Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

SCONJ/case #243

Closed
nschneid opened this issue Sep 25, 2021 · 4 comments
Closed

SCONJ/case #243

nschneid opened this issue Sep 25, 2021 · 4 comments

Comments

@nschneid
Copy link
Contributor

Initially observed in #208:

it looks like EWT has a lot of incorrect SCONJ/case combinations, probably due to buggy conversion.

@nschneid
Copy link
Contributor Author

On the agenda for the UD core group: whether SCONJ should always correspond to mark and ADP should always correspond to case, or whether the tags should be more lexically based.

@nschneid
Copy link
Contributor Author

nschneid commented May 10, 2022

Most of these SCONJ/case instances involve WH constructions.

@amir-zeldes
Copy link
Contributor

In GUM the mapping is automatic (SCONJ/ADP upos is decided based on mark/case deprel in the conversion from xpos), so there are no exceptions, and I think it has worked fine. For English it also works out well due to the behavior of the PTB tag IN, so it's easy to convert.

@nschneid
Copy link
Contributor Author

nschneid commented Feb 4, 2023

detailed query

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants