[ Skip to the content ]

Institute of Formal and Applied Linguistics Wiki

[ Back to the navigation ]

You are here: start » courses » rg » 2013 » stanford-dependencies

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision 		Previous revision
courses:rg:2013:stanford-dependencies [2013/10/21 14:07]
rosa answers 		courses:rg:2013:stanford-dependencies [2013/10/21 14:11] (current)
rosa +readding full questions (partially removed by prevoius commit)
Line 10: Line 10:
     * b) pobj(go, school); prep(school, to)\\ I would expect b), i.e. the preposition as a leaf node, according especially to DP5. (However, it actually is a), although this might change in future versions.)     * b) pobj(go, school); prep(school, to)\\ I would expect b), i.e. the preposition as a leaf node, according especially to DP5. (However, it actually is a), although this might change in future versions.)
   - In the variant of SDs described in the paper, each word of the sentence appears as a **dependent** in a relation:   - In the variant of SDs described in the paper, each word of the sentence appears as a **dependent** in a relation:
-    * d) zero or more times \\ Does not appear if it is collapsed (e.g.  prepositions) or left out (punctuation).\\ Appears multiple times if it is a shared modifier of a coordination. (See examples in the paper, or the answer to question 7 where you can see all this happen.)+    * a) exactly once 
 +    * b) once or not at all 
 +    * c) once or more times 
 +    * **d) zero or more times** \\ Does not appear if it is collapsed (e.g.  prepositions) or left out (punctuation).\\ Appears multiple times if it is a shared modifier of a coordination. (See examples in the paper, or the answer to question 7 where you can see all this happen.)
   - In the variant of SDs described in the paper, each word of the sentence appears as a **head** in a relation:   - In the variant of SDs described in the paper, each word of the sentence appears as a **head** in a relation:
-    * d) zero or more times \\ Does not appear as a head if it is a leaf or does not appear at all. \\ Appears multiple times if it has more than one dependent. \\ (Note that this is true for probably all dependency representations...)+    * a) exactly once 
 +    * b) once or not at all 
 +    * c) once or more times 
 +    * **d) zero or more times** \\ Does not appear as a head if it is a leaf or does not appear at all. \\ Appears multiple times if it has more than one dependent. \\ (Note that this is true for probably all dependency representations...)
   - Based on the paper, what properties do you think that a representation of a sentence in SD has (if you think about it as a graph)? \\ (This is actually discussed in detail in [[http://nlp.stanford.edu/software/dependencies_manual.pdf|Stanford typed dependencies manual]], but I wanted you to try to guess the properties based on what you had read.)   - Based on the paper, what properties do you think that a representation of a sentence in SD has (if you think about it as a graph)? \\ (This is actually discussed in detail in [[http://nlp.stanford.edu/software/dependencies_manual.pdf|Stanford typed dependencies manual]], but I wanted you to try to guess the properties based on what you had read.)
-    * a) Is it connected? \\ Yes, although this might not have been explicitly mentioned in the paper.+    * a) Is it connected? \\ **Yes,** although this might not have been explicitly mentioned in the paper.
     * b) Is it a DAG (directed acyclic graph)? \\ The paper probably suggests that yes, although in practice this is not true -- SDs capture correfence-like relations, which may form a directed cycle. See page 17 of [[http://nlp.stanford.edu/software/dependencies_manual.pdf|Stanford typed dependencies manual]], which shows this on "the woman who introduced you".     * b) Is it a DAG (directed acyclic graph)? \\ The paper probably suggests that yes, although in practice this is not true -- SDs capture correfence-like relations, which may form a directed cycle. See page 17 of [[http://nlp.stanford.edu/software/dependencies_manual.pdf|Stanford typed dependencies manual]], which shows this on "the woman who introduced you".
-    * c) Is it rooted? \\ Yes, although this might not have been explicitly mentioned in the paper. +    * c) Is it rooted? \\ **Yes,** although this might not have been explicitly mentioned in the paper. 
-    * d) Is it a tree? \\ No -- e.g. coordinations form undirected cycles. (See examples in the paper, or the answer to question 7 where you can see this happen.)+    * d) Is it a tree? \\ **No** -- e.g. coordinations form undirected cycles. (See examples in the paper, or the answer to question 7 where you can see this happen.)
   - Try to devise the SD representation of the following sentence: //Small boys and girls must go to school.//   - Try to devise the SD representation of the following sentence: //Small boys and girls must go to school.//
 +Hint: you should probably use the following SD types: //amod, aux, conj_*, nsubj, prep_*, root//.
 +The 'root' relation was probably not mentioned in the paper (so you don't have to use it) -- it is used to denote the dependent of the technical ROOT-0 node.
 +If you want, try to also draw that as a graph representation.
 +
 ''amod(boys-2, Small-1) ''amod(boys-2, Small-1)
 amod(girls-4, Small-1) amod(girls-4, Small-1)

[ Back to the navigation ] [ Back to the content ]