{ "paper_id": "2020", "header": { "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", "date_generated": "2023-01-19T03:11:12.666874Z" }, "title": "I've got a construction looks funny -representing and recovering non-standard constructions in UD", "authors": [ { "first": "Josef", "middle": [], "last": "Ruppenhofer", "suffix": "", "affiliation": {}, "email": "ruppenhofer@ids-mannheim.de" }, { "first": "Ines", "middle": [], "last": "Rehbein", "suffix": "", "affiliation": { "laboratory": "", "institution": "Universit\u00e4t", "location": { "postCode": "68159", "settlement": "Mannheim, Mannheim" } }, "email": "" } ], "year": "", "venue": null, "identifiers": {}, "abstract": "The UD framework defines guidelines for a crosslingual syntactic analysis in the framework of dependency grammar, with the aim of providing a consistent treatment across languages that not only supports multilingual NLP applications but also facilitates typological studies. Until now, the UD framework has mostly focussed on bilexical grammatical relations. In the paper, we propose to add a constructional perspective and discuss several examples of spoken-language constructions that occur in multiple languages and challenge the current use of basic and enhanced UD relations. The examples include cases where the surface relations are deceptive, and syntactic amalgams that either involve unconnected subtrees or structures with multiply-headed dependents.We argue that a unified treatment of constructions across languages will increase the consistency of the UD annotations and thus the quality of the treebanks for linguistic analysis.", "pdf_parse": { "paper_id": "2020", "_pdf_hash": "", "abstract": [ { "text": "The UD framework defines guidelines for a crosslingual syntactic analysis in the framework of dependency grammar, with the aim of providing a consistent treatment across languages that not only supports multilingual NLP applications but also facilitates typological studies. Until now, the UD framework has mostly focussed on bilexical grammatical relations. In the paper, we propose to add a constructional perspective and discuss several examples of spoken-language constructions that occur in multiple languages and challenge the current use of basic and enhanced UD relations. The examples include cases where the surface relations are deceptive, and syntactic amalgams that either involve unconnected subtrees or structures with multiply-headed dependents.We argue that a unified treatment of constructions across languages will increase the consistency of the UD annotations and thus the quality of the treebanks for linguistic analysis.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Abstract", "sec_num": null } ], "body_text": [ { "text": "The Universal Dependencies (UD) initiative is a project that aims for crosslinguistically consistent annotation of morphosyntax (de Marneffe and Nivre, 2019). The sharing of representations across languages is intended to support multilingual NLP applications on the one hand and to facilitate the linguistic study of similarities and differences from a typological perspective.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Introduction", "sec_num": "1" }, { "text": "While the UD framework also covers the annotation of parts of speech and of morphological features, the annotation of syntactic dependencies is at its core. UD currently uses 37 labels for broadly attested grammatical relations. In addition to these basic UD dependencies, UD allows for an enhanced representation that \"aims to make implicit relations between content words more explicit by adding relations and augmenting relation names\" (Schuster and Manning, 2016) . The most prominent examples of added relations in enhanced representations are links that help propagate relations over conjunctions. While the basic dependency structure is assumed to form a (possibly non-projective) tree, enhanced UD representations often no longer are trees. The subtyping of relations serves to capture more fine-grained language-specific constructions . For instance, in English, subjects of passive clauses bear the relation nsubj:pass.", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 439, "end": 467, "text": "(Schuster and Manning, 2016)", "ref_id": "BIBREF37" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Introduction", "sec_num": "1" }, { "text": "In this paper, we discuss several constructions that are found in spoken language and data from social media, which are not trivial to analyze. The first set of constructions involves cases where a head and dependent are related in a hybrid way, exhibiting for instance properties of both coordination and subordination, or of coordination and predication. The second group of constructions involves syntactic amalgams where arguably the assumption that a basic UD analysis should form a tree is not met. We discuss possible trade-offs with respect to how basic and enhanced UD relations might be used in these cases to give linguistically adequate analyses. Note that, our unmarked examples come from Twitter. The others come from the ukWaC corpus (Baroni et al., 2009) , UD treebanks, or the linguistic literature.", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 749, "end": 770, "text": "(Baroni et al., 2009)", "ref_id": "BIBREF2" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Introduction", "sec_num": "1" }, { "text": "We first discuss constructions that superficially look as if a head and dependent are connected by a certain relation but where the construction also, or even mainly, exhibits properties of another type of relation.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Constructions with hybrid properties", "sec_num": "2" }, { "text": "The first group of constructions involves superficial coordinations that are understood as conditionals, with the first conjunct being subordinated to the second conjunct (Culicover and Jackendoff, 1997; Culicover and Jackendoff, 2005) . Some more common forms involve coordination of two declaratives (1), of an NP and a declarative (2), and of an imperative and a declarative (3). Constructions like this are found in German, French, Dutch and Russian (Fortuin and Boogaart, 2009) , and probably in further languages.", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 171, "end": 203, "text": "(Culicover and Jackendoff, 1997;", "ref_id": "BIBREF13" }, { "start": 204, "end": 235, "text": "Culicover and Jackendoff, 2005)", "ref_id": "BIBREF14" }, { "start": 454, "end": 482, "text": "(Fortuin and Boogaart, 2009)", "ref_id": "BIBREF23" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Conditional coordinations", "sec_num": "2.1" }, { "text": "(1) You say another word and I'll start hating you.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Conditional coordinations", "sec_num": "2.1" }, { "text": "(2) One more word outta you and you're gettin kissed boy (3) Say that again and imma fight you", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Conditional coordinations", "sec_num": "2.1" }, { "text": "In what follows, we focus on the simple declarative type in English, as illustrated in (1). As discussed by Culicover and Jackendoff (2005) , while on the one hand the construction looks like syntactic coordination, it does not behave like it in every aspect but also has features of subordination. First, reversing the two conjuncts leads to a loss of the relevant meaning, which is somewhat unexpected for a simple coordination (4). Second, we cannot add coordinates with the intention of expanding the condition/protasis: (5) cannot be used to convey that 'If you drink another can of beer and Bill eats more pretzels, then I'm leaving'. At most, we can add coordinates if they are interpreted as part of the conclusion/apodosis (6).", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 108, "end": 139, "text": "Culicover and Jackendoff (2005)", "ref_id": "BIBREF14" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Conditional coordinations", "sec_num": "2.1" }, { "text": "(4) I'll start hating you and you say another word. (5) # You say another word, Bill agrees with you and I'll start hating you. (6) You say another word, I'll start hating you and Bill will stop talking to you.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Conditional coordinations", "sec_num": "2.1" }, { "text": "Third, while regular coordination is compatible with gapping (7), conditional coordination is not (8). In this respect, it is similar to an explicit if -conditional, which also does not allow gapping (9). (7) Big Louie stole another car radio and Little Louie the hubcaps. (from Culicover and Jackendoff (2005)) (8) #Big Louie steals one more car radio and Little Louie the hubcaps. (9) #If Big Louie steals one more car radio, then Little Louie the hubcaps.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Conditional coordinations", "sec_num": "2.1" }, { "text": "However, a treatment in terms of subordination is not clear-cut either. While English subordinate clauses, including if -clauses, can precede or follow the main clause, the first conjunct of a subordinating conditional coordination cannot be moved (10-11), whether we assign and to the left or the right conjunct.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Conditional coordinations", "sec_num": "2.1" }, { "text": "(10) # And I'll start hating you, you say another word. (11) # I'll start hating you, you say another word and.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Conditional coordinations", "sec_num": "2.1" }, { "text": "Certainly, and would make a very odd subordinator: all other English subordinators are clause-initial. The fact that pauses in the conditional coordination construction precede, rather than follow and also suggests that it should be integrated with the right conjunct rather than the left, whatever the analysis. As a semantic peculiarity, we note that these conditionals are restricted to root conditional meanings. Speech act uses, for instances, are not possible unlike with if -conditionals (cf. 12-13). What are the options for representing instances of this construction in UD? One option that preserves Culicover and Jackendoff's diagnosis that the construction involves a mismatch between syntax and semantics might be to proceed as follows. In terms of basic UD, we treat the structure as involving coordination while adding an advcl relation in the enhanced representation, as shown in Figure 1 , to capture the subordination characteristics. However, as one of our reviewers argues, \"the encoding of the fact that it's a different construction [from ordinary coordination] cannot be done at the enhanced level\" and \"[i]f you identify new constructions, you must introduce new labels to name them\". We take this argument seriously but also want to point out that current UD annotations do not seem to differentiate fully all the constructions that one might want to recognize. For instance subject-auxiliary inversion constructions in English are not recoverable from specific relation labels. Likewise, instances of, for instance, the Group Identity NP construction such as the rich/poor, the young/old, etc. are not recoverable from specific labels. For instance, in example (14) below from UD-EWT rich is an adjective by POS and the NP-status of the subtree it heads is seen only from the fact that it is determined by the and governed as an nmod by many. But these relations also apply to NPs with regular nouns as heads. 1 (14) . . . too many of the rich made their money not by succeeding in business, but . . . Now, if we want to forego the use of enhanced relations but still point to the hybrid properties of the construction, we could introduce a new relation subtype conj:advcl for the relation between the conjuncts and still treat and as related to its head via cc. However, insofar as we understand current usage, subtype labels have not been used to indicate hybrids. E.g. while there is for instance a label csubj:cop, this label is used for a clause that acts as the subject of another, copular clause; it does not refer to something that is at the same time a csubj and a cop. To avoid the problem of how a subtyped relation name is likely to be interpreted, we could simply introduce a new relation name such as conjcond. But this relation may be sparse and hard to learn for statistical parsers. Yet another option is to treat this construction as involving subordination of the first conjunct as an advcl in the basic UD analysis, with and being tied to the main clause by a relation other than cc. In analogy to the treatment of then in if-then conditionals, and could be treated as an ADV that depends on the main clause head as an advmod. What is odd about this analysis is that it involves an obligatorily marked main clause and an obligatory unmarked subordinate clause. At least, and would not be the only conjunction that changes function in a pseudo-coordination construction. But similarly figures in constructions that are interpreted as (concessive) conditionals with readings such as 'despite P, Q' or 'even if P, Q', as shown by (15). And further, whatever analysis we choose also applies to conditional coordinations involving or (cf. (16)), which correspond to explicit unless-conditionals.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [ { "start": 896, "end": 904, "text": "Figure 1", "ref_id": null } ], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Conditional coordinations", "sec_num": "2.1" }, { "text": "(16) Give me the money or I'll bite.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Conditional coordinations", "sec_num": "2.1" }, { "text": "1 Unlike UD, construction grammar and HPSG can represent the fact that certain phrases/subtrees have unexpected external semantics or syntax through features on phrasal mother signs. For constructional treatments of the Group Identity NP construction see Fried (2015) and Fillmore et al. (2012) , where the construction is called Adjective-as-nominal.", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 255, "end": 267, "text": "Fried (2015)", "ref_id": "BIBREF24" }, { "start": 272, "end": 294, "text": "Fillmore et al. (2012)", "ref_id": "BIBREF21" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Conditional coordinations", "sec_num": "2.1" }, { "text": "For consistency's sake we also suggest extending the same treatment to cases of paratactic conditionals such as (17)-(18).", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Conditional coordinations", "sec_num": "2.1" }, { "text": "(17) You do that again, I'm gonna smack you where the sun don't shine. (18) One more word outta you I'll take the servers down all day Finally, we want to note that conditional coordinations are not the only 'weird' constructions involving and. Other pseudo-coordination constructions with a hortative-mandative semantics have verbs like try and remember or be+Adjective combinations such as be sure in the left conjunct (Flach, 2017) . 19If you 're a woman , then try and find the cheapest policy -whoever it 's marketed at . (ukWaC)", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 421, "end": 434, "text": "(Flach, 2017)", "ref_id": "BIBREF22" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Conditional coordinations", "sec_num": "2.1" }, { "text": "The example in 20is an instance of a German construction that, while apparently a coordination, semantico-pragmatically serves to express the speakers' incredulity about a hypothetical state of affairs mentioned in prior discourse. The German and related constructions in other languages are known under various names that reflect either their form, function or distribution, among them: Oxymoron construction (Deppermann, 2007) , Bare predication construction in polar echoes (Huddleston and Pullum, 2002) , Echo exclamation (Quirk et al., 1985) Mad Magazine sentences (Akmajian, 1984) and Incredulity Reponse Construction (Lambrecht, 1990) . We will use the descriptive name Non finite predication construction (NFPK) proposed by B\u00fccker (2012) . Alongside the variant featuring und (NFPK und ), there is a version of the construction where und is lacking (NFPK bare ) (21). Functionally similar constructions exist in English and Spanish. They are structurally different, though also grammatically special (Etxepare and Grohmann, 2005) . For instance, the English construction is similar to the German NFPK bare variant but the English construction involves an object-form subject (cf. the gloss of (20).) whereas the German construction has a subject in the nominative case typical of subjects even though there is no finite verb. 20is a case of the NFPK construction that is also identified as such by the presence of an optional coda (above: lachhaft 'ridiculous') that explicitly expresses the speaker's disbelief/incredulity. Many instances of the NPFK construction with und also involve coordination of unalikes (cf. 22-23). Assuming a predication relation between the two conjuncts is supported by the fact that reflexives in the right conjunct can be bound by governors in the left (24), unlike in regular coordinations (25). As in English, the predicate, even when involving a verbal phrase as in (22), cannot normally bear tense or modal markings. However, note that with nominal right conjuncts, the right conjunct need not always be a predicate nominal as in (20). In (26), the two nominals in the conjuncts are not related as subject and predicate. Rather, both are to be understood as dependents of a zero predicate that is inferable from prior discourse. The NFPK und variant presents a mismatch between form and semantics. An early analysis of this variant nevertheless treats it as a case of real coordination where the predicate (and sentence) that governs it is omitted (Behaghel, 1928) . The two conjuncts are thus treated as metalinguistically mentioned rather than used, as in the English cases (27-28) where incongruity is explicitly stated or alluded to.", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 410, "end": 428, "text": "(Deppermann, 2007)", "ref_id": "BIBREF17" }, { "start": 477, "end": 506, "text": "(Huddleston and Pullum, 2002)", "ref_id": "BIBREF27" }, { "start": 526, "end": 546, "text": "(Quirk et al., 1985)", "ref_id": "BIBREF34" }, { "start": 570, "end": 586, "text": "(Akmajian, 1984)", "ref_id": "BIBREF0" }, { "start": 624, "end": 641, "text": "(Lambrecht, 1990)", "ref_id": "BIBREF30" }, { "start": 732, "end": 745, "text": "B\u00fccker (2012)", "ref_id": "BIBREF8" }, { "start": 1008, "end": 1037, "text": "(Etxepare and Grohmann, 2005)", "ref_id": "BIBREF20" }, { "start": 2491, "end": 2507, "text": "(Behaghel, 1928)", "ref_id": "BIBREF3" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "German non-finite predication construction (NFPK)", "sec_num": "2.2" }, { "text": "(27) The words Obama/Biden, and \"scandal-free\" should NEVER appear in the same sentence again.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "German non-finite predication construction (NFPK)", "sec_num": "2.2" }, { "text": "EVER. (28) How often have you heard the terms ' entrepreneur ' and ' social conscience ' in the same sentence ? (ukWaC)", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "German non-finite predication construction (NFPK)", "sec_num": "2.2" }, { "text": "This analysis does not generalize well to the NFPK bare variant (21). A second type of ellipsis analysis assumes that NFPK bare features the elision of a finite verb form from what would otherwise be a regular finite sentence. This does not generalize to the NFPK und variant: adding a finite verb to instances of that variant does not produce grammatical sentences. Further, the NFPK bare version has constraints on the ordering of pronouns in particular that do not obtain in sentences where a finite verb has been inserted, which argues against NFPK being simply the result of finite verb elision (B\u00fccker, 2012 ).", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 600, "end": 613, "text": "(B\u00fccker, 2012", "ref_id": "BIBREF8" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "German non-finite predication construction (NFPK)", "sec_num": "2.2" }, { "text": "If we reject a simple ellipsis analysis, we have the same options as for the conditional coordination. Sticking close to the surface, we may propose annotating a coordination structure in the basic UD representation and making the subject-predicate relation, when present, explicit in the enhanced annotation, as shown in Figure 2a . Otherwise, we annotate an orphan relationship for cases like (26). A downside of this proposal is that we connect two words in the enhanced representation that are already related in the basic representation, with the roles of head and dependent being switched now. On the other hand, this would be in keeping with our enhanced UD analysis for the conditional coordination construction.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [ { "start": 322, "end": 331, "text": "Figure 2a", "ref_id": null } ], "eq_spans": [], "section": "German non-finite predication construction (NFPK)", "sec_num": "2.2" }, { "text": "Avoiding the use of the enhanced representation, an alternative treatment directly uses the nsubj relation in the basic UD annotation for all cases where the second conjunct is understood as a predicate and the first conjunct as its subject (Fig. 2b) . This would treat cases like (26) differently in the basic annotation since these cases would involve an orphan relationship. Further, the apparent conjunction, where present, would need to be changed both in terms of POS and syntactic dependency. We might, for instance, treat und somewhat arbitrarily as an ADV related by advmod to the head of the right conjunct.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [ { "start": 241, "end": 250, "text": "(Fig. 2b)", "ref_id": null } ], "eq_spans": [], "section": "German non-finite predication construction (NFPK)", "sec_num": "2.2" }, { "text": "The presentational relative construction (PRC) involves the combination of a semantically weak main clause and a relative clause which, rather than the main clause, contains the assertion of the utterance (Lambrecht, 1988; Duffield et al., 2010) . The PRC is, therefore, normally more aptly paraphrased by a single sentence (29a) than by a sequence of sentences (29b).", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 205, "end": 222, "text": "(Lambrecht, 1988;", "ref_id": "BIBREF29" }, { "start": 223, "end": 245, "text": "Duffield et al., 2010)", "ref_id": "BIBREF19" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Presentational relative clause construction (PRC)", "sec_num": "2.3" }, { "text": "(29) You have some folks who deny she LOST when she suspended her campaign.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Presentational relative clause construction (PRC)", "sec_num": "2.3" }, { "text": "a. Some folks deny she LOST when she suspended her campaign. b. #You have some folks. They deny she LOST when she suspended her campaign. Restrictive relative clauses without a relative pronoun or complementizer do not allow subject gaps (34).", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Presentational relative clause construction (PRC)", "sec_num": "2.3" }, { "text": "(34) #I chose the dress _ made me want to dance.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Presentational relative clause construction (PRC)", "sec_num": "2.3" }, { "text": "As argued by Lambrecht (1988) , the PRC allows the speaker to avoid violating an information-packaging constraint that Lambrecht (1994) refers to as the Principle of Separation of Reference and Role (PSRR): \"Do not introduce a referent and talk about it in the same clause\". While the main clause serves to introduce the referent, the relative clause makes an assertion. In accord with the assertive pragmatic function of the relatives in PRCs, these relative clauses can be conjoined with assertive main clauses, unlike restrictive or appositive main clauses (cf. (35)).", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 13, "end": 29, "text": "Lambrecht (1988)", "ref_id": "BIBREF29" }, { "start": 119, "end": 135, "text": "Lambrecht (1994)", "ref_id": "BIBREF31" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Presentational relative clause construction (PRC)", "sec_num": "2.3" }, { "text": "(35) Once upon a time there was an old cockroach who lived in a paper bag and he was very poor. (from Lambrecht (1988)) The assertive status of the relative clause is underscored by the fact that its proposition can be challenged by the lie-test (36), which is not the case for restrictive or appositive relative clauses (37). b. #Nobody has done this.", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 102, "end": 119, "text": "Lambrecht (1988))", "ref_id": "BIBREF29" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Presentational relative clause construction (PRC)", "sec_num": "2.3" }, { "text": "The Italian PoSTWITA treebank (Sanguinetti et al., 2018) contains an instance of what we call PRC that is simply annotated as a relative clause. 3 The treebank for spoken French (Lacheret et al., 2014) handles PRC instances the same way. But given their special properties, presentational relative clauses should be treated differently from restrictive and appositive relative clauses. A simple option involving only basic UD would be to only subtype the acl-relation further and introduce acl:presrel. The annotation strategy for the English PRC can also be carried over to Italian, French and German. Note that German presentational relative clauses, unlike restrictive and appositive relative clauses, exhibit the verb-second word order that is characteristic of matrix clauses (39). 'I had a friend once who got something into his eye and went to the ER about it.' There likely are quite a few more similar constructions in other languages. We know of (i) complement clauses in Danish, Icelandic, Swedish, Norwegian and German as well as (ii) marked subordinate clauses in German that have unexpected main clause (verb-second) word order and which are said to have main clause properties (G\u00fcnthner, 1996; G\u00e4rtner and Michaelis, 2010; Antomo and Steinbach, 2010; Reis, 2013; Wiklund, 2009; Bentzen, 2014) . For French, there is discussion of constructions involving reverse subordination (Benzitoun, 2013) .", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 30, "end": 56, "text": "(Sanguinetti et al., 2018)", "ref_id": "BIBREF36" }, { "start": 145, "end": 146, "text": "3", "ref_id": null }, { "start": 178, "end": 201, "text": "(Lacheret et al., 2014)", "ref_id": "BIBREF28" }, { "start": 1192, "end": 1208, "text": "(G\u00fcnthner, 1996;", "ref_id": "BIBREF26" }, { "start": 1209, "end": 1237, "text": "G\u00e4rtner and Michaelis, 2010;", "ref_id": "BIBREF25" }, { "start": 1238, "end": 1265, "text": "Antomo and Steinbach, 2010;", "ref_id": "BIBREF1" }, { "start": 1266, "end": 1277, "text": "Reis, 2013;", "ref_id": "BIBREF35" }, { "start": 1278, "end": 1292, "text": "Wiklund, 2009;", "ref_id": "BIBREF39" }, { "start": 1293, "end": 1307, "text": "Bentzen, 2014)", "ref_id": "BIBREF4" }, { "start": 1391, "end": 1408, "text": "(Benzitoun, 2013)", "ref_id": "BIBREF5" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Presentational relative clause construction (PRC)", "sec_num": "2.3" }, { "text": "We now turn to two constructions where arguably a basic UD analysis mirroring the analyses proposed in the theoretical literature from the construction grammar tradition would not result in simple trees and which for that reason need some special treatment.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Syntactic amalgams", "sec_num": "3" }, { "text": "Examples (40)-(41) exemplify what Lambrecht (1988) calls the presentational amalgam construction (PAC), which is common in spoken language but also found in social media. The construction consists of a sequence [[NP1 V NP2] [VP]], which apparently combines an existential there-clause or a clause with have (got) with a final VP. The postverbal NP in the initial presentational clause is usually indefinite.", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 34, "end": 50, "text": "Lambrecht (1988)", "ref_id": "BIBREF29" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Presentational amalgam construction (PAC)", "sec_num": "3.1" }, { "text": "(40) There's a guy says he's gonna run a marathon every time Wigan win this season! (41) I've got a friend of mine, does this all the time, especially during PE.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Presentational amalgam construction (PAC)", "sec_num": "3.1" }, { "text": "The instances of PAC thus are like instances of PRC (cf. section 2.3) but without a relative pronoun or complementizer. Like PRC, PAC allows only subject gaps. Also, instances of PAC behave like instances of PRC with respect to the lie-test (cf. \u00a72.3): challenges do affect the final VP. On the analysis of Lambrecht (1988) , PAC features an NP, namely NP2, that is simultaneously a dependent in the existential clause and the subject of a clause it forms with the final VP (cf. Figure 4a) . Part of the motivation for this treatment is semantic. The presentational part of some instances such as (41), repeated below in (43), is by itself an odd proposition because of the redundancy.", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 307, "end": 323, "text": "Lambrecht (1988)", "ref_id": "BIBREF29" } ], "ref_spans": [ { "start": 479, "end": 489, "text": "Figure 4a)", "ref_id": null } ], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Presentational amalgam construction (PAC)", "sec_num": "3.1" }, { "text": "(43) ??I've got a friend of mine. But, as Lambrecht argues, NP2 is specifically produced with an eye towards its role as subject of the final VP. From that vantage point, an NP2 like that in (41) is not odd when considered within the PAC construction. This is so because the purpose of PAC is to solve the same communicative problem that the presentational relative construction addresses. PAC sentences are alternatives to simple sentences such as (44), which is a modified version of (40). Sentences like (44) are dispreferred in spoken language because they involve predicating something about a newly introduced referent in the same clause, while speakers normally like to first separately introduce a referent before predicating about it.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Presentational amalgam construction (PAC)", "sec_num": "3.1" }, { "text": "(44) A guy says he's gonna run a marathon every time Wigan win this season! However, unlike with PRC, in the case of PAC there is full fusion between the presentational clause and the clause containing the main assertion. If we accept Lambrecht's analysis, then we have the undesirable situation that the same content word is a dependent of two different heads (Fig. (4a) ). We could avoid this, by shifting the subject relation to the enhanced representation. The question is then how to connect the final VP to the initial existential clause. Our suggestion is to use a subtype of acl that we call acl:presrelbare to connect the VP to the head of NP2 (4b) . Because this subtype of acl always lacks a relativizer or pronoun, we cannot reuse the acl:presrel subtype introduced for PRC.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [ { "start": 361, "end": 371, "text": "(Fig. (4a)", "ref_id": null } ], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Presentational amalgam construction (PAC)", "sec_num": "3.1" }, { "text": "Consider examples (45-47). All three feature sequences where two instances of is immediately or very closely follow each other.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Double is construction (ISIS)", "sec_num": "3.2" }, { "text": "(45) He's certainly not as dominant in that role as he is, uh, is his, in his normal role. (46) @RetroAperture @BeardedGenius what he is is stupid. (47) But the thing is is that I'm naturally thin... (ISIS) Example (45) involves a disfluent repetition where UD's reparandum relation would be used. Sentence (46) involves a specifying pseudo-cleft construction where a so-called fused relative (what he is) (Huddleston and Pullum, 2002) serves as the subject of the second instance of is, which takes the final phrase as ccomp. Sentence (47) is an example of the double is or ISIS construction. 4 As argued by Coppock et al. (2006) , ISIS sentences do not involve disfluent repetition, although they might appear to do so. With ISIS, the copula be is typically repeated after certain nouns, such as issue and point, indicating that ISIS is a subtype of the specificational construction (Mikkelsen, 2005) . Further, ISIS is often found before short, easy-to-process clauses where disfluencies are unexpected. And in fact human raters in Coppock et al. (2006) 's study found the ISIS instances involving declarative clauses highly fluent.", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 609, "end": 630, "text": "Coppock et al. (2006)", "ref_id": "BIBREF11" }, { "start": 885, "end": 902, "text": "(Mikkelsen, 2005)", "ref_id": "BIBREF33" }, { "start": 1035, "end": 1056, "text": "Coppock et al. (2006)", "ref_id": "BIBREF11" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Double is construction (ISIS)", "sec_num": "3.2" }, { "text": "The formal construction grammar analysis of ISIS by Brenier and Michaelis (2005) treats this construction as a syntactic amalgam, a phrasal construction with two daughters: (i) the so-called setup clause including the subject NP and the first form of be and (ii) the second is and the following clause. This phrase-based analysis does not translate into a connected dependency tree (Figure 5a) . To produce such a tree, we need to employ some sort of dependency relation to connect the two instances of the copular verb. This is not easy to decide, however, since common headedness criteria are inconclusive. Copulas do not normally depend on copulas. Both parts of the construction are non-optional. However, since semantically the second phrase seems to complement the first, we treat the head of the first as root. The subject NP would be connected to it as an nsubj; the second copula would be connected to the first copular instance by a ccomp relation; and the finite clause in turn would be connected to the second copular instance by another ccomp (Figure 5b ). This treatment would preserve the analysis of Brenier and Michaelis (2005) with the exception that the setup clause and the final is+clause are here connected by a dependency rather than both simply being daughters of the same phrase. ", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [ { "start": 382, "end": 393, "text": "(Figure 5a)", "ref_id": "FIGREF10" }, { "start": 1056, "end": 1066, "text": "(Figure 5b", "ref_id": "FIGREF10" } ], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Double is construction (ISIS)", "sec_num": "3.2" }, { "text": "We have presented several constructions that are associated with social media or spoken language and that have special properties that do not readily fit the current use of basic and enhanced UD relations. The first set of constructions involved pseudo-coordinations whose surface structure is mismatched with their semantics. The second set of constructions featured cases of syntactic amalgams that either involved unconnected subtrees (double is) or structures with multiply-headed dependents (PAC).", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Conclusion", "sec_num": "4" }, { "text": "While one can disagree both with the analyses of these constructions in the theoretical literature and with our ideas for dealing with them in UD, we are confident that as UD treebanks expand to more languages, domains, genres and registers, further constructions with similar challenges will be encountered. To allow for consistent and expressive analyses, we think the UD community would benefit from discussing which mechanisms to use for which kinds of constructions. We have explored the use of enhanced UD annotations, keeping the relation inventory the same, and as an alternative introducing new dependency relations and relation subtypes, which may lead to sparsely attested relation types. One option we have not explored but which the GUM corpus uses is a kind of constructional annotation (specifically, of sentence types) in the metadata (Zeldes and Simonson, 2016) . This would, however, not localize which words are part of the construction. Other ways to track constructions may be conceivable.", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 851, "end": 878, "text": "(Zeldes and Simonson, 2016)", "ref_id": "BIBREF40" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Conclusion", "sec_num": "4" }, { "text": "Whatever the annotation mechanisms used, we think that adding linguistic analyses for such constructions to the UD guidelines might help to improve annotation consistency across languages, and thus the quality of the treebanks. Existing UD treebanks already feature some well-represented constructions that are treated inconsistently between treebanks and/or languages along the lines we discussed. For instance, the two clauses of the paratactic correlative construction (the X-er, the Y-er) are related by conj in German treebanks (HDT (Borges V\u00f6lker et al., 2019), T\u00fcBa (\u00c7\u00f6ltekin et al., 2017) , GSD (McDonald et al., 2013) ), while English treebanks (EWT, GUM (Zeldes, 2017)) mostly use advcl.", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 573, "end": 596, "text": "(\u00c7\u00f6ltekin et al., 2017)", "ref_id": null }, { "start": 599, "end": 626, "text": "GSD (McDonald et al., 2013)", "ref_id": null } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Conclusion", "sec_num": "4" }, { "text": "Lambrecht (1988) assumes PRCs are restricted to involve subject gaps in the relative clause butDuffield et al. (2010) report instances with object gaps in the relative clause.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "Cruschina (2018) calls the instances of the construction presentational ci-sentences (PCS).", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "Another designation of the construction is copula doubling.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "", "sec_num": null } ], "back_matter": [], "bib_entries": { "BIBREF0": { "ref_id": "b0", "title": "Sentence types and the form-function fit", "authors": [ { "first": "Adrian", "middle": [], "last": "Akmajian", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1984, "venue": "Natural Language & Linguistic Theory", "volume": "2", "issue": "", "pages": "1--23", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Adrian Akmajian. 1984. Sentence types and the form-function fit. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 2(1):1-23.", "links": null }, "BIBREF1": { "ref_id": "b1", "title": "Desintegration und Interpretation: Weil-V2-S\u00e4tze an der Schnittstelle zwischen Syntax, Semantik und Pragmatik", "authors": [ { "first": "Mailin", "middle": [], "last": "Antomo", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Markus", "middle": [], "last": "Steinbach", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2010, "venue": "Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Sprachwissenschaft", "volume": "29", "issue": "1", "pages": "1--37", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Mailin Antomo and Markus Steinbach. 2010. Desintegration und Interpretation: Weil-V2-S\u00e4tze an der Schnittstelle zwischen Syntax, Semantik und Pragmatik. Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Sprachwissenschaft, 29(1):1-37.", "links": null }, "BIBREF2": { "ref_id": "b2", "title": "The wacky wide web: a collection of very large linguistically processed web-crawled corpora", "authors": [ { "first": "Marco", "middle": [], "last": "Baroni", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Silvia", "middle": [], "last": "Bernardini", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Adriano", "middle": [], "last": "Ferraresi", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Eros", "middle": [], "last": "Zanchetta", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2009, "venue": "Language Resources and Evaluation", "volume": "43", "issue": "3", "pages": "209--226", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Marco Baroni, Silvia Bernardini, Adriano Ferraresi, and Eros Zanchetta. 2009. The wacky wide web: a collection of very large linguistically processed web-crawled corpora. Language Resources and Evaluation, 43(3):209- 226, September.", "links": null }, "BIBREF3": { "ref_id": "b3", "title": "Deutsche Syntax: eine geschichtliche Darstellung", "authors": [ { "first": "Otto", "middle": [], "last": "Behaghel", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1928, "venue": "", "volume": "3", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Otto Behaghel. 1928. Deutsche Syntax: eine geschichtliche Darstellung, volume 3. Carl Winters's Universit\u00e4ts- buchhandlung, Heidelberg.", "links": null }, "BIBREF4": { "ref_id": "b4", "title": "Embedded verb second (v2)", "authors": [ { "first": "Kristine", "middle": [], "last": "Bentzen", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2014, "venue": "Language Structures Journal", "volume": "", "issue": "1", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Kristine Bentzen. 2014. Embedded verb second (v2). Nordic Atlas of Language Structures Journal, 1(1).", "links": null }, "BIBREF5": { "ref_id": "b5", "title": "Faut-il remettre les pendules de la subordination temporelle \u00e0 l'heure ? Description de deux fonctionnements de quand et avant que/de", "authors": [ { "first": "Christophe", "middle": [], "last": "Benzitoun", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2013, "venue": "Cahiers Chronos", "volume": "26", "issue": "", "pages": "419--435", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Christophe Benzitoun. 2013. Faut-il remettre les pendules de la subordination temporelle \u00e0 l'heure ? Description de deux fonctionnements de quand et avant que/de. Cahiers Chronos, 26:419-435.", "links": null }, "BIBREF6": { "ref_id": "b6", "title": "HDT-UD: A very large universal dependencies treebank for German", "authors": [ { "first": "Emanuel", "middle": [], "last": "Borges V\u00f6lker", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Maximilian", "middle": [], "last": "Wendt", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Felix", "middle": [], "last": "Hennig", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Arne", "middle": [], "last": "K\u00f6hn", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2019, "venue": "Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Universal Dependencies", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "46--57", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Emanuel Borges V\u00f6lker, Maximilian Wendt, Felix Hennig, and Arne K\u00f6hn. 2019. HDT-UD: A very large uni- versal dependencies treebank for German. In Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Universal Dependencies (UDW, SyntaxFest 2019), pages 46-57, Paris, France, August. Association for Computational Linguistics.", "links": null }, "BIBREF7": { "ref_id": "b7", "title": "Optimization via syntactic amalgam: Syntax-prosody mismatch and copula doubling", "authors": [ { "first": "M", "middle": [], "last": "Jason", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Laura", "middle": [ "A" ], "last": "Brenier", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "", "middle": [], "last": "Michaelis", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2005, "venue": "Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory", "volume": "1", "issue": "1", "pages": "45--88", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Jason M Brenier and Laura A Michaelis. 2005. Optimization via syntactic amalgam: Syntax-prosody mismatch and copula doubling. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1(1):45-88.", "links": null }, "BIBREF8": { "ref_id": "b8", "title": "Sprachhandeln und Sprachwissen [Linguistic Action and Linguistic Knowledge", "authors": [ { "first": "J\u00f6rg", "middle": [], "last": "B\u00fccker", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2012, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "J\u00f6rg B\u00fccker. 2012. Sprachhandeln und Sprachwissen [Linguistic Action and Linguistic Knowledge].", "links": null }, "BIBREF10": { "ref_id": "b10", "title": "Converting the T\u00fcBa-d/z treebank of German to universal dependencies", "authors": [ { "first": "\u00c7agr\u0131", "middle": [], "last": "\u00c7\u00f6ltekin", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Ben", "middle": [], "last": "Campbell", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Erhard", "middle": [], "last": "Hinrichs", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Heike", "middle": [], "last": "Telljohann", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2017, "venue": "Proceedings of the NoDaLiDa 2017 Workshop on Universal Dependencies (UDW 2017)", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "27--37", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "\u00c7agr\u0131 \u00c7\u00f6ltekin, Ben Campbell, Erhard Hinrichs, and Heike Telljohann. 2017. Converting the T\u00fcBa-d/z treebank of German to universal dependencies. In Proceedings of the NoDaLiDa 2017 Workshop on Universal Depen- dencies (UDW 2017), pages 27-37, Gothenburg, Sweden, May. Association for Computational Linguistics.", "links": null }, "BIBREF11": { "ref_id": "b11", "title": "Isis: It's not disfluent, but how do we know that?", "authors": [ { "first": "Elizabeth", "middle": [], "last": "Coppock", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Jason", "middle": [], "last": "Brenier", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Laura", "middle": [], "last": "Staum", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Laura", "middle": [], "last": "Michaelis", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2006, "venue": "Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Elizabeth Coppock, Jason Brenier, Laura Staum, and Laura Michaelis. 2006. Isis: It's not disfluent, but how do we know that? In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA.", "links": null }, "BIBREF12": { "ref_id": "b12", "title": "Setting the boundaries: Presentational ci-sentences in Italian", "authors": [ { "first": "Silvio", "middle": [], "last": "Cruschina", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2018, "venue": "Belgian Journal of Linguistics", "volume": "32", "issue": "1", "pages": "53--85", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Silvio Cruschina. 2018. Setting the boundaries: Presentational ci-sentences in Italian. Belgian Journal of Linguis- tics, 32(1):53-85.", "links": null }, "BIBREF13": { "ref_id": "b13", "title": "Semantic Subordination Despite Syntactic Coordination", "authors": [ { "first": "Peter", "middle": [], "last": "Culicover", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Ray", "middle": [], "last": "Jackendoff", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1997, "venue": "Linguistic Inquiry", "volume": "28", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Peter Culicover and Ray Jackendoff. 1997. Semantic Subordination Despite Syntactic Coordination. Linguistic Inquiry, 28:195-217, 06.", "links": null }, "BIBREF14": { "ref_id": "b14", "title": "Simpler Syntax. Oxford linguistics", "authors": [ { "first": "Peter", "middle": [], "last": "Culicover", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Ray", "middle": [], "last": "Jackendoff", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2005, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Peter Culicover and Ray Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler Syntax. Oxford linguistics. Oxford University Press.", "links": null }, "BIBREF15": { "ref_id": "b15", "title": "Dependency grammar", "authors": [ { "first": "Marie-Catherine", "middle": [], "last": "De Marneffe", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Joakim", "middle": [], "last": "Nivre", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2019, "venue": "Annual Review of Linguistics", "volume": "5", "issue": "1", "pages": "197--218", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Marie-Catherine de Marneffe and Joakim Nivre. 2019. Dependency grammar. Annual Review of Linguistics, 5(1):197-218.", "links": null }, "BIBREF16": { "ref_id": "b16", "title": "Universal Stanford dependencies: A cross-linguistic typology", "authors": [ { "first": "Marie-Catherine", "middle": [], "last": "De Marneffe", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Timothy", "middle": [], "last": "Dozat", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Natalia", "middle": [], "last": "Silveira", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Katri", "middle": [], "last": "Haverinen", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Filip", "middle": [], "last": "Ginter", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Joakim", "middle": [], "last": "Nivre", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Christopher", "middle": [ "D" ], "last": "Manning", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2014, "venue": "Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'14)", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "4585--4592", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Marie-Catherine de Marneffe, Timothy Dozat, Natalia Silveira, Katri Haverinen, Filip Ginter, Joakim Nivre, and Christopher D. Manning. 2014. Universal Stanford dependencies: A cross-linguistic typology. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'14), pages 4585-4592, Reykjavik, Iceland, May. European Language Resources Association (ELRA).", "links": null }, "BIBREF17": { "ref_id": "b17", "title": "Grammatik und Semantik aus gespr\u00e4chsanalytischer Sicht", "authors": [ { "first": "Arnulf", "middle": [], "last": "Deppermann", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2007, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Arnulf Deppermann. 2007. Grammatik und Semantik aus gespr\u00e4chsanalytischer Sicht [Grammar and Semantics from a Conversation Analytic Perspective].", "links": null }, "BIBREF19": { "ref_id": "b19", "title": "Identifying assertions in text and discourse: The presentational relative clause construction", "authors": [ { "first": "Cecily", "middle": [ "Jill" ], "last": "Duffield", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Jena", "middle": [ "D" ], "last": "Hwang", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Laura", "middle": [ "A" ], "last": "Michaelis", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2010, "venue": "Proceedings of the NAACL HLT Workshop on Extracting and Using Constructions in Computational Linguistics", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "17--24", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Cecily Jill Duffield, Jena D Hwang, and Laura A Michaelis. 2010. Identifying assertions in text and discourse: The presentational relative clause construction. In Proceedings of the NAACL HLT Workshop on Extracting and Using Constructions in Computational Linguistics, pages 17-24.", "links": null }, "BIBREF20": { "ref_id": "b20", "title": "Towards a grammar of adult root infinitives", "authors": [ { "first": "Ricardo", "middle": [], "last": "Etxepare", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "", "middle": [], "last": "Kleanthes K Grohmann", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2005, "venue": "Proceedings of the 24th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "129--137", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Ricardo Etxepare and Kleanthes K Grohmann. 2005. Towards a grammar of adult root infinitives. In Proceedings of the 24th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, pages 129-137.", "links": null }, "BIBREF21": { "ref_id": "b21", "title": "The framenet constructicon", "authors": [ { "first": "Charles", "middle": [], "last": "Fillmore", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Russell", "middle": [], "last": "Lee-Goldman", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Russell", "middle": [], "last": "Rhomieux", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2012, "venue": "Sign-Based Construction Grammar", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Charles Fillmore, Russell Lee-Goldman, and Russell Rhomieux. 2012. The framenet constructicon. In Sign- Based Construction Grammar.", "links": null }, "BIBREF22": { "ref_id": "b22", "title": "Idiomatic singleton or prototype? a productivity analysis of be-adj-and-v", "authors": [ { "first": "Susanne", "middle": [], "last": "Flach", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2017, "venue": "Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association", "volume": "5", "issue": "1", "pages": "129--142", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Susanne Flach. 2017. Idiomatic singleton or prototype? a productivity analysis of be-adj-and-v. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 5(1):129 -142.", "links": null }, "BIBREF23": { "ref_id": "b23", "title": "Imperative as conditional: From constructional to compositional semantics", "authors": [ { "first": "Egbert", "middle": [], "last": "Fortuin", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Ronny", "middle": [], "last": "Boogaart", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2009, "venue": "Cognitive Linguistics", "volume": "20", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Egbert Fortuin and Ronny Boogaart. 2009. Imperative as conditional: From constructional to compositional semantics. Cognitive Linguistics, 20, 01.", "links": null }, "BIBREF24": { "ref_id": "b24", "title": "Construction grammar", "authors": [ { "first": "Mirjam", "middle": [], "last": "Fried", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2015, "venue": "Handb\u00fccher zur Sprach-und Kommunikationswissenschaft / Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science (HSK)", "volume": "2", "issue": "", "pages": "974--1003", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Mirjam Fried. 2015. Construction grammar. In T. Kiss and A. Alexiadou, editors, Syntax -Theory and Analysis. Volume 2, Handb\u00fccher zur Sprach-und Kommunikationswissenschaft / Handbooks of Linguistics and Commu- nication Science (HSK), pages 974-1003. De Gruyter.", "links": null }, "BIBREF25": { "ref_id": "b25", "title": "On modeling the distribution of declarative V2-clauses: The case of disjunction. Judgements and propositions", "authors": [ { "first": "Jens", "middle": [], "last": "Hans-Martin G\u00e4rtner", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "", "middle": [], "last": "Michaelis", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2010, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "11--25", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Hans-Martin G\u00e4rtner and Jens Michaelis. 2010. On modeling the distribution of declarative V2-clauses: The case of disjunction. Judgements and propositions, pages 11-25.", "links": null }, "BIBREF26": { "ref_id": "b26", "title": "From subordination to coordination? Verb-second position in German causal and concessive constructions", "authors": [ { "first": "Susanne", "middle": [], "last": "G\u00fcnthner", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1996, "venue": "Pragmatics", "volume": "6", "issue": "3", "pages": "323--356", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Susanne G\u00fcnthner. 1996. From subordination to coordination? Verb-second position in German causal and concessive constructions. Pragmatics, 6(3):323-356.", "links": null }, "BIBREF27": { "ref_id": "b27", "title": "The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language", "authors": [ { "first": "D", "middle": [], "last": "Rodney", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Geoffrey", "middle": [ "K" ], "last": "Huddleston", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "", "middle": [], "last": "Pullum", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2002, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Rodney D. Huddleston and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge University Press.", "links": null }, "BIBREF28": { "ref_id": "b28", "title": "Rhapsodie: a prosodic-syntactic treebank for spoken french", "authors": [ { "first": "Anne", "middle": [], "last": "Lacheret", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Julie", "middle": [], "last": "Sylvain Kahane", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Anne", "middle": [], "last": "Beliao", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Kim", "middle": [], "last": "Dister", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Jean-Philippe", "middle": [], "last": "Gerdes", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Nicolas", "middle": [], "last": "Goldman", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Paola", "middle": [], "last": "Obin", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Atanas", "middle": [], "last": "Pietrandrea", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "", "middle": [], "last": "Tchobanov", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2014, "venue": "Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "295--301", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Anne Lacheret, Sylvain Kahane, Julie Beliao, Anne Dister, Kim Gerdes, Jean-Philippe Goldman, Nicolas Obin, Paola Pietrandrea, and Atanas Tchobanov. 2014. Rhapsodie: a prosodic-syntactic treebank for spoken french. In Nicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Thierry Declerck, Hrafn Loftsson, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Asunci\u00f3n Moreno, Jan Odijk, and Stelios Piperidis, editors, Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC 2014, Reykjavik, Iceland, May 26-31, 2014, pages 295-301. European Language Resources Association (ELRA).", "links": null }, "BIBREF29": { "ref_id": "b29", "title": "There was a farmer had a dog: Syntactic amalgams revisited", "authors": [ { "first": "Knud", "middle": [], "last": "Lambrecht", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1988, "venue": "Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society", "volume": "14", "issue": "", "pages": "319--339", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Knud Lambrecht. 1988. There was a farmer had a dog: Syntactic amalgams revisited. In Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, volume 14, pages 319-339.", "links": null }, "BIBREF30": { "ref_id": "b30", "title": "What, me worry?\"-'Mad Magazine Sentences' Revisited", "authors": [ { "first": "Knud", "middle": [], "last": "Lambrecht", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1990, "venue": "Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society", "volume": "16", "issue": "", "pages": "215--228", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Knud Lambrecht. 1990. \"What, me worry?\"-'Mad Magazine Sentences' Revisited. In Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, volume 16, pages 215-228.", "links": null }, "BIBREF31": { "ref_id": "b31", "title": "Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics", "authors": [ { "first": "Knud", "middle": [], "last": "Lambrecht", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1994, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Knud Lambrecht. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.", "links": null }, "BIBREF32": { "ref_id": "b32", "title": "Universal Dependency annotation for multilingual parsing", "authors": [ { "first": "Ryan", "middle": [], "last": "Mcdonald", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Joakim", "middle": [], "last": "Nivre", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Yvonne", "middle": [], "last": "Quirmbach-Brundage", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Yoav", "middle": [], "last": "Goldberg", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Dipanjan", "middle": [], "last": "Das", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Kuzman", "middle": [], "last": "Ganchev", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Keith", "middle": [], "last": "Hall", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Slav", "middle": [], "last": "Petrov", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Hao", "middle": [], "last": "Zhang", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Oscar", "middle": [], "last": "T\u00e4ckstr\u00f6m", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Claudia", "middle": [], "last": "Bedini", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "N\u00faria", "middle": [], "last": "Bertomeu Castell\u00f3", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Jungmee", "middle": [], "last": "Lee", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2013, "venue": "Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics", "volume": "2", "issue": "", "pages": "92--97", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Ryan McDonald, Joakim Nivre, Yvonne Quirmbach-Brundage, Yoav Goldberg, Dipanjan Das, Kuzman Ganchev, Keith Hall, Slav Petrov, Hao Zhang, Oscar T\u00e4ckstr\u00f6m, Claudia Bedini, N\u00faria Bertomeu Castell\u00f3, and Jungmee Lee. 2013. Universal Dependency annotation for multilingual parsing. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meet- ing of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 92-97, Sofia, Bulgaria, August. Association for Computational Linguistics.", "links": null }, "BIBREF33": { "ref_id": "b33", "title": "Copular clauses: Specification, predication and equation", "authors": [ { "first": "Line", "middle": [], "last": "Mikkelsen", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2005, "venue": "", "volume": "85", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Line Mikkelsen. 2005. Copular clauses: Specification, predication and equation, volume 85. John Benjamins Publishing.", "links": null }, "BIBREF34": { "ref_id": "b34", "title": "A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language", "authors": [ { "first": "Randolph", "middle": [], "last": "Quirk", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Sidney", "middle": [], "last": "Greenbaum", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1985, "venue": "Geoffrey Leech", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Randolph Quirk, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Longman, London.", "links": null }, "BIBREF35": { "ref_id": "b35", "title": "Weil-V2 \"-S\u00e4tze und (k) ein Ende? Anmerkungen zur Analyse von Antomo & Steinbach (2010)", "authors": [ { "first": "Marga", "middle": [], "last": "Reis", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2013, "venue": "Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Sprachwissenschaft", "volume": "32", "issue": "2", "pages": "221--262", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Marga Reis. 2013. \"Weil-V2 \"-S\u00e4tze und (k) ein Ende? Anmerkungen zur Analyse von Antomo & Steinbach (2010). Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Sprachwissenschaft, 32(2):221-262.", "links": null }, "BIBREF36": { "ref_id": "b36", "title": "PoSTWITA-UD: an Italian Twitter Treebank in Universal Dependencies", "authors": [ { "first": "Manuela", "middle": [], "last": "Sanguinetti", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Cristina", "middle": [], "last": "Bosco", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Alberto", "middle": [], "last": "Lavelli", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Alessandro", "middle": [], "last": "Mazzei", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Oronzo", "middle": [], "last": "Antonelli", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Fabio", "middle": [], "last": "Tamburini", "suffix": "" }, { "first": ";", "middle": [], "last": "", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Khalid", "middle": [], "last": "Choukri", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Christopher", "middle": [], "last": "Cieri", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Thierry", "middle": [], "last": "Declerck", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Sara", "middle": [], "last": "Goggi", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Koiti", "middle": [], "last": "Hasida", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Hitoshi", "middle": [], "last": "Isahara", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Bente", "middle": [], "last": "Maegaard", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Joseph", "middle": [], "last": "Mariani", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2018, "venue": "Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018)", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Manuela Sanguinetti, Cristina Bosco, Alberto Lavelli, Alessandro Mazzei, Oronzo Antonelli, and Fabio Tamburini. 2018. PoSTWITA-UD: an Italian Twitter Treebank in Universal Dependencies. In Nicoletta Calzolari (Con- ference chair), Khalid Choukri, Christopher Cieri, Thierry Declerck, Sara Goggi, Koiti Hasida, Hitoshi Isahara, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, H\u00e9l\u00e8ne Mazo, Asuncion Moreno, Jan Odijk, Stelios Piperidis, and Takenobu Tokunaga, editors, Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evalua- tion (LREC 2018), Miyazaki, Japan, May 7-12, 2018. European Language Resources Association (ELRA).", "links": null }, "BIBREF37": { "ref_id": "b37", "title": "Enhanced English Universal Dependencies: An Improved Representation for Natural Language Understanding Tasks", "authors": [ { "first": "Sebastian", "middle": [], "last": "Schuster", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "D", "middle": [], "last": "Christopher", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "", "middle": [], "last": "Manning", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2016, "venue": "Proceedings of the 10th Language Resource and Evalutation Conference (LREC 2016)", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "2371--2378", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Sebastian Schuster and Christopher D. Manning. 2016. Enhanced English Universal Dependencies: An Improved Representation for Natural Language Understanding Tasks. In Proceedings of the 10th Language Resource and Evalutation Conference (LREC 2016), pages 2371-2378. ELRA.", "links": null }, "BIBREF38": { "ref_id": "b38", "title": "A gold standard dependency corpus for English", "authors": [ { "first": "Natalia", "middle": [], "last": "Silveira", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Timothy", "middle": [], "last": "Dozat", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Marie-Catherine", "middle": [], "last": "De Marneffe", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Samuel", "middle": [], "last": "Bowman", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Miriam", "middle": [], "last": "Connor", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "John", "middle": [], "last": "Bauer", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Christopher", "middle": [ "D" ], "last": "Manning", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2014, "venue": "Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Natalia Silveira, Timothy Dozat, Marie-Catherine de Marneffe, Samuel Bowman, Miriam Connor, John Bauer, and Christopher D. Manning. 2014. A gold standard dependency corpus for English. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-2014).", "links": null }, "BIBREF39": { "ref_id": "b39", "title": "search of the force of dependent V2: A note on Swedish. Working papers in Scandinavian syntax", "authors": [ { "first": "Anna-Lena", "middle": [], "last": "Wiklund", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2009, "venue": "", "volume": "83", "issue": "", "pages": "27--36", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Anna-Lena Wiklund. 2009. In search of the force of dependent V2: A note on Swedish. Working papers in Scandinavian syntax, 83:27-36.", "links": null }, "BIBREF40": { "ref_id": "b40", "title": "Different flavors of GUM: Evaluating genre and sentence type effects on multilayer corpus annotation quality", "authors": [ { "first": "Amir", "middle": [], "last": "Zeldes", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Dan", "middle": [], "last": "Simonson", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2016, "venue": "Proceedings of the 10th Linguistic Annotation Workshop held in conjunction with ACL 2016", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "68--78", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Amir Zeldes and Dan Simonson. 2016. Different flavors of GUM: Evaluating genre and sentence type effects on multilayer corpus annotation quality. In Proceedings of the 10th Linguistic Annotation Workshop held in con- junction with ACL 2016 (LAW-X 2016), pages 68-78, Berlin, Germany, August. Association for Computational Linguistics.", "links": null }, "BIBREF41": { "ref_id": "b41", "title": "The GUM corpus: Creating multilayer resources in the classroom", "authors": [ { "first": "Amir", "middle": [], "last": "Zeldes", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2017, "venue": "Language Resources and Evaluation", "volume": "51", "issue": "3", "pages": "581--612", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Amir Zeldes. 2017. The GUM corpus: Creating multilayer resources in the classroom. Language Resources and Evaluation, 51(3):581-612.", "links": null } }, "ref_entries": { "FIGREF0": { "type_str": "figure", "num": null, "uris": null, "text": "12) #You're hungry and there's pizza in the fridge. (constructed) (13) If you're hungry, there's pizza in the fridge. (constructed)" }, "FIGREF1": { "type_str": "figure", "num": null, "uris": null, "text": "Say what you want about this label , but with Delight they really have picked a winner(ukWaC)" }, "FIGREF2": { "type_str": "figure", "num": null, "uris": null, "text": "heaven? More likely a few floors lower down.'" }, "FIGREF3": { "type_str": "figure", "num": null, "uris": null, "text": "singer posted a picture of himself with stylish glasses . . . B: Him take a picture of himself/#him? What did you see? B: Queen Elizabeth and a picture of her/#herself.'" }, "FIGREF4": { "type_str": "figure", "num": null, "uris": null, "text": "a clear ethical profile?'" }, "FIGREF5": { "type_str": "figure", "num": null, "uris": null, "text": "Figure 2: NFPK construction" }, "FIGREF6": { "type_str": "figure", "num": null, "uris": null, "text": "Presentational Relative ConstructionYou have some folks who deny she LOST when she suspended her campaign ." }, "FIGREF8": { "type_str": "figure", "num": null, "uris": null, "text": "A: there was a guy stole a yacht down south. B: That's a lie. He only borrowed it." }, "FIGREF9": { "type_str": "figure", "num": null, "uris": null, "text": "The real question was is are we getting a reasonable return on our investment.(from Brenier & Michaelis 2005)" }, "FIGREF10": { "type_str": "figure", "num": null, "uris": null, "text": "Double is constructionBut the thing is is that I am naturally" } } } }