-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Events vs. non-events #4
Comments
Definitely, all processes should be anchored in a valency lexicon (regardless their information packaging). As for states - according to the guidelines, sect 3-1-1, only those packaged as predication should be considered as events.
Treating all states as events would thus violate the guidelines - are we allowed to do this? Or do we want move the line and apply a bit clearer criterion (at least from our point of view):
However, this would violate the guidelines, sect 3-1-1 as well. As for entities - the answer we got so far is based in morphology (a noun derived from a verb), which is probably not what should be considered as the main criterion in UMR?? |
My question was different: what does it mean to treat a state as event? Surely it is not the presence of the state in a particular lexicon (SynSemClass). The lexicon will say that |
That was my first reaction, too. But then I thought, hey, this is not just about morphology, this is about explaining semantics of morphology. And semantics does belong to UMR. Similarly, relative clauses (the man who teaches) are syntactic rather than semantic construct, but we try to explain their semantics in UMR. |
A valency lexicon is a lexicon pf predicates (which might be expressed as predicative verbs / nouns / adjectives / adverbs ), its function is to specify the relevant set of valency positions for each predicate / their argiments. Concept nodes in eventive mentions should have their arguments, contrary to non-eventive ones. |
Based on the examples in the UMR guidelines, processes expressed as finite verbs can also occur without their arguments if the arguments are not known. Unlike in the Prague tectogrammatical layer, you do not generate a node for every argument that is specified in the valency lexicon. |
As far as I understand it, But it should not considered those morphological categories that serve just as a syntactic glue ("usouvztažňující" in Czech terminology) - like case with nouns, gender, number and case with adjectives. Thus, according to me, it should not consider part of speech categories as they depend on a position in a sentence ( for example, a verb and its nominalization should be annotated in the same styl as a semantic verb). |
Based on Julia's email (Dec 6, 2023), the consequences of being designated an 'event' in UMR are:
We have arrived to preliminary conclusions as sketched in Issue #8 |
Based on Julia's email (Dec 6, 2023), the consequences of being designated an 'event' in UMR are:
We have arrived to preliminary conclusions as sketched in Issue #8 |
We spend a lot of energy on figuring out, what is or is not an event in UMR.
I'm starting to wonder what are the practical consequences of this distinction? We probably should anchor all processes and states in a valency lexicon such as SynSemClass, regardless their information packaging. If the sentence mentions their arguments, they will get the corresponding
:ARGX
relations, be they events or not. So the concept node will probably look the same whether we say it is an "eventive concept" or not.One side question is whether we should create an event node when we see a noun derived from a verb and denoting a participant in a process (such as teacher – see umr4nlp/umr-guidelines#16).
Any other consequences?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: