Closed nschneid closed 2 years ago
@amir-zeldes How are you handling edeprels given the type mismatch of "which" (PRON) and its clausal antecedent? I am thinking nsubj/obj for "which" at the basic level and csubj/ccomp as the enhanced dependency for its antecedent.
some more GUM hits (as well as false positives) in: http://universal.grew.fr/?custom=62e9b21aa045b http://universal.grew.fr/?custom=62e9b7f6c21e5 http://universal.grew.fr/?custom=62e9b9167881c
Was surprised how few adverbial acl:relcl
s were in EWT—turns out most of the adverbial relatives were parataxis
.
Need to go through:
PronType=Int
(the default for WH-pronouns) but not appearing in a typical relative clause context. Some are errors (ccomp
should be advcl:relcl
); some are relative clauses as full sentences, so should be PronType=Rel
; others are truly interrogative. I will go through them and mark the truly interrogative ones with a MISC feature ManuallyChecked=PronType
. (all addressed)some more GUM hits (as well as false positives) in: http://universal.grew.fr/?custom=62e9b21aa045b http://universal.grew.fr/?custom=62e9b7f6c21e5 http://universal.grew.fr/?custom=62e9b9167881c
Thanks for reporting, there were two instances I'd missed in there!
@amir-zeldes How are you handling edeprels given the type mismatch of "which" (PRON) and its clausal antecedent? I am thinking nsubj/obj for "which" at the basic level and csubj/ccomp as the enhanced dependency for its antecedent.
Yeah, that looks good, just implemented it. I also saw cases of obl ->advcl and even csubj:pass once...
(2nd part moved to other thread)
It has been decided that relative clauses modifying entire clauses, not nominals, should no longer be
acl:relcl
: UniversalDependencies/docs#886This issue is to track English-specific implementation