Advertisement

Combining Categorial Grammar and Unification

  • Henk Zeevat
Part of the Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 35)

Abstract

This paper discusses a combination of ideas from categorial grammar, unification based linguistic formalisms and discourse representation theory. The resulting formalism, dubbed U(nification) C(ategorial) G(rammar) is introduced and applied to a number of linguistic problems, among which Dutch infinitival complements. Thereby it is illustrated in what way the addition of unification to categorial grammar increases its expressive power.

Keywords

Noun Phrase Main Clause Computational Linguistics Subordinate Clause Functional Application 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. van Benthem, J. 1986 Categorial Grammar. Chapter 8 in Essays in Logical Semantics. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  2. Bresnan, J., Kaplan, R. M., Peters, S. and Zaenen, A. 1982 Cross-serial dependencies in Dutch. Linguistic Inquiry, 1313, 613–635.Google Scholar
  3. Calder, J., Klein, E., Moens, M. and Zeevat, H. 1986 Problems of Dialogue Parsing. ACORD Deliverable T2.1, Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  4. Davidson, D. 1967 The Logical Form of Action Sentences. In Rescher, N. (ed.) The Logic of Decision and Action. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  5. Flickinger, D., Pollard, C. and Wasow, T. 1985 Structure-Sharing in Lexical Representation. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, July, 1985, pp262–267.Google Scholar
  6. Gazdar, G. 1985 Applicability of Indexed Grammars to Natural Languages. Report No. CSLI-85-34, October, 1985.Google Scholar
  7. Gazdar, G., Klein, E., Pullum, G. and Sag, I. 1985 Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. London: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  8. Geach, P. T. 1972 A program for syntax. In Davidson, D. and Harman, G. (eds.) Semantics of Natural Language. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  9. Heim, I. 1982 The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. PhD Thesis, University of Massachusetts. Distributed by Graduate Linguistics Student Association.Google Scholar
  10. Kamp, H. 1981 A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation. In Groenendijk, J. A. G., Janssen, T. M. V. and Stokhof, M. B. J. (eds.) Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Volume 136, pp277–322. Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre Tracts.Google Scholar
  11. Karttunen, L. 1986 Radical Lexicalism. Paper presented at the Conference on Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure, July 1986, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Lambek, J. 1958 The mathematics of sentence structure. American Mathematical Monthly, 6565, 154–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lambek, J. 1961 On the calculus of syntactic types. In Structure of language and its mathematical aspects, Providence, Rhode Island, 1961, pp166–178.Google Scholar
  14. Montague, R. 1973 The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary english. In Hintikka, J., Moravcsik, J. M. E. and Suppes, P. (eds.) Approaches to Natural Language. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. Reprinted in R. H. Thomason (ed.) (1974), Formal Philosophy: Selected Papers of Richard Montague, pp247-270. Yale University Press: New Haven, Conn..Google Scholar
  15. Pollard, C. J. 1985a Categorial Grammar and Phrase Structure Grammar: an excursion on the syntax-semantics frontier. In Oehrle, R. (eds.) Categorial Grammars and Natural Language Structures, 1985a.Google Scholar
  16. Pollard, C. J. 1985b Lectures on HPSG. Unpublished lecture notes, CSLI, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  17. Proudian, D. and Pollard, C. J. 1985 Parsing Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, 8–12 July, 1985, pp167–171.Google Scholar
  18. Pullum, G. K. and Gazdar, G. 1982 Natural languages and context free languages. Linguistics and Philosophy, 44, 471–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Shieber, S., Uszkoreit, H., Pereira, F., Robinson, J. and Tyson, M. 1983 The Formalism and Implementation of PATR-II. In Grosz, B. and Stickel, M. E. (eds.) Research on Interactive Acquisition and Use of Knowledge, SRI International, Menlo Park, 1983, pp39–79.Google Scholar
  20. Shieber, S. M. 1986 An Introduction to Unification-based Approaches to Grammar. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Shieber, S. M. 1984 Evidence against the context-freeness of natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy. In press.Google Scholar
  22. Shieber, S. M., Pereira, F. C. N., Karttunen, L. and Kay, M. 1986 A Compilation of Papers on Unification-Based Grammar Formalisms Parts I and II. Report No. CSLI-86-48, CSU, April, 1986.Google Scholar
  23. Steedman, M. 1985 Combinatore and grammars. In Oehrle, R. (eds.) Categorial Grammars and Natural Language Structures, 1985.Google Scholar
  24. Steedman, M. 1985 Dependency and coordination in the grammar of Dutch and English. Language, 6161, 523–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Uszkoreit, H. 1986 Categorial Unification Grammars. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Computational Linguistics and the 24th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Institut fuer Kommunikationsforschung und Phonetik, Bonn University, Bonn, 25–29 August, 1986, pp187–194.Google Scholar
  26. Wittenburg, K. W. 1986 Natural Language Parsing with Combinatory Categorial Grammar in a Graph-Unification-Based Formalism. PhD Thesis, Department of Linguistics, University of Texas.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Henk Zeevat
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Cognitive ScienceUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghScotland,UK

Personalised recommendations