| { | |
| "paper_id": "C92-1034", | |
| "header": { | |
| "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", | |
| "date_generated": "2023-01-19T12:33:34.970252Z" | |
| }, | |
| "title": "Structure Sharing in Lexicalized Tree-Adjoining Graulmars*", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "K", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Vijay-Shanker", | |
| "suffix": "", | |
| "affiliation": { | |
| "laboratory": "", | |
| "institution": "University of Delaware Newark", | |
| "location": { | |
| "postCode": "19716", | |
| "region": "DE", | |
| "country": "USA" | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "email": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Yves", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Schabes", | |
| "suffix": "", | |
| "affiliation": {}, | |
| "email": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": "", | |
| "venue": null, | |
| "identifiers": {}, | |
| "abstract": "We present a scheme for efficiently representing a lexicaiized tree-adjoining grammar (LTAG). The propcoed representational scheme allows for structure-sharing between lexical entries and the trees associated with", | |
| "pdf_parse": { | |
| "paper_id": "C92-1034", | |
| "_pdf_hash": "", | |
| "abstract": [ | |
| { | |
| "text": "We present a scheme for efficiently representing a lexicaiized tree-adjoining grammar (LTAG). The propcoed representational scheme allows for structure-sharing between lexical entries and the trees associated with", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Abstract", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "body_text": [ | |
| { | |
| "text": "the lexical items. A compact organization is achieved by organizing the lexicon in a hierarchical fashion and using inheritance as well as by using lexical and syntactic rules.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "While different organizations (Flickinger, 1987; Pollard and Sag, 1987; Shieber, 1986) of the lexicon have been proposed, in the scheme we propose, the inheritance hierarchy not only provides structure-sharing of lexical information but also of the associated elementary trees of extended domain of locality. Furthermore, the lexical and syntactic rules can be used to derive new elementary trees from the default structures specified in the hierarchical lexicon.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 30, | |
| "end": 48, | |
| "text": "(Flickinger, 1987;", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 49, | |
| "end": 71, | |
| "text": "Pollard and Sag, 1987;", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 72, | |
| "end": 86, | |
| "text": "Shieber, 1986)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF16" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In the envisaged scheme, tbe use of a hierarchical lexicon and of lexical and syntactic rules for lexicalized tree-adjoining grammars will capture important linguistic generalizations and also allows for a space efficient representation of the grammar. This will allow for easy maintenance and facilitate updates to the grammar.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Lexicalized tree-adjoining grammar (LTAG) (Schabes et al., 1988; Schabes, 1990 ) is a tree-rewriting formalism used for specifying the syntax of natural languages. It combines elementary lexical trees with two operations, adjoining and substitution. In a LTAG, lexical itenm are associated with complex syntactic structures (in the form of trees) that define the various phrase structures they can participate in. LTAG allows for unique syntactic and semantic properties:", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 42, | |
| "end": 64, | |
| "text": "(Schabes et al., 1988;", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF13" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 65, | |
| "end": 78, | |
| "text": "Schabes, 1990", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF14" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Motivations", | |
| "sec_num": "1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "\u2022 The domain of locality in LTAG is larger than for other formalisms, and", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Motivations", | |
| "sec_num": "1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "\u2022 Most syntactic dependencies (such as filler-gap, verb-subject, verb-objects) and some semantic *The first author is partially supported by NSF Grant IRI90-16591. The second author in partially supported by DARPA Grit N0014-90-31863, ARO Grant DAAL03-89-C-0031 and NSF Grant IRI90-16592. dependencies (such as predicate-argument) have been localized within the elementary trees stated in the lexicon.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 276, | |
| "end": 288, | |
| "text": "IRI90-16592.", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Motivations", | |
| "sec_num": "1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "These unique properties of LTAGs have been shown to be linguistically very useful (Kroch and Jo~hi, 1985; Kroch, 1987; Kroch, 1989; Abeill6, 1988; Shieber and Schabes, 1990) . However these same aspects can cause many practical problems. This is because there is considerable redundancy of information among the elementary trees that provide the enlarged domain of locality. ~o far, the lexicon of a LTAG has been organized in a completely flat manner, not allowing for any sharing of syntactic or semantic properties of the [exical items. Also, in the current organization there is no structure sharing among the different trees associated with the different lexical items as they are stated independently of each other. For example, Figure 1 shows some of the trees associated with the lexical item 'eat'.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 82, | |
| "end": 105, | |
| "text": "(Kroch and Jo~hi, 1985;", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 106, | |
| "end": 118, | |
| "text": "Kroch, 1987;", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF9" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 119, | |
| "end": 131, | |
| "text": "Kroch, 1989;", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF9" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 132, | |
| "end": 146, | |
| "text": "Abeill6, 1988;", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 147, | |
| "end": 173, | |
| "text": "Shieber and Schabes, 1990)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 735, | |
| "end": 743, | |
| "text": "Figure 1", | |
| "ref_id": "FIGREF0" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Motivations", | |
| "sec_num": "1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In Figure 1 , the tree ~1 corresponds to a declarative sentence, a2 to a WII-question on its subject and aa to a relative clause in which the subject has been relativized. This example illustrates the redundancy among the elementary trees found in the lexicon. For example, the effect of the rule S ---+ NP VP is found in all trees associated with a verb. Similarly, VP --* V NP is found in all trees associated with a transitive verb. The current implementation of the LTAG for English (Abeilld et al., 1990) comprises over 800 sentential tree frames (trees without lexicaI items). Each one of these frames includes a part that correspond to the rule S --4 NP VP. This problem of replication of information has reached an acute stage and any practical natural language processing system based on LTAG must address this issue.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 487, | |
| "end": 509, | |
| "text": "(Abeilld et al., 1990)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 3, | |
| "end": 11, | |
| "text": "Figure 1", | |
| "ref_id": "FIGREF0" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Motivations", | |
| "sec_num": "1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "An equally serious problem is one of maintaining and updating such a grammar. It arises due to the lack of structure-sharing and of statements of various independent principles that make up the elementary trees. Any small change to some aspect of the design of the grammar could necessitate making changes to possibly hundreds of trees manually. For instance, an addition of a constraint equation associated with the rule S ---* NP VP would affect the description of every tree associated with a verb; a change to the way wh-questions are formed must be propagated to every tree for wh-question. Furthermore, one can only manually verify that such an update does not conflict with Flickinger (1987) and Pollard and Sag (1987) use a hierarchical lexicon aud rules for implementing Headdriven Phrase Structure Grammars. Shieber (1986) proposed the use of default inheritance combined with templates and of transformation rules in the PATR-II system for organizing a unification based grammar. Lexical redundancy rules have been used in LFG (Bresnan and Kaplan, 1983) to capture relations among lexicai items. Gazdar et al. (1985) proposed the use of meta-rules for expressing transformational relationships.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 681, | |
| "end": 698, | |
| "text": "Flickinger (1987)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 703, | |
| "end": 725, | |
| "text": "Pollard and Sag (1987)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 818, | |
| "end": 832, | |
| "text": "Shieber (1986)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF16" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 1051, | |
| "end": 1064, | |
| "text": "Kaplan, 1983)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 1107, | |
| "end": 1127, | |
| "text": "Gazdar et al. (1985)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Motivations", | |
| "sec_num": "1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "There has been suggestions for compacting the size of a tree-adjoining grammar lexicons (Becker, 1990; ttabert, 1991) . However, they only partially solve the problem since they fail to combine in a uniform way a compact representation of the lexicon and, at the same time, of their associated elementary trees.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 88, | |
| "end": 102, | |
| "text": "(Becker, 1990;", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 103, | |
| "end": 117, | |
| "text": "ttabert, 1991)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Motivations", | |
| "sec_num": "1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In this paper, we present a scheme to efficiently represent a LTAG and illustrate this scheme by examples. We examine the information that needs to be associated with the classes in our hierarchical organization in order that we can represent the elementary trees of a LTAG. Our main concern in this paper is the proposal for organizing a LTAG. In order to be concrete, we consider the representation of a particular grammar for English (Abeill$ et al., 1990) . While the elegance (and the correctness) of the mechanisms used to capture linguistic generalizations is an important issue in such an enterprise, these linguistic concerns are beyond the scope of this work. We give no linguistic motivations for the grammar that is being represented, nor for some of the methods used to represent it. The linguistic aspects of the work presented in this paper are meant to be suggestive. Also, while our scheme borrows heavily from Fliekinger (1987), it is differentiated from similar enterprises in that we consider the representation of syntactic structures (in the form of trees) associated with lexical items. For this reason, we concentrate on the representation of the tree structures.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 437, | |
| "end": 459, | |
| "text": "(Abeill$ et al., 1990)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF0" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Motivations", | |
| "sec_num": "1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The representation we propose allows for structures sharing between lexical entries and for syntactic and lexical rules while being lexically sensitive. Lexical items as well as the elementary trees found in a lexicalized tree-adjoining grammar are organized in a hierarchical lexicon using inheritance. Furthermore, the lexical rules relate the information associated with lexical entries together. In particular, they derive new elementary trees of extended domain of locality from the one found in the hierarchical lexicon. Lexical idiosyncrazies are specified in the particular lexical entries.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Motivations", | |
| "sec_num": "1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The lexical entries (LEs) are organized in hierarchical fashion. The value of an attribute of lexical entry in the lexicon is either obtained by inheritance or by local specification. We allow for overwriting inherited attributes by assuming that the local specification has a higher precedence. Figure 2 shows a fragment of the hierarchy for verbs. The lexicon associates lexicaJ items with a set of classes.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 296, | |
| "end": 304, | |
| "text": "Figure 2", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Lexical Organization", | |
| "sec_num": "3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Entries specify relationships and properties of sets of nodes in trees which will be associated with the lexical items. The framework for describing the tree that will be associated with the lexicai item is very similar to unification based tree-adjoining grammar (Vijay-Shanker, 1992) in which the trees are described with partial descriptions of their topology (Rogers and Vijay-Shanker, 1992) Figure 2 : 1,\u00a5agment of the Lexicon and linear precedence. We do not discuss tile description language in which these trees are stated. Instead, we will pictorially represent these partial descriptions of trees. For the purposes of this paper, in our representation scheme, we will focus on the descriptions of associated elementary trees.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 264, | |
| "end": 285, | |
| "text": "(Vijay-Shanker, 1992)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF17" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 363, | |
| "end": 395, | |
| "text": "(Rogers and Vijay-Shanker, 1992)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF11" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 396, | |
| "end": 404, | |
| "text": "Figure 2", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Lexical Organization", | |
| "sec_num": "3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Each class comprises of tile following attributes (among others): * superclasses, tile set of imnlediate ancestor classes from which the current class inherits.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Lexical Organization", | |
| "sec_num": "3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "\u2022 nodes, the set of entities involved in the lexical entry.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Lexical Organization", | |
| "sec_num": "3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "\u2022 description, a partial description of a tree. This description consists of partial statements of domination, immediate domination and linear precedence over the set of nodes given in the previous attribute. In tile following, we will ignore tile linear precedence relationship. The immediate domination relationship will be illustrated by a plain line and the domination relationship by a dotted line. The language of this description and its semantic is given by Rogers and Vijay-Shanker (1992) . The dashed line between tree nodes does not mean they are necessarily different nodes. It is used to indicate the two nodes in question could he the same or if they are ditferent then one. of them dominates the other in the manner indicated.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 466, | |
| "end": 497, | |
| "text": "Rogers and Vijay-Shanker (1992)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF11" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Lexical Organization", | |
| "sec_num": "3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "o constraint equations are unification equations that hold between the set of nodes. These equations specify feature structnres associated with the set of nodes. Attritmtes such as agreemeut (agr) or case (ease) are found in these equations.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Lexical Organization", | |
| "sec_num": "3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "\u2022 completion; y = completion(x) specifies that y is the lowest node in the tree which does not require any argument of the predicative element x. This will be used, for example, in defining how the tree for wh-question is obtained.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Lexical Organization", | |
| "sec_num": "3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "\u2022 head-daughter; x = head-daughter(y). This will be nsed in propagation of features by asl implicit assumption of head-feature convention.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Lexical Organization", | |
| "sec_num": "3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "* argument node ; arft specifies the node for the argnment being introduced by the entry. This will be used to identify nodes that are mentioned in different classes e.g. in NP-IOBJ or used in tile syntactic rides such as for Wll-movement.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Lexical Organization", | |
| "sec_num": "3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "\u2022 linear precedence (LP) statements which define precedence an'long nodes within the framework of ID/LP TAG proposed by Jo~hi (1987).", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Lexical Organization", | |
| "sec_num": "3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "\u2022 anchm; anchor ---xspecifies that the node x is tile aalchor node of the tree being described.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Lexical Organization", | |
| "sec_num": "3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "For each entity in the hierarchy, attributes (such as arg) of some its aalcestors can be referred to for further specifying the description while inheriting the description of its ancestors.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Lexical Organization", | |
| "sec_num": "3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We can now consider an example. The following entry can be associated with the class VERB: 1 In this entry, as well ,a.q in the following entries, we do not give the full specification but specify only that part which is relevant to the discussion. This entry specifies partially the tree structure for every verb, indicating that (by default) each verb must have a subject. It is important to note that despite the pictorial representation used, s,np, vp, v are used to refer to node and not to their labels.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Lexical Organization", | |
| "sec_num": "3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The following entry is associated with the class of transitive verbs (TIL~NSITIVE): 2 1Tire tree described below could have been predicted from general principles nuch an HPSG'a rule atated on Page 149 in Pollard and Sag (1987) . 2Similarly, tile tree described below could have been predicted from HPSG's rule atated on page 151 in Pollard and Sag (1987 The following entry is associated with the class of ditransitive verbs taking a noun phrase as direct object and a prepositional phrase as an indirect object. The entry only specifies that the NP direct object must precede the NP introduced by the prepositional phrase.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 205, | |
| "end": 227, | |
| "text": "Pollard and Sag (1987)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 333, | |
| "end": 354, | |
| "text": "Pollard and Sag (1987", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Lexical Organization", | |
| "sec_num": "3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "superclaeses: TRANSITIVE, PP-IOBJ", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "DITRANS1 -I", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The following entry is associated with the class of verbs taking an NP as indirect objects (NP-IOBJ):", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "LP : arg(TRANSTIVE) < arg(PP-IOBJ)", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "NP-IOBJ superclaases: IOBJ nodes: vp, v, np constraints equations:...", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "LP : arg(TRANSTIVE) < arg(PP-IOBJ)", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "description: A v np np= arg(IOBJ) anchor = v", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "arg: np", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The equality np= arg(IOBJ) used in the above frame forces the NP argument introduced in IOBJ (a superclass of NP-IOBJ) to be immediately dominated by the VP node, thus disallowing it being embedded in a prepositional phrase.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "arg: np", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "However, the following entry is associated with the class of verbs taking a prepositional phrase (PP-IOBJ):", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "arg: np", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The description of the default tree for DITRANS1 is inherited from VERB, TRANSITIVE, 10B J, PP-IOBJ. From the descriptions given in VERB and in TRANSITIVE we obtain the following structures:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "arg: np", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "A np vpl i vp2 A V np", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "arg: np", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Note that the VP node in VERB dominateS the verb node whereas the one introduced in TRANSI-TIVE immediately dominates the verb node. This results in the VP node introduced in verbs dominating (hence the dashed line) the VP node introduced in the TRANSITIVE frame. This kind of reasoning that leads to the formation of complex tree structures is given by Rogers and Vijay-Shanker (1992 which is used as default structnre for verbs that belong to DITRANS1. a", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 354, | |
| "end": 384, | |
| "text": "Rogers and Vijay-Shanker (1992", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF11" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "arg: np", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In general this method for building a tree to be associated with a lexical item can be described as follows. First the nodes described in each superclass of the lex~ ical entry are collected along with the statements of relationships specified between the nodes. This may require renaming of nodes in case nodes in different classes are given the same name. For instance, when we collect the nodes specified in VERB and TRAN-S[7'IVE, the VP nodes specified in them must be re named (say as vpl and vp~) as must the NP nodes (say, the node for the subject that is specified in VERB gets renamed as up1 and the object specified in TRANS1-TIVF gets renamed as np2). Next we must add an extra statement to explicitly equate tile anchor nodes specified. Now if we additionally inherit the descriptions from 10B,] aud PP-IOBJ the two NP nodes introduced get renamed but identified as a result of the identification suggested in PP-IOBJ. Notice that the identification of the VP nodes in TRANSITIVI';, IOBJ, and PP-IOBJ does not get occur at this point. Such an identification gets done when we pass the tree descriptions collected to the machinery described by Rogers anti Vijay-Shanker (1992) . Since the anchors specified in these three classes get identified, the three VP nodes specified (in TRANSITIVE, IOBJ, and PP-IGBJ) as the parents of these anchor nodes must also get identified. Using this type of reasoning about the structural properties of trees, the structure given above gets created. To complete the discu~qion of the inheritance of the tree descriptions, the head-daughter relations are noted in order that they can be used for feature sharing. Also the set of arg nodes are also collected and called the aTys of the lexical entry. For example, the args in the case above would be up1 (from VERB), np2 (from TRANSITIVE), npa (from IOBJ), and pp (from PP-IOB~. Later, in the syntactic rule, Wh-QUESTION, we use the a~ys of a lexieal entry to indicate tbe set of possible nodes that can be moved.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 1155, | |
| "end": 1187, | |
| "text": "Rogers anti Vijay-Shanker (1992)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "arg: np", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In TAG the structure we derived above for DI-TRANS1 is represented in the form of the following tree:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "arg: np", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "3If needed, the value of the preposition can be specified by addltlona] information at the lexical entry. with two feature structures (toll and bottom) a.,~oelated with the VP node to indicate the collapsing of two VP nodes linked by domination. Tiffs process is also described in (Rogers and Vijay-Shanker, 1992) .", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 281, | |
| "end": 313, | |
| "text": "(Rogers and Vijay-Shanker, 1992)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF11" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "arg: np", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The second mechanism we adopt for structure-sharing is the use of lcxical and syntactic rules to capture inflectional and derivational relationships among lexical entries. The mechanism is very similar than the one proposed by Flickinger (1987) , however it ditfers from it since we derive elementary trees of extended domain of locality. Lexical and syntactic rules relate an input lexical entry to an output lexical entry. The output lexical entry gets its information from the input lexical entry, lexical and syntactic rules, and possibly additional idiosyncratic information specified in the lexicon.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 227, | |
| "end": 244, | |
| "text": "Flickinger (1987)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF4" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Lexical and Syntactic Rules", | |
| "sec_num": "4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We illustrate the use of lexical and syntactic rules by examples. In the following, we will focus our attention to the derivational relationships and also to the output tree description. Consider the rule for wh-question.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Lexical and Syntactic Rules", | |
| "sec_num": "4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "-W~ QUES'rION input : LEi output : LEo x E args (LEi) x' = copy(x) y = completiou (LEi) LEo.tree,-description ::", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 48, | |
| "end": 53, | |
| "text": "(LEi)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 82, | |
| "end": 87, | |
| "text": "(LEi)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Lexical and Syntactic Rules", | |
| "sec_num": "4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "s A x' s I i I", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Lexical and Syntactic Rules", | |
| "sec_num": "4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We treat formation of structure for wb-question as relation between two lexical entries specified here as LEI and LEo. The tree description ill LEo indicates that an argument node (x) ill tile tree described in LEi can be moved leaving a trace. Ilere tile relationship between x and y is obtained from the description in LEI. Copy(x) indicates that a copy of the description of entire sub-tree rooted at node x needs to recorded in output description. In the resulting description, the filler is shown to C-command the gap.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 326, | |
| "end": 333, | |
| "text": "Copy(x)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Lexical and Syntactic Rules", | |
| "sec_num": "4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Thus, if LEI stood for DITRANSI and say we consider x to be the node NP direct object, the trees described in LEi and LEo are: From the tree description and constraint equations of the passive class, we will inherit information to place the two feature structures on the VP nodes on top form:passive and on the bottomfevm:pparl. Since these feature structures cannot be unified, the auxiliary verb \"be\" is required to adjoin on the VP node.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Lexical and Syntactic Rules", | |
| "sec_num": "4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "S NIP S np V NP PP v", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Lexical and Syntactic Rules", | |
| "sec_num": "4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "As in any similar enterprise, we have to provide means to handle exceptions. For example, we will have to provide such mechanisms to handle verbs that are exceptions to the use of PASSIVE or DATIVE rule.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Lexical and Syntactic Rules", | |
| "sec_num": "4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Like in (Flickinger, 1987) we allow overwriting and state explicitly that certain rules are not applicable in the entries of some lexieal items. However, considerable more machinery would need to be added to capture semantic constraints on the application of such rules. At present, little work has been done to incorporate specification of semantic constraints in conjunction with TAG.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 8, | |
| "end": 26, | |
| "text": "(Flickinger, 1987)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF4" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Lexical and Syntactic Rules", | |
| "sec_num": "4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "While a number of proposals (Flickinger, 1987; Pollard and Sag, 1987; Shieber, 1986) have been made for a hierarchical organization of a lexicon and grammar, in our approach the hierarchical lexicon, the syntactic and lexical rules additionally specify partial descriptions of trees of extended domain of locality which capture syntactic mid semantic dependencies. The description of elementary trees has been obtained by collecting par-tim description of trees and then realizing tile least tree satisfying these constraints. Tile syntactic and lexical rules enable us to derive new entries from existing ones. Overwriting allows us to be sensitive to lexical idiosyner asies. As mentioned earlier, tile linguistic exaraples given here were meant only to indicate the potential of our approach. In general, we anvisage tile use of a hierarchical lexicon, of syntactic and lexical rules for lexicalized tree-adjoining grammars that capture importaalt linguistic generalizations and provide for a space efficient representation of tile grammar. Equany important, such a scheme would facilitate the automation of the process of updating and maintaining the grammar, an urgent need felt during the development of a large lexica[ized tree-adjoining grammar.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 28, | |
| "end": 46, | |
| "text": "(Flickinger, 1987;", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 47, | |
| "end": 69, | |
| "text": "Pollard and Sag, 1987;", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 70, | |
| "end": 84, | |
| "text": "Shieber, 1986)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF16" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Conclusion", | |
| "sec_num": "5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We are currently investigating the possibility of defining parsing strategies that take advantage of the type of hierarchical representation we proposed ill this paper. Many other related topics will be explored ill the future. A much more elaborate organization will be considered, which in turn may suggest the need for additional machinery. We will implement the inheritance machinery described above and the process of building trees from these descriptions. We would also like to consider the treatment of idioms and tile integration of syntactic and semantic specifications in the context of LTAG.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Conclusion", | |
| "sec_num": "5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "PROC. OF COLING-92, NANTES, AUG. 23-28, 1992", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "back_matter": [], | |
| "bib_entries": { | |
| "BIBREF0": { | |
| "ref_id": "b0", | |
| "title": "A lexicalized trec adjoining grammar for English", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Anne", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Abeill~", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Kathleen", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "M" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Bishop", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Sharon", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Cote", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Yves", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Sehabes", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1990, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Anne Abeill~, Kathleen M. Bishop, Sharon Cote, and Yves Sehabes. 1990. A lexicalized trec adjoining grammar for English. Technical Report MS-CLS-90- 24, Department of Computer and Information Sci- ence, University of Pennsylvania.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF1": { | |
| "ref_id": "b1", | |
| "title": "Parsing french with tree adjoining grammar: some linguistic accounts", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Anne", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Abeill&", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1988, | |
| "venue": "Pwceedings of the 12 ~h lnter~alional Conference on Compntational Linguistics (COLING'88)", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Anne Abeill& 1988. Parsing french with tree adjoining grammar: some linguistic accounts. In Pwceedings of the 12 ~h lnter~alional Conference on Compnta- tional Linguistics (COLING'88), Budapest, August.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF2": { | |
| "ref_id": "b2", | |
| "title": "Meta-ru[es on tree adjoining grammars", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "T", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Becker", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1990, | |
| "venue": "Proceedings of the 1st International Work~ shop on \"1bee Adjoining GTvJmmars", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "T. Becker. 1990. Meta-ru[es on tree adjoining gram- mars. In Proceedings of the 1st International Work~ shop on \"1bee Adjoining GTvJmmars, Dagstuhl Castle, FRG, August.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF3": { | |
| "ref_id": "b3", | |
| "title": "Lexieal-functional grammar: A formal system for gramraatica[ representation", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "J", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Bresnan", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "R", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Kaplan", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1983, | |
| "venue": "The Menial Representation of Gramma$ical Relations. M.I.T. Press", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "J. Bresnan and R. Kaplan. 1983. Lexieal-functional grammar: A formal system for gramraatica[ repre- sentation. In The Menial Representation of Gram- ma$ical Relations. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, MA.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF4": { | |
| "ref_id": "b4", | |
| "title": "Lexieal Rules in the Hierarchical Lexicon", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Daniel", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "Paul" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Flickinger", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1987, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Daniel Paul Flickinger. 1987. Lexieal Rules in the Hi- erarchical Lexicon. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford Univer- sity.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF5": { | |
| "ref_id": "b5", | |
| "title": "Generalized Phrose S'trueture Grammars", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "G", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Gazdar", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "E", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Klein", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "G", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "K" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Pullum", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "1", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "A" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Sag", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1985, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "G. Gazdar, E. Klein, G. K. Pullum, and 1. A. Sag. 1985. Generalized Phrose S'trueture Grammars. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. Also published by llarvard Uni- versity Press, Cambridge, MA.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF6": { | |
| "ref_id": "b6", | |
| "title": "Using inheritance in objectoriented programming to combine syntactic rules and lexical idiosyncrasies", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Benoit Llabcrt", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1991, | |
| "venue": "Ill Proceedings of the second laieT~alioual Workshop on Parsing Technolo-[lies", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Benoit llabcrt. 1991. Using inheritance in object- oriented programming to combine syntactic rules and lexical idiosyncrasies. Ill Proceedings of the sec- ond laieT~alioual Workshop on Parsing Technolo- [lies, Cancun, Mexico, February.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF7": { | |
| "ref_id": "b7", | |
| "title": "Word-order variation ill natural language generation. Ill AAA[ ill Sixth National Con]erencc on Arlificial Intelligence", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "K", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Aravind", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1987, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "550", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Aravind K. 3oshi. 1987. Word-order variation ill natu- ral language generation. Ill AAA[ ill Sixth National Con]erencc on Arlificial Intelligence, pages 550 555, Seattle, Washington, ,I uly.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF8": { | |
| "ref_id": "b8", | |
| "title": "l,inguistit: relevance of tree adjoining grammars", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Antho~y", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Kroch", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Aravind", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "K" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Joshi", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1985, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Antho~y Kroch and Aravind K. Joshi. 1985. l,inguis- tit: relevance of tree adjoining grammars. Techni- old Report MS-CIS-85-18, 1)epartment of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, April.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF9": { | |
| "ref_id": "b9", | |
| "title": "Unbounded dependencies and subjacency in a tree adjoining grannnar", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Anthony", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Kroch", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1987, | |
| "venue": "Alle,native Conceptions of Phrase Struclure", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "66--98", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Anthony Kroch. 1987. Unbounded dependencies and subjacency in a tree adjoining grannnar. Ill A. Manastcr~ltnmer, editor, Mathematics of Lan~ guage. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, Anthony Kroch. 1989. Asynunetries ill long distance extraction in a tag gratnmar. In M. i]altin and A. Kroeh, editors, Alle,native Conceptions of Phrase Struclure, pages 66-98. University of Chicago Prerm.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF11": { | |
| "ref_id": "b11", | |
| "title": "l~easoning with descriptions of trees", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Jim", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Rogers", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "K", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Vijay-Shanker", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1992, | |
| "venue": "30 lh Meeting of the As", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Jim Rogers and K. Vijay-Shanker. 1992. l~easoning with descriptions of trees. In 30 lh Meeting of the As..", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF12": { | |
| "ref_id": "b12", | |
| "title": "sociation for Computational Linyuistics (ACL'921", | |
| "authors": [], | |
| "year": null, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "sociation for Computational Linyuistics (ACL'921.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF13": { | |
| "ref_id": "b13", | |
| "title": "Parsing strategies with 'lexicalized' grammars: Application to tree adjoining grammars", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Yves", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Schabes", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Anne", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Abeillfi", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Aravind", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "K" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Joshi", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1988, | |
| "venue": "Proceedings of the 12 ~' Internalional Conference on C'ompu~ rational Linguistics (COLING'88)", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Yves Schabes, Anne Abeillfi, and Aravind K. Joshi. 1988. Parsing strategies with 'lexicalized' grammars: Application to tree adjoining grammars, in Proceed- ings of the 12 ~' Internalional Conference on C'ompu~ rational Linguistics (COLING'88), Budapest, |lull- gary, August.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF14": { | |
| "ref_id": "b14", | |
| "title": "Mathematical and Computalioaal Aspects of Le~:icahzed G~u,umars", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Yves", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Schabes", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1990, | |
| "venue": "Available as technical report", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Yves Schabes. 1990. Mathematical and Computalioaal Aspects of Le~:icahzed G~u,umars. Ph.D. thesis, Uni- versity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, August. Available as technical report (MS-C1S-90-48, LINC LAI1179) frolo the Department of Computer Science.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF15": { | |
| "ref_id": "b15", | |
| "title": "Synchronous tree adjoining grammars", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Stuart", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Shieber", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Yves", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Schahes", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1990, | |
| "venue": "lli Proceedings of the 13 ch International ConfeTence on Computational Linguistics (COLING'90)", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Stuart Shieber and Yves Schahes. 1990. Synchronous tree adjoining grammars, lli Proceedings of the 13 ch International ConfeTence on Computational Linguis- tics (COLING'90), llelsinki.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF16": { | |
| "ref_id": "b16", | |
| "title": "An lntroduclion to Unlitcation-Based Approaches to Grammar. Canter for tile Study of I,anguage and Information", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "M", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Stuart", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Shieber", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1986, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Stuart M. Shieber, 1986. An lntroduclion to Unlit- cation-Based Approaches to Grammar. Canter for tile Study of I,anguage and Information, Stanford, CA.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF17": { | |
| "ref_id": "b17", | |
| "title": "Using description of trees in a tree adjoining grammar", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "K", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Vijay-Shanker", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1992, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "K. Vijay-Shanker. 1992. Using description of trees in a tree adjoining grammar, qb appear in Computa- tional Linguistics.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF18": { | |
| "ref_id": "b18", | |
| "title": "OF COl,IN(;-92", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Actes", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "De Collng-92", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": ";", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Namf", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "S", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1992, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "23--28", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "ACTES DE COLlNG-92, NAmf;,S, 23-28 AO~JT 1992 2 1 1 PRO(:, OF COl,IN(;-92, NANTES, AUG. 23 28, 1992", | |
| "links": null | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "ref_entries": { | |
| "FIGREF0": { | |
| "num": null, | |
| "type_str": "figure", | |
| "uris": null, | |
| "text": "Sample of Elementary Trees in a LTAGany other principle already instantiated. Given the size of the grammar, this is not a feasible task." | |
| }, | |
| "TABREF5": { | |
| "type_str": "table", | |
| "html": null, | |
| "content": "<table><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>up</td><td>vp</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>vp</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>1</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>v</td><td>pp</td><td>\"7; p np</td></tr><tr><td/><td>np</td><td>pp</td><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>p</td><td>np</td><td>by</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"3\">and by equating the two V nodes and by col-</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"3\">lapsing the two VP nodes as before, we get:</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>p</td><td>np</td><td>e</td><td>P</td><td>NIP</td><td/><td>\u2022</td><td>|</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">Before illustrating the passive rule, we need to in-troduce the so-called CHANGE ARITY relation in-</td><td>up</td><td/><td>vp</td><td>np</td><td>vp</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">troduced by Fiickinger (1987). We say that C~ =</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">CItANGE-ARITY(C1) if CI is the immediate super-class of C1 distinct from TRANSITIVE. We can now</td><td>v</td><td>pp</td><td>(pp)</td><td>v</td><td>(pp)</td><td>pp</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">state the passive rule:</td><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">A p</td><td>~</td><td>p</td><td>np</td><td>A p</td><td>np</td><td>p</td><td>np</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>I</td><td>oF</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>b7</td><td>by</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">PASSIVE</td><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">input : LEI</td><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">output : LEo</td><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">passive E LEo.CLASSES</td><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">CHANGE-AR1TY(LEi.CLASS) E LEo.CLASSES</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">LE~.CLASS E LEo.CLASSES</td><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">*I)</td><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td>v</td><td>(pp)</td><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td>p</td><td>np</td><td colspan=\"2\">E LEo.tree-description</td><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr></table>", | |
| "num": null, | |
| "text": "Suppose we let LEi.class to be DITRANS1. Thus from the definition CHANGE-ARITY(DITRANS1) is PP-IOBJ. The tree description inherited from PP. IOBJ differs from that of DITRANS1 only in that we do not postulate the presence of the node for NP direct object. Thus the tree description we arrive at is:" | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } |