Syntax: General Principles
This document is a placeholder for the language-specific overview of guidelines for syntactic annotation.
(note: some additional documentation-related material is for the time found in extra.html)
Unused UD dependency relations
Some dependency types defined by the general UD dependency annotation guidelines are not applied in UD Finnish as the phenomenon they are intended to annotate does not occur in Finnish. Specifically, the following UD dependency relations are not applied in UD Finnish:
expl(expletive)nsubjpass(passive nominal subject)csubjpass(clausal passive subject)iobj(indirect object)
Finnish existential clauses do not contain an expletive there, nor do
passive clauses have a subject. What is considered the passive subject
in e.g. English is the direct object in Finnish, and thus the
corresponding type, dobj is used instead, or in the case of a
clause acting as the direct object, it is marked as a clausal
complement (ccomp). Finally, indirect objects do not occur in
Finnish, as regardless of word order, the corresponding argument is
expressed by a nominal modifier (nmod).
New dependency relations
There are also dependency types that are specific to the UD Finnish scheme.
The dependency types nmod:gsubj and nmod:gobj were added
to accommodate the frequent constructions of nouns that take a
subject- or object-like argument. The genitive subject and object take
the form of a genitive modifier, and thus they are subtypes of
nmod:poss.
The nominal and clausal subject types have received a new subtype
each, nsubj:cop and csubj:cop, respectively, to be used
for subjects of copular clauses. These two new types come in place of
the passive subject types that are, as explained above, not applied in
UD Finnish.
We have introduced one new subtype for open clausal complements
(xcomp): clausal complement with different subject, xcomp:ds. This is
to distinguish which of the sentence elements is inherited from the higher clause.
Differences to TDT
UD Finnish annotation differs in a number of ways from the Turku Dependency Treebank annotation. This section documents these differences.
(Please note: this part of the documentation is a work in progress.)
Dependency type mapping
The following table provides a mapping from TDT dependency type labels to (nearly) corresponding UD Finnish labels. (See also issue #64.)
| TDT | UD Finnish | Notes |
|---|---|---|
acomp |
xcomp | |
adpos |
case | |
compar |
advcl | |
comparator |
mark | |
complm |
mark | Removed distinction |
csubj-cop |
csubj:cop | |
gobj |
nmod:gobj | |
gsubj |
nmod:gsubj | |
iccomp |
xcomp:ds | |
infmod |
acl | |
intj |
discourse | |
nn |
compound:nn | |
nommod |
nmod | |
nommod-own |
nmod:own | |
nsubj-cop |
nsubj:cop | |
num |
nummod | |
number |
compound | Removed distinction |
partmod |
acl | |
poss |
nmod:poss | |
preconj |
cc:preconj | |
prt |
compound:prt | |
quantmod |
advmod | |
rcmod |
acl:relcl | |
rel |
(multiple) | See below |
voc |
vocative |
The TDT dependency type rel is not mapped to any single UD type.
Instead we use any normal dependency relation to catch the syntactic function of the relativizer (for example nsubj or dobj).
Additionally, the following dependency relations cannot be directly created by mapping existing TDT annotations and may thus not occur in the TDT-derived UD Finnish corpus:
dislocatedlistreparandum