ParGram May 2012

pargram@mailman.uni-konstanz.de

7 participants
4 discussions

ParGram schedule
by Meladel Mistica 13 Jun '12

13 Jun '12

Hi all, Here is the schedule for Bali ParGram. If you had forgotten to let us know that you were presenting, it's not too late. Just email me and I'll put it in the schedule. There will be a shuttle service to Universitas Udayana from a few locations in Sanur. See this map for the *tentative* pick up points: http://goo.gl/maps/1VKv (it says LFG and ICAL but it also applies to ParGram). Sorry the names/headings of the "Pick Up Points" on the map aren't informative. Please just read the text below the headings, and you'll discover which hotel you'll have to wait in front of. Cheers! Meladel

2 3

pargram tex template and feature declaration
by Meladel Mistica 21 May '12

21 May '12

Hi all, Attached is the template for the ParGram sentences. Please also send your feature declaration to Tina and Nette (CCed above). They will be collating them and putting them up on the Bergen website. Just a reminder that the command for printing your feature declaration in XLE is: print-feature-declaration Cheers Meladel --- “If the English language made any sense, lackadaisical would have something to do with a shortage of flowers.” Doug Larson

1 1

subsumption and constraining equations
by Dag Haug 17 May '12

17 May '12

Dear all, I have a problem understanding how subsumption and constraining equations work together in the XLE. As far as I can see, XLE's behavior is different from what the documentation says, but I am not sure I understand. The basic problem is this: I want to allow nominalizations of S's that have a CASE value but not other S's. The rule I use is this: NP --> { N' | S: ! << ^ (! CASE) } So an NP can expand to S, in which case the S's f-structure should subsume that of the NP, so all the information gets passed up from the f-structure of the S to the f-structure of the NP. Then there is a constraining/existential equation requiring the S's f-structure to have CASE - or so I thought. It wouldn't be enough that the NP gets assigned CASE from above, so to speak. If I read it correctly, he documentation of explicit subsumption says that it behaves differently from implicit subsumption (in sets) in that constraining equations don't get distributed. But as it happens, XLE accepts a solution where S in itself has no case, but the NP gets case from the verb. So even though it displays two different f-structures for the NP and the S (since they differ in CASE), it allows for the existential constraint to be satisfied in the "wrong" f-structure. I can achieve the effect I want by adding @(COMPLETE(! CASE)), forcing local satisfaction of the existential constraint. In that case, there is no need to use subsumption at all, of course. So implementation-wise I am ok, but I am interested in subsumption from a theoretical point of view as well, so if anyone can help explain XLE's behavior and whether there is a particular theoretical reason for it, I'd be grateful. I have a minimal implementation which recreates the problem, if anyone is interested. Best, Dag Haug

4 7

XLE Logon Interface to Pargram Grammars
by Anette Frank 03 May '12

03 May '12

Dear all, I'd like to use the XLE Logon Interface to the Pargram Grammars in my syntax course. The link I was using before is: http://decentius.aksis.uib.no/logon/xle.xml Apparently it is broken. If the interface has moved, it would be great to know where I can find it. Best, Anette -- Anette Frank Computational Linguistics Department University of Heidelberg Im Neuenheimer Feld 325 69120 Heidelberg, Germany http://www.cl.uni-heidelberg.de/~frank email: frank(a)cl.uni-heidelberg.de phone: +49-(0)6221/54-3247 secr: +49-(0)6221/54-3245 fax: +49-(0)6221/54-3242

2 1

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

ParGram May 2012