semantic roles for LFG grammar engineering
Dear All, [Apologies for cross-posting.] In the context of enriching the Polish LFG grammar with semantic representation, we are looking for a set of semantic roles (Agent, Patient, Beneficiary, etc.) that could be used to mark arguments (and possibly adjuncts) of verbs and other predicates. This set should be exhaustive in the sense that it should be possible to assign – more or less deterministically – a semantic role to any argument (and possibly adjunct) of any predicate. For this reason the standard – in LFG textbooks – sets of some 7 semantic roles do not seem sufficient. Instead, we are looking at larger repertoires proposed in VerbNet, in FrameNet and in John W. Sowa's work on Knowledge Representation. We don't have any strong views about any particular set of semantic roles, as long as it is exhaustive and applicable to real texts (as opposed to being merely theoretically interesting). Has anybody in the LFG community faced a similar task? If so, what set of semantic roles would you recommend? At the moment, we are wavering between VerbNet and Sowa's system, both being more manageable than numerous roles offered in FrameNet, but we are open to other solutions. Many thanks, best regards, Adam P. -- Adam Przepiórkowski ˈadam ˌpʃɛpjurˈkɔfskʲi http://clip.ipipan.waw.pl/ ____ Computational Linguistics in Poland http://jlm.ipipan.waw.pl/ ___________ Journal of Language Modelling http://zil.ipipan.waw.pl/ ____________ Linguistic Engineering Group http://nkjp.pl/ _________________________ National Corpus of Polish
Dear Adam, I looked into this some for my recent book, and from what I could find, no one has ever produced a fully comprehensive set of semantic roles (see Ch 8, thing #68). I'm not familiar with Sowa's system, but I think what's going on in VerbNet is that role names are re-used across predicates but not meant to carry the same content in those different uses. Emily Bender, Emily M. 2013. *Linguistic Fundamentals for Natural Language Processing: 100 Essentials from Morphology and Syntax*<http://dx.doi.org/10.2200/S00493ED1V01Y201303HLT020>. Synthesis Lectures on Human Language Technologies #20. Morgan & Claypool Publishers. http://dx.doi.org/10.2200/S00493ED1V01Y201303HLT020 On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Adam Przepiorkowski <adamp@ipipan.waw.pl>wrote:
Dear All,
[Apologies for cross-posting.]
In the context of enriching the Polish LFG grammar with semantic representation, we are looking for a set of semantic roles (Agent, Patient, Beneficiary, etc.) that could be used to mark arguments (and possibly adjuncts) of verbs and other predicates. This set should be exhaustive in the sense that it should be possible to assign – more or less deterministically – a semantic role to any argument (and possibly adjunct) of any predicate. For this reason the standard – in LFG textbooks – sets of some 7 semantic roles do not seem sufficient. Instead, we are looking at larger repertoires proposed in VerbNet, in FrameNet and in John W. Sowa's work on Knowledge Representation.
We don't have any strong views about any particular set of semantic roles, as long as it is exhaustive and applicable to real texts (as opposed to being merely theoretically interesting). Has anybody in the LFG community faced a similar task? If so, what set of semantic roles would you recommend? At the moment, we are wavering between VerbNet and Sowa's system, both being more manageable than numerous roles offered in FrameNet, but we are open to other solutions.
Many thanks, best regards,
Adam P.
-- Adam Przepiórkowski ˈadam ˌpʃɛpjurˈkɔfskʲi http://clip.ipipan.waw.pl/ ____ Computational Linguistics in Poland http://jlm.ipipan.waw.pl/ ___________ Journal of Language Modelling http://zil.ipipan.waw.pl/ ____________ Linguistic Engineering Group http://nkjp.pl/ _________________________ National Corpus of Polish _______________________________________________ ParSem mailing list ParSem@mailman.uni-konstanz.de https://mailman.uni-konstanz.de/mailman/listinfo/parsem
-- Emily M. Bender Associate Professor Department of Linguistics Check out CLMS on facebook! http://www.facebook.com/uwclma
The problem is, the more roles you have, the more you, and your annotators, will be confused about what the right one is, and annotator agreement will go down the drain (FrameNet is a good example of this, the roles for similar words are often incommensurable). Point is, there are only a few real high-level thematic roles (7 seems in the ball park), and anything more will I agree that looking at John Sowa’s work is probably a good starting point, an due has a good set of basic ones (http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/thematic.htm is probably a good simple version). To be honest, we tried to do something at Powerset, and eventually gave (more or less) up and went with whatever the XLE put out with some minor massaging. So: vote for Sowa Cheers Martin On Feb 2, 2014, at 1:45 PM, Adam Przepiorkowski <adamp@ipipan.waw.pl> wrote:
Dear All,
[Apologies for cross-posting.]
In the context of enriching the Polish LFG grammar with semantic representation, we are looking for a set of semantic roles (Agent, Patient, Beneficiary, etc.) that could be used to mark arguments (and possibly adjuncts) of verbs and other predicates. This set should be exhaustive in the sense that it should be possible to assign – more or less deterministically – a semantic role to any argument (and possibly adjunct) of any predicate. For this reason the standard – in LFG textbooks – sets of some 7 semantic roles do not seem sufficient. Instead, we are looking at larger repertoires proposed in VerbNet, in FrameNet and in John W. Sowa's work on Knowledge Representation.
We don't have any strong views about any particular set of semantic roles, as long as it is exhaustive and applicable to real texts (as opposed to being merely theoretically interesting). Has anybody in the LFG community faced a similar task? If so, what set of semantic roles would you recommend? At the moment, we are wavering between VerbNet and Sowa's system, both being more manageable than numerous roles offered in FrameNet, but we are open to other solutions.
Many thanks, best regards,
Adam P.
-- Adam Przepiórkowski ˈadam ˌpʃɛpjurˈkɔfskʲi http://clip.ipipan.waw.pl/ ____ Computational Linguistics in Poland http://jlm.ipipan.waw.pl/ ___________ Journal of Language Modelling http://zil.ipipan.waw.pl/ ____________ Linguistic Engineering Group http://nkjp.pl/ _________________________ National Corpus of Polish _______________________________________________ ParGram mailing list ParGram@mailman.uni-konstanz.de https://mailman.uni-konstanz.de/mailman/listinfo/pargram
Dear Adam, I am not familiar with Sowa's system. FrameNet roles have the advantage that you will be able to assign an appropriate role to any argument, given that the roles are frame-specific. At the other extreme you have the PropBank labeling scheme, which implements sth. like Dowty's Proto-Roles plus some extra arguments and adjuncts. It's a small inventory, and the same across all predicates. Since they are close to syntax they are more easy to automatically assign, but they do not convey a clear semantics. VerbNet lies in the middle, but the assignment of roles is more difficult, and so is the mapping from syntax to semantics. Your choice will depend a lot on what you want to do with the representations and how much effort you can or want to invest in annotation and learning a mapping. Kind regards, Anette On Feb 2, 2014, at 1:45 PM, Adam Przepiorkowski <adamp@ipipan.waw.pl> wrote:
Dear All,
[Apologies for cross-posting.]
In the context of enriching the Polish LFG grammar with semantic representation, we are looking for a set of semantic roles (Agent, Patient, Beneficiary, etc.) that could be used to mark arguments (and possibly adjuncts) of verbs and other predicates. This set should be exhaustive in the sense that it should be possible to assign – more or less deterministically – a semantic role to any argument (and possibly adjunct) of any predicate. For this reason the standard – in LFG textbooks – sets of some 7 semantic roles do not seem sufficient. Instead, we are looking at larger repertoires proposed in VerbNet, in FrameNet and in John W. Sowa's work on Knowledge Representation.
We don't have any strong views about any particular set of semantic roles, as long as it is exhaustive and applicable to real texts (as opposed to being merely theoretically interesting). Has anybody in the LFG community faced a similar task? If so, what set of semantic roles would you recommend? At the moment, we are wavering between VerbNet and Sowa's system, both being more manageable than numerous roles offered in FrameNet, but we are open to other solutions.
Many thanks, best regards,
Adam P.
-- Adam Przepiórkowski ˈadam ˌpʃɛpjurˈkɔfskʲi http://clip.ipipan.waw.pl/ ____ Computational Linguistics in Poland http://jlm.ipipan.waw.pl/ ___________ Journal of Language Modelling http://zil.ipipan.waw.pl/ ____________ Linguistic Engineering Group http://nkjp.pl/ _________________________ National Corpus of Polish _______________________________________________ ParGram mailing list ParGram@mailman.uni-konstanz.de https://mailman.uni-konstanz.de/mailman/listinfo/pargram
XLE mailing list XLE@mailman.uni-konstanz.de https://mailman.uni-konstanz.de/mailman/listinfo/xle
-- Prof. Dr. Anette Frank http://www.cl.uni-heidelberg.de/~frank Computational Linguistics Department email: frank@cl.uni-heidelberg.de University of Heidelberg phone: +49-(0)6221/54-3247 Im Neuenheimer Feld 325 secr: +49-(0)6221/54-3245 69120 Heidelberg, Germany fax: +49-(0)6221/54-3242
participants (4)
-
Adam Przepiorkowski -
Anette Frank -
Emily M. Bender -
Martin van den Berg