[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: CE Starter grammar




Graham,
   I have two concerns

1.  It is often not possible to determine the purpose of an utterance from 
its surface structure, and in isolation.  I think it will be important to 
keep the distinctions among syntax, semantics and pragmatics.

2.  "process" is likewise an ontological issue rather than a syntactic one.

I think these labels are fine so long as we acknowledge that they could 
only be added either explicitly by the source of the utterance, or at a 
stage of processing following syntactic parsing.

Adam

At 04:04 PM 6/1/2001 +1000, Horn, Graham wrote:
>Folks,
>         .       May I suggest each line of a diagrammatic figure be started
>with a dot, so as to minimise format obliteration by e-mail & firewall
>systems. I also suggest Courier font for them, to utilise the constant
>character width of that font. Please note the number of leading dots in the
>hierarchical indented structures below, in case the indenting is stripped
>out .
>
>         .       I also feel we will need a symbology that indicates
>optionality of elements and structures.
>
>         .       I had a go at some simple augmentations to this, but there
>are many aspects, of course, to consider. I feel we will rapidly need to
>expand the paradigm.
>
>         .       May I suggest we classify sentences , such as:
>*       purpose:
>*       .       statement
>*       .       query
>*       .       command
>*       complexity:
>*       .       simple - only one independent clause
>*       .       compound - more than one independent clauses only
>*       .       complex -also has one or more dependant clauses
>
>         .       I also suggest we break them down into subject, process, and
>possibly indirect object and/or direct object.
>
>         .       Doubtless I sound like an old school master, but I strongly
>suspect we will rapidly require most of the basic traditional grammar
>elements. Hence I suggest the following enlarged and hierarchical list:
>
>*       LP = label phrase, of type:
>*       U = subject,
>*       I = indirect object, and
>*       B = direct object; comprising:
>*       .       L = label
>*       ..      N = noun
>*       ..      PN = proper noun
>*       ..      R = pronoun
>o       ...     QR = query pronoun [who|what|which]
>o       ...     (there are other types of pronoun)
>*       ..      Q = qualifier
>o       ...     J = adjective
>-       ....    DJ = determining adjective [the|a|an|all|every]
>o       ..      JP = adjectival phrase (E + NP, eg: "with the tag")
>o       ...     JC = adjectival clause (form of simple sentence, but not
>semantically complete, and introduced by a subordinating conjunction, eg:
>"which he wore")
>*       P = process
>*       .       PP = process phrase
>*       ..      V = verb (finite)
>*       ..      AV = auxiliary verb [
>*       ..      PV = participle verb [
>*       ..      M = modifier
>o       ...     A = adverb
>o       ...     QA = query adverb [how|what|where]
>o       ...     AP = adverbial phrase (E + NP, eg: "along the wide road")
>o       ...     AC = adjectival clause (form of simple sentence, but not
>semantically complete, and introduced by a subordinating conjunction, eg:
>"when they arrived")
>*       E = preposition [like|as|...|etc.]
>*       C = co­ordinating conjunction [and|but|or|...|etc.]
>*       S = subordinating conjunction [which|how|what|...|etc.]
>
>         .       I'm afraid I can't see any way of avoiding this level of
>complexity. Fortunately the paradigm is well proven over thousands of years.
>
>
>         .       For our purposes, we get a large task very early on, but we
>can take it incrementally by analysing and specifying each type of sentence,
>starting form the simplest, one at a time.
>
>         .       I am using square brackets to indicate optionality below. I
>have also not required optionality to be indicated below the level at which
>it occurs.
>
>         .       By the way, I am not wedded to the above symbols - they were
>just drawn off the top of my head. We will probably have to assign roles to
>various characters, so as to make the meaning unambiguous.
>
>         .       Now let's have a go at the simplest generic structure.
>.          simple statement
>.        /       |       \  \
>.       U        P      [I] [B]
>.       /        |         \/
>.     LP        PP         LP
>.   /    \    /    \     /    \
>. [Q]     L  P      M  [Q]    L
>
>         .       Suggestions, comments, corrections, criticisms welcome.
>
>
>
>Cheers                                  Graham Horn
>National Data Standards Unit
>Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
>================================================
>Phone:          +61.2.6244.1094
>Fax:            +61.2.6244.1199
>E­mail:         Graham.Horn@aihw.gov.au <mailto:graham.horn@aihw.gov.au>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From:   Adam Pease [mailto:apease@ks.teknowledge.com]
>Sent:   Friday, June 01, 2001 12:15 PM
>To:     suo-ce@ieee.org
>Subject:        CE Starter grammar
>
>
>Folks,
>I'll suggest the following strawman as a start on a restricted English
>grammar.
>                       sentence
>                      /         \
>                    SNP|Q         VP
>                   /    \      /     \
>                 Det   N|PN    V   NP|SNP
>                                   / | \
>                                 Det M N|PN
>
>where:
>SNP = simple noun phrase
>NP = noun phrase
>Det = determiner [the|a|an|all|every]
>N = noun
>V = verb
>VP = verb phrase
>PN = proper noun
>M = modifier
>Q = query word [who|what|where]
>
>
>Adam

Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571