| { | |
| "paper_id": "C92-1027", | |
| "header": { | |
| "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", | |
| "date_generated": "2023-01-19T12:33:50.635488Z" | |
| }, | |
| "title": "Compiling and Using Finite-State Syntactic Rules", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Kimmo", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Koskenniemi", | |
| "suffix": "", | |
| "affiliation": { | |
| "laboratory": "", | |
| "institution": "University of Helsinki Research Unit for ComputaHonal Linguistics", | |
| "location": { | |
| "addrLine": "HaUituskatu 11 SF-O0100 I..lelsinkJ F~and" | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "email": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Pasi", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Tapanainen", | |
| "suffix": "", | |
| "affiliation": { | |
| "laboratory": "", | |
| "institution": "University of Helsinki Research Unit for ComputaHonal Linguistics", | |
| "location": { | |
| "addrLine": "HaUituskatu 11 SF-O0100 I..lelsinkJ F~and" | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "email": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Atro", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Voutilainen", | |
| "suffix": "", | |
| "affiliation": { | |
| "laboratory": "", | |
| "institution": "University of Helsinki Research Unit for ComputaHonal Linguistics", | |
| "location": { | |
| "addrLine": "HaUituskatu 11 SF-O0100 I..lelsinkJ F~and" | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "email": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": "", | |
| "venue": null, | |
| "identifiers": {}, | |
| "abstract": "A language-independent framework for syntactic finlte-state parsing is discussed. The article presents a framework, a formalism, a compiler and a parser for grammars written in this forrealism. As a substantial example, fragments from a nontrivial finite-state grammar of English are discussed. The linguistic framework of the present approach is based on a surface syntactic tagging scheme by F. Karlsson. This representation is slightly less powerful than phrase structure tree notation, letUng some ambiguous constructions be described more concisely. The finite-state rule compiler implements what was briefly sketched by Koskenniemi (1990). It is based on the calculus of finite-state machines. The compiler transforms rules into rule-automata. The run-time parser exploits one of certain alternative strategies in performing the effective intersection of the rule automata and the sentence automaton. Fragments of a fairly comprehensive finite-state granmmr of English axe presented here, including samples from non-finite constructions as a demonstration of the capacity of the present formalism, which goes far beyond plain disamblguation or part of speech tagging. The grammar itself is directly related to a parser and tagging system for English created as a part of project SIMPR I using Karlsson's CG (Constraint Grammar) formalism.", | |
| "pdf_parse": { | |
| "paper_id": "C92-1027", | |
| "_pdf_hash": "", | |
| "abstract": [ | |
| { | |
| "text": "A language-independent framework for syntactic finlte-state parsing is discussed. The article presents a framework, a formalism, a compiler and a parser for grammars written in this forrealism. As a substantial example, fragments from a nontrivial finite-state grammar of English are discussed. The linguistic framework of the present approach is based on a surface syntactic tagging scheme by F. Karlsson. This representation is slightly less powerful than phrase structure tree notation, letUng some ambiguous constructions be described more concisely. The finite-state rule compiler implements what was briefly sketched by Koskenniemi (1990). It is based on the calculus of finite-state machines. The compiler transforms rules into rule-automata. The run-time parser exploits one of certain alternative strategies in performing the effective intersection of the rule automata and the sentence automaton. Fragments of a fairly comprehensive finite-state granmmr of English axe presented here, including samples from non-finite constructions as a demonstration of the capacity of the present formalism, which goes far beyond plain disamblguation or part of speech tagging. The grammar itself is directly related to a parser and tagging system for English created as a part of project SIMPR I using Karlsson's CG (Constraint Grammar) formalism.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Abstract", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "body_text": [ | |
| { | |
| "text": "The present finite-state approach to syntax should not be confused with eg. attempts to characterize syntactic structures with regular 1. Esprit 11 project No. 2083, Structured information Management: Proceaalng and Retrieval.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Afn'Es DE COLING-9Z NANTES, 23-28 Aou'r 1992 phrase structure grammars. Instead of using trees as a means of representlng structures, we use syntactic tags associated with words, and the finite-state rules constrain the choice of tags. This style of representaUon was adopted from Karlsson's CG approach and an earlier Finnish parser called FPARSE (Karlsson 1985 (Karlsson , 1990 . The current approach employs a shallow surface oriented syntax. We expect it to be useful in syntactic tagging of large text corpora. Infermat/on retrieval, and as a starting point for more elaborate syntactic or semantic analysis.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 348, | |
| "end": 362, | |
| "text": "(Karlsson 1985", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF8" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 363, | |
| "end": 379, | |
| "text": "(Karlsson , 1990", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF9" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We represent the sentences as regu/ar expressions, or equivalently, asfinite-state networks, which list all combinatory possibilities to interpret them. Consider the sentence: the program runs.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Representation of sentences", | |
| "sec_num": "1.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "A (simplified) representation for the morphologically processed but syntactically unanalyzed sentence as a regular expression could be roughly as follows: 0@ Here 8S represents a sentence boundary, @ a word boundary, 8/ an ordinary clause houndamy, @< a begi,Lrflng of a center embedded clause, and @> the end of such an embedding. Square brackets '[...r are used for grouping, and vertical bars' I' separate alternaUves. Each word has been assigned all possible syntactlc roles It could assume in sentences (eg. 0SUBJ or @OBJ or ~PREDC). Note that between each two words there might be a clause boundary or a plain word boundary. The regular expression represents a number of strings (some 320) which we call the readings of the (unanalyTed) sentence. The following is one of them:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Representation of sentences", | |
| "sec_num": "1.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "@8 the DEF ART 8/ program V PRES NON-SG3 8FINV 8MAINV 0 run N NOM PL 8PREDC 8@", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Representation of sentences", | |
| "sec_num": "1.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "This one is very ungranmmtlcal, though. It will be the task of the rule component to exclude such, and leave only the grammatical one(s) intact:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Representation of sentences", | |
| "sec_num": "1.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "88 the DEF ART 8", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Representation of sentences", | |
| "sec_num": "1.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "program N NOM SG 8SUBJ @ run V PRES SG3 8FINV 8MAINV 88", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Representation of sentences", | |
| "sec_num": "1.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Note that in this framework, the parsing does not build any neW structures. The granu-natieal reading Is already present in the input representation.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Representation of sentences", | |
| "sec_num": "1.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The task for the rules here is (as is the ease with the CG approach by Karlsson) to:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The role of rules", | |
| "sec_num": "1.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "\u2022 exclude those interpretations of ambiguous words which are not possible in the current sentence, \u2022 choose the correct type of boundaries between each two words, and \u2022 detern~Ine which syntactic tags are the appropriate ones.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The role of rules", | |
| "sec_num": "1.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Rules should preferably express meaningful constraints which result in the exclusion of all ungramnmtical alternatives. Each rule should thus be a grammatical statement which effectively forbids certain tag combinations.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The role of rules", | |
| "sec_num": "1.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Rules in the CG formalism are typically dedicated for one of the above tasks, and they are executed as successive groups.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The role of rules", | |
| "sec_num": "1.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In finite-state syntax, rules are logically unordered. Furthermore, In order to achieve word level disambiguation, one typically uses rules which describe the occurrences of boundaries and syntactic tags in grammat/ca//y correct structures rather than indicating how the incorrect interpretations can be identified. Thus, the three effects are achieved, eve** ff individual finite-state rules cannot be classified into corresponding three groups.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The role of rules", | |
| "sec_num": "1.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Finite-state rules are represented using regular expressions and they are transformed into finite-state automata by a rule compiler.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Rule automata", | |
| "sec_num": "1.3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The whole finite-state grammar consists of a set of rules which constrain the possible choices of word Interpretations, tags and boundaries to ACRES DE COLING-92, NAN' D!S, 23-28 AO6T 1992 only those which are considered grammatical. The entire grammar Is effectively equivalent to the (theoretical) intersection of all individual rule automata. However, such an intersection would be impractical to compute due to Its huge size.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Rule automata", | |
| "sec_num": "1.3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The logical task for any finite-state parser in the current approach is to compute the intersection of the unanalyzed sentence automaton and each rule automaton. Actual parsing can be done in several alternative ways which are guaranteed to yield the same result, but which vary in terms of efficiency. The current rule compiler has only few built-in rules or definitions. Instead, It has a formalism for defining relevant expressions and new rule types. There are two types of definitions for this purpose. The first one defines a constant regular expression which can later on be referred to by its name:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Rule automata", | |
| "sec_num": "1.3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "name = expressionI", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The finite-state rule formalism", | |
| "sec_num": "2." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Some basic notations are defined in this way such as the dot which stands for a sequence of tokens within a single word:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The finite-state rule formalism", | |
| "sec_num": "2." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "\u2022 = \\tOo I o I o/ I O< I o>]1", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The finite-state rule formalism", | |
| "sec_num": "2." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The backslash '\\' denotes any sequence of tokens not containing occurrences of its argument (which here lists all types of word and clause boundaries). A variation of the dot is a dot-dot'..\" which represents a sequence of tokens within the same clause:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The finite-state rule formalism", | |
| "sec_num": "2." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "\u2022 <> -o< [-I \u2022 I Q/I* ~>; \u2022 . = [- I \u2022 I ~<>]*s", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The finite-state rule formalism", | |
| "sec_num": "2." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The second type of definitions has parameters, and it can be used for expressions which vary according to their values:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The finite-state rule formalism", | |
| "sec_num": "2." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "name(paranb, .., param,) -expressionl", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The finite-state rule formalism", | |
| "sec_num": "2." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The expression is a regular expression formulated using constant terms and the parameter symbols param i. An example of this type of definitions is the loll@wing which requires every clause to be of a given form X:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The finite-state rule formalism", | |
| "sec_num": "2." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "clause(X) -\\ [ [~ I ~/ I 0<] -iX I -.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The finite-state rule formalism", | |
| "sec_num": "2." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The formula forbids subsequences which are clauses but not of form x (the middle term is easier to understand as [ -x & .. ] ).", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 113, | |
| "end": 124, | |
| "text": "[ -x & .. ]", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": ".] [~> I O/ I O0]]", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Experience with writing actual large scale grammars within the finlte-state framework has indicated that we need more flexibility in defining rules than what was first expected. This flexibility is achieved by having one very general rule format: expressionl The expression simply defines a constraint for all sentences, ie. it is already as such equivalent to a rule automaton, Forbidding unwanted combinations or sequences, such as two finite verbs within the same clause, can be excluded cg. by a rule:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": ".] [~> I O/ I O0]]", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "UNIQUE (FINV)", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": ".] [~> I O/ I O0]]", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Here, UNIQUE Is a definition which has been made using the formalisms above, and is available for the grammar writer. Using the UNIQUE definition, one can express general principles, such as that there is at most one main verb, at most one subject etc. in each clause.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": ".] [~> I O/ I O0]]", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Most of the actual rules still use the right arrow format:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": ".] [~> I O/ I O0]]", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "expression -> left-context _ right-context;", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": ".] [~> I O/ I O0]]", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "All three parts of the rules are regular expressions. The rule requires that any occurrence of expression must be surrounded by the given context.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": ".] [~> I O/ I O0]]", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The English finite-state grammar discussed here was written by Voutilainen. The grammar itself is much more comprehensive than what can be described in this paper. Although the grammar already covers most of the areas of English grammar that it is intended to cover, it is still far from complete in details. The grammar, when complete, will be part of Voutilainen's PhD dissertation (forthcoming). This section presents some general principles from that grammar, and a few examples from more complex phenomena.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "English finite-state grammar", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The present grammar has many goals and characteristics similar to those of the SIMPR Constraint Granmmn", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Goals of the grammar", | |
| "sec_num": "3.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "\u2022 the ability to parse unrestricted running texts with a large dictionary, * concrete, surface-orlented description in terms of dependency syntax.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Goals of the grammar", | |
| "sec_num": "3.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The current finite-state syntax uses, indeed, the same ENGTWOL lexicon as the SIMPR CG syntax (Karlsson et al. 1991) . The set of syntactic features are adopted from the CG description almost as such with a few addltions.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 94, | |
| "end": 116, | |
| "text": "(Karlsson et al. 1991)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF10" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Goals of the grammar", | |
| "sec_num": "3.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In the present finite-state approach, however, we aim at:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Goals of the grammar", | |
| "sec_num": "3.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "\u2022 more general and linguistically motivated rules (fewer, more powerful and general rules in the grammar), \u2022 more accurate treatment of Intrasentential structure (three types of clause boundaries instead of one), and \u2022 a satisfactory description of certain complex constructions and sentence structures. The present formalism can achieve somewhat more general and powerful rules than the current CG formalism through tile use of full regular expression notation.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Goals of the grammar", | |
| "sec_num": "3.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Some power and accuracy is gained through a commitment to use a notation for clause boundaries which is exact in defining when words belong to the same or a different clause. The two formalisms are equivalent in many cases: @@ The dog chased a cat @/which ate the mouse @@", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Clause boundaries", | |
| "sec_num": "3.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The more elaborate clause boundary marking makes a difference in case of center-embedding: @@ The man @< who came first @> got the job @@ This convention indicates that there are two clauses:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Clause boundaries", | |
| "sec_num": "3.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The man .. got the job .. who came first ..", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Clause boundaries", | |
| "sec_num": "3.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Head-modifier relations are expressed (here and in the CG) with tags, eg.: ", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Constituent structure", | |
| "sec_num": "3.3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "a DET @DN> big A @AN> cat N @SUBJ", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Constituent structure", | |
| "sec_num": "3.3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The finite-state grammar for English consists of some 200 rules dedicated for several areas of the grammar:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Overview of rules", | |
| "sec_num": "3.5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "\u2022 Internal structure of nominal and non-finite verbal phrases. The structure is described as head-modifier relations, including determiners, premodiflers and postmodiflers.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Overview of rules", | |
| "sec_num": "3.5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "\u2022 CoordinaUon at various levels of the grammar.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Overview of rules", | |
| "sec_num": "3.5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "\u2022 Surface-syntactlc functions of nominal phrases.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Overview of rules", | |
| "sec_num": "3.5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The structure of noun phrases is described using two approaches together. A coarse structure is fixed with the mechanism of deflnIUons. It would not be feasible to use that mechanism alone (because it would lead to a context-free descripUon). The deflniUons are supplemented with ordinary finite-state rules which enforce further restrictions.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Overview of rules", | |
| "sec_num": "3.5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Between the level of the nominal phrase and the finite clause, there is an Intermediary level, that of non-finite t~nsmtct/ons (see Quirk & el. 1985) . These constructions resemble noun phrases when seen as parts of the surrounding clause because they act eg. as subjects, objects, preposition complements, etc., postmodifiers, or adverbials, eg.: (Wa~ng home} was wearisome. \u2022 She wants (to come} 1.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 132, | |
| "end": 149, | |
| "text": "Quirk & el. 1985)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Non-finite Constructions", | |
| "sec_num": "3.6" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "She was fond of (singing in the dark}. The dog (barking in the corridor} was irritable. ('fired by her journey}, she fell asleep.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Non-finite Constructions", | |
| "sec_num": "3.6" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Internally A useful concept in clause-level syntax is the uniqueness principle. We wlsh to say, for Instance, that In a clause, there is at most one l. The~ is another way to interpret this sentence without any non-finite constructions by including 'to come' in the finite verb chain. We have adopted the current interprctation in order to achieve certaing linguistle generallzaUona.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Non-finite Constructions", | |
| "sec_num": "3.6" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(possibly co-ordinated) subject, object, or predicate complement. Uniqueness holds for the finite clause, and each non-finite construction separately, and this will be very difficult to formulate, ff we use same tags for both domains (as in the above example).", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Non-finite Constructions", | |
| "sec_num": "3.6" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The syntactic tags as given In the finite-state version of ENGTWOL capitalize heavily on nonfinite constructions in order to overcome this problem:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Non-finite Constructions", | |
| "sec_num": "3.6" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The boy [kicking @MAINV/-F] the (ball @OBJ/-F] [saw @MAINV] the [cow @OBJ].", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Non-finite Constructions", | |
| "sec_num": "3.6" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Here, the object in the non-finite construction is furnished with a label different from the corresponding label used in the finite construction, so there is no risk of confusion between the two levels.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Non-finite Constructions", | |
| "sec_num": "3.6" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The duplication of certain labels for certain categories Increases the amount of ambiguity, but, on the other hand, the new ambiguity seems to be of a fairly controllable type. The description of non-finite constructions boils down to two subtasks. One is to express constraints on the Internal structure of non-finite constructions; the other, the control on their distribution.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Non-finite Constructions", | |
| "sec_num": "3.6" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In terms of verb chain and constituent structure, non-finite constructions resemble finite constructions. Their main difference is that word order in non-finite constructions is much more rigid.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Non-finite Constructions", | |
| "sec_num": "3.6" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We proceed with some examples of rules describing non-finite constructions. An infinitive acting as main verb in a non-finite construction is preceded by to acting as an Infinitive marker or by a subject of a non-finite phrase or by a co-ordinated infinitive.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Non-finite Constructions", | |
| "sec_num": "3.6" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "So we wish. for instance, the following utterances to be accepted: A past participle as a main verb in a non-finite construction must always be preceded by an appropriate klnd of auxiliary or clause boundmy.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Non-finite Constructions", | |
| "sec_num": "3.6" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "He", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Non-finite Constructions", | |
| "sec_num": "3.6" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Acr~ DE COLING-92, NANTES, 23-28 ^OI~T 1992 1 6 0 Pave. OF COLING-92, NANTES, AUG. 23-28, 1992", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Non-finite Constructions", | |
| "sec_num": "3.6" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "For example:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Non-finite Constructions", | |
| "sec_num": "3.6" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "[Having @-FAUXW-FJ [gone PCP2 @-FMAINV/-F] home, they rested.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Non-finite Constructions", | |
| "sec_num": "3.6" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "This constraint corresponds to a rule:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Non-finite Constructions", | |
| "sec_num": "3.6" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "I pcp2-nla;l.n/- ~ => [lI~r:l.m-aux/-f I lclb] taffy1* -_ I", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Non-finite Constructions", | |
| "sec_num": "3.6" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "There are further rules for the distribution of non-finite constructions with present participles, etc. Further rules have been written for the description of the Internal structure of nonfinite constructions which, in turn, is fairly straight-forward. The overall experience Is that a fairly adequate description of these types of phenome~m can be achieved by the set of syntactic tags proposed above accompanied by a manageable set of finite-state rules.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Non-finite Constructions", | |
| "sec_num": "3.6" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We need a compiler for transforming the rules written in the finite-state formalism Into finitestate automata, and a parser which first transforms sentences into finite-state networks, and then computes the logical intersection of the rule-automata and the sentence automaton.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Implementation", | |
| "sec_num": "4." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The grammar consisting of rules is first parsed and checked for formal errors using a GNU flex and bison parser generator programs. The rest of the compilation Is done In Common Lisp by transforming the rules written in the regular expression formalism Into finlte-state automata.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Compilation of the rules", | |
| "sec_num": "4.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "FuU-seale grammars tend to be large contain-Ing maybe a few hundred finite-state rules. In order to facilitate the parsing of sentences, the compiler tries to reduce the number of rule automata after each rule has been compiled. Methods were developed for determining which of the automata should be merged together by intersecting them (Tapanainen 1991) . The key idea behind this is the concept of an activation alphabet. Some rule-automata turn out to be irrelevant for certain sentences, simply because the sentences do not contain any symbols (or combinations of symbols) necessary to cause the automaton to fail. Such ruleautomata can be ignored when parsing those sentences. Furthermore, It turned out to be a good strategy to merge automata with similar activation alphabets (rather than arbitrary ones, or those resulting in smallest intersections).", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 337, | |
| "end": 354, | |
| "text": "(Tapanainen 1991)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF16" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Compilation of the rules", | |
| "sec_num": "4.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The implementation of the parsIng process Is open to many choices which do not change tile results of tile parsing, but which may have a stgnifiemlt effect on the time mid space requirements of the parsing. As a theoretical staxlJi~ point one could take tile following setup.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Parsing sentences", | |
| "sec_num": "4.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Parser A: Assume that we first enumerate all readings of a sentence-automaton. Each readtng Is, In turn, fed to each of the rule-automala. Those readings that are accepted by all ruleautonmta form the set of parses.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Parsing sentences", | |
| "sec_num": "4.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Parser A is clearly Infeasible In practice because of the immense number of readings represented by tile sentence-automaton (millions even in relatively simple sentences, and tile number grows exponentially wllh sentence length).", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Parsing sentences", | |
| "sec_num": "4.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "A second elementary mad theoretical approach:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Parsing sentences", | |
| "sec_num": "4.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Parser B: Take the sentence automaton and Intersect with each rule-autonmton In turn. This is more feasible, but experiments have shown that the number of states In the intermediate results tends to grow prohibitively large when we work with full scale grmnmars and complex sentences {Tapanainen 1991). This is ml Important property of llnite-state automata. All automata Involved are reasonably small, and even tile end result Is very small, but file Intermediate results can be extremely large imore than 100,000 states and beyond the capacity of tile machines and algorithms we have].", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Parsing sentences", | |
| "sec_num": "4.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "A fm-ther refinement of the above strategy I3 would be to carefully choose tile order in which the Intersecting Is done:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Parsing sentences", | |
| "sec_num": "4.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Pcu'ser C: Intersect the rule-automata with the sentence automaton In the order where you first evaluate each of the remaining automata according to how much they reduce the number of readings remaining. \"lhe one which makes the greatest reduction is chosen at each step.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Parsing sentences", | |
| "sec_num": "4.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "This strategy seems to be feasible but much effort Is spent on the repeated evaluation. It turns out that one nlay even use a one-time estimation for the order:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Parsing sentences", | |
| "sec_num": "4.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "ParserD:. Perform a tentatWe Intersection of the sentence autmnalon and each of the rules first. Then Intersect the rules with the sentence automaton one by one tn the decreasing order of their capacity to reduce the number of readhags from the or~Ttnal sentence automaton.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Parsing sentences", | |
| "sec_num": "4.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We may also choice to operate In parallel Instead of rule by rule:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Parsing sentences", | |
| "sec_num": "4.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Parser E: Simulate the Intersection of all rules and the sentence automaton by trying to enumerate readings In the sentence automaton but constraining the process by the rule-automata. Each tune when a taale rejects the next token proposed, the corresponding branch In the search process is abandoned.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Parsing sentences", | |
| "sec_num": "4.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "This strategy seems to work fairly satisfactorily. It was used In the initial stages of the grammar development and testing together with two other principles:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Parsing sentences", | |
| "sec_num": "4.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "\u2022 merging of automata into a smaller set of automata during the compflatlon phase using the activation alphabet of each automaton as a guideline", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Parsing sentences", | |
| "sec_num": "4.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "\u2022 excluding some automata before the parsing of each sentence according to the presence of tokens in the sentence and the activation alphabets of the merged automata.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Parsing sentences", | |
| "sec_num": "4.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Some further improvements were achieved by the following:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Parsing sentences", | |
| "sec_num": "4.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Parser I~. Manually separate a set of rules defining the coarse clause structure into a phase to be first intersected with the sentence automaton. Then use the strategy E with the remaining rules. The initial step establishes a fairly good approximation of feasible clause boundaries. This helps the parsing of the rest of the rules by rejecting many incorrect readings earlier.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Parsing sentences", | |
| "sec_num": "4.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Parsing simple sentences like \"time flies like an arrow\" takes some 1.5 seconds, whereas the following fairly complex sentence takes some 10 seconds to parse on a SUN SPARCstation2:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Parsing sentences", | |
| "sec_num": "4.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Nevertheless the number of cases in which assessment could not be related to factual rental evidence has so far not been so great as to render the whole system suspect.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Parsing sentences", | |
| "sec_num": "4.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The sentence automaton Is small in terms of the number of states, but it represents some 10 a5 distinct readings.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Parsing sentences", | |
| "sec_num": "4.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The work ofTapanainen ] is a part of the activity of the Research Unit for Computational Linguistics (RUCL) partly sponsored by the Academy of Finland. Voutilainen is a member of the SIMPR project at RUCL, sponsored by the Finnish Technology Development Center (TEKES). The SIMPR CG parser, grammars and dictionaries were designed and written by F. Karlsson, A. Voutilainen, J. Helkklltl, and A. Anttila. Many of these results and innovations are either directly used here, or have had a direct influence on the present results.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Acknowledgments", | |
| "sec_num": "5." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "PRec. OF COLING-92, NANTES, AUG. 23-28, 1992", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "back_matter": [], | |
| "bib_entries": { | |
| "BIBREF4": { | |
| "ref_id": "b4", | |
| "title": "Electronic mall addressee of the authors are: Klmmo. Ko,ske nnleml @HelsLnkl.Fl, [email protected], [email protected], fl", | |
| "authors": [], | |
| "year": null, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "1. Electronic mall addressee of the authors are: Klmmo. Ko,ske nnleml @HelsLnkl.Fl, [email protected], [email protected], fl", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF6": { | |
| "ref_id": "b6", | |
| "title": "Finite-State Parsing", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "E", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Ejerhed", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "K", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Church", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": null, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "E. EJerhed, K. Church: Finite-State Parsing.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF7": { | |
| "ref_id": "b7", | |
| "title": "Papers from the Seventh Scandlnavlan Conference on Linguisi~s", | |
| "authors": [], | |
| "year": null, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "410--432", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "F. Karlsson (ed.) Papers from the Seventh Scan- dlnavlan Conference on Linguisi~s. University of Helsinki, Department of General Linguistics, Publications, No. 10. pp. 410-432.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF8": { | |
| "ref_id": "b8", | |
| "title": "Parsing Finnish in terms of Process Grammar", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "F", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Karlsson", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1985, | |
| "venue": "Computalionel Morphosyntax", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "F. Karlsson 1985. Parsing Finnish in terms of Process Grammar. F. Karlsson (ed.) Computa- lionel Morphosyntax: Report on Research 1981- 84. University of Helsinkl, Department of Gen- eral Linguistics, Publications, No. 13.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF9": { | |
| "ref_id": "b9", | |
| "title": "Constraint Grammar as a Framework for Parsing Running Text", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "F", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Karlsson", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1990, | |
| "venue": "COLING-90: Papers Presented to the 13th International Conference on Computational L/tu3uist/cs. Helsinkl", | |
| "volume": "3", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "168--173", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "F. Karlsson 1990. Constraint Grammar as a Framework for Parsing Running Text. H. Karl- gren (ed.) COLING-90: Papers Presented to the 13th International Conference on Computational L/tu3uist/cs. Helsinkl, Vol. 3, pp. 168-173.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF10": { | |
| "ref_id": "b10", | |
| "title": "Na/ural Language Pro-cesslruJ for Information Retrleval Purposes. SIMPR Document No. SIMPR-RUCL-1990-13.4e. Research Unit for Computational Linguistics", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "F", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Karlsson", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "A", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Voutilalnen", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "J", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Helkkil~i", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "A", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Anttfla", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1991, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "220", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "F. Karlsson, A. Voutilalnen, J. Helkkil~i, A. Anttfla, 7 January 1991. Na/ural Language Pro- cesslruJ for Information Retrleval Purposes. SIMPR Document No. SIMPR-RUCL-1990- 13.4e. Research Unit for Computational Lin- guistics, University of Helslnkl, Finland. 220 PP.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF11": { | |
| "ref_id": "b11", | |
| "title": "Anttila (forthcoming.l, Constraint Grammar: A Language-Independent System for Parsing Runnlng TexL", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "F", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Karlsson", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "A", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Voutflalnen", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "J", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Helkkilgt", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "A", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": null, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "F. Karlsson, A. Voutflalnen, J. Helkkilgt, A. Anttila (forthcoming.l, Constraint Grammar: A Language-Independent System for Parsing Run- nlng TexL", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF12": { | |
| "ref_id": "b12", | |
| "title": "A Compiler for Two-level Phonological Rules", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "L", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Karttunen", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "K", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Koskermiemi", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": ";", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "M" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Kaplan", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Dalrymple", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "L", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Kaplan", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "K", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Karttunen", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "S", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Koskennlemi", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "M", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Shalo", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Wescoat}", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1987, | |
| "venue": "Center for the Study of Language and Information", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "L. Karttunen, K.Koskermiemi, IL Kaplan 1987. A Compiler for Two-level Phonological Rules. Tools for Morphological Analysis (M. Dal- rymple, IL Kaplan, L, Karttunen, K. Kosken- nlemi, S. Shalo, M. Wescoat}. Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford. Report No. CSLI-87-108.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF13": { | |
| "ref_id": "b13", | |
| "title": "Two-level Morphology: A General Computational Model for Word-Form Recognition and Production. University of Helsinki, Department of General Linguistics", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "K", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Koskenniemi", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1983, | |
| "venue": "Publications", | |
| "volume": "160", | |
| "issue": "11", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "K. Koskenniemi 1983. Two-level Morphology: A General Computational Model for Word-Form Recognition and Production. University of Hel- sinki, Department of General Linguistics, Pub- lications, No. 11. 160 pp.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF14": { | |
| "ref_id": "b14", | |
| "title": "Finite-state Parsing and Disambiguation", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "K", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Koskennierni", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1990, | |
| "venue": "COLING-90: Papers Presented to the 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Helsinki", | |
| "volume": "2", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "229--232", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "K. Koskennierni 1990. Finite-state Parsing and Disambiguation. H. Karlgren (ed.) COLING- 90: Papers Presented to the 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Hel- sinki, Vol. 2, pp. 229-232.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF15": { | |
| "ref_id": "b15", | |
| "title": "Svartvik 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the Eng//sh Language", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "R", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Quirk", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "S", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Greenbaum", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "G", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Leech", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "J", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": null, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "R. Quirk, S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, J. Svart- vik 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the Eng//sh Language. London, Longman.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF16": { | |
| "ref_id": "b16", | |
| "title": "P, dre//isind automaatteina esitett~en kielioppisOfintfjen soveltamioen luonnollisen kielen JOsent(ljdssd", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "P", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Tapanainen", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1991, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "P. Tapanainen 1991. P, dre//isind automaat- teina esitett~en kielioppisOfintfjen sovel- tamioen luonnollisen kielen JOsent(ljdssd. (\"Natural language parsing with finite-state syntactic rules.'} Master's Thesis. Department of Computer Science, University of Helsinki.", | |
| "links": null | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "ref_entries": { | |
| "FIGREF0": { | |
| "num": null, | |
| "type_str": "figure", | |
| "text": "label starts with S. Many of the common labels like ~SUBJ have been replaced by the combination of ~SUBJ/-F and 8SUBJ to reflect the distinction of subjects of non-finite constructions from those of the main verb. A similar distinction is made in the verbal entries.The grammar is committed to exclude only those readings which are ungrammatical.", | |
| "uris": null | |
| }, | |
| "FIGREF1": { | |
| "num": null, | |
| "type_str": "figure", | |
| "text": "wants [to @INFMARK>] [go INF @-FMAINV/-F]. She saw [her @SUBJ/-F] [go INF @-FMAINV/-F]. She saw [her @SUBJ/-F] [come INF @-FMAINV/-F] and [go INF @-FMAINV/-F]. The constraint is expressed as a rule: I J.n~-ma:l.n/-f .~, [[~INFIKiERX> [@ laOm'l]*] J [leub::l/-~ l<*] I [ltnt'-ma:l.n/-f I1-~* I]phr-cc]l ~_ Items preceded by an exclamation mark are constant definitions, t /-f signals any constituent that can occur In a postverbal position in a non-finite construction.", | |
| "uris": null | |
| }, | |
| "TABREF2": { | |
| "text": "The head of a NP is tagged as a major constituent, here as a subject. In case the constituent is a coordinated one, each of the coordinated head gets the same tag:", | |
| "type_str": "table", | |
| "content": "<table><tr><td>John's N GEN @GN></td></tr><tr><td>brother N NOM SG @SUBJ</td></tr><tr><td>and COORD @CC</td></tr></table>", | |
| "num": null, | |
| "html": null | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } |