Dependency parsing for Turkic - Revision history

Firespeaker: /* A potential option for Turkic */ кыргызча жазуусу менен, казакчаныкы эмес...

2024-03-06T01:32:05Z

A potential option for Turkic: кыргызча жазуусу менен, казакчаныкы эмес...

Memduh: /* acl: Clausal modifier of a noun */

2018-07-30T11:08:06Z

acl: Clausal modifier of a noun

Firespeaker: /* Why traditional tests fail */

2017-05-05T19:44:01Z

Why traditional tests fail

Firespeaker: /* One approach: oblique if not core */

2017-01-21T21:35:27Z

One approach: oblique if not core

Firespeaker: /* Testing for argument status */

2017-01-21T21:33:07Z

Testing for argument status

Francis Tyers: /* cop: copula */

2015-06-27T03:57:26Z

cop: copula

Francis Tyers: b

2015-06-27T03:56:48Z

Firespeaker: /* A potential option for Turkic */

2015-06-26T21:12:34Z

A potential option for Turkic

Firespeaker: /* A potential option for Turkic */

2015-06-26T21:10:55Z

A potential option for Turkic

Francis Tyers: /* A potential option for Turkic */

2015-06-26T20:58:49Z

A potential option for Turkic

@@ Line 540: / Line 540: @@
 For example, take the following sentence:
- Кече      мугалим студентке  китеп(ти) берген.
+ Кечээ     мугалим студентке  китеп(ти) берген.
  yesterday teacher student-to book(the) gave.
 Using this test, you can create the following sentences, marked for grammaticality in spoken [not literary] Kyrgyz.  (''Note that the grammaticality marking refers to the whole utterance, independent of other pragmatics, and not to either of the individual sentences, whether in combination with the other or alone, or in some other context.'')
- Мугалим студентке  китеп(ти) берген.  Кече       берген.
+ Мугалим студентке  китеп(ти) берген.  Кечээ      берген.
  teacher student-to book      gave.    yesterday  gave.
- *Кече      студентке  китеп(ти) берген.  Мугалим  берген.
+ *Кечээ     студентке  китеп(ти) берген.  Мугалим  берген.
   yesterday student-to book(the) gave.    Teacher  gave.
- Кече       мугалим китеп(ти) берген.  Студентке  берген.
+ Кечээ      мугалим китеп(ти) берген.  Студентке  берген.
  yesterday  teacher book(the) gave.    student-to gave.
- ?*Кече      мугалим студентке  берген.  Китеп(ти) берген.
+ ?*Кечээ     мугалим студентке  берген.  Китеп(ти) берген.
    yesterday teacher student-to gave.    book(the) gave.
-The ungrammatical sentences show that мугалим and китеп are arguments and must be included with the original sentence.  The grammaticality of moving кече and студентке out of the original sentence shows that they are probably adjuncts.
+The ungrammatical sentences show that мугалим and китеп are arguments and must be included with the original sentence.  The grammaticality of moving кечээ and студентке out of the original sentence shows that they are probably adjuncts.
 ==== One approach: oblique if not core ====

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
              |         |
 Үйге     жүгіретін    адам     мені      шошытты.
-to.home  run.GPR      man      me.ACC    started.
+to.home  run.GPR      man      me.ACC    startled.
-"The man running home startled me." / "The man who is running home started me."
+"The man running home startled me." / "The man who is running home startled me."
 </pre>

@@ Line 530: / Line 530: @@
 ==== Why traditional tests fail ====
-One traditional test of whether a constituent is an argument or an adjunct is the "do-so" test (*''I ate apples and oranges, and Bill did so too apples and oranges.'').  Turkic languages, like Ewen, don't have this structure, so this test doesn't work in Turkic.
+One traditional test of whether a constituent is an argument or an adjunct is the "do-so" test (*''I ate apples and oranges, and Bill did so too apples and oranges.'').  Turkic and structurally similar languages, like Ewen, don't have this structure, so this test doesn't work in Turkic.
 Another traditional test of whether a constituent is an argument or adjunct is the grammaticality of the sentence when the constituent is left out (*''Jill really likes'').  This doesn't work in Turkic either, since any argument ("no exceptions") can be left out if already present [in the right way] in discourse.  While it will sound like information is missing when predicates are used on their own with none of their arguments, contexts can usually be thought of where most of these sound perfectly grammatical.

@@ Line 572: / Line 572: @@
 :: Actual test:
 :: Justification:
+# Is it a demoted dative/accusative/ablative subject?
-#
-:: Actual test: can a sentence be created in which the dative noun is in nominative, the verb has one (or two) fewer causative morphemes, and the relationship between the verb and this noun preserved?
+:: Actual test: can a sentence be created in which the noun is in nominative, the verb has one (or two) fewer causative morphemes, and the relationship between the verb and this noun preserved?

@@ Line 558: / Line 558: @@
 The ungrammatical sentences show that мугалим and китеп are arguments and must be included with the original sentence.  The grammaticality of moving кече and студентке out of the original sentence shows that they are probably adjuncts.
+==== One approach: oblique if not core ====
+This approach lists some tests for core arguments, and if a given noun doesn't match one of the tests, then it's considered oblique (non-core).
+Tests for core include:
+# Is it a nominative subject?
+:: Justification: nominative subjects agree in person/number with the verb, whether overt or not.
+# Is it an accusative object?
+:: Justification: accusative objects can be promoted to nominative subjects when the verb is passivised.
+# Is it genitive subject in a subordinated sentence?
+:: Actual test:
+:: Justification:
+#
+:: Actual test: can a sentence be created in which the dative noun is in nominative, the verb has one (or two) fewer causative morphemes, and the relationship between the verb and this noun preserved?
 [[Category:Turkic languages]]
+[[Category:Dependencies]]

@@ Line 338: / Line 338: @@
 <pre>
-                 ROOT
+        __ccomp_  ROOT
-                  |
+       |       |  |
 шылым шегуге болмайды .
 </pre>

@@ Line 333: / Line 333: @@
                                    |
 Эрте заманда Эрназар деген киши болуптур.
+</pre>
+;Subjectless use of "бол"
+<pre>
+                 ROOT
+                  |
+шылым шегуге болмайды .
 </pre>

@@ Line 546: / Line 546: @@
  yesterday  teacher book  gave.    student-to gave.
- *Кече      мугалим студентке  берген.  Китеп      берген.
+ ?*Кече      мугалим студентке  берген.  Китеп      берген.
-  yesterday teacher student-to gave.    book       gave.
+   yesterday teacher student-to gave.    book       gave.
 The ungrammatical sentences show that мугалим and китеп are arguments and must be included with the original sentence.  The grammaticality of moving кече and студентке out of the original sentence shows that they are probably adjuncts.

@@ Line 537: / Line 537: @@
 Using this test, you can create the following sentences, marked for grammaticality in spoken [not literary] Kyrgyz.  (''Note that the grammaticality marking refers to the whole utterance, independent of other pragmatics, and not to either of the individual sentences, whether in combination with the other or alone, or in some other context.'')
- Мугалим студентке  китеп берген.  Кече      берген.
+ Мугалим студентке  китеп берген.  Кече       берген.
- teacher student-to book  gave.    yesterday gave.
+ teacher student-to book  gave.    yesterday  gave.
- *Кече      студентке  китеп берген.  Мугалим берген.
+ *Кече      студентке  китеп берген.  Мугалим  берген.
-  yesterday student-to book  gave.    Teacher gave.
+  yesterday student-to book  gave.    Teacher  gave.
  Кече       мугалим китеп берген.  Студентке  берген.
@@ Line 547: / Line 547: @@
  *Кече      мугалим студентке  берген.  Китеп      берген.
-  yesterday teacher student-to gave.    book gave.
+  yesterday teacher student-to gave.    book       gave.
 The ungrammatical sentences show that мугалим and китеп are arguments and must be included with the original sentence.  The grammaticality of moving кече and студентке out of the original sentence shows that they are probably adjuncts.