DOCSLIB.ORG

On the Idiosyncrasies of the Mandarin Chinese Classifier System

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
On the Idiosyncrasies of the Mandarin Chinese Classifier System On the Idiosyncrasies of the Mandarin Chinese Classifier System Shijia Liu@ and Hongyuan Mei@ and Adina WilliamsP and Ryan Cotterell@, H @Department of Computer Science, Johns Hopkins University PFacebook Artificial Intelligence Research HDepartment of Computer Science and Technology, University of Cambridge fsliu126,[email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Abstract Classifier P¯ıny¯ın Semantic Class While idiosyncrasies of the Chinese classi- * ge` objects, general-purpose fier system have been a richly studied topic 件 jian` matters among linguists (Adams and Conklin, 1973; 4 tou´ domesticated animals Erbaugh, 1986; Lakoff, 1986), not much work ê zh¯ı general animals has been done to quantify them with statisti- zhang¯ cal methods. In this paper, we introduce an flat objects information-theoretic approach to measuring a tiao´ long, narrow objects idiosyncrasy; we examine how much the un- y xiang` items, projects certainty in Mandarin Chinese classifiers can S dao` orders, roads, projections be reduced by knowing semantic information 9 pˇı horses, cloth about the nouns that the classifiers modify. 顿 dun` meals Using the empirical distribution of classifiers from the parsed Chinese Gigaword corpus Table 1: Examples of Mandarin classifiers. Classi- (Graff et al., 2005), we compute the mutual fiers’ simplified Mandarin Chinese characters (1st col- information (in bits) between the distribution umn), p¯ıny¯ın pronunciations (2nd column), and com- over classifiers and distributions over other lin- monly modified noun types (3rd column) are listed. guistic quantities. We investigate whether se- mantic classes of nouns and adjectives differ in how much they reduce uncertainty in classi- fier choice, and find that it is not fully idiosyn- 2015, Table1 gives some canonical examples), and cratic; while there are no obvious trends for the classifier choices are often argued to be based on majority of semantic classes, shape nouns re- inherent, possibly universal, semantic properties duce uncertainty in classifier choice the most. associated with the noun, such as shape (Kuo and Sera, 2009; Zhang and Jiang, 2016). Indeed, in 1 Introduction a summary article, Tai(1994) writes: “Chinese Many of the world’s languages make use of nu- classifier systems are cognitively based, rather than meral classifiers (Aikhenvald, 2000). While theo- arbitrary systems of classification.” If classifier retical debate still rages on the function of numeral choice were solely based on conceptual features of classifiers (Krifka, 1995; Ahrens and Huang, 1996; a given noun, then we might expect it to be nearly arXiv:1902.10193v3 [cs.CL] 23 May 2020 Cheng et al., 1998; Chierchia, 1998; Li, 2000; Nis- determinate—like gender-marking on nouns in bett, 2004; Bale and Coon, 2014), it is generally ac- German, Slavic, or Romance languages (Erbaugh, cepted that they need to be present for nouns to be 1986, 400)—and perhaps even fixed for all of a modified by numerals, quantifiers, demonstratives, given noun’s synonyms. or other qualifiers (Li and Thompson, 1981, 104). However, selecting which classifers go with In Mandarin Chinese, for instance, the phrase one nouns in practice is an idiosyncratic process, often person translates as 一个人 (y¯ı ge` ren´ ); the classi- with several grammatical options (see Table2 fier * (ge`) has no clear translation in English, yet, for two examples). Moreover, knowing what a nevertheless, it is necessary to place it between the noun means does not always mean you can guess numeral 一 (y¯ı) and the word for person º (ren´ ). the classifier. For example, most nouns referring There are hundreds of numeral classifiers in to animals, such as t (lu¨´, donkey) or 羊 (yang´ , the Mandarin lexicon (Po-Ching and Rimmington, goat), use the classifier ê (zh¯ı). However, horses Classifier p(C j N = ºººëëë) p(C j N = 工工工程程程) Why investigate the idiosyncrasy of the Man- M (wei` ) 0.4838 0.0058 darin Chinese classifier system? How idiosyncratic 名 (m´ıng) 0.3586 0.0088 or predictable natural language is has captivated * (ge`) 0.0205 0.0486 researchers since Shannon(1951) originally pro- y (p¯ı) 0.0128 0.0060 posed the question in the context of printed En- y (xiang` ) 0.0063 0.4077 glish text. Indeed, looking at predictability directly 期 (q¯ı) 0.0002 0.2570 Everything else 0.1178 0.2661 relates to the complexity of language—a funda- mental question in linguistics (Newmeyer and Pre- Table 2: Empirical distribution of selected classifiers ston, 2014; Dingemanse et al., 2015)—which has over two nouns: ºë (ren´ sh`ı, people) and 工程 (gong¯ also been claimed to have consequences learnabil- cheng,´ project). Most of the probability mass is allo- ity and processing. For example, how hard it is cated to only a few classifiers for both nouns (bolded). for a learner to master irregularity, say, in the En- glish past tense (Rumelhart and McClelland, 1987; Pinker and Prince, 1994; Pinker and Ullman, 2002; ê cannot use (zh¯ı), despite being semantically Kirov and Cotterell, 2018) might be affected by pre- similar to goats and donkeys, and instead must dictability, and highly predictable noun-adjacent 9 appear with (pˇı). Conversely, knowing which words, such as gender affixes in German and pre- particular subset of noun meaning is reflected in nominal adjectives in English, are also shown to the classifer also does not mean that you can use confer online processing advantages (Dye et al., that classifier with any noun that seems to have 2016, 2017, 2018). Within the Chinese classifier a the right semantics. For example, classifier system itself, the very common, general-purpose (tiao´ ) can be used with nouns referring to long and classifier * (ge`) is acquired by children earlier than narrow objects, like rivers, snakes, fish, pants, and rarer, more semantically rich ones (Hu, 1993). Gen- certain breeds of dogs—but never cats, regardless eral classifiers are also found to occur more often of how long and narrow they might be! In general, in corpora with nouns that are less predictable in classifiers carve up the semantic space in a very context (i.e., nouns with high surprisal; Hale 2001) idiosyncratic manner that is neither fully arbitrary, (Zhan and Levy, 2018), providing initial evidence nor fully predictable from semantic features. that predictability likely plays a role in classifier- Given this, we can ask: precisely how idiosyn- noun pairing more generally. Furthermore, pro- cratic is the Mandarin Chinese classifier system? viding classifiers improves participants’ recall For a given noun, how predictable is the set of of nouns in laboratory experiments (Zhang and classifiers that can be grammatically employed? Schmitt, 1998; Gao and Malt, 2009) (but see Huang For instance, had we not known that the Mandarin and Chen 2014)—but, it is not known whether clas- word for horse l (maˇ) predominantly takes the sifiers do so by modulating noun predictability. classifier 9 (pˇı), how likely would we have been to guess it over the much more common animal 2 Quantifying Classifier Idiosyncrasy classifier ê (zh¯ı)? Is it more important to know We take an information-theoretic approach to that a noun is l (maˇ) or simply that the noun is statistically quantify the idiosyncrasy of the Man- an animal noun? We address these questions by darin Chinese classifier system, and measure the computing how much the uncertainty in the distri- uncertainty (entropy) reduction—or mutual infor- bution over classifiers can be reduced by knowing mation (MI; Cover and Thomas, 2012)—between information about nouns and noun semantics. We classifiers and other linguistic quantities, like quantify this notion of classifier idiosyncrasy by nouns or adjectives. Intuitively, MI lets us directly calculating the mutual information between clas- measure classifier “idiosyncrasy”, because it tells sifiers and nouns, and also between classifiers and us how much information (in bits) about a classifier several sets that are relevant to noun meaning (i.e., we can get by observing another linguistic quantity. categories of noun senses, sets of noun synonyms, If classifiers were completely independent from adjectives, and categories of adjective senses). Our other quantities, knowing them would give us no results yield concrete, quantitative measures of information about classifier choice. idiosyncrasy in bits, that can supplement existing hand-annotated, intuition-based approaches that Notation. Let C be a classifier-valued random organize Mandarin classifiers into an ontology. variable with range C, the set of Mandarin Chinese classifiers. Let X be a second random variable, into 26 SemCor supersense categories (Tsvetkov which models a second linguistic quantity, with et al., 2015), and then compute I(C; Ni) for i 2 range X . Mutual information (MI) is defined as f1; 2;:::; 26g for each supersense category. The supersense categories (e.g., animal, plant, person, I(C; X) ≡ H(C) − H(C j X) (1a) artifact, etc.) provide a semantic classification sys- X p(c; x) tem for English nouns. Since there are no known = p(c; x) log (1b) p(c)p(x) supersense categories for Mandarin, we need to c2C;x2X translate Chinese nouns into English to perform Let N and A denote the sets of nouns and adjec- our analysis. We use SemCor supersense categories tives, respectively, and let N and A be noun- and instead of WordNet hypernyms because different adjective-valued random variables, respectively. “basic levels” for each noun make it difficult to Let Ni and Ai denote the sets of nouns and ad- determine the “correct” category for each noun. jectives in the ith SemCor supersense category for nouns (Tsvetkov et al., 2015) and adjectives 2.4 MI between Classifiers and Adjective (Tsvetkov et al., 2014), respectively, with their ran- Supersenses dom variables being N and A , respectively. Let i i We translated and divided the adjectives into 12 S be the set of all English WordNet (Miller, 1998) supersense categories (Tsvetkov et al., 2014), and senses of nouns, with S be the WordNet sense- compute mutual information I(C; Ai) for cate- valued random variable.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Animacy and Alienability: a Reconsideration of English
    Running head: ANIMACY AND ALIENABILITY 1 Animacy and Alienability A Reconsideration of English Possession Jaimee Jones A Senior Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation in the Honors Program Liberty University Spring 2016 ANIMACY AND ALIENABILITY 2 Acceptance of Senior Honors Thesis This Senior Honors Thesis is accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation from the Honors Program of Liberty University. ______________________________ Jaeshil Kim, Ph.D. Thesis Chair ______________________________ Paul Müller, Ph.D. Committee Member ______________________________ Jeffrey Ritchey, Ph.D. Committee Member ______________________________ Brenda Ayres, Ph.D. Honors Director ______________________________ Date ANIMACY AND ALIENABILITY 3 Abstract Current scholarship on English possessive constructions, the s-genitive and the of- construction, largely ignores the possessive relationships inherent in certain English compound nouns. Scholars agree that, in general, an animate possessor predicts the s- genitive while an inanimate possessor predicts the of-construction. However, the current literature rarely discusses noun compounds, such as the table leg, which also express possessive relationships. However, pragmatically and syntactically, a compound cannot be considered as a true possessive construction. Thus, this paper will examine why some compounds still display possessive semantics epiphenomenally. The noun compounds that imply possession seem to exhibit relationships prototypical of inalienable possession such as body part, part whole, and spatial relationships. Additionally, the juxtaposition of the possessor and possessum in the compound construction is reminiscent of inalienable possession in other languages. Therefore, this paper proposes that inalienability, a phenomenon not thought to be relevant in English, actually imbues noun compounds whose components exhibit an inalienable relationship with possessive semantics.
    [Show full text]
  • The Function of Phrasal Verbs and Their Lexical Counterparts in Technical Manuals
    Portland State University PDXScholar Dissertations and Theses Dissertations and Theses 1991 The function of phrasal verbs and their lexical counterparts in technical manuals Brock Brady Portland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds Part of the Applied Linguistics Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Brady, Brock, "The function of phrasal verbs and their lexical counterparts in technical manuals" (1991). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 4181. https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.6065 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Brock Brady for the Master of Arts in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (lESOL) presented March 29th, 1991. Title: The Function of Phrasal Verbs and their Lexical Counterparts in Technical Manuals APPROVED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE THESIS COMMITTEE: { e.!I :flette S. DeCarrico, Chair Marjorie Terdal Thomas Dieterich Sister Rita Rose Vistica This study investigates the use of phrasal verbs and their lexical counterparts (i.e. nouns with a lexical structure and meaning similar to corresponding phrasal verbs) in technical manuals from three perspectives: (1) that such two-word items might be more frequent in technical writing than in general texts; (2) that these two-word items might have particular functions in technical writing; and that (3) 2 frequencies of these items might vary according to the presumed expertise of the text's audience.
    [Show full text]
  • Classifiers: a Typology of Noun Categorization Edward J
    Western Washington University Western CEDAR Modern & Classical Languages Humanities 3-2002 Review of: Classifiers: A Typology of Noun Categorization Edward J. Vajda Western Washington University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://cedar.wwu.edu/mcl_facpubs Part of the Modern Languages Commons Recommended Citation Vajda, Edward J., "Review of: Classifiers: A Typology of Noun Categorization" (2002). Modern & Classical Languages. 35. https://cedar.wwu.edu/mcl_facpubs/35 This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Humanities at Western CEDAR. It has been accepted for inclusion in Modern & Classical Languages by an authorized administrator of Western CEDAR. For more information, please contact [email protected]. J. Linguistics38 (2002), I37-172. ? 2002 CambridgeUniversity Press Printedin the United Kingdom REVIEWS J. Linguistics 38 (2002). DOI: Io.IOI7/So022226702211378 ? 2002 Cambridge University Press Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, Classifiers: a typology of noun categorization devices.Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 2000. Pp. xxvi+ 535. Reviewedby EDWARDJ. VAJDA,Western Washington University This book offers a multifaceted,cross-linguistic survey of all types of grammaticaldevices used to categorizenouns. It representsan ambitious expansion beyond earlier studies dealing with individual aspects of this phenomenon, notably Corbett's (I99I) landmark monograph on noun classes(genders), Dixon's importantessay (I982) distinguishingnoun classes fromclassifiers, and Greenberg's(I972) seminalpaper on numeralclassifiers. Aikhenvald'sClassifiers exceeds them all in the number of languages it examines and in its breadth of typological inquiry. The full gamut of morphologicalpatterns used to classify nouns (or, more accurately,the referentsof nouns)is consideredholistically, with an eye towardcategorizing the categorizationdevices themselvesin terms of a comprehensiveframe- work.
    [Show full text]
  • Nouns, Adjectives, Verbs, and Adverbs
    Unit 1: The Parts of Speech Noun—a person, place, thing, or idea Name: Person: boy Kate mom Place: house Minnesota ocean Adverbs—describe verbs, adjectives, and other Thing: car desk phone adverbs Idea: freedom prejudice sadness --------------------------------------------------------------- Answers the questions how, when, where, and to Pronoun—a word that takes the place of a noun. what extent Instead of… Kate – she car – it Many words ending in “ly” are adverbs: quickly, smoothly, truly A few other pronouns: he, they, I, you, we, them, who, everyone, anybody, that, many, both, few A few other adverbs: yesterday, ever, rather, quite, earlier --------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- Adjective—describes a noun or pronoun Prepositions—show the relationship between a noun or pronoun and another word in the sentence. Answers the questions what kind, which one, how They begin a prepositional phrase, which has a many, and how much noun or pronoun after it, called the object. Articles are a sub category of adjectives and include Think of the box (things you have do to a box). the following three words: a, an, the Some prepositions: over, under, on, from, of, at, old car (what kind) that car (which one) two cars (how many) through, in, next to, against, like --------------------------------------------------------------- Conjunctions—connecting words. --------------------------------------------------------------- Connect ideas and/or sentence parts. Verb—action, condition, or state of being FANBOYS (for, and, nor, but, or, yet, so) Action (things you can do)—think, run, jump, climb, eat, grow A few other conjunctions are found at the beginning of a sentence: however, while, since, because Linking (or helping)—am, is, are, was, were --------------------------------------------------------------- Interjections—show emotion.
    [Show full text]
  • 91 Order of Degree Word and Adjective
    TWAC091.qxd 28/01/2005 14:38 Page 370 91 Order of Degree Word and Adjective MATTHEW S. DRYER 1 Defining the values Sneddon (1996: 177–81) lists fifteen degree words that precede the noun, four that follow, and one that either precedes or follows, so This map shows the position of degree words with respect to the Indonesian is coded on the map as placing the degree word before adjective that they modify. For the purposes of this map, the term the adjective. Conversely, Wari’ is coded as a language with both adjective should be interpreted in a purely semantic sense, as a word orders where neither order is dominant. denoting a property, since in many languages the words in question In some languages, the order of degree word and adjective do not form a separate word class, but are verbs or nouns. Degree depends on whether the adjective is being used attributively, i.e. words are words with meanings like ‘very’, ‘more’, or ‘a little’ that modifying a noun, or predicatively. This is the case in Ndyuka modify the adjective to indicate the degree to which the property (Creole; Suriname), in which a degree word precedes an adjective denoted by the adjective obtains. Degree words are traditionally used attributively, as in (4a), but follows an adjective used predica- referred to as adverbs, though in many languages the degree words tively, as in (4b). do not belong to the same word class as adverbs; even for English there is little basis for saying that degree words belong to the same (4) Ndyuka (Huttar and Huttar 1994: 173, 175) word class as adverbs which modify verbs.
    [Show full text]
  • The “Person” Category in the Zamuco Languages. a Diachronic Perspective
    On rare typological features of the Zamucoan languages, in the framework of the Chaco linguistic area Pier Marco Bertinetto Luca Ciucci Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa The Zamucoan family Ayoreo ca. 4500 speakers Old Zamuco (a.k.a. Ancient Zamuco) spoken in the XVIII century, extinct Chamacoco (Ɨbɨtoso, Tomarâho) ca. 1800 speakers The Zamucoan family The first stable contact with Zamucoan populations took place in the early 18th century in the reduction of San Ignacio de Samuco. The Jesuit Ignace Chomé wrote a grammar of Old Zamuco (Arte de la lengua zamuca). The Chamacoco established friendly relationships by the end of the 19th century. The Ayoreos surrended rather late (towards the middle of the last century); there are still a few nomadic small bands in Northern Paraguay. The Zamucoan family Main typological features -Fusional structure -Word order features: - SVO - Genitive+Noun - Noun + Adjective Zamucoan typologically rare features Nominal tripartition Radical tenselessness Nominal aspect Affix order in Chamacoco 3 plural Gender + classifiers 1 person ø-marking in Ayoreo realis Traces of conjunct / disjunct system in Old Zamuco Greater plural and clusivity Para-hypotaxis Nominal tripartition Radical tenselessness Nominal aspect Affix order in Chamacoco 3 plural Gender + classifiers 1 person ø-marking in Ayoreo realis Traces of conjunct / disjunct system in Old Zamuco Greater plural and clusivity Para-hypotaxis Nominal tripartition All Zamucoan languages present a morphological tripartition in their nominals. The base-form (BF) is typically used for predication. The singular-BF is (Ayoreo & Old Zamuco) or used to be (Cham.) the basis for any morphological operation. The full-form (FF) occurs in argumental position.
    [Show full text]
  • Double Classifiers in Navajo Verbs *
    Double Classifiers in Navajo Verbs * Lauren Pronger Class of 2018 1 Introduction Navajo verbs contain a morpheme known as a “classifier”. The exact functions of these morphemes are not fully understood, although there are some hypotheses, listed in Sec- tions 2.1-2.3 and 4. While the l and ł-classifiers are thought to have an effect on averb’s transitivity, there does not seem to be a comparable function of the ; and d-classifiers. However, some sources do suggest that the d-classifier is associated with the middle voice (see Section 4). In addition to any hypothesized semantic functions, the d-classifier is also one of the two most common morphemes that trigger what is known as the d-effect, essentially a voicing alternation of the following consonant explained in Section 3 (the other mor- pheme is the 1st person dual plural marker ‘-iid-’). When the d-effect occurs, the ‘d’ of the involved morpheme is often realized as null in the surface verb. This means that the only evidence of most d-classifiers in a surface verb is the voicing alternation of the following stem-initial consonant from the d-effect. There is also a rare phenomenon where two *I would like to thank Jonathan Washington and Emily Gasser for providing helpful feedback on earlier versions of this thesis, and Jeremy Fahringer for his assistance in using the Swarthmore online Navajo dictionary. I would also like to thank Ted Fernald, Ellavina Perkins, and Irene Silentman for introducing me to the Navajo language. 1 classifiers occur in a single verb, something that shouldn’t be possible with position class morphology.
    [Show full text]
  • PARTS of SPEECH ADJECTIVE: Describes a Noun Or Pronoun; Tells
    PARTS OF SPEECH ADJECTIVE: Describes a noun or pronoun; tells which one, what kind or how many. ADVERB: Describes verbs, adjectives, or other adverbs; tells how, why, when, where, to what extent. CONJUNCTION: A word that joins two or more structures; may be coordinating, subordinating, or correlative. INTERJECTION: A word, usually at the beginning of a sentence, which is used to show emotion: one expressing strong emotion is followed by an exclamation point (!); mild emotion followed by a comma (,). NOUN: Name of a person, place, or thing (tells who or what); may be concrete or abstract; common or proper, singular or plural. PREPOSITION: A word that connects a noun or noun phrase (the object) to another word, phrase, or clause and conveys a relation between the elements. PRONOUN: Takes the place of a person, place, or thing: can function any way a noun can function; may be nominative, objective, or possessive; may be singular or plural; may be personal (therefore, first, second or third person), demonstrative, intensive, interrogative, reflexive, relative, or indefinite. VERB: Word that represents an action or a state of being; may be action, linking, or helping; may be past, present, or future tense; may be singular or plural; may have active or passive voice; may be indicative, imperative, or subjunctive mood. FUNCTIONS OF WORDS WITHIN A SENTENCE: CLAUSE: A group of words that contains a subject and complete predicate: may be independent (able to stand alone as a simple sentence) or dependent (unable to stand alone, not expressing a complete thought, acting as either a noun, adjective, or adverb).
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Noun Classes and Classifiers, Semantics of Alexandra Y
    1 Noun classes and classifiers, semantics of Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald Research Centre for Linguistic Typology, La Trobe University, Melbourne Abstract Almost all languages have some grammatical means for the linguistic categorization of noun referents. Noun categorization devices range from the lexical numeral classifiers of South-East Asia to the highly grammaticalized noun classes and genders in African and Indo-European languages. Further noun categorization devices include noun classifiers, classifiers in possessive constructions, verbal classifiers, and two rare types: locative and deictic classifiers. Classifiers and noun classes provide a unique insight into how the world is categorized through language in terms of universal semantic parameters involving humanness, animacy, sex, shape, form, consistency, orientation in space, and the functional properties of referents. ABBREVIATIONS: ABS - absolutive; CL - classifier; ERG - ergative; FEM - feminine; LOC – locative; MASC - masculine; SG – singular 2 KEY WORDS: noun classes, genders, classifiers, possessive constructions, shape, form, function, social status, metaphorical extension 3 Almost all languages have some grammatical means for the linguistic categorization of nouns and nominals. The continuum of noun categorization devices covers a range of devices from the lexical numeral classifiers of South-East Asia to the highly grammaticalized gender agreement classes of Indo-European languages. They have a similar semantic basis, and one can develop from the other. They provide a unique insight into how people categorize the world through their language in terms of universal semantic parameters involving humanness, animacy, sex, shape, form, consistency, and functional properties. Noun categorization devices are morphemes which occur in surface structures under specifiable conditions, and denote some salient perceived or imputed characteristics of the entity to which an associated noun refers (Allan 1977: 285).
    [Show full text]
  • Nominal Aspect in the Romance Infinitives
    Nominal Aspect in the Romance Infinitives Monica Palmerini Among the parts-of-speech, a special position is occupied by the infinitive, a grammatical category which has generated a rich debate and a vast literature. In this paper we would like to propose a semantic analysis of this subtype of part-of-speech, halfway between a verb and a noun, based on the notion of Nominal Aspect proposed by Rijkhoff (1991, 2002). To capture in a systematic way the crosslinguistic variability in the types of interpretations available to nouns, Rijkhoff proposed the concept of Nominal Aspect as a nominal counterpart of the way verbal aspect encapsulates the way actions and events are conceptualized. He individuated two dimensions of variation, namely divisibility in space and boundedness, dealing with the way referents are formed in the dimension of space. Encoded by the two binary features [±structure] and [±shape], these parameters define four lexical kinds of nouns. (1) + structure +shape collective nouns + structure -shape mass nouns - structure +shape individual nouns - structure - shape concept nouns We argue that the infinitive, as it appears in romance languages such as Spanish and Italian, can be said to match very closely the aspectual profile of the so called concept nouns, those that, typically in classifier languages, refer to “atoms of meaning” (types) that only in discourse become actualized lexemes: similarly, in abstraction from the context, the infinitive is neither a verb nor a noun. If we consider that the first order noun, the default nominal model in the majority of Indo-european languages has the aspect of an individual noun, the infinitive appear to be, as Sechehaye noticed (1950: 169), an original and innovative lexical resource, which displays in the grammatical system of the romance languages a great variety of uses (Hernanz 1999; Skytte 1983).
    [Show full text]
  • Automatic Acquisition of Subcategorization Frames from Untagged Text
    AUTOMATIC ACQUISITION OF SUBCATEGORIZATION FRAMES FROM UNTAGGED TEXT Michael R. Brent MIT AI Lab 545 Technology Square Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 [email protected] ABSTRACT Journal (kindly provided by the Penn Tree Bank This paper describes an implemented program project). On this corpus, it makes 5101 observa- that takes a raw, untagged text corpus as its tions about 2258 orthographically distinct verbs. only input (no open-class dictionary) and gener- False positive rates vary from one to three percent ates a partial list of verbs occurring in the text of observations, depending on the SF. and the subcategorization frames (SFs) in which 1.1 WHY IT MATTERS they occur. Verbs are detected by a novel tech- nique based on the Case Filter of Rouvret and Accurate parsing requires knowing the sub- Vergnaud (1980). The completeness of the output categorization frames of verbs, as shown by (1). list increases monotonically with the total number (1) a. I expected [nv the man who smoked NP] of occurrences of each verb in the corpus. False to eat ice-cream positive rates are one to three percent of observa- h. I doubted [NP the man who liked to eat tions. Five SFs are currently detected and more ice-cream NP] are planned. Ultimately, I expect to provide a large SF dictionary to the NLP community and to Current high-coverage parsers tend to use either train dictionaries for specific corpora. custom, hand-generated lists of subcategorization frames (e.g., Hindle, 1983), or published, hand- 1 INTRODUCTION generated lists like the Ozford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Contemporary English, Hornby and This paper describes an implemented program Covey (1973) (e.g., DeMarcken, 1990).
    [Show full text]
  • Basic English Grammar Module Unit 1B: the Noun Group
    Basic English Grammar Module: Unit 1B. Independent Learning Resources © Learning Centre University of Sydney. This Unit may be copied for individual student use. Basic English Grammar Module Unit 1B: The Noun Group Objectives of the Basic English Grammar module As a student at any level of University study, when you write your assignments or your thesis, your writing needs to be grammatically well-structured and accurate in order to be clear. If you are unable to write sentences that are appropriately structured and clear in meaning, the reader may have difficulty understanding the meanings that you want to convey. Here are some typical and frequent comments made by markers or supervisors on students’ written work. Such comments may also appear on marking sheets which use assessment criteria focussing on your grammar. • Be careful of your written expression. • At times it is difficult to follow what you are saying. • You must be clearer when making statements. • Sentence structure and expression poor. • This is not a sentence. • At times your sentences do not make sense. In this module we are concerned with helping you to develop a knowledge of those aspects of the grammar of English that will help you deal with the types of grammatical errors that are frequently made in writing. Who is this module for? All students at university who need to improve their knowledge of English grammar in order to write more clearly and accurately. What does this module cover? Unit 1A Grammatical Units: the structure and constituents of the clause/sentence Unit 1B The Noun Group: the structure and constituents of the noun group Unit 2A The Verb Group: Finites and non-Finites Unit 2B The Verb Group: Tenses Unit 3A Logical Relationships between Clauses Unit 3B Interdependency Relationships between Clauses Unit 4 Grammar and Punctuation 1 Basic English Grammar Module: Unit 1B.
    [Show full text]