Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

Fillmore's Classification of English MWEs - Shakti

VIEWS: 4 PAGES: 88

									  Mutiword Expressions:
  An Extremist Approach

Charles J. Fillmore
ICSI and UCB
                       Background:
                   or, Why Do I Care?

FrameNet Project
How to evaluate progress
"Words" versus LUs: complain, take off, depend on
Search problems and word frequency
General questions of polysemy
Some corpus linguistics traditions
Certain technical problems of representation: parcelling out
meanings
MWEs and the rest of the grammar
Estimation of vocabulary size
Questions of acquisition, typology, etc.
            What is a MWE?

Any linguistic expression, involving
more than one word, that requires an
interpreter – human or machine – to
have more than the abilities of an
"Innocent Speaker-Hearer".
The concept is not limited to lexicalized
(listable) expressions.
     Innocent Speaker-Hearer
The ISH knows
– individual simple lexical units,
– the basic head-to-dependent grammatical
  relations,
– the basic head-to-dependent semantic relations as
  determined by the frame of the governing lexical
  unit,
– regular and specific rules for realizing these,
– strategies for building a semantic structure out of
  all this.
That's all it knows.
     Dependency Representation
Since ISH's knowledge is about
 – unitary words and
 – word-to-word relations,
that can be represented in dependency diagrams in
 – which each node is a word and
 – each word-to-word link, i.e., each branch,
     • stands for one of the basic grammatical
       relations and
     • is capable of bearing a frame-based semantic
       relation to the governor.
          Here's a simple case:
His parents gave me a copy of that
    fascinating book about frogs.

            gave
parents       me          copy
 his               a              of
                                 book
                   that     fascinating   about
                                          frogs
          Basic syntactic relations

 Complementation
 Specification
 Modification

(there are others)
          Complementation
His parents gave me a copy of that
    fascinating book about frogs.

          gave
parents     me          copy
 his             a              of
                               book
                 that     fascinating   about
                                        frogs
          Complementation
His parents gave me a copy of that
    fascinating book about frogs.

          gave               Actually, copy of should
parents     me          copy be treated as a MWE.
 his             a            of
                             book
                 that     fascinating   about
                                        frogs
            Specification
His parents gave me a copy of that
    fascinating book about frogs.

          gave
parents     me          copy
 his             a              of
                               book
                 that     fascinating   about
                                        frogs
                        Specification
       His parents gave me a copy of that
           fascinating book about frogs.

                     gave
       parents          me            copy
          his                  a              of
Actually his can also be                     book
thought of as satisfying
a frame requirement of         that     fascinating   about
the relational noun parents.                          frogs
             Modification
His parents gave me a copy of that
    fascinating book about frogs.

          gave
parents     me          copy
 his             a              of
                               book
                 that     fascinating   about
                                        frogs
                 So ...

The study of MWEs proceeds by
examining meaning units of the
language that do not lend themselves
to such a simple treatment.
(Consider a parser.)
        Where the ISH idealization fails

1.   Some apparent MWEs are best analyzed as single
     words, occupying one node.
2.   Some MWEs are the product of "non-core"
     constructions and semi-independent mini-
     grammars.
3.   Some MWEs are the products of "regular"
     processes but have institutionally stipulated
     meanings.
4.   Some MWEs can be represented as dependency
     subgraphs (not "just" word strings, or collocate
     sets).
        Where the ISH idealization fails

1.   Some apparent MWEs are best analyzed as single
     words, occupying one node.
2.   Some MWEs are the product of "non-core"
     constructions and semi-independent mini-
     grammars.
3.   Some MWEs are the products of "regular"
     processes but have institutionally stipulated
     meanings.
4.   Some MWEs can be represented as dependency
     subgraphs (not "just" word strings, or collocate
     sets).
1. "Runs"
                             “Runs"

There are things that look like MWEs (that are
written as sequences of words), but they have no
internal variation and may just as well be thought of
as long words with spaces in them.
Examples
– used to, let alone, of course, all of a sudden, first off
Many are easily mislearned
–   used to > used of
–   by and large > by in large
–   to all intents and purposes > to all intensive purposes
–   an arm and a leg > a nominal egg
2. Special Constructions
           Special Constructions
Some common grammatical constructions require
structures that go beyond the "core" provisions of a
grammar. Consider the structure of:
–   the faster we drive the sooner we'll get there
–   what's this scratch doing on my violin?
–   she's older than any of us realized
–   she wouldn't give her mother a nickel let alone a dollar
                  Minigrammars

Some MWEs are generated by simple
generative structures, usually finite state
automata, for which dependency – or
constituency – representations are not always
relevant.
–   Names
–   Numbers
–   Locations (addresses, coordinates)
–   Time Expressions
–   Kinterms
             Personal Names
Reverend Dr T. Allen Hampton-Smith III
Components: titles, honorifics, given names,
patronymics, family names, extensions, ...
            English Kinterms

grandfather, great grandfather, great great
grandfather, etc.
first cousin, second cousin, third cousin
first cousin once removed, second cousin
three times removed, etc.
father-in-law, son-in-law, sister-in-law, etc.
    siblings
     X

A          B

C          D

E          F

G          H
    cousins
     X

A         B

C         D

E         F

G         H
second cousins
    X

A         B

C         D

E         F

G         H
first cousins once removed
          X

     A          B

     C          D

     E          F

     G          H
first cousins twice removed
           X

     A          B

     C          D

     E          F

     G          H
               Digression

Ordinary techniques of computational
linguistics/corpus linguistics won't be
able to recognize the constructional
nature of some expressions.
Test case
               another $600
Indefinite article     Qualifier   Quantifier   Plural Noun

        a            whopping        600         dollars
       an            additional       10          pages
        a              paltry         20          euros
        a            respectable    6,000        francs
       *a               mere           -          pages
       *a                 -           12          pages
Indefinite article     Qualifier   Quantifier   Plural Noun

        a            whopping        600         dollars
       an            additional       10          pages
        a              paltry         20          euros
        a            respectable    6,000        francs
       *a               mere           -          pages
       *a                 -           12          pages

         But how do we analyze "another $600"?
Indefinite article     Qualifier   Quantifier   Plural Noun

        a            whopping        600         dollars
       an            additional       10          pages
        a              paltry         20          euros
        a            respectable    6,000        francs
       *a               mere           -          pages
       *a                 -           12          pages

         But how do we analyze "another $600"?

      *an              -other        600            $
    Relations to the rest of the grammar

It would be most convenient if the products of
minigrammars could be "sealed" and not interfere
with the rest of the sentence. But:
 – Croatian names
 – Finnish numbers
 – Internal grammar
3. Stipulated Designations
              Translucent Idioms:
 regular productions with stipulated designations

From one point of view these are just "long words"
with special meanings, but they are semantically
penetrable; e.g.,
 – names of organizations
   The American Society for the Prevention of
   Cruelty to Animals. (ASPCA)
 – names of titles
   Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence
 – names of officially designated crimes
   assaulting a federal officer with a deadly or lethal
   weapon
4. Dependency Subgraphs
     Dependency Subgraphs

Here we refer to lexical units that are
continuous parts of dependency structures.
       x             x             x
           y     y       z         y
                                   z
        Dependency Subgraphs
A given lexical unit of this kind can have its own
subcategorization requirements.


           x                   x                       x
       A          y       y    A      z                y
                                                     A z
      (Motivating digression)

word strings - "wrist watch" - how to find
- statistical significance ("of the")
discontinuous - "collocates" - within
spans - within sentences
some kind of grammatical relation
between them?
Subcategorization Details
    Particle Verbs - Intransitive

        V        Verb > particle is the
                 lexical unit.
X     part       Exx:
                 wake up, go away,
                 sit down, shut up,
       shut      Interruptible:
                 Shut the hell up!
X      up                 shut


                   shut the_hell up
    Particle Verbs - Transitive
      V
                   Verb > particle is the
                   lexical unit.
X     Y     part
                   Exx:
                   take off ('remove'), take
                   out ('date'),
     take
                   Interruptible:
                   Take your shoes off.
X     Y     off    I took her out once.
                            take

                   take   your shoes off
              In the Old Days ...
About half a century ago it was generally believed
that in Deep Structure, phrases like pick up, take off,
etc., started out as single constituents, and a Particle
Movement Transformation allowed the extraction of
the particle so that it could follow the direct object.

[take off] [your shoes] >> [take] [your shoes] [off]


A dependency subgraph can recognize the unity of
the two-word block without worrying about phrasal
constituency.
     Prepositional Verbs -
         Intransitive
    V
                  Verb > preposition is the
                  lexical unit.
X          prep   Exx:
                  look for ('seek'), object to
            Y     ('oppose'), look into
                  ('investigate')
                  Interruptible:
    look          I looked long and hard for
                  the perfect wife.
                  We objected strenuously to
X           for   her proposal.
                  Comment:
            Y     Some PPs are omissible,
                  some aren't. look (for), look
                  into
                 PP Omissibility

Omissible               Non-omissible
(under conditions of
zero anaphora)

                        Could you look into this
Look at it!
                        problem for me?
- I'm looking.
                        - *I've already started
Look for it.            looking.
- I'm looking.
      Prepositional Verbs -
           Transitive
    V
                   Verb > preposition is the
                   lexical unit.
X   Y       prep   Exx:
                   talk into ('persuade'), rid of
             Z     Comment: PP is sometimes
                   omissible:
                   The judge cleared me (of all
    clear          charges).
                   They tried to talk me *(into
                   quitting my job).
X    Y       of    Who will rid me *(of this
                   meddlesome priest)?
              Z
    Particle-&-Preposition Verbs
     V            Verb > {part,prep} is
                  the lexical unit.
                  Exx:
X   part   prep   put up with ('tolerate'),
                  look up to ('respect'),
            Y     break in on ('interrupt')
                  Not generally interruptible, I
     put          think (haven't checked
                  corpus data).

X    up    with
            Y
            V+N+P Verbs
    V             Verb > /N,prep/ is the
                  lexical unit.
                  Exx:
X   N      prep   take advantage of ('exploit'),
                  take part in ('participate in'),
            Y     take charge of
                  Comments:
    take          N can be modified; N can be
                  passive subject:
                  Considerable advantage was
X   part     in   taken of this opportunity.
                  Pseudo-passive:
             Y    They were cruelly taken
                  advantage of.
                  N does not take a determiner.
        Other Parts of Speech

Adjectives can have prepositional and
clausal complements:
– fond of cats; interested in math; similar to mud
Nouns can have prepositional and
causal complements:
– top of the tower; friend to the poor; journey into the
  jungle; copy of the book
VP Idioms
Obvious ones
– pull someone's leg, blow one's nose
– kick the bucket
Less obvious ones
– answer the door
  (Would you answer the door?)
– mention someone's name
  (Did anybody mention my name at the party?)
Support Constructions
Support Verbs with Subject N

 V          Verb > N is the lexical unit,
            N is semantic head, V is
            support verb
 N          Exx:
            The wind is blowing, the fire
            is burning, the rain is falling,
            a riot occurred; an accident
            happened
            Comment: The frame is
blow        evoked by the noun. The
            support verb is selected by
            the noun.
wind        Compare "the fire is burning"
            with "the house is burning".
 V             Note linearization:
               Since these are
 N     V       intransitive, the N is
               (or heads) the
               subject NP and the
               verb is the
blow           predicate.

wind   blows
    Support Verbs with Object N
       V
                Verb > N is the lexical unit, N
                is semantic head, V is support
                verb. N has its own valence.
X      N
                Exx:
                We had an argument with the
                kids. ('we argued with the kids')
                I made the decision to leave.
                ('I decided to leave')
                Comment: The frame is evoked
     have       by the noun. The SV is selected
                by the noun, which also brings
                in its own complement structure
X   argument    .
                Comment: The N doesn't have
      with      to be deverbal: wage war,
                commit a crime
       Y
    Ditransitive Support Verbs
      V
                   Verb > N is the lexical unit, N is
                   semantic head, V is support
X    Y      N      verb. X and Y            are
                   each participants in N's frame.
                   Exx:
                   She gave me a kiss. ('she
                   kissed me')
                   I paid him a bribe.
                   ('I bribed him')
     give          They gave me good advice.
                   ('they advised me well')

X     X     kiss
   SVs can resolve polysemy.

Polysemous event nouns can take
different support verbs:
– ('quarrel') have an argument
– ('reason') make an argument

– ('rest') take a break
– ('flight') make a break
         A common test of SVs:
One frequent proposed characteristic of
support verbs is that their nominal object
can’t really be interrogated - meaning that the
verb in question isn’t functioning as a self-
standing verb. The following are not natural
conversations:
–   What did you heave?   - A sigh.
–   What have you made?   - A decision to go home.
–   What did you have?    - A fight with my brother.
–   What did you wreak?   - Vengeance on my enemies.
–   What did you lodge?   - A complaint.
Interchangeable with Verbs
   She heaved a sigh.
         (She sighed.)
   We made the decision to give up.
         (We decided to give up.)
   I took a bath.
         (I bathed.)
   He suffered a relapse.
         (He relapsed.)
   Let’s say a prayer.
         (Let’s pray.)
        Profiling Different Participants

Agent of event          Undergoer of event
perform an operation    undergo an operation
inflict injury          sustain injury

exact/wreak vengeance   have a setback
launch an attack
                        suffer a defeat
give instructions
                        undergo an operation
submit an application
ask a question          receive a rebuke
                        get advice
          Beyond "light verbs"
Simple cases: the verb has essential no meaning
except to reveal that its subject is necessarily a
participant in the event named by the noun.
 – a. active role
 – b. passive role
More nuanced cases: the verb contributes
information about register, attitude, aktionsart,
or the like.
More extended cases: the verb identifies its subject
as a participant in the larger scenario associated with
the event named by the verb.
                  Examples

Simple, active:
– he made a complaint
Nuanced:
– he registered a complaint
                  Examples

Simple, active:
– she gave an exam
Simple, passive:
– he took/sat the exam
                  Examples

Simple, active:
– she gave an exam
Simple, passive:
– he took/sat the exam
Extended:
– he passed/failed the exam
                  Examples

Simple, active:
– she made a promise
                  Examples

Simple, active:
– she made a promise
Extended:
– she kept/broke her promise
                     For the full story,
                   and then some, see ...
Mel'cuk, Igor' (1995), Phrasemes in language and phraseology
in linguistics. In M. Everaert et al., Idioms: Structural and
Psychological Perspectives. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mel'cuk, Igor' (1996), Lexical functions: a tool for the
description of lexical relations in a lexicon. In Leo Wanner, ed.,
Lexical Functions in Lexicography and Natural Language
Processing. John Benjamins.
Mel'cuk, Igor' (1998), Collocations and lexical functions. In
Cowie 1998
Mel'cuk, Igor' (1995), The future of the lexicon in linguistic
description and the explanatory combinatorial dictionary.
Linguistics in the Morning Calm 3. 181-270. Hanshin: Seoul
    Support Verbs with Adjective
      V
                Verb > A is the lexical unit,
                A is semantic head, V is
X     A         support verb, A may have
                its own complements (e.g.,
                rid of).
                Exx:
                be + any predicate adjective;
      get       go crazy, turn red, get naked
                Comment:
                The unit rid of seems to
X    naked      occur only with a SV.
  Support Prepositions
            Prep > N is the lexical unit, N
 P          is semantic head, V is support
            verb. N has its own valence.
            Exx:
 N          at risk, in danger, on fire, under
            scrutiny, under arrest
            Some are modifiable:
            at considerable risk, in grave
            danger, under careful scrutiny
            Comment: The P>N structure
at          may function adjectivally or
            adverbially; the N can have its
            own complements.
risk        (he participated in the race) at
            considerable risk to his health,
            (the building is) in danger of
            collapse
     More Complex Cases
        V
                    Verb > P > N is the lexical
                    unit, N is semantic head, V
X   Y        P      is support verb, N is
                    generally not expandable.
             N      Exx:
                    take into account, take under
                    consideration, have in
    take            (one's) possession


X   Y       under

    consideration
    Support Verbs with PP
    V
                        Verb > P > N is the lexical unit,
                        N is semantic head, V is
                        support verb. With
X           prep        possession there are two
                        alignments of the arguments:
              N         Possessor - Possessed

                        I came into possession of
    come                these documents.

                        Possessed - Possessor
X             into
                        These documents came into
                        my possession.
           possession
Transparent Nouns
              N of N
 N      N
                 N > of is the lexical unit, The
                 second N is semantic head for
of     of        purposes of external selection.
                 Comment: sometimes the N >
 N      N        of is "transparent" to the pieces
                 of an MWE; and sometimes the
                 N > of > N is itself an MWE,
                 especially in the case of
                 aggregates and unitizers:
type   bout       –   a case of the flu
                  –   a round of golf
 of     of        –   a herd of cattle
                  –   a flock of geese
                  –   a school of fish
fish   flu        –   a pinch of salt
                  –   a pod of whales
Types of transparent nouns
   1. Aggregates
      bunch, group, collection, herd, school, flock
   2. Quantities
      flood, number, scores, storm
   3. Types
      breed, class, ilk, kind, type, sort
   4. Portions and Parts
      half, segment, top, bottom, part
   5. Unitizers
      glass, bottle, box, serving
   6. Evaluations
      gem, idiot, prince
        "Transparent" to what?
Relation between locative preposition and object:
 – on the shelf; on this part of the shelf
 – in the room; in this part of the room
Relation between verb and typical collocating object
 – play golf;    play a round of golf
 – eat fish;     eat this type of fish
Relation between possessor and kin-term
 – my wife;      my gem of a wife
 – her husband; her jerk of a husband
Compounds
         N > N Compounds
  N       N
                 N > N is the lexical unit; listed
                 compounds have the dependent
                 in red; the syntactic head is the
                 frame evoker, the dependent is
  N       N      either a frame element or a
                 "quale". The order is Modifier +
                 Head.

 risk    knife



health   fish
             N+N Compounds
Some are just listed, their internal structure of
etymological relevance only. (What's the head of light
year? Often misused: "that was light years ago".)
 – light year, puppy love
Some are listed, with N2 as the head, N1 as satisfier
of some requirement of N2; name pre-existing
category.
 – bread knife, wine bottle, cork screw
Some are interpretable with reference to completion
needs of N2.
 – fire risk, health risk, travel risks
          A-N Compounds
  N        N
                 N > A is the lexical unit; listed
                 compounds have the dependent
                 in red; the syntactic head is the
                 frame evoker, the dependent is
  A        A     either a frame element or a
                 "quale".
                 Ready-made A+P compounds:
                 hot news, friendly fire, blind
police    news   alley, dead end




federal   hot
        "Pertinative" adjectives
Pertinatives are adjectives whose senses are
defined in (some) dictionaries with the phrase "of or
pertaining to". Traditional term: relational adjectives.
WordNet term: pertainyms.
They are not used predicatively in the same meaning.
They aren't scalar, e.g., they don't get modified with
very.
     Pertinatives vs. Descriptives
judicial appointment   judicious appointment
economic policy        economical housewife
educational practice   educational experience
criminal law           criminal behavior

linguistic society     ugly cat
Canadian government    amazing disclosure
national interest      bored child

these are MWEs         these aren't
       Continuity Hypothesis

I assume the continuity of the lexicon and the
constructicon.
Reference: Paul Kay & Charles J. Fillmore
(1999), "Grammatical constructions and
linguistic generalizations: the What's X Doing
Y? construction", Language 75 1-33.
Claim: many lexically-headed constructions
can be analyzed as dependency subtrees.
                                              be is finite (not quite true)
                      be                      Y is secondary predicate,
              X              doing            i.e.
                                                       AP
                                                       with absolute
                      what            Y
                                                       participial
                                                       locative phrase
 Meaning: X is Y, and that is anomalous.

Different linearizations and interruptions:

What are you doing here? (be before X)
I wonder what she's doing wearing her mother's dress. (X before be)
What the hell are you still doing standing out there in the rain?
(various interruptions)
What are you doing without any shoes on?
Long line for pre-recall appoin tments to bench
Phillip Matier, And rew Ross
Monday, Augus t 25, 2003

   1. As the recall clock ticks down, it's interesting to note how many Gray Davis
      loyalists are putting their names in for some highly coveted judicial appointments.

   2. Among the more notable bench seekers:

            The gove rnor's own legal affairs secretary, Barry Goode, who is being
             vetted by the State Bar for an appoin tment to the First District Court of
             Appea l in Sacramento.

            Davis' lega l appointments secretary, Burt Pines, who over the past 4 1/2
             years has helped his boss fill 304 judgeships around the state. Pine is now
             under consideration himself for a seat on the L.A. Superior Court.

            And Jeremiah Halli sey, one of the governo r's top San Francisco fund-
             raisers who put toge ther last Thursday's big $1,000-a-head cocktail party
             for Davis at the Fairmont. Hallisey, who sits on the California
             Transportation Commission, has filed papers for one of the Superior Court
             openings in either San Francisco or Contra Costa County.

   3. And speaking of the Fairmont fund-raiser (which netted a respectable $600, 000),
      attendees told us the crowd looked like a casting call for wannabe judge s and
      people seeking recall- proof commission appointments.
Personal names, long and short:
      Gray Davis        Davis
      Jeremiah Hallisey Hallisey

Places
         Los Angeles
         San Francisco

Organizations, Institutions
     First District Court of Appeal
     L. A. Superior Court
     California Transportation Commission
Noun+Noun Compounds
     recall clock
     Davis loyalists
     casting call
     commission appointments

Adjective + Noun Compounds
      legal affairs
      judicial appointment
      medical leave
      judicial vacancy

Complex cases:
    legal affairs secretary
    legal appointments secretary
Support Verbs
     make ... appointments
     submit to ... review

Transparent Nouns
      a stack of appointments
      a host of 11th hour appointments

Verb-headed phrases
      put one's name in for (an appointment)
      file for (an opening)
      get the thumbs down from
      get one's name cleared
      sign off on
      get caught flat-footed
Miscellaneous
     as the clock ticks down
     over the past four and a half years
     it is interesting to note
     and speaking of ...
     a respectable 600 thousand dollars
     on the way out the door
     on the chance there may be ...
     much less
     in fairness
                  Bottom Line
Lexical units can be represented as dependency
subgraphs, specifying a semantic head, a syntactic
head, required/preferred dependents.
Constraints on dependents can be specified lexically,
sortally, morphosyntactically, and in terms of frame
roles.
Dependents can be marked as "closed" (not open to
modification) and/or "local" (not subject to extraction)
and/or "omissible".
The lexical head of the construction bears information
about contextual constraints: finiteness, inflection,
polarity, etc.

								
To top