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 74 Sentences (5) and (2) are unfolding differently: (5) is smoothly produced by the speaker, (2) has a sort of leap amidst generation: before the first clause is finished, the second
clause starts to evolve, and, after some time, the two proceed together until the end of the whole sentence. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 75 The second clause in (2) behaves like a tributary to a river, which contributes to its course.
December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 76 Evolution of sentence (2) resembles the correlation between the main and the parenthetical clauses if the latter is situated in the middle of the sentence, as in (6) At this moment a young man (this was John) rose from his place December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 77
The drastic difference between (6) and (2) is that parenthetical clauses are finished sooner than the main clauses while in (2) the tributary clause ends together with the first clause. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 78 If this stand is taken, we will
have to admit that sentences of this type have two syntactic starts. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 79 They violate the fundamental requirement of the surface syntactic component of the Meaning Text theory that the syntactic structure
of any sentence should be a tree. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 80 Discussion One more syntactic particularity is that, in Russian, expressions like may include a personal pronoun whose syntactic status is unclear
December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 81 , ! lit. Its high time he buys a house, he rents the Devil knows him what (Alexander Torin, Gelikon Plus, St. Petersburg, 2000); December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 82
lit. Money goes the devil knows it where (Vladimir Lenin, in a letter to his mother, 1895). December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 83 The constructions discussed are
subject to rather tight lexical restrictions. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 84 Within the phraseological subset, the constructions are formed with the verbs and, occasionally, know, almost always in the present tense, whose subjects can be either 1) nouns , devil, wood
goblin, and demon, jester and dog (the last two are probably euphemisms for ), practically always in the singular December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 85 2) derogatory nouns like or that are in fact euphemisms for an obscene word, as in Soon, goodness knows what will start in this country, or this obscene word itself
3) nouns God, Lord, Allah, Almighty, as in M , I don't like it that they invite God knows whom to attend the city anniversary. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 86
lit. The first proof-sheet left the publisher Buddha knows how long ago (from a posting about the publication of a manuscript on East Asia). December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 87 The semantics of the Devil knows what type of construction is very interesting and deserves special attention and careful study.
December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 88 The meanings of collocations that represent the construction are remarkably close to each other. All of them have a strong evaluative component that expresses the speakers negative attitude toward the participant or circumstance of the situation conveyed by the collocations.
December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 89 There is a noticeable difference of meaning between the variety of collocations based on God and the remaining collocations. In the former, the speakers negative attitude becomes milder and is substituted by regret and, possibly, compassion. To my mind, the speakers negative attitude belongs to the assertive part of the meaning rather than the presupposition. In particular, this may account for the fact that sentences like
#He betrayed the devil knows whom are infelicitous: December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 90 in all probability, the semantics of the verb betray be disloyal to requires that its object deserve loyalty and the collocation Devil knows who introduces an unknown and/or bad person who does not deserve loyalty.
December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 91 The construction considered here has a clear negative trend. As a matter of fact, expressions like Devil knows what, God knows where etc.) introduce unknown entities. He went God knows where really means the same as Nobody knows where. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14
92 At least some of the collocations that represent the construction lack compositionality. An example is the expression containing the Russian word or its English equivalent how much: sentences like He got the devil knows how much money refer to situations that involve an indefinitely large amount of money but never to situations that involve an indefinitely small amount of money. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14
93 The constructions considered here are unique and have no close cognates in the language. In particular, the constructions like < > Go wherever you please, O He would dance with the first person he comes across, The child eats whatever comes to hand that share with our constructions the presence of interrogative pronouns and the meaning of indefiniteness are nonetheless drastically different from them.
December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 94 Most importantly, they do not have an syntactic start. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 additional
95 Microsyntax of Language Microsyntax of Language. Minor Type Sentences. Syntactic Idioms. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 96 Syntactic Idioms Syntactic phrasemes are idiomatic
units that have syntactic particularities not shared by common non-idiomatic expressions. The term syntactic phraseme was introduced in [Boguslavsky-Iomdin 1982]. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 97 Syntactic Idioms The term has been frequently used by Igor A. Meluk.
Jackendoff (1997) uses the term syntactic idiom. He focuses on the presence of variable parts in the syntactic idiom (like The hell with X or Russian Z- X-a I am past laughter). Jackendoff, Ray. Twisting the Night Away. // Language, Vol. 73 (1997), pp. 534559. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 98 Syntactic Idioms What place in the general syntactic
system of language is claimed by syntactic idioms? December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 99 Syntax and Microsyntax The general syntactic system of the language can in fact be divided into two unequal parts, or two syntaxes : the basic syntax of language, which embraces a comparatively small number of basic constructions;
the peripheral syntax, which has a much greater number of constructions. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 100 Syntax and Microsyntax Basic constructions are frequent, nonidiomatic, and built by very general grammar rules. Every one of the peripheral syntactic constructions is encountered in the text much less frequently than any basic one, although their overall occurrence is
very high. These latter constructions are varied and extremely difficult to incorporate into the general system of syntax. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 101 Syntax and Microsyntax The part of the syntax constituted by peripheral constructions is sometimes referred to as minor type sentences. I propose to use the term
microsyntax to account for this part of syntax. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 102 Syntax and Microsyntax This division has nothing to do with greater or lesser importance of any of the two portions of the syntax. The reason is that the study of peripheral linguistic structures requires much more individual and fine tools than
that of basic structures. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 103 Syntax and Microsyntax Microsyntax consists of objects of two main types: nonstandard syntactic constructions; syntactic idioms. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14
104 Syntax and Microsyntax The boundary between these objects is not very distinct. The main discriminating criterion is the degree of lexicalization. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 105 Nonstandard Syntactic Constructions
Russian modal impersonal constructions with an infinitive and a dative: Z- X- Z is in for X you must get off at the next stop The hostess is in for a night of dishwashing December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 106 Nonstandard Syntactic Constructions
Russian modal impersonal constructions with an infinitive, a dative, and a negation: Z- X- There is no chance that Z will do X This will never happen , ! (..) You will never see gold until you procure human blood (Nikolai Gogol) December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 107 Nonstandard Syntactic Constructions
Coordinative constructions with lexically identical elements: lit. he fell and fell his fall seemed to have no dramatic consequences lit. there are accidents and accidents different accidents take place December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 108 Nonstandard Syntactic Constructions Coordinative constructions with lexically
identical elements: , - he said that his name is so and so (he gave one name and not two); - - we have to do this and this (probably only one thing is to be done) December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 109 Nonstandard Syntactic Constructions Vocative construction with lexically identical elements: , Vasya, oh Vasya
Vasya, can you hear me , Ivan Ivanovich, oh Ivan Ivanovich December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 110 Nonstandard Syntactic Construction or Word Sense? A curious lexical phenomenon in Russian associated with the word : in the future tense (, etc) it is equivalent to
or I will eat or I will drink: December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 111 Nonstandard Syntactic Construction or Word Sense? I will not eat porridge ? What will you have? * , * ?, * , * ?
December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 112 Nonstandard Syntactic Construction or Word Sense? In no case could such expressions be considered as ellipsis, because they do not require any pre-text in which a verb like or occurs. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14
113 Nonstandard Syntactic Construction or Word Sense? Further, these expressions obey very specific semantic restrictions: only words denoting food or drinks (plus pronouns) could be used with . December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 114
Nonstandard Syntactic Construction or Word Sense? Accordingly, one cannot say something like * I will have an aspirin even though the normal Russian verbs to be used with the name of a medicine are or : Take a pill of aspirin, , She always takes aspirin when she has a headache December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14
115 Nonstandard Syntactic Construction or Word Sense? Interestingly, this construction can only refer to an actual event of eating or drinking: , We will travel to the Caucasus and will drink wine but never * , December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14
116 Nonstandard Syntactic Construction or Word Sense? This means that the construction can only be used in the sense of the immediate future. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 117 Nonstandard Syntactic Construction
or Word Sense? Additionally, the construction normally refers to a situation where food or drink is offered by someone and taken by somebody else. So it would be common to say something like we will have coffee and rolls when addressing to a waiter or accepting his offer but totally unacceptable when the company in a caf discusses their menu: * . lets have coffee and rolls December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14
118 Nonstandard Syntactic Construction or Word Sense? One cannot imagine that someone says , youll see, he will be (having) coffee when predicting the behavior of a person sitting alone in his kitchen without anyone waiting on him. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 119
Nonstandard Syntactic Construction! My solution is that it is a construction rather than a word sense because one has to note too many things to postulate a word sense of the verb . December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 120 Syntactic Idioms Z- X-a Z is past X, Z is in no
mood for X Z is busy with more important things than X and Z believes that X can be disregarded: Here, two elements are lexically bound: not and up to December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 121 Syntactic Idioms ( -.) ones fingers are itching (to do smth)
My fingers itch to give him a thrashing December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 122 What will come next I will be considering a polysemous Russian adverbial syntactic idiom : 1 all the same; as in I am staying at home all the same; 2 makes no difference, as in
, We dont care where well be going; 3 tantamount; as in To star in a bad movie is equivalent to spitting into eternity. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 123 Syntactic phrasemes Two fixed lexical elements Three clearly discernible senses
December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 124 Syntactic phrasemes None of these units can be considered a nonsyntactic idiom because every one of them has syntactic and combinatorial properties not shared by any other lexical units of Russian. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14
125 Identification of Syntactic Idioms Identification of a syntactic idiom in the text is a serious problem December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 126 Identification of Syntactic Idioms
To agree to everything, like not to agree to anything are equally unacceptable solutions Almost everything is equal to zero ? Isnt it all the same to you? December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 127 Identification of Syntactic Idioms . He works alone
. He was going alone vs. He was going to a solitary cell . He fell in love with a single mother December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 128 Identification of Lexical Units - He knows something. - ?
I wonder what he is doing these days December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 129 Description of a Syntactic Idiom The full description of the syntactic behavior of a syntactic idiom must include: (1) lexical and morphological identification of the constituents; (2) identification of syntactic relations obtaining between the idioms
constituents, and their direction; (3) determination of syntactic peculiarities that ensure the interaction of the idiom with other elements of the sentence. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 130 Syntactic Idioms The lexical and morphological identification of all three lexical units of the idiom vocable is the same: they are composed of the
noun all in the nominative singular and the adjective in the short form singular neuter. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 131 Syntactic Idioms lit. to me everything is indifferent All is the same to me Its all the same to me There is no subject in the idiom but it can be added:
This is all the same to me , I dont care where he will go lit. all is all the same to me December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 132 Syntactic Idioms The type of the syntactic relation that should be postulated between the syntactic head and the syntactic daughter is not predicative.
December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 133 Syntactic Idiom 1 1 is a sentential adverb Its behavior is the same as that of nonidiomatic sentential adverbs like surely, certainly, definitely, for nothing. Usually, it depends on the sentence head a finite verb or an infinitive:
December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 134 Syntactic Idiom 1 I love him all the same You will have to get early in any case He is good all the same December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14
135 Syntactic Idiom 1 1 cannot accept any syntactic dependents, even particles: * I love him not all the same * You will have to get early in perfectly any case * He is good almost all the same .
December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 136 Syntactic Idiom 1 Elements of 1 have a fixed order and cannot be penetrated by any other words. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14
137 Syntactic Idiom 1 Of the three idioms, 1 has advanced the most toward the single word. The only notable distinction is phonetic and prosodic (two accents, nonreduced [o] in the element December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14
138 Syntactic Idiom 2 2 is a predicative adverb. It resembles other predicatives like a pity. The syntactic role played by 2 in the sentence is that of a part of the predicate, the other part of which is represented by a copula: : <, > ) It was
139 Syntactic Idiom 2 2 has the same set of syntactic features as predicate words like I wonder, I am curious December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 140
Syntactic Idiom 2 feature predqu that represents a words ability to accept a subject clause (an indirect or an alternative question): , < , , > It was all the same to her where to go
Syntactic Idiom 2 feature predthat that represents a words ability to accept a subject clause introduced by the conjunction that: , It was all the same to her that the child was tired and sleepy December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14
142 Syntactic Idiom 2 2 subcategorizes a noun in the dative which implements the idioms subject valency as it expresses the subject of the state. This subject need not be human but it must be a volitional thing: December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 143
Syntactic Idiom 2 , , , , ! (. , ). The ladies have nothing to do with it, it is all the same to the ladies but it is not all the same to the police December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 144
Syntactic Idiom 2 Elements of the idiom also have the fixed order but under certain conditons (in the negative general question) may be intertwined by several other words: , ? Isnt it all the same to you what will become of me? December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 145
Syntactic Idiom 2 In these sentences, some words may depend on the syntactic daughter of the idiom rather than its syntactic head. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 146 Syntactic Idiom 3 3 is a predicative
adverb , too. However, its syntactic properties are extremely idiosyncratic and do not seem to have close analogies to other lexical units of Russian. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 147 Syntactic Idiom 3 3 subcategorizes a conjunction that or as:
, . , , One should never regret that man is passionate. This is equivalent to our regretting that he is man December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 148 Syntactic Idiom 3 3 is the part of the predicate alongside the copula.
However, it imposes constraints on the subject which can only be a nomen actionis, the pronoun this or an infinitive. In the latter case, the conjunction must be followed by another infinitive so that the sentence become a bi-infinitive one. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 149 Syntactic Idiom 3 In contrast to 2, 3 does not accept a subject of
the state: * To star in a bad movie is equivalent to me to spitting into eternity. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 150 Syntactic Idiom 3 As a matter of fact, 3 has no subject valency at all. In the utterance
For me, to star in a bad movie is equivalent to spitting into eternity the expression for me describes the subject of the situation evaluation and not the subject of equivalence. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 151 Syntactic Idioms The fact of polysemy of any syntactic idiom entail additional difficulties in NLP where the
system must not only discern the syntactic idiom from free phrases but also distinguish between the senses within a vocable. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 152 Syntactic Idioms I have to fly all the same , . It
is all the same to me whether I have to fly or not , , ! To hell with it, it is all the same to me whether I should peel the potatoes or scrub the toilet vs. To hell with it, I have to peel the potatoes or scrub the toilet all the same December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 153 Syntactic Idioms
In these cases, a helpful method of ambiguity resolution is interactive man-machine sense disambiguation. December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 154 Russian Syntax of Quantification Several syntactic relations: quantitative quantitative-auxiliar
approximative-quantitative approximative-ordinal December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 155 Approximative-Ordinal Syntactic Relation (1) he will come approximately on the twentieth (2) , , . Yesterday, at about six oclock, I entered the Hay Square (Nikolay Nekrasov)
(3) * . The machine stopped at about the first cycle (4) . She returned at between twelve and one December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 156 Quantitative Syntactic Relation (1) " ". (1) ". (2) . (2) * .
(2) . (3) . (4) . (5) . (6) . (6) <> . (6) . (6) <> . December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 157
Approximative-Quantitative Syntactic Relation (1) . We spent there about two hours (2) . We may go at about two oclock (3) . He will earn about five and a half thousand (4) . He will earn about five and a half thousand roubles December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14 158
Quantiative and ApproximativeQuantitative Syntactic Relation (1a) " ". (1b) * " ". (2) . (2b) <> . (2c) ? . (3a) . (3b) <> . (3c) * . December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14
159 Quantiative and ApproximativeQuantitative Syntactic Relation (4a) . (4b) . (4c) . (5a) . (5b) . (5c) ?? . December 21, 2009. Lectures 13-14