UniversalConceptualCognitiveAnnotation / docs

UCCA Documentation
https://universalconceptualcognitiveannotation.github.io/
10 stars 1 forks source link

Noun scenes with scene modifiers #22

Closed nschneid closed 5 years ago

nschneid commented 5 years ago

p. 18 addresses noun scenes. One of them has an adjective ("accurate") tagged as D. What about an adjectival modifier that is more scene-like, e.g. "a cringe - inducing presentation by the mayor"? Would this be

[a_E [cringe_A inducing_P (presentation)_A]_E presentation_C]_P [by_R the_E mayor_C]_A

with a remote to indicate that the head of the adjectival modifier is essentially an argument of it?

Another possibility that avoids using E for a scene modifier:

[a_E presentation_C]_P [cringe_A inducing_P (presentation)_A]_D [by_R the_E mayor_C]_A

nschneid commented 5 years ago

Actually, I guess cringing is an act which requires a cringer, and inducing is causation, so something like

[a_E [(IMP)_A cringe_P inducing_D (presentation)_A]_E presentation_C]_P [by_R the_E mayor_C]_A

or

[a_E presentation_C]_P [(IMP)_A cringe_P inducing_D (presentation)_A]_D [by_R the_E mayor_C]_A

?

nschneid commented 5 years ago

Considered and rejected: [a_E [cringe_P inducing_D]_E presentation_C]_P

The solution, though somewhat unintuitive: [a_E]_H- [cringe_P inducing_D]_H [presentationC]-H This avoids a tricky issue of defining which modifier scenes are D and which are H.

TBD: the argument structure of "cringe-inducing".

nschneid commented 5 years ago

Should we include implicit/remote participants of nominalized events/states like "cringe-inducing" or "express discontent"?

omriabnd commented 5 years ago

We need to ask the FrameNet people about the typology of DNIs vs. CNIs, and can we define a well-defined sub-class of implicits to annotate, deferring the annotation of others.

omriabnd commented 5 years ago

I talked with Miriam. It seems DNIs are just as tricky to get as INIs. We'll have to do strictly with CNIs for now.