Talk:Head-driven phrase structure grammar
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Stub tag
I've marked this article as a stub because there are huge amounts of material available that isn't covered in this very short article. The external links included are a good starting place for expansion. -- Beland 01:18, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Please expand
This article can't be understood unless you are a specialist. Above all, it desperately needs examples. A toy grammar would be useful. Kallerdis 08:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] I'll self-assign
My master's thesis deals heavily with HPSG; I'll expand this article after my thesis is submitted (beginning of March 2008) unless someone else gets to it first. I promise to include anything relevant gleaned during my defense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msanford (talk • contribs) 05:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- That's very nice of you – the article sorely needs clarification. While you're at it, you might have a look at LFG, which is in a similar sorry example-less state.Kallerdis (talk) 09:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Sample Grammar
I just added the beginning of a sample grammar. I tried to make it as clear and concise as possible, but I'm not attached to any part of it. Feel free to chop it up, add to it, or redo the AVMs entirely ("walks" seems larger than necessary). I took the suggestion of a toy grammar above as being a good way to introduce how grammars are structured and organized, the basic concepts, and some core features given to typical words/phrases. I see the rest of the article getting into slightly more involved descriptions of the major principles, the type hierarchy, lexical rules, sets and lists, argument structure, underspecification, etc, etc.
The previous stub was left untouched. There's dramatic reorganizing I'd like to do with it, but... one step at a time. :) Lizmarie (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- "This user can typeset using LaTeX." No kidding! Nice work on the sample grammar. Although I thought the idea was to pick out an example from an existing source instead of creating one, which inevitably involves OR, given the dozens of variants of HPSG out there. That said, I think most people will be OK with what you have written. I would just suggest:
- changing "SUBCAT" to "VALENCE"
- changing "COMP" to "COMPS"
- not using "SS" ("SYNSEM" is opaque enough!)
- expanding the last figure (tree notation) so that it contains all of the information of the preceding AVM, with the same indices
- Thanks again for your efforts! CapnPrep (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Easy done. I'll wait and see if there are more comments and then I'll implement those. The "she walks" sentence seems to be pretty common in intro courses/books. I went ahead and created images just for Wikipedia just so the licensing would be as unambiguous as possible. Lizmarie (talk) 02:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- As for OR: this is a synthesis of P&S 94 and the Sag, Wasow and Bender book. (Lima's website is also very similar.) I'll try to make that clear in future edit, and maybe work in points from other sources on typed feature logic. Lizmarie (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ok. No comments? I'll make the changes in a day or two. Lizmarie (talk) 03:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
