I also found Lori Levin's discussion helpful. She wrote:
1. Cross-lingual studies of grammatical relations, information structure, constructions in a very broad sense, argument realization, grammaticalization, etc. leading to theoretical insight into the nature of these things.
2. Treebanks and parsers that can be used for corpus-based studies in linguistics, and perhaps in some hybrid third-wave neuro-symbolic systems in language technologies, especially in low-resource languages.
3. A challenge to UD (universal dependency) and UMR (uniform meaning representation): I think we can learn from UD and UMR how to do things on a larger scale. But at the same time, we can save them from their fate as stone soup in the following sense: they thought they could do something easy (make soup using only "stones" and water, which consisted of three pages of definitions of grammatical relations), but as they progressed, they needed to keep adding "carrots", "onions", "bones" (serious linguistic decisions). But unlike the story, where the soup turned out good, UD has turned out messy and too big to fail. Sometimes they talk about possibly not going on to Version 3 because Version 2 is too big to change. We can show how to do a UD-like project on a firm foundation.
I am personally interested in (1) and (2), and interested as an observer in (3).
Joan
On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 3:01 AM Agnieszka Patejuk via LFG-list < lfg-list@mailman.uni-konstanz.de> wrote:
Dear All,
It has almost been a month since my original post and over a week since the last message in this thread, so this might be a good time to post a summary.
There have been many, many responses – many thanks to everyone who responded, either to the list or directly to me.
At least 14 people are interested in taking part in ParGram meetings, which is great.
Here are some selected questions/issues (sorted by date) – I think it is up to the ParGram community to consider these: • Joan Bresnan: "I would like to hear some discussion of what the goals would be." (seconded by Damir) • Damir Cavar: "Traction into the semantic and pragmatic domain would also be of interest. Would you also envision to broaden the perspectives and include other grammar related computational frameworks (e.g., GF), or even other theoretical frameworks?" • Helge Dyvik: "I would find it particularly interesting if we could develop the basis for promoting our approach to treebanking vis à vis UD."
A considerable part of the discussion was related to UD – I am not going to summarize this thread, but the relevant posts were sent to all lists, so anyone who is interested may read these.
All best, Agnieszka
On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 at 12:59, Agnieszka Patejuk agnieszka.patejuk@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi,
I am sending this message to all potentially relevant lists (ParGram, XLE, LFG, ParSem) so as to maximise the chance that it will reach people who are interested in this topic. If you know someone who might be interested but is not subscribed to these lists, please consider letting them know.
The question is: who would be interested in restarting ParGram meetings?
I am not sure what would be the best way to organise this discussion, so I am suggesting the following: • if you think your answer might be of interest to many people (for instance, it might spark a discussion), please consider replying to the list(s) • if not, please reply only to me – I will later go through the responses and post a summary to the relevant lists.
I hope that later we can discuss this topic in more detail with people who have expressed interest.
All best, Agnieszka