8.501, Qs: Parser testing, Universal, Software

[linguist at linguistlist.org]

LINGUIST List:  Vol-8-501. Fri Apr 11 1997. ISSN: 1068-4875.

Subject: 8.501, Qs: Parser testing, Universal, Software

Moderators: Anthony Rodrigues Aristar: Texas A&M U. <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at linguistlist.org>
            T. Daniel Seely: Eastern Michigan U. <seely at linguistlist.org>

Review Editor:     Andrew Carnie <carnie at linguistlist.org>

Associate Editors: Ljuba Veselinova <ljuba at linguistlist.org>
                   Ann Dizdar <ann at linguistlist.org>
Assistant Editor:  Sue Robinson <sue at linguistlist.org>

Software development: John H. Remmers <remmers at emunix.emich.edu>
                      Zhiping Zheng <zzheng at online.emich.edu>

Home Page:  http://linguistlist.org/

               ************************************************
  During the month of April, you may make credit card donations to
  LINGUIST via the Cascadilla Press web site:
                  http://www.cascadilla.com/linglist.html
  If you believe LINGUIST is a valuable service, please contribute to
  the LINGUIST Editorial Support Fund, which pays our student editors.
                ***********************************************



Editor for this issue: Susan Robinson <sue at linguistlist.org>
 ==========================================================================

We'd like to remind readers that the responses to queries are usually
best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is
then  strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list.   This policy was
instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we
would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems appropriate.

=================================Directory=================================

1)
Date:  Tue, 08 Apr 1997 11:46:24 +0000
From:  Gordon Franck <csgf at mizzou1.missouri.edu>
Subject:  Concept based Parser Testing

2)
Date:  Mon, 7 Apr 1997 17:39:56 +0200 (MET DST)
From:  Arthur Merin <arthur at IMS.Uni-Stuttgart.DE>
Subject:  Testing for a Universal (`but', `also')

3)
Date:  Wed, 09 Apr 1997 08:55:00 -0400 (edt)
From:  "MEYER, TOM" <TMEYER at cstudies.msmail.miami.edu>
Subject:  CALL Software

-------------------------------- Message 1 -------------------------------

Date:  Tue, 08 Apr 1997 11:46:24 +0000
From:  Gordon Franck <csgf at mizzou1.missouri.edu>
Subject:  Concept based Parser Testing

Upon reading the comparison of web based parsers with some interest, I
am considering resurrecting a web version of some parser-tester software
that an advisee of mine (Dave Zeitler) wrote last summer.  Our aim was
to provide a test of parsers based upon linguistic concepts rather than
raw online corpora.  Our method was to extract starred and grammatical
sentences from linguistic texts, e.g., Radford 81, Quirk 72, and add
them to a database.  The sentences in the database were indexed by the
concepts involved, e.g., subject/verb agreement, extraction, etc., much
as they were organized in the original texts.  When this database was
partially complete we created an interface to feed these sentences to a
particular parser, receive the parsers grammaticality judgements, and
score these judgements for agreement with the database.  The parser
tester would then provide output stating the parsers degree of success
(a true/false positive/negative table) organized by linguistic concept.
A user (parser developer) could click on the concept score to get
feedback on the particular sentences involved (in any table cell).  We
judged our system to be successful (Dave upon graduation) as it provided
broad linguistic coverage, and linguistically informative feedback, with
minimal effort (e.g., small lexicon) involved by the parser developer.
However, there would be a significant amount of work involved in
completing the database and making this software net accessible, so
before going any further I am hoping to get some feedback on the
following questions.  I will post a summary to the list.

1. Does this software already exist?
2. Who would find this method of parser testing meaningful?
(alternatively, which folks couldn't give a hoot whether their parser
handles parasitic gaps)
3. Would the database be useful to linguists (with a reasonable user
interface) independent of the issues of parser testing?

Thanks in advance for your feedback. I will summarize any replies sent
directly.  Sincerely, Gordon

Dr. Gordon Franck
E-mail: csgf at mizzou1.missouri.edu


-------------------------------- Message 2 -------------------------------

Date:  Mon, 7 Apr 1997 17:39:56 +0200 (MET DST)
From:  Arthur Merin <arthur at IMS.Uni-Stuttgart.DE>
Subject:  Testing for a Universal (`but', `also')

REQUEST FOR PARTICIPATION IN TESTING FOR A LANGUAGE UNIVERSAL

The candidate, engaging a phenomenon parts of which Zellig
Harris noted as a syntactic fact of English, is:


  Any language having bona fide translation equivalents
  of the coordinating conjunction `but' will have
  equivalents of

  (1) `Kim walks but {Kim/(s)he[K]} talks'    (Pa but Qa)

  acceptable in suitable contexts (here, e.g.: we are
  looking for a very silent messenger), whereas
  equivalents of

  (2) *`Kim walks but Sandy walks'  (Pa but Pb)

  will never be acceptable (assuming default prosody
  or a  suitable equivalent - see below), while in any
  language having, in addition, a bona fide translation
  equivalent of `also' or `too', equivalents of

  (3) `Kim walks but Sandy {also walks/walks too}'

  will always be acceptable again.


Explanatory Note: "Default prosody" for English means at the
very least: absence (or nonobligatoriness) of a marked pause
preceding `but'. I.e. the unacceptability judgment for
(2) is claimed to be stable for that single-speaker reading
(both with regard to prosody and interpretation) which is NOT
paraphraseable as

(4) `Kim walks, but then Sandy walks'

where `then' is NON-TEMPORAL, as evidenced by preservation of
its intended interpretation in

(5) `Kim has walked, but then Sandy has walked'.

(The intended and, for atemporal `then', presumably obligatory
reading for the English ex. (4) is one where the second clause
introduces an explanation for the eventuality designated by the
first.)


Native or born-again judgments are solicited on bona fide
translation equivalents of (1), (2) and (3); if possible
also on those of (4)/(5) and on the feasibility of a
(4)-style reading for (2)-equivalents. Most helpful would
be transliterations of exx. into Roman characters, if necessary
making use of ASCII diacritic conventions in use among students
of the language concerned, with a word-by-word English or
(e.g., where word order differs) quasi-English translation
underneath.

A summary of the results of the experiment will be posted,
along with a list of all those contributors who do
not express a preference for not being listed.
For participants or anyone else interested in the explanation
of the putative universal, a dense outline of the argument
(2 pages worth of PostScript or, on special demand,
typographically approximate ASCII) is available by e-mail on
request (repr. from the Abstracts of the 10th Int. Cong. Logic
Methodology & Philosophy of Sci., Florence 1995). A mathematical
background or access thereto is presupposed. An extensive version,
taking account, it is hoped, of the results of the experiment
proposed above, will be available in English soon. Participants
expressing an interest in being notified of its venue of
appearance will be kept informed.


Arthur Merin
Institute for Language and Computation (IMS)
University of Stuttgart
Azenbergstr. 12
70174 Stuttgart
Germany








-------------------------------- Message 3 -------------------------------

Date:  Wed, 09 Apr 1997 08:55:00 -0400 (edt)
From:  "MEYER, TOM" <TMEYER at cstudies.msmail.miami.edu>
Subject:  CALL Software

I am in the process of reorganizing our computer lab here at the
University of Miami, Intensive Language Institute and am looking for
some good CALL software in the areas of ENGLISH pronunciation,
grammar, vocab. development, writing, etc.

Any suggestions?

Thank you.

Please respond directly to Tom Meyer via email at
 tmeyer at cstudies.msmail.miami.edu

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-8-501