Advertisement

Two Functional Approaches For Interpreting D-Tree Grammar Derivations

  • Mark Hepple
Part of the Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 77)

Abstract

D-Tree Grammar (DTG) is a grammatical formalism whose basic derivational units are lexicalized partial tree descriptions. This chapter addresses the problem of interpreting DTG derivations, i.e. computing meaning representations for analysed sentences. The standard approach to interpreting DTG derivations is based on the derivation tree, which is a record of the composition steps made during the process of derivation. This method requires the derivation process to be subject to certain constraints, that both complicate the framework and rule out certain accounts of phenomena that could otherwise be formulated. The chapter presents two alternative interpretation approaches, which are both ‘functional’ in that they associate lambda term meaning expressions with lexical items. These expressions are combined in a manner that is determined by the derived tree of the analysis, which takes the form of a standard phrase structure. As such, the new interpretation approaches allow the constraints on the derivation process, required by the standard approach, to be eliminated, and we present a linguistic analysis, of PP pied-piping, that this change makes possible.

Keywords

Relative Clause Lexical Item Derivation Tree Computational Linguistics Phrase Structure Tree 
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. Becker, T., A. Joshi, and O. Rambow (1991) Long distance scrambling and tree adjoining grammars. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar
  2. Candito, M.-H. and S. Kahane (1998a) Can the TAG derivation tree represent a semantic graph? An answer in the light of Meaning-Text Theory. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Tree-Adjoining Grammars and Related Frameworks. Google Scholar
  3. Candito, M.-H. and S. Kahane (1998b) Defining DTG derivations to get semantic graphs. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Tree-Adjoining Grammars and Related Frameworks. Google Scholar
  4. Dalrymple, M., V. Gupta, J. Lamping, and V. Saraswat (1997) Relating resourcebased semantics to categorial semantics. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Meeting on the Mathematics of Language. Google Scholar
  5. Dalrymple, M., J. Lamping, and V. Saraswat (1993) LFG semantics via constraints. In: Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Utrecht.Google Scholar
  6. Egg, M., J. Niehren, P. Ruhrberg, and F. Xu (1998) Constraints over Lambda-Structures in Semantic Underspecification. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, and 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar
  7. Gabbay, D. (1996) Labelled deductive systems, Vol. 1. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Henderson, J. (1992) A Structural Interpretation of CCG. Technical Report MS-CIS-92–149, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  9. Hepple, M. (1996) A Compilation-Chart Method for Linear Categorial Deduction. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar
  10. Hepple, M. (1998a) Memoisation for Glue Language Deduction and Categorial Parsing. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, and 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar
  11. Hepple, M. (1998b) On Some Similarities Between D-Tree Grammars and Type-Logical Grammars. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Tree-Adjoining Grammars and Related Frameworks. Google Scholar
  12. Joshi, A. and S. Kulick (1997) Partial proof trees as building blocks for a categorial grammar. Linguistics and Philosophy. Google Scholar
  13. Joshi, A., L. Levy, and M. Takahashi (1975) Tree Adjunct Grammars. Journal of the Computer and System Science 10.Google Scholar
  14. Lambek, J. (1958) The mathematics of sentence structure. American Mathematical Monthly 65.Google Scholar
  15. Moortgat, M. (1988) Categorial Investigations: Logical and Linguistic Aspects of the Lambek Calculus. Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  16. Moortgat, M. (1996) Generalized quantifiers and discontinuous constituency. In: H. Bunt and A. van Horck (eds.): Discontinuous Constituency. Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  17. Morrill, G. (1992) Categorial Formalisation of Relativisation: Pied Piping, Islands and Extraction Sites. Technical Report LSI-92-23-R, Universitat Politécnica de Catalunya.Google Scholar
  18. Muskens, R. and E. Krahmer (1998) Description Theory, LTAGs and Underspecified Semantics. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Tree-Adjoining Grammars and Related Frameworks. Google Scholar
  19. Rambow, O., K. Vijay-Shanker, and D. Weir (1995) D-Tree Grammars. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar
  20. Shieber, S. and Y. Schabes (1990) Synchronous tree-adjoining grammar. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark Hepple

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations