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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Gabbay, D. (1996) Labelled deductive systems, Vol. 1. Oxford University Press.
Henderson, J. (1992) A Structural Interpretation of CCG. Technical Report MS-CIS-92–149, University of Pennsylvania.
Hepple, M. (1996) A Compilation-Chart Method for Linear Categorial Deduction. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computational Linguistics.
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.
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.
Joshi, A. and S. Kulick (1997) Partial proof trees as building blocks for a categorial grammar. Linguistics and Philosophy.
Joshi, A., L. Levy, and M. Takahashi (1975) Tree Adjunct Grammars. Journal of the Computer and System Science 10.
Lambek, J. (1958) The mathematics of sentence structure. American Mathematical Monthly 65.
Moortgat, M. (1988) Categorial Investigations: Logical and Linguistic Aspects of the Lambek Calculus. Foris, Dordrecht.
Moortgat, M. (1996) Generalized quantifiers and discontinuous constituency. In: H. Bunt and A. van Horck (eds.): Discontinuous Constituency. Mouton de Gruyter.
Morrill, G. (1992) Categorial Formalisation of Relativisation: Pied Piping, Islands and Extraction Sites. Technical Report LSI-92-23-R, Universitat Politécnica de Catalunya.
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.
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.
Shieber, S. and Y. Schabes (1990) Synchronous tree-adjoining grammar. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2001 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hepple, M. (2001). Two Functional Approaches For Interpreting D-Tree Grammar Derivations. In: Bunt, H., Muskens, R., Thijsse, E. (eds) Computing Meaning. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, vol 77. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0572-2_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0572-2_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-0451-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-010-0572-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive