UniversalDependencies / UD_English-GUM

Other
32 stars 4 forks source link

Annotation errors for relative clauses #77

Closed xiulinyang closed 10 months ago

xiulinyang commented 10 months ago

(Sorry, I opened the issue in the wrong repository earlier before.) The following sentences should not be taken as relative clauses or the acl:relcl is assigned to the wrong token.

The part of speech for cross is wrong.

amir-zeldes commented 10 months ago

Thanks for reporting! I can fix these, but:

  1. Can you explain the error in this sentence? I don't see acl:relcl there: "When he became chairman of this city committee,..."
  2. I think "the way we're d-" might be correct, the annotator is basically saying that the person started to say a relative clause whose predicate was truncated, then changed the structure to non-relative (but that "d-" is the parent of "we"). Otherwise it's hard to attach that part.
  3. The last example is probably intended as a case of promotion, since the clause in question is missing a verb. I think it's conceivable to interpret it as a relative clause, but of course it is ungrammatical.
nschneid commented 10 months ago

I note with great pleasure the freedom to re-purpose offered by openly licensed educational resources , the convenience that online access to learners as alternative courses delivery and certification methods .

I don't actually see "that" in the treebank:

I note with great pleasure the freedom to re-purpose offered by openly licensed educational resources, the convenience online access to learners as alternative courses delivery and certification methods.

One interpretation is that "of" is missing after "convenience". (In EWT I have started indicating such inferable missing words on the previous word in MISC: MissingWordsAfter=of.)

Another interpretation is that a verb like "provides" is missing at the end. But "access" would be the head of "learners" even in this case.

I can't think of an interpretation that supports acl:relcl(convenience, learners).

xiulinyang commented 10 months ago

Can you explain the error in this sentence? I don't see acl:relcl there: "When he became chairman of this city committee,..."

I rechecked the sentence and now I feel like the annotation is correct. Sorry!

I don't actually see "that" in the treebank:

Yes, probably I copied the sentence with the added 'that' but forgot to remove it.

By the way, in the following sentences, the pos tags for that might be wrong?

nschneid commented 10 months ago

By the way, in the following sentences, the pos tags for that might be wrong?

I believe WDT/PRON for relativizers and IN/SCONJ for complementizers is correct.

nschneid commented 10 months ago

The Philadelphia sentence has 3 distinct uses of "that". Would make a good exam question. :)

amir-zeldes commented 10 months ago

I also think the tags are right in those sentences.

Regarding the convenience sentence, I do see how it could be acl:relcl with the 'provides' reconstruction like this, but as you say, the promotion should apply to the subject before the oblique. That said, the annotator was inconsistent here: they made the deps assume a verbal ellipsis reconstruction, but in the target hypothesis they put:

the DT  the
convenience NN  convenience
<sic ana="of online">
online  JJ  online
</sic>
access  NN  access

Since this is simpler, I'll adjust the deps to follow the TH.

xiulinyang commented 10 months ago

I thought the relative pronouns (in bold) were marked as ADP/IN rather than PRON/WDT in the following sentences? Or maybe my data is not updated.

xiulinyang commented 10 months ago

Sorry, it turns out that my data is outdated.