punctuation in coordination #394

Closed
gossebouma opened this Issue Jan 10, 2017 · 6 comments

Projects

None yet

4 participants

@gossebouma

The V2 documentation for punct says
"A punctuation mark separating coordinated units is attached to the first conjunct."

but gives an example:
We have apples , pears , oranges , and bananas

where the comma's are attached to pears, oranges and bananas, respectively. Shouldn't all comma's in this example be attached to apples, if we follow the guidelines?

@dan-zeman dan-zeman added this to the lg-specific v2 milestone Jan 10, 2017
@dan-zeman dan-zeman added the bug label Jan 10, 2017
@dan-zeman
Member

That is a bug. The example is right, while the guideline is V1, not V2.

@arademaker
Contributor

Thanking the same example, why not use the relation cc instead of punct for cases where the punctuation is having the role of conjunct like "and" ?

@jnivre
Contributor
jnivre commented Jan 11, 2017

The analysis of commas as coordinating conjunctions is controversial and there would be lots of tricky borderline cases. On a more general note, we lack a good theory of the role played by punctuation in syntactic structure and the UD policy is therefore (a) to give all punctuation marks the relation "punct" and (b) to exclude these links when evaluating parsers. Any exception from this policy would have unwanted negative effects.

@arademaker
Contributor

hi @jnivre , thank you for your answer. Can you point me some references about the issues?

@jnivre
Contributor
jnivre commented Jan 11, 2017

Not easily. There is very little written on these issues, so it is mainly based on practical experience. On the theoretical side, there is the issue that punctuation does not exist at all in spoken language, which is the primary form of all languages.

@dan-zeman
Member

Fixed the documentation in 983a063, closing the issue.

@dan-zeman dan-zeman closed this Jan 13, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment