The Semantics and Typology of Yes/No Particles (A Cross-Linguistic Study)

Taking the three basic systems of Yes/No particles the group looked at the relative deep and surface structures, and asked what types of systems are present in the Georgian, Polish and Armenian languages. The choice of languages was of particular interest as the Caucasian and Indo-European languages usually have different question-answering systems, but Georgian (Caucasian) and Polish (Indo-European) in fact share the same system. The Armenian language is Indo-European, but the country is situated in the southern Caucasus, on Georgia's southern border, making it worth analysing Armenian in comparison with Georgian (from the point of view of language interference) and with Polish (as two relative languages). The group identified two different deep structures, tracing the occurrence of these in different languages, and showed that one is more natural in the majority of languages. They found no correspondence between relative languages and their question-answer systems and demonstrated that languages in the same typological class may show different systems, as with Georgian and the North Caucasian languages. It became clear that Georgian, Armenian and Polish all have an agree/disagree question-answering system defined by the same deep structure. From this they conclude that the lingual mentalities of Georgians, Armenians and Poles are more oriented to the communicative act. At the same time the Yes/No system, in which a positive particle stands for a positive answer and a negative particle for a negative answer, also functions in these languages, indicating that the second deep structure identified also functions alongside the first.

A Robust Parser of Czech

Mr. Kubon's project was inspired by the growing need for an automatic, syntactic analyser (parser) of Czech, which could be used in the syntactic processing of large amounts of texts. Mr. Kubon notes that such a tool would be very useful, especially in the field of corpus linguistics, where creating a large-scale "tree bank" (a collection of syntactic representations of natural language sentences) is a very important step towards the investigation of the properties of a given language. The work involved in syntactically parsing a whole corpus in order to get a representative set of syntactic structures would be almost inconceivable without the help of some kind of robust (semi)automatic parser. The need for the automatic natural language parser to be robust increases with the size of the linguistic data in the corpus or in any other kind of text which is going to be parsed. Practical experience shows that apart from syntactically correct sentences, there are many sentences which contain a "real" grammatical error. These sentences may be corrected in small-scale texts, but not generally in the whole corpus. In order to be able to complete the overall project, it was necessary to address a number of smaller problems. These were; 1. the adaptation of a suitable formalism able to describe the formal grammar of the system; 2. the definition of the structure of the system's dictionary containing all relevant lexico-syntactic information, and the development of a formal grammar able to robustly parse Czech sentences from the test suite; 3. filling the syntactic dictionary with sample data allowing the system to be tested and debugged during its development (about 1000 words); 4. the development of a set of sample sentences containing a reasonable amount of grammatical and ungrammatical phenomena covering some of the most typical syntactic constructions being used in Czech. Number 3, building a formal grammar, was the main task of the project. The grammar is of course far from complete (Mr. Kubon notes that it is debatable whether any formal grammar describing a natural language may ever be complete), but it covers the most frequent syntactic phenomena, allowing for the representation of a syntactic structure of simple clauses and also the structure of certain types of complex sentences. The stress was not so much on building a wide coverage grammar, but on the description and demonstration of a method. This method uses a similar approach as that of grammar-based grammar checking. The problem of reconstructing the "correct" form of the syntactic representation of a sentence is closely related to the problem of localisation and identification of syntactic errors. Without a precise knowledge of the nature and location of syntactic errors it is not possible to build a reliable estimation of a "correct" syntactic tree. The incremental way of building the grammar used in this project is also an important methodological issue. Experience from previous projects showed that building a grammar by creating a huge block of metarules is more complicated than the incremental method, which begins with the metarules covering most common syntactic phenomena first, and adds less important ones later, especially from the point of view of testing and debugging the grammar. The sample of the syntactic dictionary containing lexico-syntactical information (task 4) now has slightly more than 1000 lexical items representing all classes of words. During the creation of the dictionary it turned out that the task of assigning complete and correct lexico-syntactic information to verbs is a very complicated and time-consuming process which would itself be worth a separate project. The final task undertaken in this project was the development of a method allowing effective testing and debugging of the grammar during the process of its development. The problem of the consistency of new and modified rules of the formal grammar with the rules already existing is one of the crucial problems of every project aiming at the development of a large-scale formal grammar of a natural language. This method allows for the detection of any discrepancy or inconsistency of the grammar with respect to a test-bed of sentences containing all syntactic phenomena covered by the grammar. This is not only the first robust parser of Czech, but also one of the first robust parsers of a Slavic language. Since Slavic languages display a wide range of common features, it is reasonable to claim that this system may serve as a pattern for similar systems in other languages. To transfer the system into any other language it is only necessary to revise the grammar and to change the data contained in the dictionary (but not necessarily the structure of primary lexico-syntactic information). The formalism and methods used in this project can be used in other Slavic languages without substantial changes.