changed some x:gc: into X

added comments on ch09

svn/trunk@7813

book/CheckList.txt

@@ -41,9 +41,11 @@ ch07 has a conclusion (non-standard) but no summary
 ch07 needs some non-chunking exercises
 ch07 could describe SRL in 7.1 as another shallow processing task
 ch07 should describe NLTK's off-the-shelf NE tagger
-ch07 typography should follow the simplified style of later chapters, e.g. with :gc:
+ch07 typography should follow the simplified style of later chapters, e.g. with NP
 ch08 language is more formal than necessary, less accessible than it should be
 ch08 defines "string" to have a new meaning
-ch08 typography should no longer use :gc:
+ch08 typography should no longer use NP
 ch08 section 8.6 on grammar development is incomplete (incl PE08 discussion)
 ch08 assumes knowledge of "head" (did some content disappear?)
+ch09 lacks our standard opening
+ch09 uses :lex: role, not processed by docbook

book/ch05.rst

@@ -1804,7 +1804,7 @@ the idea of ongoing, incomplete action (e.g. `falling`:lx:, `eating`:lx:).
 The `-ing`:lx: suffix also appears on nouns derived from verbs, e.g. `the
 falling of the leaves`:lx: (this is known as the `gerund`:dt:).
 (Since the present participle and the gerund cannot be systematically
-distinguished, they are often tagged with the same tag, i.e. `VBG`:gc:
+distinguished, they are often tagged with the same tag, i.e. ``VBG``
 in the Brown Corpus tagset).
 
 Syntactic Clues
@@ -2200,7 +2200,7 @@ Exercises
 #. |soso| In the introduction we saw a table involving frequency counts for
    the verbs `adore`:lx:, `love`:lx:, `like`:lx:, `prefer`:lx: and
    preceding qualifiers such as `really`:lx:.  Investigate the full
-   range of qualifiers (Brown tag `QL`:gc:) that appear before these
+   range of qualifiers (Brown tag ``QL``) that appear before these
    four verbs.
 
 #. |soso|

book/ch09.rst

@@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ sentences that the system should handle.
 
 .. _ex-train0:
 .. ex::
-      Which stations does the 9.00 express from Amsterdam to Paris stop at?
+      Which *stations* does the 9.00 express from Amsterdam to Paris stop at?
 
 The information that the customer is seeking is not exotic |mdash| the
 system back-end just needs to look up the list of stations on the
@@ -87,7 +87,13 @@ system trying to answer ex-train1_ instead:
 
 .. _ex-train1:
 .. ex::
-      Which station does the 9.00 express from Amsterdam terminate at?
+      Which *station* does the 9.00 express from Amsterdam terminate at?
+
+.. XXX I was initially confused by this example given the most obvious
+   change (stop->terminate) and wrongly assumed this was making a point
+   about lexical semantics (stop means two things).  Can we have an
+   example that only changes number, not also the lexical item?
+   (cf German example)
 
 Part of your solution might use domain knowledge to figure out that if
 a speaker knows that the train is a train to Paris, then she probably
@@ -152,6 +158,13 @@ representation of syntactic structure.
 Why Grammatical Features?
 -------------------------
 
+.. XXX we haven't used the term "grammatical feature" at all so far
+
+.. XXX how about calling them "grammatical properties" and using
+   Python dictionary notation?
+   
+.. XXX "of the rather general sort that are appealed to in the context of"
+
 We have already used the term `grammatical feature`:dt: a few times in
 this chapter, without saying what it means.  We need to
 clarify that we are not talking about features of the rather general
@@ -165,7 +178,7 @@ modest, and assume that we do not know `everything`:em: about this
 word, but we can at least give a partial description. To signal that
 we are talking about the lexeme of the word (cf chap-words_), we use
 the label `these`:lex:. For example, we know that the orthography of
-`these`:lex: is `these`:lx:, its phonological form is ``DH IY Z``
+`these`:lex: is `these`:lx:, its pronunciation is ``DH IY Z``
 (cf. the *Arpabet* mentioned in chap-corpora_), its part-of-speech is
 ``Det``, and its number is plural. We use "dot notation" to record
 these observations:
@@ -175,7 +188,7 @@ these observations:
    .. parsed-literal::
 
       `these`:lex:.spelling = `these`:lx:
-      `these`:lex:.phonology = DH IY Z
+      `these`:lex:.pron = DH IY Z
       `these`:lex:.pos = Det
       `these`:lex:.number = plural
 
@@ -231,10 +244,10 @@ string to signal that is ungrammatical.)
    .. ex::
       \*this dogs
 
-In English, nouns are usually morphologically marked as being singular
+In English, nouns are usually marked as being singular
 or plural. The form of the demonstrative also varies:
 `this`:lx: (singular) and `these`:lx: (plural).
-ex-thisdog_ and ex-thesedogs_ show that there are constraints on
+Examples ex-thisdog_ and ex-thesedogs_ show that there are constraints on
 the use of demonstratives and nouns within a noun phrase:
 either both are singular or both are plural. A similar
 constraint holds between subjects and predicates:
@@ -313,18 +326,18 @@ context-free grammar.  We will begin with the simple CFG in ex-agcfg0_.
      N    ->  'dog'
      V    ->  'runs'
 
-ex-agcfg0_ allows us to generate the sentence `this dog runs`:lx:;
+Grammar ex-agcfg0_ allows us to generate the sentence `this dog runs`:lx:;
 however, what we really want to do is also generate `these dogs
-run`:lx: while blocking unwanted strings such as `*this dogs run`:lx:
+run`:lx: while blocking unwanted sequences like `*this dogs run`:lx:
 and `*these dog runs`:lx:. The most straightforward approach is to
 add new non-terminals and productions to the grammar:
 
 .. _ex-agcfg1:
 .. ex::
    ::
 
-     S_SG -> NP_SG VP_SG
-     S_PL -> NP_PL VP_PL
+     S -> NP_SG VP_SG
+     S -> NP_PL VP_PL
      NP_SG -> Det_SG N_SG 
      NP_PL -> Det_PL N_PL 
      VP_SG -> V_SG 
@@ -404,12 +417,10 @@ these to state constraints:
       VP[NUM=?n] -> V[NUM=?n]
 
 We are using ``?n`` as a variable over values of ``NUM``; it can
-be instantiated either to ``sg`` or ``pl``. Its scope is
-limited to individual productions. That is, within any given production from
-the list above,
-``?n`` must be instantiated to the same constant value; we can
-read the first production as saying that whatever value ``NP`` takes for the feature
-``NUM``, ``VP`` must take the same value. 
+be instantiated either to ``sg`` or ``pl``, within a given production.
+We can read the first production as saying that whatever
+value ``NP`` takes for the feature ``NUM``,
+``VP`` must take the same value. 
 
 In order to understand how these feature constraints work, it's
 helpful to think about how one would go about building a tree. Lexical
@@ -433,7 +444,7 @@ depth one):
       .. tree:: (N[NUM=pl] dogs) 
 
 Now ``S -> NP[NUM=?n] VP[NUM=?n]`` says that whatever the ``NUM``
-values of ``N`` and ``Det` are, they have to be the
+values of ``N`` and ``Det`` are, they have to be the
 same. Consequently, ``NP[NUM=?n] -> Det[NUM=?n] N[NUM=?n]`` will
 permit ex-this_ and ex-dog_ to be combined into an ``NP`` as shown
 in ex-good1_ and it will also allow ex-these_ and ex-dogs_ to be
@@ -462,10 +473,10 @@ indicated informally with a *FAIL* value at the top node.
 
 Production ``VP[NUM=?n] -> V[NUM=?n]`` says
 that the ``NUM`` value of the head verb has to be the same as the
-``NUM`` value of the `VP`:gc: mother. Combined with the production for
+``NUM`` value of the ``VP`` parent. Combined with the production for
 expanding ``S``, we
 derive the consequence that if the ``NUM`` value of the subject head
-noun is ``pl``, then so is the ``NUM`` value of the `VP`:gc:\ 's
+noun is ``pl``, then so is the ``NUM`` value of the ``VP``\ 's
 head verb.
 
 .. ex::
@@ -1129,7 +1140,7 @@ Subcategorization
 
 In chap-parse_, we proposed to augment our category labels to
 represent different kinds of verb, and introduced labels such as
-`iv`:gc: and `tv`:gc: for intransitive and transitive verbs
+``IV`` and ``TV`` for intransitive and transitive verbs
 respectively.  This allowed us to write productions like the
 following:
 
@@ -1140,15 +1151,15 @@ following:
       VP -> IV 
       VP -> TV NP 
 
-Although we know that `iv`:gc: and `tv`:gc: are two
-kinds of `v`:gc:, from a formal point of view
-`iv`:gc: has no closer relationship with `tv`:gc: than it does
-with `np`:gc:. As it stands, `iv`:gc: and `tv`:gc: are just atomic
+Although we know that ``IV`` and ``TV`` are two
+kinds of ``V``, from a formal point of view
+``IV`` has no closer relationship with ``TV`` than it does
+with ``NP``. As it stands, ``IV`` and ``TV`` are just atomic
 nonterminal symbols from a CFG.  This approach doesn't allow us
 to say anything about the class of verbs in general.
 For example, we cannot say something like "All lexical
-items of category `v`:gc: can be marked for tense", since `walk`:lx:,
-say, is an item of category `iv`:gc:, not `v`:gc:.
+items of category ``V`` can be marked for tense", since `walk`:lx:,
+say, is an item of category ``IV``, not ``V``.
 The question arises as to whether we can replace  category labels such
 as ``TV`` and ``IV`` by ``V`` together with a feature that tells us
 whether the verb in question combines with (or is subcategorized for)
@@ -1220,7 +1231,7 @@ and Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Rather than using
 ``SUBCAT`` values as a way of indexing productions, the ``SUBCAT``
 value directly encodes the valency of a head (the list of
 arguments that it can combine with). For example, a verb like
-`put`:lx: that takes  `NP` and `PP` complements (`put the
+`put`:lx: that takes ``NP`` and ``PP`` complements (`put the
 book on the table`:lx:) might be represented as ex-subcathpsg0_:
 
 .. TODO: angle brackets don't appear
@@ -1259,6 +1270,8 @@ category assignments combine in a parse of `Kim put the book on the table`:lx:.
 Heads Revisited
 ---------------
 
+.. XXX changed mother / head-daughter to parent / head-child in following
+
 We noted in the previous section that by factoring subcategorization
 information out of the main category label, we could express more
 generalizations about properties of verbs. Another property of this
@@ -1270,7 +1283,7 @@ s (i.e., adjectives) are heads of ``PP``\ s. Not all phrases have
 heads |mdash| for example, it is standard to say that coordinate
 phrases (e.g., `the book and the bell`:lx:) lack heads |mdash|
 nevertheless, we would like our grammar formalism to express the
-mother / head-daughter
+parent / head-child
 relation where it holds. Now, although it looks as though there is
 something in common  between, say, ``V`` and ``VP``, this is more
 of a handy convention than a real claim, since  ``V`` and ``VP``
@@ -1445,7 +1458,7 @@ Consider the following contrasts:
       \*You put.
 
 The verb `like`:lx: requires an ``NP`` complement, while
-`put`:lx: requires both a following ``NP`` and `pp`.
+`put`:lx: requires both a following ``NP`` and ``PP``.
 ex-gap1_ and ex-gap2_ show that these complements are *obligatory*:
 omitting them leads to ungrammaticality. Yet there are contexts in
 which obligatory complements can be omitted, as ex-gap3_ and ex-gap4_
@@ -1634,7 +1647,7 @@ In order to percolate the slash feature correctly, we need to add
 slashes with variable values to both sides of the arrow in productions
 that expand ``S``, ``VP`` and ``NP``. For example, ``VP/?x -> V SBar/?x`` is
 the slashed version of ``VP -> V SBar`` and
-says that a slash value can be specified on the ``VP`` mother of a
+says that a slash value can be specified on the ``VP`` parent of a
 constituent if the same value is also specified on the ``SBar``
 daughter. Finally, ``NP/NP ->``  allows the slash information on ``NP`` to
 be discharged as the empty string.
@@ -2115,12 +2128,12 @@ Exercises
    combinations have the same realization.  Propose and implement a
    method for dealing with this.
 
-#. |hard| So-called `head features`:dt: are shared between the mother
-   and head daughter. For example, `tense` is a head feature
-   that is shared between a `vp` and its head ``V``
+#. |hard| So-called `head features`:dt: are shared between the parent
+   node and head child. For example, `tense` is a head feature
+   that is shared between a ``VP`` and its head ``V``
    daughter. See [Gazdar1985GPS]_ for more details. Most of the
    features we have looked at are head features |mdash| exceptions are
-   ``SUBCAT`` and `slash`. Since the sharing of head
+   ``SUBCAT`` and ``slash``. Since the sharing of head
    features is predictable, it should not need to be stated explicitly
    in the grammar productions. Develop an approach that automatically
    accounts for this regular behavior of head features.