Mapping ERG predicates to propbank/verbnet

Does anyone know about previous works on mapping ERG predicates to propbank and/or verbnet dataset?

In particular, I am curious about copula constructions. ERG gives me 2 analysis for This balloon is red. and one analysis for This is a red balloon. It seems we have two lexical entries for the verb be: be_c_is and be_id_is. So probably they may correspond to the two different senses be.01 and be.02 in http://verbs.colorado.edu/propbank/framesets-english-aliases/be.html.

Does it make sense?

be_c_is is semantically empty (contributes no EP); be_id_is contributes an EP…

Yes. But what is the syntactic analysis of these two cases? Are they both copulas? If so, they are probably different kind of copulas since they have different analysis right? Or maybe one is a copula and the other one is not?

In UD, these are called

https://universaldependencies.org/u/overview/simple-syntax.html#nonverbal-clauses

One case above are not considered copula.

In the ERG, both are verbs that take non-verbal complements. The be_id_is is an instance of the ‘identity copula’, which takes an NP complement and introduces an EP that relates that NP complement to the subject. We use this both for identity cases (like The author of that book is Kim) and cases that look more predicatives (Kim is an author). (I think there might be even more semantic categories of NP predicates, but don’t know off the top of my head.) The key commonality is that there is no argument role in the NP predicate for the subject to fill, so the verb introduces a predication that links them.

be_c_is, on the other hand, is an ‘ordinary’ copula that supports a non-verbal predicate that does have an argument position for the subject. Syntactically it is a raising verb, identifying its subject’s index with its complement’s XARG (which in turn points to the complement’s subject’s index). From our perspective, it is incorrect to say this copula has a ‘sense’ because it doesn’t mean anything.

1 Like

Does anyone have the contact of Sergio Roa-Ovalle? The link to his thesis is broken at http://moin.delph-in.net/Across_Framework_Evaluation_Metrics.

still related to this thread, I am trying to compare ERG analysis with UD/Propbank with the intension to evaluate how reasonable would be to use ERG to produce data for training a SRL system.

I am curious with the MOD relation introduced in the DMRS. For instance, this is a simplified sentence from EWT corpus

The on Tuesday in UD is OBL of nominated (syntax). ERG makes Bush and the event arguments of the preposition on. In the DMRS, we have the MOD edge between the nominated event and the preposition, what is that? The MOD mean a modification, https://aclanthology.org/E09-1001.pdf. But how was that introduced?

_on_p_temp<15:17> LBL: h7 ARG0: e16 ARG1: x3 ARG2: x17

Interesting, none of the syntactic trees from the sentence above take on Tuesday as a modifier of the verb “nominated” as

image

MOD/EQ means a modifier without a direct ARG relation.

When converting from MRS, it is introduced when nodes share a label, but without an ARG relation between them (or a chain of ARG relations).

This case looks like a weird analysis. I can’t think of how to justify it.

A sentence where MOD/EQ is needed is “The dog whose tail wagged barked”. Here, “whose tail wagged” modifies “dog”, so the head of the clause “wagged” needs to share a label with “dog”. This is necessary to get the right quantifier scope (there could be many dogs, but just one dog whose tail wagged). But the only argument of “wagged” is “tail”, which doesn’t share a label with “dog” (tails are quantified separately from dogs). So “wagged” has two outgoing links, ARG1/NEQ to “tail”, and MOD/EQ to “dog”.

1 Like

Thank you @guyemerson, I will wait some feedback from @Dan