About the meaning. Syntax submission trees (submission trees)
In the previous post, I mentioned the trees of submission and used (perhaps in vain) the controversial example of "nebula".
Now it is just necessary to explain why I interpreted this text in this way. Although, as it turned out, according to the comments of specialists in the works of Pushkin, it is not true, but we will consider this example not in the aspect of historical accuracy, but in the aspect of ways of interpreting a text in a natural language by a machine.
Let us begin with the definition of what trees of syntactic subordination are (in the common rule - subordination trees)? This is an ordered graph (that is, a tree), where the nodes are the words of the sentence, and their hierarchy and system of subordination determines which words are central to the sentence and which depend on which ones.
For clarity, here are a couple of snapshots of what I mean:
Presentation option number 1:
Presentation option number 2:
All other examples will be given in the second version (although I myself consider the first one more convenient), but since most of the material is in the second one, then do not seek it.
The main word in such a scheme is always predicate - so that each sentence is considered as a process of something (birth, donation, arrival, etc.), from which all additional information is then extracted. Just as from the triplets of ontologies, they begin to grab the middle (a bunch of subjects and objects).
')
The main criterion for assessing the correctness of the construction and _interpretation of the sentence in such a scheme is a property of the projectivity of the tree of subordination. It is easy to say that the subordination tree is projective when its branches do not intersect.
Projectively:
Not projective:
This, of course, is a simplified model — there are mathematically described degrees of projectivity (strictly projective and weakly projective trees) that define different constraints on the structure of a sentence so that it can be considered projective.
The model of projective trees is hardly applicable to fiction and poetry, where the author, trying to express his feelings or give the sentence more expression, violates many rules of syntax and accepted word order.
Although the lack of projectivity in ordinary texts is a sign of the lack of literacy of its originator.
In fiction, projective trees are rather rare.
Well, now that same controversial example:
Notice that the upper tree of subordination (with standard meaning) is just projective.
The model of submission trees is as old as the world (at least 60 years old) - it has a lot of comments, a lot of reservations and is not a model applicable for all cases - there are more modern (and more complex models): for example, component systems. But thanks to this model, you can get a sufficiently large number of characteristics of the offer itself.
In many modern algorithms of semantic analysis, this model is not used in its pure form (and the rules of projectivity are rejected by many and replaced by others), but the main ideas are still alive.
Now it is just necessary to explain why I interpreted this text in this way. Although, as it turned out, according to the comments of specialists in the works of Pushkin, it is not true, but we will consider this example not in the aspect of historical accuracy, but in the aspect of ways of interpreting a text in a natural language by a machine.
Let us begin with the definition of what trees of syntactic subordination are (in the common rule - subordination trees)? This is an ordered graph (that is, a tree), where the nodes are the words of the sentence, and their hierarchy and system of subordination determines which words are central to the sentence and which depend on which ones.
For clarity, here are a couple of snapshots of what I mean:
Presentation option number 1:
Presentation option number 2:
All other examples will be given in the second version (although I myself consider the first one more convenient), but since most of the material is in the second one, then do not seek it.
The main word in such a scheme is always predicate - so that each sentence is considered as a process of something (birth, donation, arrival, etc.), from which all additional information is then extracted. Just as from the triplets of ontologies, they begin to grab the middle (a bunch of subjects and objects).
')
The main criterion for assessing the correctness of the construction and _interpretation of the sentence in such a scheme is a property of the projectivity of the tree of subordination. It is easy to say that the subordination tree is projective when its branches do not intersect.
Projectively:
Not projective:
This, of course, is a simplified model — there are mathematically described degrees of projectivity (strictly projective and weakly projective trees) that define different constraints on the structure of a sentence so that it can be considered projective.
The model of projective trees is hardly applicable to fiction and poetry, where the author, trying to express his feelings or give the sentence more expression, violates many rules of syntax and accepted word order.
Although the lack of projectivity in ordinary texts is a sign of the lack of literacy of its originator.
In fiction, projective trees are rather rare.
Well, now that same controversial example:
Notice that the upper tree of subordination (with standard meaning) is just projective.
The model of submission trees is as old as the world (at least 60 years old) - it has a lot of comments, a lot of reservations and is not a model applicable for all cases - there are more modern (and more complex models): for example, component systems. But thanks to this model, you can get a sufficiently large number of characteristics of the offer itself.
In many modern algorithms of semantic analysis, this model is not used in its pure form (and the rules of projectivity are rejected by many and replaced by others), but the main ideas are still alive.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/95346/
All Articles