Skip to main content

Two Functional Approaches For Interpreting D-Tree Grammar Derivations

  • Chapter
Computing Meaning

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

  • 194 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Gabbay, D. (1996) Labelled deductive systems, Vol. 1. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, J. (1992) A Structural Interpretation of CCG. Technical Report MS-CIS-92–149, University of Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hepple, M. (1996) A Compilation-Chart Method for Linear Categorial Deduction. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computational Linguistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Joshi, A. and S. Kulick (1997) Partial proof trees as building blocks for a categorial grammar. Linguistics and Philosophy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, A., L. Levy, and M. Takahashi (1975) Tree Adjunct Grammars. Journal of the Computer and System Science 10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambek, J. (1958) The mathematics of sentence structure. American Mathematical Monthly 65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moortgat, M. (1988) Categorial Investigations: Logical and Linguistic Aspects of the Lambek Calculus. Foris, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moortgat, M. (1996) Generalized quantifiers and discontinuous constituency. In: H. Bunt and A. van Horck (eds.): Discontinuous Constituency. Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Shieber, S. and Y. Schabes (1990) Synchronous tree-adjoining grammar. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics