File size: 231,296 Bytes
6fa4bc9 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 1572 1573 1574 1575 1576 1577 1578 1579 1580 1581 1582 1583 1584 1585 1586 1587 1588 1589 1590 1591 1592 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 1641 1642 1643 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 1650 1651 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 1671 1672 1673 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 1679 1680 1681 1682 1683 1684 1685 1686 1687 1688 1689 1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 1708 1709 1710 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 1745 1746 1747 1748 1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1755 1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 1761 1762 1763 1764 1765 1766 1767 1768 1769 1770 1771 1772 1773 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 1783 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 1823 1824 1825 1826 1827 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080 2081 2082 2083 2084 2085 2086 2087 2088 2089 2090 2091 2092 2093 2094 2095 2096 2097 2098 2099 2100 2101 2102 2103 2104 2105 2106 2107 2108 2109 2110 2111 2112 2113 2114 2115 2116 2117 2118 2119 2120 2121 2122 2123 2124 2125 2126 2127 2128 2129 2130 2131 2132 2133 2134 2135 2136 2137 2138 2139 2140 2141 2142 2143 2144 2145 2146 2147 2148 2149 2150 2151 2152 2153 2154 2155 2156 2157 2158 2159 2160 2161 2162 2163 2164 2165 2166 2167 2168 2169 2170 2171 2172 2173 2174 2175 2176 2177 2178 2179 2180 2181 2182 2183 2184 2185 2186 2187 2188 2189 2190 2191 2192 2193 2194 2195 2196 2197 2198 2199 2200 2201 2202 2203 2204 2205 2206 2207 2208 2209 2210 2211 2212 2213 2214 2215 2216 2217 2218 2219 2220 2221 2222 2223 2224 2225 2226 2227 2228 2229 2230 2231 2232 2233 2234 2235 2236 2237 2238 2239 2240 2241 2242 2243 2244 2245 2246 2247 2248 2249 2250 2251 2252 2253 2254 2255 2256 2257 2258 2259 2260 2261 2262 2263 2264 2265 2266 2267 2268 2269 2270 2271 2272 2273 2274 2275 2276 2277 2278 2279 2280 2281 2282 2283 2284 2285 2286 2287 2288 2289 2290 2291 2292 2293 2294 2295 2296 2297 2298 2299 2300 2301 2302 2303 2304 2305 2306 2307 2308 2309 2310 2311 2312 2313 2314 2315 2316 2317 2318 2319 2320 2321 2322 2323 2324 2325 2326 2327 2328 2329 2330 2331 2332 2333 2334 2335 2336 2337 2338 2339 2340 2341 2342 2343 2344 2345 2346 2347 2348 2349 2350 2351 2352 2353 2354 2355 2356 2357 2358 2359 2360 2361 2362 2363 2364 2365 2366 2367 2368 2369 2370 2371 2372 2373 2374 2375 2376 2377 2378 2379 2380 2381 2382 2383 2384 2385 2386 2387 2388 2389 2390 2391 2392 2393 2394 2395 2396 2397 2398 2399 2400 2401 2402 2403 2404 2405 2406 2407 2408 2409 2410 2411 2412 2413 2414 2415 2416 2417 2418 2419 2420 2421 2422 2423 2424 2425 2426 2427 2428 2429 2430 2431 2432 2433 2434 2435 2436 2437 2438 2439 2440 2441 2442 2443 2444 2445 2446 2447 2448 2449 2450 2451 2452 2453 2454 2455 2456 2457 2458 2459 2460 2461 2462 2463 2464 2465 2466 2467 2468 2469 2470 2471 2472 2473 2474 2475 2476 2477 2478 2479 2480 2481 2482 2483 2484 2485 2486 2487 2488 2489 2490 2491 2492 2493 2494 2495 2496 2497 2498 2499 2500 2501 2502 2503 2504 2505 2506 2507 2508 2509 2510 2511 2512 2513 2514 2515 2516 2517 2518 2519 2520 2521 2522 2523 2524 2525 2526 2527 2528 2529 2530 2531 2532 2533 2534 2535 2536 2537 2538 2539 2540 2541 2542 2543 2544 2545 2546 2547 2548 2549 2550 2551 2552 2553 2554 2555 2556 2557 2558 2559 2560 2561 2562 2563 2564 2565 2566 2567 2568 2569 2570 2571 2572 2573 2574 2575 2576 2577 2578 2579 2580 2581 2582 2583 2584 2585 2586 2587 2588 2589 2590 2591 2592 2593 2594 2595 2596 2597 2598 2599 2600 2601 2602 2603 2604 2605 2606 2607 2608 2609 2610 2611 2612 2613 2614 2615 2616 2617 2618 2619 2620 2621 2622 2623 2624 2625 2626 2627 2628 2629 2630 2631 2632 2633 2634 2635 2636 2637 2638 2639 2640 2641 2642 2643 2644 2645 2646 2647 2648 2649 2650 2651 2652 2653 2654 2655 2656 2657 2658 2659 2660 2661 2662 2663 2664 2665 2666 2667 2668 2669 2670 2671 2672 2673 2674 2675 2676 2677 2678 2679 2680 2681 2682 2683 2684 2685 2686 2687 2688 2689 2690 2691 2692 2693 2694 2695 2696 2697 2698 2699 2700 2701 2702 2703 2704 2705 2706 2707 2708 2709 2710 2711 2712 2713 2714 2715 2716 2717 2718 2719 2720 2721 2722 2723 2724 2725 2726 2727 2728 2729 2730 2731 2732 2733 2734 2735 2736 2737 2738 2739 2740 2741 2742 2743 2744 2745 2746 2747 2748 2749 2750 2751 2752 2753 2754 2755 2756 2757 2758 2759 2760 2761 2762 2763 2764 2765 2766 2767 2768 2769 2770 2771 2772 2773 2774 2775 2776 2777 2778 2779 2780 2781 2782 2783 2784 2785 2786 2787 2788 2789 2790 2791 2792 2793 2794 2795 2796 2797 2798 2799 2800 2801 2802 2803 2804 2805 2806 2807 2808 2809 2810 2811 2812 2813 2814 2815 2816 2817 2818 2819 2820 2821 2822 2823 2824 2825 2826 2827 2828 2829 2830 2831 2832 2833 2834 2835 2836 2837 2838 2839 2840 2841 2842 2843 2844 2845 2846 2847 2848 2849 2850 2851 2852 2853 2854 2855 2856 2857 2858 2859 2860 2861 2862 2863 2864 2865 2866 2867 2868 2869 2870 2871 2872 2873 2874 2875 2876 2877 2878 2879 2880 2881 2882 2883 2884 2885 2886 2887 2888 2889 2890 2891 2892 2893 2894 2895 2896 2897 2898 2899 2900 2901 2902 2903 2904 2905 2906 2907 2908 2909 2910 2911 2912 2913 2914 2915 2916 2917 2918 2919 2920 2921 2922 2923 2924 2925 2926 2927 2928 2929 2930 2931 2932 2933 2934 2935 2936 2937 2938 2939 2940 2941 2942 2943 2944 2945 2946 2947 2948 2949 2950 2951 2952 2953 2954 2955 2956 2957 2958 2959 2960 2961 2962 2963 2964 2965 2966 2967 2968 2969 2970 2971 2972 2973 2974 2975 2976 2977 2978 2979 2980 2981 2982 2983 2984 2985 2986 2987 2988 2989 2990 2991 2992 2993 2994 2995 2996 2997 2998 2999 3000 3001 3002 3003 3004 3005 3006 3007 3008 3009 3010 3011 3012 3013 3014 3015 3016 3017 3018 3019 3020 3021 3022 3023 3024 3025 3026 3027 3028 3029 3030 3031 3032 3033 3034 3035 3036 3037 3038 3039 3040 3041 3042 3043 3044 3045 3046 3047 3048 3049 3050 3051 3052 3053 3054 3055 3056 3057 3058 3059 3060 3061 3062 3063 3064 3065 3066 3067 3068 3069 3070 3071 3072 3073 3074 3075 3076 3077 3078 3079 3080 3081 3082 3083 3084 3085 3086 3087 3088 3089 3090 3091 3092 3093 3094 3095 3096 3097 3098 3099 3100 3101 3102 3103 3104 3105 3106 3107 3108 3109 3110 3111 3112 3113 3114 3115 3116 3117 3118 3119 3120 3121 3122 3123 3124 3125 3126 3127 3128 3129 3130 3131 3132 3133 3134 3135 3136 3137 3138 3139 3140 3141 3142 3143 3144 3145 3146 3147 3148 3149 3150 3151 3152 3153 3154 3155 3156 3157 3158 3159 3160 3161 3162 3163 3164 3165 3166 3167 3168 3169 3170 3171 3172 3173 3174 3175 3176 3177 3178 3179 3180 3181 3182 3183 3184 3185 3186 3187 3188 3189 3190 3191 3192 3193 3194 3195 3196 3197 3198 3199 3200 3201 3202 3203 3204 3205 3206 3207 3208 3209 3210 3211 3212 3213 3214 3215 3216 3217 3218 3219 3220 3221 3222 3223 3224 3225 3226 3227 3228 3229 3230 3231 3232 3233 3234 3235 3236 3237 3238 3239 3240 3241 3242 3243 3244 3245 3246 3247 3248 3249 3250 3251 3252 3253 3254 3255 3256 3257 3258 3259 3260 3261 3262 3263 3264 3265 3266 3267 3268 3269 3270 3271 3272 3273 3274 3275 3276 3277 3278 3279 3280 3281 3282 3283 3284 3285 3286 3287 3288 3289 3290 3291 3292 3293 3294 3295 3296 3297 3298 3299 3300 3301 3302 3303 3304 3305 3306 3307 3308 3309 3310 3311 3312 3313 3314 3315 3316 3317 3318 3319 3320 3321 3322 3323 3324 3325 3326 3327 3328 3329 3330 3331 3332 3333 3334 3335 3336 3337 3338 3339 3340 3341 3342 3343 3344 3345 3346 3347 3348 3349 3350 3351 3352 3353 3354 3355 3356 3357 3358 3359 3360 3361 3362 3363 3364 3365 3366 3367 3368 3369 3370 3371 3372 3373 3374 3375 3376 3377 3378 3379 3380 3381 3382 3383 3384 3385 3386 3387 3388 3389 3390 3391 3392 3393 3394 3395 3396 3397 3398 3399 3400 3401 3402 3403 3404 3405 3406 3407 3408 3409 3410 3411 3412 3413 3414 3415 3416 3417 3418 3419 3420 3421 3422 3423 3424 3425 3426 3427 3428 3429 3430 3431 3432 3433 3434 3435 3436 3437 3438 3439 3440 3441 3442 3443 3444 3445 3446 3447 3448 3449 3450 3451 3452 3453 3454 3455 3456 3457 3458 3459 3460 3461 3462 3463 3464 3465 3466 3467 3468 3469 3470 3471 3472 3473 3474 3475 3476 3477 3478 3479 3480 3481 3482 3483 3484 3485 3486 3487 3488 3489 3490 3491 3492 3493 3494 3495 3496 3497 3498 3499 3500 3501 3502 3503 3504 3505 3506 3507 3508 3509 3510 3511 3512 3513 3514 3515 3516 3517 3518 3519 3520 3521 3522 3523 3524 3525 3526 3527 3528 3529 3530 3531 3532 3533 3534 3535 3536 3537 3538 3539 3540 3541 3542 3543 3544 3545 3546 3547 3548 3549 3550 3551 3552 3553 3554 3555 3556 3557 3558 3559 3560 3561 3562 3563 3564 3565 3566 3567 3568 3569 3570 3571 3572 3573 3574 3575 3576 3577 3578 3579 3580 3581 3582 3583 3584 3585 3586 3587 3588 3589 3590 3591 3592 3593 3594 3595 3596 3597 3598 3599 3600 3601 3602 3603 3604 3605 3606 3607 3608 3609 3610 3611 3612 3613 3614 3615 3616 3617 3618 3619 3620 3621 3622 3623 3624 3625 3626 3627 3628 3629 3630 3631 3632 3633 3634 3635 3636 3637 3638 3639 3640 3641 3642 3643 3644 3645 3646 3647 3648 3649 3650 3651 3652 3653 3654 3655 3656 3657 3658 3659 3660 3661 3662 3663 3664 3665 3666 3667 3668 3669 3670 3671 3672 3673 3674 3675 3676 3677 3678 3679 3680 3681 3682 3683 3684 3685 3686 3687 3688 3689 3690 3691 3692 3693 3694 3695 3696 3697 3698 3699 3700 3701 3702 3703 3704 3705 3706 3707 3708 3709 3710 3711 3712 3713 3714 3715 3716 3717 3718 3719 3720 3721 3722 3723 3724 3725 3726 3727 3728 3729 3730 3731 3732 3733 3734 3735 3736 3737 3738 3739 3740 3741 3742 3743 3744 3745 3746 3747 3748 3749 3750 3751 3752 3753 3754 3755 3756 3757 3758 3759 3760 3761 3762 3763 3764 3765 3766 3767 3768 3769 3770 3771 3772 3773 3774 3775 3776 3777 3778 3779 3780 3781 3782 3783 3784 3785 3786 3787 3788 3789 3790 3791 3792 3793 3794 3795 3796 3797 3798 3799 3800 3801 3802 3803 3804 3805 3806 3807 3808 3809 3810 3811 3812 3813 3814 3815 3816 3817 3818 3819 3820 3821 3822 3823 3824 3825 3826 3827 3828 3829 3830 3831 3832 3833 3834 3835 3836 3837 3838 3839 3840 3841 3842 3843 3844 3845 3846 3847 3848 3849 3850 3851 3852 3853 3854 3855 3856 3857 3858 3859 3860 3861 3862 3863 3864 3865 3866 3867 3868 3869 3870 3871 3872 3873 3874 3875 3876 3877 3878 3879 3880 3881 3882 3883 3884 3885 3886 3887 3888 3889 3890 3891 3892 3893 3894 3895 3896 3897 3898 3899 3900 3901 3902 3903 3904 3905 3906 3907 3908 3909 3910 3911 3912 3913 3914 3915 3916 3917 3918 3919 3920 3921 3922 3923 3924 3925 3926 3927 3928 3929 3930 3931 3932 3933 3934 3935 3936 3937 3938 3939 3940 3941 3942 3943 3944 3945 3946 3947 3948 3949 3950 3951 3952 3953 3954 3955 3956 3957 3958 3959 3960 3961 3962 3963 3964 3965 3966 3967 3968 3969 3970 3971 3972 3973 3974 3975 3976 3977 3978 3979 3980 3981 3982 3983 3984 3985 3986 3987 3988 3989 3990 3991 3992 3993 3994 3995 3996 3997 3998 3999 4000 4001 4002 4003 4004 4005 4006 4007 4008 4009 4010 4011 4012 4013 4014 4015 4016 4017 4018 4019 4020 4021 4022 4023 4024 4025 4026 4027 4028 4029 4030 4031 4032 4033 4034 4035 4036 4037 4038 4039 4040 4041 4042 4043 4044 4045 4046 4047 4048 4049 4050 4051 4052 4053 4054 4055 4056 4057 4058 4059 4060 4061 4062 4063 4064 4065 4066 4067 4068 4069 4070 4071 4072 4073 4074 4075 4076 4077 4078 4079 4080 4081 4082 4083 4084 4085 4086 4087 4088 4089 4090 4091 4092 4093 4094 4095 4096 4097 4098 4099 4100 4101 4102 4103 4104 4105 4106 4107 4108 4109 4110 4111 4112 4113 4114 4115 4116 4117 4118 4119 4120 4121 4122 4123 4124 4125 4126 4127 4128 4129 4130 4131 4132 4133 4134 4135 4136 4137 4138 4139 4140 4141 4142 4143 4144 4145 4146 4147 4148 4149 4150 4151 4152 4153 4154 4155 4156 4157 4158 4159 4160 4161 4162 4163 4164 4165 4166 4167 4168 4169 4170 4171 4172 4173 4174 4175 4176 4177 4178 | {
"paper_id": "J02-2002",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T02:44:27.440564Z"
},
"title": "The Combinatory Morphemic Lexicon",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Cem",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bozsahin",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Middle East Technical University",
"location": {}
},
"email": "bozsahin@metu.edu.tr."
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "with the transparent projection of syntactic and semantic scope relations of smaller units. We propose a morphosyntactic framework based on Combinatory Categorial Grammar that provides flexible constituency, flexible category consistency, and lexical projection of morphosyntactic properties and attachment to grammar in order to establish a morphemic grammar-lexicon. These mechanisms provide enough expressive power in the lexicon to formulate semantically transparent specifications without the necessity to confine structure forming to words and phrases. For instance, bound morphemes as lexical items can have phrasal scope or word scope, independent of their attachment characteristics but consistent with their semantics. The controls can be attuned in the lexicon to language-particular properties. The result is a transparent interface of inflectional morphology, syntax, and semantics. We present a computational system and show the application of the framework to English and Turkish.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "J02-2002",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "with the transparent projection of syntactic and semantic scope relations of smaller units. We propose a morphosyntactic framework based on Combinatory Categorial Grammar that provides flexible constituency, flexible category consistency, and lexical projection of morphosyntactic properties and attachment to grammar in order to establish a morphemic grammar-lexicon. These mechanisms provide enough expressive power in the lexicon to formulate semantically transparent specifications without the necessity to confine structure forming to words and phrases. For instance, bound morphemes as lexical items can have phrasal scope or word scope, independent of their attachment characteristics but consistent with their semantics. The controls can be attuned in the lexicon to language-particular properties. The result is a transparent interface of inflectional morphology, syntax, and semantics. We present a computational system and show the application of the framework to English and Turkish.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "The study presented in this article is concerned with the integrated representation and processing of inflectional morphology, syntax, and semantics in a unified grammar architecture. An important issue in such integration is mismatches in morphological, syntactic, and semantic bracketings. The problem was first noted in derivational morphology. Williams (1981) provided examples from English; the semantic bracketings in (1a-2a) are in conflict with the morphological bracketings in (1b-2b).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 348,
"end": 363,
"text": "Williams (1981)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF80"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1."
},
{
"text": "(1) a. If the problem were confined to derivational morphology, we could avoid it by making derivational morphology part of the lexicon that does not interact with grammar. But this is not the case. Mismatches in morphosyntactic and semantic bracketing also abound. This article addresses such problems and their resolution in a computational system. 1 M\u00fcller (1999, page 401) exemplifies the scope problem in German prefixes. (3a) is in conflict with the bracketing required for the semantics of the conjunct (3b).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 351,
"end": 352,
"text": "1",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 360,
"end": 376,
"text": "(1999, page 401)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1."
},
{
"text": "(3) a. Wenn [ Ihr Lust ] und [ noch nichts anderes vor-] habt, if you pleasure and yet nothing else intend k\u00f6nnen wir sie ja vom Flughafen abholen can we them PARTICLE from.the airport pick up 'If you feel like it and have nothing else planned, we can pick them up at the airport.'",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 24,
"text": "[ Ihr Lust ]",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 29,
"end": 56,
"text": "[ noch nichts anderes vor-]",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1."
},
{
"text": "Similar problems can be observed in Turkish inflectional suffixes. In the coordination of tensed clauses, the tense attaches to the verb of the rightmost conjunct (4a) but applies to all conjuncts (4b). Delayed affixation appears to apply to all nominal inflections (4c-e). Phrasal scope of inflection can be seen in subordination and relativization as well. In (5a), the entire nominalized clause marked with the accusative case is the object of want. In (5b), the relative participle applies to the relative clause, which lacks an object. The object's case is governed by the subordinate verb, whose case requirements might differ from that of the matrix verb (5c). As we show later in this section, the coindexing mechanisms in word-based unification accounts of unbounded extraction face a conflict between the local and the nonlocal behavior of the relativized noun, mainly due to applying the relative participle -dig-i to the verbal stem ver rather than the entire relative clause. A lexical entry for -dig-i would resolve the conflict and capture the fact that it applies to nonsubjects uniformly. The morphological/phrasal scope conflict of affixes is not particular to morphologically rich languages. Semantic composition of affixes in morphologically simpler languages poses problems with word (narrow) scope of inflections. For instance, fake trucks needs the semantics (plu(fake truck)), which corresponds to the surface bracketing [ fake truck ]-s, because it denotes the nonempty nonsingleton sets of things that are not trucks but fake trucks (Carpenter 1997) . Four trucks, on the other hand, has the semantics (four(plu truck)), which corresponds to four [ truck ]-s, because it denotes the subset of nonempty nonsingleton sets of trucks with four members.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 1559,
"end": 1575,
"text": "(Carpenter 1997)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "b. Ihr Lust habt UND noch nichts anderes vorhabt",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The status of inflectional morphology among theories of grammar is far from settled, but, starting with Chomsky (1970) , there seems to be an agreement that derivational morphology is internal to the lexicon. Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG) (Bresnan 1995) and earlier Government and Binding (GB) proposals e.g. (Anderson 1982) consider inflectional morphology to be part of syntax, but it has been delegated to the lexicon in Head-Driven Phase Structure Grammar (HPSG) (Pollard and Sag 1994, page 35) and in the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995, page 195) . The representational status of the morpheme is even less clear. Parallel developments in computational studies of HPSG propose lexical rules to model inflectional morphology (Carpenter and Penn 1994) . Computational models of LFG (Tomita 1988) and GB (Johnson 1988; Fong 1991) , on the other hand, have been noncommittal regarding inflectional morphology. Finally, morphosyntactic aspects have always been a concern in Categorial Grammar (CG) (e.g., Bach 1983; Carpenter 1992; Dowty 1979; Heylen 1997; Hoeksema 1985; Karttunen 1989; Moortgat 1988b; Whitelock 1988 ), but the issues of constraining the morphosyntactic derivations and resolving the apparent mismatches have been relatively untouched in computational studies.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 104,
"end": 118,
"text": "Chomsky (1970)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF14"
},
{
"start": 242,
"end": 256,
"text": "(Bresnan 1995)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
},
{
"start": 312,
"end": 327,
"text": "(Anderson 1982)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
},
{
"start": 470,
"end": 501,
"text": "(Pollard and Sag 1994, page 35)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 532,
"end": 556,
"text": "(Chomsky 1995, page 195)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 733,
"end": 758,
"text": "(Carpenter and Penn 1994)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 789,
"end": 802,
"text": "(Tomita 1988)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF76"
},
{
"start": 810,
"end": 824,
"text": "(Johnson 1988;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF38"
},
{
"start": 825,
"end": 835,
"text": "Fong 1991)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF23"
},
{
"start": 1009,
"end": 1019,
"text": "Bach 1983;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
},
{
"start": 1020,
"end": 1035,
"text": "Carpenter 1992;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
},
{
"start": 1036,
"end": 1047,
"text": "Dowty 1979;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF19"
},
{
"start": 1048,
"end": 1060,
"text": "Heylen 1997;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF29"
},
{
"start": 1061,
"end": 1075,
"text": "Hoeksema 1985;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF32"
},
{
"start": 1076,
"end": 1091,
"text": "Karttunen 1989;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF41"
},
{
"start": 1092,
"end": 1107,
"text": "Moortgat 1988b;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 1108,
"end": 1122,
"text": "Whitelock 1988",
"ref_id": "BIBREF79"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "b. Ihr Lust habt UND noch nichts anderes vorhabt",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We briefly look at Phrase Structure Grammars (PSGs), HPSG, and Multimodal CGs (MCGs) to see how word-based alternatives for morphosyntax would deal with the issues raised so far. For convenience, we call a grammar that expects words from the lexicon a lexemic grammar and a grammar that expects morphemes a morphemic grammar. A lexemic PSG provides a lexical interface for inflected words (X 0 s) such that a regular grammar subcomponent handles lexical insertion at X 0 . 2 In (4d), the right conjunct\u00e7ocuk-lar-a is analyzed as N 0 \u2192\u00e7ocuk-PLU-DAT (or N 0 \u2192 N 0 -DAT, N 0 \u2192 N 0 -PLU, N 0 \u2192 Stem, as a regular grammar). Assuming a syncategorematic coordination schema, that is, X \u2192 X and X, the N 0 in the left and right conjuncts of this example would not be of the same type. Revising the coordination schema such that only the root features coordinate would not be a solution either. In (4e), the relation of possession that is marked on the right conjunct must be carried over to the left conjunct as well. What is required for these examples is that the syntactic constituent X in the schema be analyzed as X-PLU(-POSS)-DAT, after N 0 and N 0 coordination.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "b. Ihr Lust habt UND noch nichts anderes vorhabt",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "What we need then is not a lexemic but a morphemic organization in which bracketing of free and bound morphemes is regulated in syntax. The lexicon, of course, must now supply the ingredients of a morphosyntactic calculus. This leads to a theory in which semantic composition parallels morphosyntactic combination by virtue of bound morphemes' being able to pick their domains just like words (above X 0 , if needed). A comparison of English and Turkish in this regard is noteworthy. The English relative pronouns that/whom and the Turkish relative participle -dig-i would have exactly the same semantics when the latter is granted a representational status in the lexicon (see Section 6).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "b. Ihr Lust habt UND noch nichts anderes vorhabt",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Furthermore, rule-based PSGs project a rigid notion of surface constituency. Steedman (2000) argued, however, that syntactic processes such as identical element deletion under coordination call for flexible constituency, such as SO (subject-object) in the SVO & SO gapping pattern of English and SV (subject-verb) constituency in the OSV & SV pattern of Turkish. Nontraditional constituents are also needed in specifying semantically transparent constituency of words, affixes, clitics, and phrases.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 77,
"end": 92,
"text": "Steedman (2000)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "b. Ihr Lust habt UND noch nichts anderes vorhabt",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Constraint-based PSGs such as HPSG appeal to coindexation and feature passing via unification, rather than movement, to deal with such processes. HPSG also makes the commitment that inflectional morphology is internal to the lexicon, handled either by lexical rules (Pollard and Sag 1994) or by lexical inheritance (Miller and Sag 1997) . We look at (5c) to highlight a problem with the stem-and-inflections view. As words enter syntax fully inflected, the sign of the verb ver-dig-i in the relative clause (5c) would be as in (6a), in which the SUBCAT list of the verb stem is, as specified in the lexical entry for ver, unsaturated. The participle adds coindexation in MOD|",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 266,
"end": 288,
"text": "(Pollard and Sag 1994)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF61"
},
{
"start": 315,
"end": 336,
"text": "(Miller and Sag 1997)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF49"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "b. Ihr Lust habt UND noch nichts anderes vorhabt",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\u2022 \u2022 \u2022 |INDEX.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "b. Ihr Lust habt UND noch nichts anderes vorhabt",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The HPSG analysis of this example would be as in Figure 1 . Although passing the agreement features of the head separately (Sehitoglu 1996) solves the case problem alluded to in (5c), however, structure sharing of the NP dat with the SLASH, INDEX, and CONTENT features of ver-dig-i is needed for semantics (GIVEE), but this conflicts with the head features of the topmost NP acc in the tree. The relative participle as a lexical entry (e.g., (6b)) would resolve the problem with subcategorization because its SUBCAT list is empty (like the relative pronoun that in English), hence there would be no indirect dependence of the nonlocal SLASH feature and the local SUBCAT feature via semantics (CONTENT). Such morphemic alternatives are not considered in HPSG, however, and require a significant revision in the theory. Furthermore, HPSG's lexical assignment for trace introduces phonologically null elements into the lexicon, which, as we show later, is not necessary.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 123,
"end": 139,
"text": "(Sehitoglu 1996)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF64"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 57,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": "FIGREF3"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "b. Ihr Lust habt UND noch nichts anderes vorhabt",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "(6) a. ver-dig-i := \uf8ee \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8f0 LOCAL \uf8ee \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8f0 CAT \uf8ee \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8f0 HEAD AGR PERSON third NUMBER sing CASE dat SUBCAT < 3 NP[gen], 2 NP[acc], 1 NP[dat]> MOD | MODSYN | LOCAL | CONT | INDEX 1 \uf8f9 \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fb CONTENT \uf8ee \uf8ef \uf8f0 RELN give GIVER 3 GIVEE 1 GIFT 2 \uf8f9 \uf8fa \uf8fb \uf8f9 \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fb NONLOCAL | TO-BIND | SLASH 1 \uf8f9 \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fb b. -dig-i := \uf8ee \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8f0 LOCAL \uf8ee \uf8ef \uf8f0 CAT HEAD noun acc or dat SUBCAT <> CONTENT npro INDEX 1 \uf8f9 \uf8fa \uf8fb NONLOCAL | INHER | SLASH 1 \uf8f9 \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fb",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "b. Ihr Lust habt UND noch nichts anderes vorhabt",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "MCGs (Hepple 1990a; Morrill 1994; Moortgat and Oehrle 1994) allow different modes of combination in the grammar. In addition to binary modes such as wrapping and commutative operations, unary modalities provide finer control over the categories. Heylen (1997 Heylen ( , 1999 uses unary modalities as a way of regulating morphosyntactic features such as case, number, and person for economy in lexical assignments. For instance, Frau has the category \u2737 case \u2737 fem \u2737 sg \u2737 3p \u2737 decl N, which underspecifies it for case and declension. Underspecification is dealt with in the grammar using inclusion postulates (e.g., (7)). The interaction of different modalities is regulated by distribution postulates.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 19,
"text": "(Hepple 1990a;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF26"
},
{
"start": 20,
"end": 33,
"text": "Morrill 1994;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF52"
},
{
"start": 34,
"end": 59,
"text": "Moortgat and Oehrle 1994)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF51"
},
{
"start": 246,
"end": 258,
"text": "Heylen (1997",
"ref_id": "BIBREF29"
},
{
"start": 259,
"end": 274,
"text": "Heylen ( , 1999",
"ref_id": "BIBREF30"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "b. Ihr Lust habt UND noch nichts anderes vorhabt",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "(7) \u2737 case \u0393 X \u2737 nom \u0393 X \u2737 case \u0393 X \u2737 acc \u0393 X",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "b. Ihr Lust habt UND noch nichts anderes vorhabt",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Lexical assignments to inflected words carry unary modalities: boys has the type \u2737 pl N, in contrast to \u2737 sg N for boy. Although such regulation of inflectional features successfully mediates, for example, subject-verb agreement or NP-internal case agreement (as in German), it is essentially word-based, because type assignments are to inflected forms; morphemes do not carry types. This reliance on word types necessitates a lexical rule-based approach to some morphosyntactic processes that create indefinitely long words, such as ki-relativization in Turkish (see Section 6.5). But lexical rules for such processes risk nontermination (Sehitoglu and Bozsahin 1999) . Our main point of departure from MCG accounts is the morphemic versus lexemic nature of the lexicon: The morphosyntactic and attachment modalities originate from the lexicon; they are not properties of the grammar (we elaborate more on this later). This paves the way to the morphemic lexicon by licensing type assignments to units smaller than words.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 639,
"end": 668,
"text": "(Sehitoglu and Bozsahin 1999)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF65"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "b. Ihr Lust habt UND noch nichts anderes vorhabt",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Besides problems with lexical rules, the automata-theoretic power of MCGs is problematic: Unrestricted use of structural modalities and postulates leads to Turing completeness (Carpenter 1999) . Indeed, one of the identifiable fragments of Mul- timodal languages that is computationally tractable is Combinatory Categorial languages (Kruijff and Baldridge 2000) , which we adopt as the basis for the framework presented here. We propose a morphosyntactic Combinatory Categorial Grammar (CCG) in which the grammar and the morphemic lexicon refer to morphosyntactic types rather than syntactic types. We first introduce the syntactic CCG in Section 2. Morphosyntactic CCG is described in Section 3. In Section 4, we look at the computational aspects of the framework. We then show its realization for some aspects of English (Section 5) and Turkish (Section 6).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 176,
"end": 192,
"text": "(Carpenter 1999)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
},
{
"start": 333,
"end": 361,
"text": "(Kruijff and Baldridge 2000)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF46"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "b. Ihr Lust habt UND noch nichts anderes vorhabt",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "CG is a theory of grammar in which the form-meaning relation is conceived as a transparent correspondence between the surface-syntactic and semantic combinatorics (Jacobson 1996) . A CCG sign can be represented as a triplet \u03c0 \u2212 \u03c3: \u00b5, where \u03c0 is the prosodic element, \u03c3 is its syntactic type, and \u00b5 its semantic type. For instance, the lexical assignment for read is (8). 3 (8) read := read \u2212 (S\\NP)/NP: \u03bbx.\u03bby.read xy",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 163,
"end": 178,
"text": "(Jacobson 1996)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF36"
},
{
"start": 371,
"end": 372,
"text": "3",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Syntactic Types",
"sec_num": "2."
},
{
"text": "\u2022 The set of basic syntactic categories:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Definition (Syntactic Types)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "A s = {N,NP,S,S \u2212t ,S +t } \u2022 The set of complex syntactic categories: B s -A s \u2286 B s -If X \u2208 B s and Y \u2208 B s , then X\\Y and X/Y \u2208 B s",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Definition (Syntactic Types)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The classical Ajdukiewicz/Bar-Hillel (AB) CG is weakly equivalent to Context-Free Grammars (Bar-Hillel, Gaifman, and Shamir 1960) . It has function application rules, defined originally in a nondirectional fashion. The directional variants and their associated semantics are as follows:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 91,
"end": 129,
"text": "(Bar-Hillel, Gaifman, and Shamir 1960)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Definition (Syntactic Types)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "(9) Forward Application (>): 4 X/Y: f Y: a \u21d2 X: fa",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Definition (Syntactic Types)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Backward Application (<): Y: a X\\Y: f \u21d2 X: fa CCG (Steedman 1985 (Steedman , 1987 (Steedman , 1988 Szabolcsi 1983 Szabolcsi , 1987 is an extended version of AB that includes function composition (10), substitution, and type raising (11). These extensions make CCGs mildly context sensitive.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 64,
"text": "(Steedman 1985",
"ref_id": "BIBREF66"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 81,
"text": "(Steedman , 1987",
"ref_id": "BIBREF67"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 98,
"text": "(Steedman , 1988",
"ref_id": "BIBREF68"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 113,
"text": "Szabolcsi 1983",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 130,
"text": "Szabolcsi , 1987",
"ref_id": "BIBREF75"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Definition (Syntactic Types)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "(10) Forward Composition (>B): X/Y: f Y/Z: g \u21d2 X/Z: \u03bbx.f (gx) Backward Composition (<B): Y\\Z: g X\\Y: f \u21d2 X\\Z: \u03bbx.f (gx) (11) Forward Type Raising (>T): 5 X: a \u21d2 T/(T\\X): \u03bbf .f [a] Backward Type Raising (<T): X: a \u21d2 T\\(T/X): \u03bbf .f [a]",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Definition (Syntactic Types)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Type raising is an order-preserving operation. For instance, Lambek's (1958) category S/(S\\NP) is a positional encoding of the grammatical subject as a function 3 We take \u03c0 to be the surface string for simplicity. We use the \"result-first\" convention for CG. For instance, transitive verbs of English are written as (S\\NP)/NP, which translates to (NP\\S)/NP in the \"result-on-top\" convention. 4 We omit the prosodic element for ease of exposition. For instance, the complete definition of forward application is",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 61,
"end": 76,
"text": "Lambek's (1958)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF47"
},
{
"start": 161,
"end": 162,
"text": "3",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Definition (Syntactic Types)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "s 1 \u2212 X/Y: f s 2 \u2212 Y: a \u21d2 s 1 \u2022 s 2 \u2212 X: fa,",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Definition (Syntactic Types)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "where \u2022 is prosodic combination and fa is the application of f to a. The \u2022 will play a crucial role in the lexicalization of attachment later on. 5 The lambda term f [a] denotes internal one-step \u03b2-reduction of f on a. In parsing, we achieve the same effect by partial execution (Pereira and Shieber 1987 looking for a VP (= S\\NP) to the right to become S. The reversal of directionality such as topicalization (e.g., This book, I recommend) requires another schema. The reversal is with respect to the position of the verb, which we shall call contraposition and formulate as in (12). 6 (<XP) is leftward extraction of a right constituent, and (>XP) is rightward extraction of a left constituent, both of which are marked constructions.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 279,
"end": 304,
"text": "(Pereira and Shieber 1987",
"ref_id": "BIBREF61"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Definition (Syntactic Types)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Directionally insensitive types such as T|(T|X) cause the collapse of directionality in surface grammar (Moortgat 1988a ).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 104,
"end": 119,
"text": "(Moortgat 1988a",
"ref_id": "BIBREF50"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Definition (Syntactic Types)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "(12) Leftward Contraposition (<XP):",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Definition (Syntactic Types)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "X: a \u21d2 S +t /(S/X): \u03bbf .f [a] S +t /(S +t /X): \u03bbf .f [a] Rightward Contraposition (>XP): X: a \u21d2 S \u2212t \\(S\\X): \u03bbf .f [a] S \u2212t \\(S \u2212t \\X): \u03bbf .f [a]",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Definition (Syntactic Types)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The semantics of contraposition depends on discourse properties as well. We leave this issue aside by (1) noting that it is related to type raising in changing the functionargument relation and (2) categorizing the sentence as S +t (topicalized) or S \u2212t (detopicalized), which are not discourse equivalent to S. Syntactic characterization as such also helps a discourse component do its work on syntactic derivations.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Definition (Syntactic Types)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "CCG's notion of interpretation is represented in the Predicate-Argument Structure (PAS). Its organization is crucial for our purposes, since the bracketing in the PAS is the arbitrator for reconciling the bracketings in morphology and syntax via proper lexical type assignments. It is the sole level of representation in CCG (Steedman 1996, page 89 ). 7 It is the level at which the conditions on objects of interpretation, such as binding and control, are formulated. For instance, Steedman (1996) defines c-command and binding conditions A, B, and C over the PAS. The PAS also reflects the obliqueness order of the arguments:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 325,
"end": 348,
"text": "(Steedman 1996, page 89",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 483,
"end": 498,
"text": "Steedman (1996)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF71"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Definition (Syntactic Types)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Predicate . .",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Definition (Syntactic Types)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Assuming left associativity for juxtaposition, this representation yields the bracketing in (13) for the PAS. Having the primary argument as the outermost term is motivated by the observations on binding asymmetries between subjects and complements in many languages (e.g., *Himself saw John, *heself).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": ". Tertiary-Term Secondary-Term Primary-Term",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "(13)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": ". Tertiary-Term Secondary-Term Primary-Term",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "A syntactic type such as N does not discriminate morphosyntactically. A finer distinction can be made as singular nouns, plural nouns, case-marked nouns, etc. For",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Morphosyntactic Types",
"sec_num": "3."
},
{
"text": "n-relbase n-root n-num s-caus s-reflex s-recip (x) (r) (n) n-poss n-comp (m) n-case (c) free (a) s-tense s-abil s-neg s-imp s-pass (s) (m) (t) (g) (i) (p) s-tense n-base s-base (b) (t) (v) (b) (n) s-person s-modal n-num (f) (a) (c) s-base (v) (l) n-base (b) (o) (u) free (f)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Morphosyntactic Types",
"sec_num": "3."
},
{
"text": "The lattice of diacritics for (a) Turkish and (b) English.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Figure 2",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "instance, the set of number-marked nouns can be represented as n \u2736 N, where \u2736 is a morphosyntactic modality (\"equals\") and n is a diacritic (for number). Books is of type Another modality, < (\"up to and equals\"), allows wider domains in morphosyntactic typing. For instance, n < N represents the set of nouns marked on number or any other diacritic that is lower than number in a partial order (e.g., Figure 2 ). The inflectional paradigm of a language can be represented as a partial ordering using the modalities. 8 For instance, if the paradigm is Base-Number-Case, we have",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 401,
"end": 409,
"text": "Figure 2",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Figure 2",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\u03c5( b < N) \u2286 \u03c5( n < N) \u2286 \u03c5( c < N)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Figure 2",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": ", where \u03c5(\u03c4 ) is the valuation function from the morphosyntactic type \u03c4 to the set of strings that have the type \u03c4 . The \u2736 modality is more strict than < to provide finer control; although \u03c5(",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Figure 2",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "n < N) \u2286 \u03c5( c < N), \u03c5( n \u2736 N) \u2286 \u03c5( c \u2736 N)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Figure 2",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": ", because a noun can be number marked but not case marked or vice versa. Also,",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Figure 2",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\u03c5( i \u2736 N) \u2286 \u03c5( i < N)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Figure 2",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "for any diacritic i since, for instance, the set of nouns marked up to and including case includes case-marked, number-marked, and unmarked nouns.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Figure 2",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The lattice consistency condition is imposed on the set of diacritics to ensure category unity. 9 In other words, the syntactic type X can be viewed as an abbreviation for the morphosyntactic type < X where is the universal upper bound. It is the most underspecified category of X which subsumes all morphosyntactically decorated versions of X. Figure 2 shows the lattice for English and Turkish.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 345,
"end": 353,
"text": "Figure 2",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Figure 2",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\u2022 D = finite set of diacritics",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Definition (Morphosyntactic Types)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\u2022 Join semilattice L = (D, \u2264, =)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Definition (Morphosyntactic Types)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\u2022 The set of basic morphosyntactic types:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Definition (Morphosyntactic Types)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "A ms . - i < X \u2208 A ms and i \u2736 X \u2208 A ms if i \u2208 D and X \u2208 A s (see definition of syntactic types for A s ) -(\u2736 corresponds to lattice condition =) -(< corresponds to lattice condition \u2264)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Definition (Morphosyntactic Types)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\u2022 The set of complex morphosyntactic types:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Definition (Morphosyntactic Types)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "B ms -A ms \u2286 B ms -If X \u2208 B ms and Y \u2208 B ms , then X\\Y and X/Y \u2208 B ms",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Definition (Morphosyntactic Types)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "For instance, the infinitive marker -ma in (14a) can be lexically specified to look for untensed VPs-functions onto a < S-to yield a complex noun base (14b), which, as a consequence of nominalization (result type N), receives case to become an argument of the matrix verb. The adjective in fake trucks can be restricted to modify unmarked Ns to get the bracketing [ fake truck ]-s (14c). Different attachment characteristics of words, affixes, and clitics must be factored into the prosodic domain as a counterpart of refining the morphosyntactic description. In Montague Grammar, every syntactic rule is associated with a certain mode of attachment, and this tradition is followed in MCG; attachment types are related with the slash (e.g., / w for wrapping), which is a grammatical modality. 10 In the present framework, however, attachment is projected from the lexicon to the grammar as a prosodic property of the lexical items. 11 The grammar is unimodal in the sense that / and \\ simply indicate the function-argument distinction in adjacent prosodic elements. The lexical projection of attachment further complements the notion of morphemic lexicon so that bound morphemes are no longer parasitic on words but have an independent 10 See Dowty (1996) and Steedman (1996) for a discussion of bringing nonconcatenative combination into grammar. 11 There is a precedent of associating attachment characteristics with the prosodic element rather than the slash in CG (Hoeksema and Janda 1988) . In Hoeksema and Janda's notation, arguments can be constrained on phonological properties and attachment. For instance, the English article a has its NP/N category spelled out as </CX/N,NP,Pref>, indicating a consonantal first segment for the noun argument and concatenation to the left.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 793,
"end": 795,
"text": "10",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 1243,
"end": 1255,
"text": "Dowty (1996)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF21"
},
{
"start": 1260,
"end": 1275,
"text": "Steedman (1996)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF71"
},
{
"start": 1468,
"end": 1493,
"text": "(Hoeksema and Janda 1988)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF33"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Definition (Morphosyntactic Types)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Attachment properties of some Turkish morphemes. representational status of their own. We write i \u2022 s to denote the attachment modality i (affixation, syntactic concatenation, cliticization) of the prosodic element s. Table 1 shows some lexical assignments for Turkish (e.g., the sign a",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 218,
"end": 225,
"text": "Table 1",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Table 1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "uzun (long) := s \u2022 uzun \u2212 b < N/ b < N uzun yol long road 'long road' oku (read) := s \u2022 oku \u2212 v < S\\ f < NPnom\\ f < NPacc",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Table 1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\u2022 s \u2212 X\\Y: \u00b5 characterizes a suffix). The morphosyntactic calculus of CCG is defined with the addition of morphosyntactic types and attachment modalities as follows (similarly, for other combinatory rules):",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Table 1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "(15) Forward Application (>): i \u2022 s 1 \u2212 X/ \u03b1 1 \u2737 1 Y: f j \u2022 s 2 \u2212 \u03b1 2 \u2737 2 Y: a > k \u2022 (s 1 k \u2022 s 2 ) \u2212 X: fa if \u03b1 2 \u2737 1 \u03b1 1 in lattice L, for: \u2737 1 , \u2737 2 \u2208 {\u2736, < }, \u03b1 1 , \u03b1 2 \u2208 D in L, i, j, k \u2208 {a, s, c}, i \u2022 j \u2022 a k \u2022 Forward Composition (>B): i \u2022 s 1 \u2212 X/ \u03b1 1 \u2737 1 Y: f j \u2022 s 2 \u2212 \u03b1 2 \u2737 2 Y/Z: g >B k \u2022 (s 1 k \u2022 s 2 ) \u2212 X/Z: \u03bbx.f (gx) if \u03b1 2 \u2737 1 \u03b1 1 in lattice L, for: \u2737 1 , \u2737 2 \u2208 {\u2736, < }, \u03b1 1 , \u03b1 2 \u2208 D in L, i, j, k \u2208 {a, s, c}, i \u2022 j \u2022 a k \u2022",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Table 1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The main functor's argument specification (\u2737 1 of \u03b1 1 \u2737 1 Y in (15)) determines the lattice condition in derivations. 12 Hence the morphosyntactic decoration in lexical assignments propagates its lattice condition to grammar as in \u03b1 2 \u2737 1 \u03b1 1 (cf. Heylen [1997] , in which the grammar rule imposes a fixed partial order, e.g., X/Y combines with Z if Z \u2264 Y). This is another prerequisite that must be fulfilled for the morphemic lexicon to project the lexical specification of scope.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 248,
"end": 261,
"text": "Heylen [1997]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF29"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Table 1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The grammar is not fixed on the attachment modality either (unlike a lexemic grammar, which is fixed on combination of words). Hence another requirement is the propagation of attachment to grammar. This is facilitated by the lexical types",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Table 1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "m \u2022 s\u2212\u03c3: \u00b5,",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Table 1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "where m is an attachment type. The attachment calculus",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Table 1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "i \u2022 j \u2022 a k",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Table 1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\u2022 in (15), which reads \"attachment types i and j yield type k,\" relates attachment to prosodic combination in the grammar. 13 It can be attuned to language-particular properties.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Table 1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We can specify some prosodic properties of the attachment calculus for Turkish as follows (x indicates stress on the prosodic element x):",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Table 1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "syntactic concatenationx s \u2022\u00fd =x\u00fd affixationx a \u2022 y = x\u00fd cliticizationx c \u2022 y =x\u00fd",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Table 1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "To contrast lexemic and morphemic processing, consider the Turkish example in (16a). We show some stages of the derivation to highlight prosodic combination (\u2022) as well. Every item in the top row is a lexical entry. Allomorphs, such as that of tense, have the same category in the lexicon (16b). Vowel harmony, voicing, and other phonological restrictions are handled as constraints on the prosodic element. Constraint checking can be switched off during parsing to obtain purely morphosyntactic derivations.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Morpheme-Based Parsing",
"sec_num": "4."
},
{
"text": "(16) a. Can Ay\u015fe nin kitab \u0131 oku mas\u0131 n\u0131 iste di C.NOM -GEN(agr) book -ACC read -SUB1G -ACC want -TENSE b N b N c NPgen \\ o N b N c Nacc \\ o N v S\\ f NPnom o N\\ f NPgen c N\\ o N TV ( t S\\ f NP) \\ f NPacc \\( a S\\ f NPnom ) \\( a S\\ f NP) . . . iste a \u2022 di\u2212 t S\\ f NPnom kitab a \u2022 \u0131 s \u2022 oku\u2212 v S\\ f NPnom \\ f NPacc (kitab a \u2022 \u0131 s \u2022 oku) a \u2022 mas\u0131\u2212 o N\\ f NPgen . . . ((ay\u015fe a \u2022 nin) s \u2022 (kitab a \u2022 \u0131 s \u2022 oku) a \u2022 mas\u0131) a \u2022 n\u0131\u2212 ( t S\\ f NPnom )/( t S\\ f NPnom \\ f NPacc ) . . . can s \u2022 (ay\u015fe a \u2022 nin s \u2022 kitab a \u2022 \u0131 s \u2022 oku a \u2022 mas\u0131 a \u2022 n\u0131) s \u2022 (iste a \u2022 di)\u2212 t S",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Morpheme-Based Parsing",
"sec_num": "4."
},
{
"text": ": want(read book ay\u015fe)can 'Can wanted Ay\u015fe to read the book.' b.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Morpheme-Based Parsing",
"sec_num": "4."
},
{
"text": "-TENSE := a \u2022 d\u0131|di|du|d\u00fc|t\u0131|ti|tu|t\u00fc \u2212 ( t < S\\ f < NP)\\( a < S\\ f < NP): \u03bbf .f",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Morpheme-Based Parsing",
"sec_num": "4."
},
{
"text": "13 Clearly, much more needs to be done to incorporate intonation into the system. The motive for attachment types is to provide the representational ingredients on behalf of the morphemic lexicon. As one reviewer noted, CCG formulation of the syntax-phonology interface moved from autonomous prosodic types (Steedman 1991a) to syntax-directed prosodic features (Steedman 2000b ). The present proposal for attachment modality is computationally compatible with both accounts: Combinatory prosody can match prosodic types with morphosyntactic types. Prosodic features are associated with the basic categories of a syntactic type in the latter formulation, hence they become part of the featural inference that goes along with the matching of categories in the application of combinatory rules.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 307,
"end": 323,
"text": "(Steedman 1991a)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 361,
"end": 376,
"text": "(Steedman 2000b",
"ref_id": "BIBREF73"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Morpheme-Based Parsing",
"sec_num": "4."
},
{
"text": "The lexicalization of attachment modality helps to determine the prosodic domain of postconditions. For instance, for Turkish, vowel harmony does not apply over word boundaries, which can be enforced by applying it when the modality is The basic categories N, NP, S, S +t , and S \u2212t carry agreement features of fixed arity (e.g., tense and person for S, S +t , and S \u2212t , and case, number, person, and gender for N and NP). Positional encoding of such information as in Pulman (1996) allows efficient term unification for the propagation of these features. 14 Term unification also handles the matching of complex categories in the CCG schema. For instance,",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 470,
"end": 483,
"text": "Pulman (1996)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF62"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Morpheme-Based Parsing",
"sec_num": "4."
},
{
"text": "\u03b1 1 \u2737 1 A/( \u03b1 2 \u2737 2 B\\ \u03b1 3 \u2737 3 C) combines with \u03b2 2 \u2737 4 B\\ \u03b2 3 \u2737 5 C via (>) for B, C \u2208 A s , if \u03b2 2 \u2737 2 \u03b1 2 , \u03b2 3 \u2737 3 \u03b1 3 (\u2737 i \u2208 {< , \u2736}).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Morpheme-Based Parsing",
"sec_num": "4."
},
{
"text": "Apart from the matching of syntactic types and agreement, unification does no linguistic work in this framework, in contrast to structure-sharing in HPSG and slash passing in Unification CG (Calder, Klein, and Zeevat 1988) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 190,
"end": 222,
"text": "(Calder, Klein, and Zeevat 1988)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Morpheme-Based Parsing",
"sec_num": "4."
},
{
"text": "CCG is worst-case polynomially parsable (Vijay-Shanker and Weir 1993). This result depends on the finite schematization of type raising and bounded composition. Assuming a maximum valence of four in the lexicon (Steedman 2000a) , composition (B n ) is bounded by n \u2264 3. The refinement of the type raising schema (11) for finite schematization is shown in (17). The finite schematization of type raising suggests that it can be delegated to the lexicon, for example, by a lexical rule that value-raises all functions onto NP to their type-raised variety, such as NP/N to (S/(S\\NP))/N. But this move presupposes the presence of such functions in the lexicon, that is, a language with determiners. To be transparent with respect to the lexicon, we make type raising and other unary schema (contraposition) available in the grammar. Since both are finite schemas in the revised formulation, the complexity result of Vijay-Shanker and Weir still holds. Checking the lattice condition as in (15) incurs a constant factor with a finite lattice.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 211,
"end": 227,
"text": "(Steedman 2000a)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF72"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Morpheme-Based Parsing",
"sec_num": "4."
},
{
"text": "Type raising and composition cause the so-called spurious-ambiguity problem (Wittenburg 1987) : Multiple analyses of semantically equivalent derivations are possible in parsing. This is shown to be desirable from the perspective of prosody; for example, different bracketings are needed to match intonational phrasing with syntactic structure (Steedman 1991) . From the parsing perspective, the redundancy of analyses can be controlled by (1) grammar rewriting (Wittenburg 1987) , (2) checking the chart for PAS equivalence (Karttunen 1989; Komagata 1997) , (3) making the processor parsimonious on using long-distance compositions (Pareschi and Steedman 1987) , or (4) parsing into normal forms (Eisner 1996; Hepple 1990b; Hepple and Morrill 1989; K\u00f6nig 1989; Morrill 1999) . We adopt Eisner's method, which eliminates chains of compositions in O(1) time via tags in the grammar, before derivations are licensed. There is a switch that can be turned off during parsing to obtain all surface bracketings.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 76,
"end": 93,
"text": "(Wittenburg 1987)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF81"
},
{
"start": 343,
"end": 358,
"text": "(Steedman 1991)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 461,
"end": 478,
"text": "(Wittenburg 1987)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF81"
},
{
"start": 524,
"end": 540,
"text": "(Karttunen 1989;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF41"
},
{
"start": 541,
"end": 555,
"text": "Komagata 1997)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF43"
},
{
"start": 632,
"end": 660,
"text": "(Pareschi and Steedman 1987)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF59"
},
{
"start": 696,
"end": 709,
"text": "(Eisner 1996;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF22"
},
{
"start": 710,
"end": 723,
"text": "Hepple 1990b;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF27"
},
{
"start": 724,
"end": 748,
"text": "Hepple and Morrill 1989;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF28"
},
{
"start": 749,
"end": 760,
"text": "K\u00f6nig 1989;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF44"
},
{
"start": 761,
"end": 774,
"text": "Morrill 1999)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF53"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Morpheme-Based Parsing",
"sec_num": "4."
},
{
"text": "There is also a switch for checking the PAS equivalence, with the warning that the equivalence of two lambda expressions is undecidable.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Morpheme-Based Parsing",
"sec_num": "4."
},
{
"text": "The parser is an adaptation of the Cocke-Kasami-Younger (CKY) algorithm (Aho and Ullman 1972, page 315) , modified to handle unary rules as well: In the kth iteration of the CKY algorithm to build constituents of length k, the unary rules apply to the CKY table entries T[ \u03b1 i , \u03b1 i+k ], i = 0, 1, . . . , n \u2212 k; that is, k-length results of binary rules are input to potential unary constituents of length k. In practice, this allows, for instance, a nominalized clause to be type-raised after it is derived as a category of type N. The remaining combinatory schema is already in Chomsky Normal Form, as required by CKY. The finite schematization of CCG rules and constant costs incurred by the normal form and lattice checking provide a straightforward extension of CKY-style context-free parsing for CCG. Komagata (1997) claims that the average complexity of CCG parsing is O(n 3 ) even without the finite schematization of type raising (based on the parsing of 22 sentences consisting of around 20 words, with a lexicon of 200 entries and no derivation of semantics in the grammar; a morphological analyzer provided five analyses per second to the parser). Statistical techniques developed for lexicalized grammars (e.g., Collins 1997) , readily apply to CCG to improve the average parsing performance in large-scale practical applications (Hockenmaier, Bierner, and Baldridge 2000) . Both Collins and Hockenmeier, Bierner, and Baldridge used section 02-21 of the Wall Street Journal Corpus of Penn Treebank for training, which contains 40,886 words (70,151 lexical entries). A recent initiative (Oflazer, et al. 2001) aims to provide such a resource of around one million words for Turkish. It encodes in the Treebank surfacesyntactic relations and the morphological breakdown of words. The latter is invaluable for training morphemic grammars and lexicons.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 72,
"end": 103,
"text": "(Aho and Ullman 1972, page 315)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 808,
"end": 823,
"text": "Komagata (1997)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF43"
},
{
"start": 1226,
"end": 1239,
"text": "Collins 1997)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
},
{
"start": 1344,
"end": 1386,
"text": "(Hockenmaier, Bierner, and Baldridge 2000)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF31"
},
{
"start": 1600,
"end": 1622,
"text": "(Oflazer, et al. 2001)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF58"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Morpheme-Based Parsing",
"sec_num": "4."
},
{
"text": "In morpheme-based parsing, lattice conditions help eliminate the permutation problem in endotypic categories. Such categories are typical of inflectional morphemes. For instance, assume that three morphemes m 1 , m 2 , and m 3 have endotypic categories (say N\\N), that they can appear only in this order, and that they are all optional. The categorization of m i as \u03ba i < N\\ \u03ba i < N such that \u03ba i \u2264 \u03ba i for all i, and \u03ba j\u22121 \u2264 \u03ba j for j = 1, 2, 3 allows omissions (18a-b) but rules out the permutations (18c",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Morpheme-Based Parsing",
"sec_num": "4."
},
{
"text": "-d). 15 (18) a. stem m 1 m 2 m 3 \u03ba 0 < N \u03ba 1 < N\\ \u03ba 1 < N \u03ba 2 < N\\ \u03ba 2 < N \u03ba 3 < N\\ \u03ba 3 < N < \u03ba 1 < N because \u03ba 0 \u2264 \u03ba 1 < \u03ba 2 < N because \u03ba 1 \u2264 \u03ba 2 < \u03ba 3 < N because \u03ba 2 \u2264 \u03ba 3 b. stem m 3 < \u03ba 3 < N because \u03ba 0 \u2264 \u03ba 3 c. *stem m 2 m 1 m 3 < \u03ba 2 < N because \u03ba 0 \u2264 \u03ba 2 *** < \u03ba 2 \u2264 \u03ba 1 because \u03ba 1 < \u03ba 1 \u2264 \u03ba 2 < \u03ba 2 d. *stem m 1 m 3 m 2 < \u03ba 1 < N because \u03ba 0 \u2264 \u03ba 1 < \u03ba 3 < N because \u03ba 1 \u2264 \u03ba 3 *** < \u03ba 3 \u2264 \u03ba 2 because \u03ba 2 < \u03ba 2 \u2264 \u03ba 3 < \u03ba 3",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Morpheme-Based Parsing",
"sec_num": "4."
},
{
"text": "The lattice and its consistency condition on derivability offer varying degrees of flexibility. A lattice with only and the relation \u2264 would undo all the effects of parameterization; it would be equivalent to a syntactic grammar in which every basic category X stands for < X. To enforce a completely lexemic syntax, a lattice with and free would define all functional categories as functions over free forms.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Morpheme-Based Parsing",
"sec_num": "4."
},
{
"text": "Morphological processing seems inevitable for languages like Turkish, and morphological and lexical ambiguity such as that shown in (19) must be passed on to syntax irrespective of how inflectional morphology is processed (isolated from or integrated with syntax). For the verbal paradigm, Jurafsky and Martin 2000reports Oflazer's estimation that inflectional suffixes alone create around 40,000 word forms per root. In the nominal paradigm, iterative processes such as ki-relativization (Section 6.5) can create millions of word forms per nominal root (Hankamer 1989 The questions that need to be answered related to processing are (1) What should a (super)linear fragment of processing for morphology deliver to (morpho)syntax? and (2) Is the syntax lexemic or morphemic? The problems with lexemic syntax, which stem from mismatches with semantics, were highlighted in the introduction. In other ",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 554,
"end": 568,
"text": "(Hankamer 1989",
"ref_id": "BIBREF25"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Morpheme-Based Parsing",
"sec_num": "4."
},
{
"text": "The processing of kazmalar\u0131 in three different architectures (see Example (19) for glosses).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Figure 3",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "words, a lexemic grammar (e.g., Figure 3a) is computationally nontransparent when interpretation is a component of an NLP system. Regarding the first question, let us consider two architectures from the perspective of the lexicon for the purpose of morphology, morphemic syntax, and semantics interface. The architecture in Figure 3b incorporates the current proposal as an interpretive front end to a morphological analyzer such as Oflazer's (1994) , which delivers the analyses of words as a stream of morphemes out of which the bound morphemes have to be matched with their semantics from the affix lexicon to be interpretable in grammar. The advantage of this model is its efficiency; morphological parsing of words is-in principle-linear context free; hence, finite-state techniques and their computational advantages readily apply. But the uninterpretable surface forms of bound morphemes must match with those of the affix lexicon, and this is not necessarily a one-to-one mapping because of multiple lexical assignments for capturing syntactic-semantic distinctions (e.g., dative case as a direct object, indirect object, or adjunct marker or -i as a possessive and/or compound marker). Surface form-semantics pairing is not a trivial task, particularly in the case of lexically composite affixes, which require semantic composition as well as tokenization. The matching process needs to be aware of all the syntactic contexts in which certain affix sequences act as a unit, for example, relative participles and agreement markers (-dig-i relative participle as -OP-POSS or -OP-AGR), possessive and compound markers, etc., for Turkish. The factorization of syntactic issues into a morphological analyzer would also make the separate morphological component nonmodular or expand its number of states to factor in these concerns (e.g., treating the -OP-POSS sequence as a state different from -OP followed by -POSS, in which -POSS is not interpreted with the semantics of possession but that of agreement marking). Not knowing how many of the syntactic distinctions are handled by the morphological analyzer, a subsequent interpreter may need to reconsult the grammar if scoping problems arise. The architecture in Figure 3c describes the current implementation of the proposal. Bound morphemes are fed to the parser along with their interpretation. This model is preferred over that presented in Figure 3b for its simplicity in design and extendibility. 16 The price is lesser efficiency due to context-free processing of inflectional morphology. By one estimate (Oflazer, Gocmen, and Bozsahin 1994) , Turkish has 59 inflectional morphemes out of a total of 166 bound morphemes, and Oflazer (personal communication) notes that the average number of bound morphemes per word in unrestricted corpora is around 2.8, including derivational affixes. In a news corpus of 850,000 words, the average number of inflections per word is less than two (Oflazer et al. 2001) . This is tolerable for sentences of moderate length in terms of the extra burden it puts on the context-free parser. Table 2 shows the results of our tests with a Prolog implementation of the system on different kinds of constructions. The test cases included 10 lexical items on average, with an average parsing time of 0.32 seconds per sentence. A relatively long sentence (12 words, 21 morphemes) took 2.9 seconds to parse. The longest sentence (20 words, 37 morphemes) took 40 seconds. The lexicon for the experiment included 700 entries; 139 were free morphemes and 561 were bound morphemes compiled out of 105 allomorphic representations (including all the ambiguous interpretations of bound morphemes and the results of lexical rules). For a rough comparison with an existing NLP system with no disambiguation aids, G\u00fcng\u00f6rd\u00fc and Oflazer (1995) reported average parsing times of around 10 seconds per sentence for a lexicon of 24,000 free morphemes, and their morphological analyzer delivered around two analyses per second to a lexemic grammar. Oflazer's later (1996) morphological analyzer contained an abstract morphotactic component of around 50 states for inflections, which resulted in compilation to 30,000 states and 100,000 transitions when the morphophonemic rules were added to the system.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 433,
"end": 449,
"text": "Oflazer's (1994)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF55"
},
{
"start": 2461,
"end": 2463,
"text": "16",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 2570,
"end": 2606,
"text": "(Oflazer, Gocmen, and Bozsahin 1994)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 2947,
"end": 2968,
"text": "(Oflazer et al. 2001)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF58"
},
{
"start": 3793,
"end": 3820,
"text": "G\u00fcng\u00f6rd\u00fc and Oflazer (1995)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF24"
},
{
"start": 4022,
"end": 4044,
"text": "Oflazer's later (1996)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 42,
"text": "Figure 3a)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 324,
"end": 333,
"text": "Figure 3b",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 2221,
"end": 2230,
"text": "Figure 3c",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 2403,
"end": 2412,
"text": "Figure 3b",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 3087,
"end": 3094,
"text": "Table 2",
"ref_id": "TABREF3"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Figure 3",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In conclusion, we note that the current proposal for a morphemic lexicon and grammar is compatible with both a separate morphological component (Figure 3b ) and syntax-integrated inflectional morphology (Figure 3c ). The architecture in Figure 3b may in fact be more suitable for inflecting languages (e.g., Russian) in which the surface forms of bound morphemes are difficult to isolate (e.g., m\u00e9ste, locative singular of m\u00e9sto) but can be delivered as a sequence of morpheme labels by a morphological analyzer (e.g. m\u00e9sto-SING-LOC) to be matched with the lexical type assignments to -SING and -LOC for grammatical interpretation.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 144,
"end": 154,
"text": "(Figure 3b",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 213,
"text": "(Figure 3c",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 237,
"end": 246,
"text": "Figure 3b",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Figure 3",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "It might be argued that in computational models of the type in Figure 3b , the lattice is not necessary, because the morphological analyzer embodies the tactical component. But not only tactical problems (cf. Example (18) and its discussion) but also transparent scoping in syntax and semantics is regulated by the use of lattice in type assignments, and that is our main concern. We show examples of such cases in the remainder of the article. Thus the nonredundant role of the lattice decouples the morphemic grammarlexicon from the kind of morphological analysis performed in the back end.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 72,
"text": "Figure 3b",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Figure 3",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In this section, we present a morphosyntactic treatment of the English plural morpheme. The lattice for English is shown in Figure 2b . We follow Carpenter (1997) in categorizing numerical modifiers and intersective adjectives as plural noun modifiers: four boys is interpreted as four(plu boy) and green boxes as green(plu box). This bracketing reflects the \"set of sets\" interpretation of the plural noun; four(plu boy) denotes the set of nonempty nonsingleton sets of boys with four members. The type assignments in (20) correctly interpret the interaction of the plural and these modifiers (cf. 21a-b). The endotypic category of the plural also allows phrase-internal number agreement for languages that require it; the agreement can be regulated over the category N before the specifier is applied to the noun group to obtain NP. Carpenter (1997) points out that nonintersective adjectives (e.g, toy, fake, alleged) are unlike numerical modifiers and intersective adjectives in that their semantics requires phrasal (wide) scope for -PLU, corresponding to the \"set of things\" interpretation of the plural noun. Thus, toy guns is interpreted as plu(toy gun) because the plural outscopes the modification. It denotes a nonempty nonsingleton set of things that are not really guns but toy guns. *toy(plu gun) would interpret plu over guns. The situation is precisely the opposite of (21); we need the second derivational pattern to go through and the first one to fail. The following category for nonintersective adjectives derives the wide scope for -PLU but not the narrow scope:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 146,
"end": 162,
"text": "Carpenter (1997)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 124,
"end": 133,
"text": "Figure 2b",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Case Study: The English Plural",
"sec_num": "5."
},
{
"text": "(20) -PLU := a \u2022 s \u2212 n < N\\ b < N: \u03bbx.plu x four := s \u2022 four \u2212 n < N/ n \u2736 N: \u03bbx.four x green := s \u2022 green \u2212 n < N/ n < N: \u03bbx.green x (21) a. four boy -s n < N/ n \u2736 N b < N n < N\\ b < N < n < N: plu boy",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Case Study: The English Plural",
"sec_num": "5."
},
{
"text": "(22) toy := s \u2022 toy \u2212 b < N/ b < N: \u03bbx.toy x (23) a. toy gun -s < b < N/ b < N n < N: plu gun *** n < N : *toy(plu gun) because n-num \u2264 n-base b. toy gun -s b < N/ b < N b < N n < N\\ b < N > b < N: toy gun < n < N : plu(toy gun)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Case Study: The English Plural",
"sec_num": "5."
},
{
"text": "Carpenter (1997) avoided rebracketing because of the plural through lexical type assignments to plural nouns and a phonologically null lexical entry to obtain different semantic effects of the plural. In our formulation, there is no lexical entry for inflected forms and no phonologically null type assignment to account for the distinction in different types of plural modification; there is only one (phonologically realized) category for -PLU. 17 The modifiers differ only in the kind and degree of morphosyntactic control. Strict control (\u2736) on four disallows four boy, and flexible control (< ) on green also handles green box. Four green boxes is interpreted as four(green(plu box)), not as *four(plu(green box)), and four toy guns is interpreted as four(plu(toy gun)), not as *plu(four(toy gun)). These derivations preserve the domain of the modifiers and the plural without rebracketing.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 447,
"end": 449,
"text": "17",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Case Study: The English Plural",
"sec_num": "5."
},
{
"text": "There have been several computational studies to model morphology-syntax interaction in Turkish. These unification-based approaches represent varying degrees of integration. G\u00fcng\u00f6rd\u00fc and Oflazer (1995) isolates morphology from syntax by having separate modules (a finite-state transducer for the former, and an LFG component for the latter), that is, the syntax is lexemic. The morphological component is expected to handle all aspects of morphology, including inflections and derivations. In Sehitoglu and Bozsahin (1999) , lexical rules implement inflectional morphology, and derivations are assumed to take place in the lexicon. Hoffman's (1995) categorial analysis of Turkish is also lexemic; all lexical entries are fully inflected. Interpretive components of these systems face the aforementioned difficulties because of their commitment to lexemic syntax. Inflectional morphology is incorporated into syntax in another categorial approach (Bozsahin and G\u00f6\u00e7men 1995) , but morphotactic constraints are modeled with nonmonotonic unification, such as nonexistence checks for features and overrides. The system cannot make finer distinctions in morphosyntactic types either. The result is an overgenerating and nontransparent integration of morphology and syntax because of the possibility of rebracketing and the unresolved representational basis of the lexicon.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 174,
"end": 201,
"text": "G\u00fcng\u00f6rd\u00fc and Oflazer (1995)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF24"
},
{
"start": 493,
"end": 522,
"text": "Sehitoglu and Bozsahin (1999)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF65"
},
{
"start": 632,
"end": 648,
"text": "Hoffman's (1995)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF34"
},
{
"start": 946,
"end": 972,
"text": "(Bozsahin and G\u00f6\u00e7men 1995)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Case Study: Turkish Morphosyntax",
"sec_num": "6."
},
{
"text": "In this section, we outline the application of the proposed framework to Turkish. We analyze a large fragment of the language, without any claims for a comprehensive grammar. The phenomena modeled here exhibit particular morphosyntactic problems described in the preceding sections. We assume the binding theory in Steedman (1996) , which is predicated over the PAS. In each section, we provide a brief empirical observation about the phenomenon, propose lexical type assignments, exemplify derivations of the parser, and briefly discuss the constraints imposed by morphosyntactic types. Because of space considerations, we sometimes use abbreviated forms in derivations such as the genitive affix's (N/(N\\N) ",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 315,
"end": 330,
"text": "Steedman (1996)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF71"
},
{
"start": 700,
"end": 708,
"text": "(N/(N\\N)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Case Study: Turkish Morphosyntax",
"sec_num": "6."
},
{
"text": ")\\N category for ( o < N/( o \u2736 N pn \\ o \u2736 N pn ))\\ o < N pn ,",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Case Study: Turkish Morphosyntax",
"sec_num": "6."
},
{
"text": "but the parser operates on full morphosyntactic representations.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Case Study: Turkish Morphosyntax",
"sec_num": "6."
},
{
"text": "Turkish is regarded as a free constituent order language; all permutations of the predicate and its arguments are grammatical in main clauses, being subject to constraints on discourse and semantic properties such as definiteness and referentiality of the argument and topic-focus distinctions. The mapping of surface functions to grammatical relations is mediated by case marking. Word order variation has lesser functionality in embedded clauses because embedded arguments are less accessible to surface discourse functions like topic and focus. Embedded clauses are verb final.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Case Marking and Word Order",
"sec_num": "6.1"
},
{
"text": "We start with the lexical type assignments for the verbs. We use the abbreviations in (24a) when no confusion arises about the arguments' case or morphosyntactic type. Verb-final orders are regarded as basic, which suggests the category S\\NP\\NP for transitive verbs. But Janeway (1990) (Bozsahin 2000b) . SOV and OSV base orders can be captured uniquely in the lexicon in set-CCG notation as S\\{NP acc ,NP nom }. Set-CCG is strongly equivalent to CCG (Baldridge 1999) . We distinguish SOV and OSV lexically, however, because OSV requires referential objects (25a-b). OSV is generated from SOV by a lexical rule (24d). This is genuine lexical ambiguity, because the two related entries differ in semantics (referentiality). Regarding the relationship between case and the specifiers, it is questionable whether Turkish has a discernible syntactic category for determiners. There is no lexical functor that takes an N and yields an NP. The only article, the indefinite bir ('a'), makes a distinction in discourse properties (26). Specifying case as a determiner (e.g., NP\\N) does not alleviate the problem, either. Ignoring the problem of case stacking for a moment, zero marking of the surface subject and the indefinite object takes us back to where we started.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 271,
"end": 285,
"text": "Janeway (1990)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF37"
},
{
"start": 286,
"end": 302,
"text": "(Bozsahin 2000b)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
},
{
"start": 451,
"end": 467,
"text": "(Baldridge 1999)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Lexical Types.",
"sec_num": "6.1.1"
},
{
"text": "a \u2022 i|\u0131|u|\u00fc|yi|y\u0131|yu|y\u00fc \u2212 c < N acc \\ o < N: \u03bbf .f f. -LOC := a \u2022 de|da|te|ta \u2212 ( \u03b1 < S/ \u03b1 < S)\\ o < N:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Lexical Types.",
"sec_num": "6.1.1"
},
{
"text": "(26)\u00c7ocuk ye\u015fil bir elma/elma/elma-y\u0131 ye-mi\u015f child.NOM green an apple/apple/apple-ACC eat-TENSE 'The child ate a green apple.' (indefinite but referential apple) 'The child ate green apple.' (indefinite and nonreferential apple) 'The child ate the green apple.' (definite and referential apple)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Lexical Types.",
"sec_num": "6.1.1"
},
{
"text": "Making the nouns lexically ambiguous (N or NP) would also require that all functions onto nouns be ambiguous (N\\N and NP\\NP for inflections, N/N and NP/NP for adjectives, etc.) . Redundancy of this kind in the lexicon is not desirable, since it is introduced purely for formal reasons with no distinction in meaning. We accommodate these concerns by positing a special case of type raising for Turkish (27) ",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 109,
"end": 176,
"text": "(N\\N and NP\\NP for inflections, N/N and NP/NP for adjectives, etc.)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 402,
"end": 406,
"text": "(27)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Lexical Types.",
"sec_num": "6.1.1"
},
{
"text": "/(S\\NP\\NPacc) . . . >B >B S/(S\\NPnom\\NPacc) S /(S\\NPnom\\NPacc) & S/(S\\NPnom\\NPacc) > S",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Lexical Types.",
"sec_num": "6.1.1"
},
{
"text": "'Mehmet read the little green book, and the child, the newly arrived magazine'.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Lexical Types.",
"sec_num": "6.1.1"
},
{
"text": "Our lexical type assignment to case morphemes (24e-f) departs from other CCG analyses of case (e.g., Steedman 1985 , 1991a , Bozsahin 1998 . These studies correlate morphological case with type raising of arguments, in the case of Bozsahin (1998) , via a value-raised category assignment to case morphemes. Evidence from NP-internal case agreement and case stacking (Kracht 1999) challenges the type-raising approach. Agreement phenomena require that case (which can be marked on articles, adjectives, and nouns) be regulated as an agreement feature within the category N before the case-marked argument looks for the verb via type raising. Kracht observes that, in case stacking, there may be other morphemes between two case morphemes. Thus, treating the two cases as composite affixes for the purpose of type raising is not feasible. If the first case type-raises the noun to say, T/(T\\NP), the second case would require a category, (T/(T\\NP))\\(T/(T\\NP)); that is, it is endotypic. Hence, an endotypic category for case (like other inflections in the paradigm) subsumes the type-raising analysis of case provided that type raising is available in the grammar, not necessarily anchored to case.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 101,
"end": 114,
"text": "Steedman 1985",
"ref_id": "BIBREF66"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 122,
"text": ", 1991a",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 123,
"end": 138,
"text": ", Bozsahin 1998",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
},
{
"start": 231,
"end": 246,
"text": "Bozsahin (1998)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
},
{
"start": 366,
"end": 379,
"text": "(Kracht 1999)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF45"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Lexical Types.",
"sec_num": "6.1.1"
},
{
"text": "We analyze case as an endotypic functor of type N\\N (24e)-hence allow for phrase-internal agreement for languages that require it and provide type raising in grammar as in (27). Abandoning the type-raising analysis of case does not necessitate taking liberties in the directionality of the categories, such as the use of nondirectional slash (|) in multiset-CCG (Hoffman 1995) . Contraposition and type raising in grammar can account for free word order and gapping facts with fully directional syntactic types (Bozsahin 2000a A word-based alternative for reconciling the semantic (wide) scope of inflections and their morphological (narrow) attachment to stems runs into difficulties even if we assume that morphemes carry type assignments-and hence have representational status-but that they always combine with stems first. We use syntactic types to show the problem. If -PLU and -ACC in (29a) combine with the stem first, only the narrowscope reading of the plural and case is possible (30a). Plu(toy car) is not derivable with word-based modification. The morphosyntactic categories, however, are transparent to the scope of nominal modification (cf. (29a) and (30b)). [",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 362,
"end": 376,
"text": "(Hoffman 1995)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF34"
},
{
"start": 511,
"end": 526,
"text": "(Bozsahin 2000a",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Lexical Types.",
"sec_num": "6.1.1"
},
{
"text": "b < Nnom b < N/ b < N b < N n < N\\ b < N c < Nacc\\ o < N t < S\\ f < NPnom : mehmet : \u03bbx.toy x : car : \u03bbx.plu x : \u03bbf .f \\ f < NPacc >T S/(S\\ f < NPnom) : \u03bbx.\u03bby.like xy : \u03bbf .f [mehmet]",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Lexical Types.",
"sec_num": "6.1.1"
},
{
"text": "ye\u015fil [ araba ] -lar ] -\u0131 green car -PLU -ACC n < N/ n < N b < N n < N\\ b < N c < N acc \\ o < N : \u03bbx.green x : car : \u03bbx.plu x : \u03bbf .f < n < N: plu car > n < N: green(plu car) < c < N acc : green(plu car)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Lexical Types.",
"sec_num": "6.1.1"
},
{
"text": "Surface case annotations on categories enable the grammar to capture the correct PAS in all permutations of S, O, and V while maintaining the discourse-relevant distinctions (31). Verb-final subordinate clauses are enforced by the directionality of the subordination morphemes in the lexicon.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Lexical Types.",
"sec_num": "6.1.1"
},
{
"text": "(31) a. S O V >T >T S/(S\\ f < NP nom ) (S\\NP)/(S\\NP\\ f < NP acc ) S\\NP nom \\NP acc > S\\NP nom > S b. O S V >T >T S/(S\\ f < NP acc ) (S\\NP)/(S\\NP\\ f < NP nom ) S\\NP acc \\NP nom > S\\NP acc > S c. O V S >T >XP (S\\NP)/(S\\NP\\ f < NP acc ) S\\NP nom \\NP acc S \u2212t \\(S\\NP nom ) > S\\NP nom < S \u2212t d. S V O >T >XP (S\\NP)/(S\\NP\\ f < NP nom ) S\\NP acc \\NP nom S \u2212t \\(S\\NP acc ) > S\\NP acc < S \u2212t e. V S O >XP >XP S\\NP nom \\NP acc S \u2212t \\(S\\NP nom ) S \u2212t \\(S \u2212t \\NP acc ) <B S \u2212t \\NP acc < S \u2212t f. V O S >XP >XP S\\NP acc \\NP nom S \u2212t \\(S\\NP acc ) S \u2212t \\(S \u2212t \\NP nom ) <B S \u2212t \\NP nom < S \u2212t",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Lexical Types.",
"sec_num": "6.1.1"
},
{
"text": "Subordinate clauses can be classified as unmarked clauses (32a), infinitival clauses (32b), verbal nouns (32c), and nominalizations (32d). The latter two types require a genitive embedded subject, which agrees with the subordinate verb. [ k\u0131z-a kalem-i ver-me ] -yi unut-tu child.NOM girl-DAT pen-ACC give-SUB1i -ACC forget-TENSE 'The child forgot to give the pen to the girl.' c. [\u00c7ocug-un araba-da uyu-ma-s\u0131] Mehmet'i k\u0131z-d\u0131r-d\u0131 child-GEN car-LOC sleep-SUB1g-POSS M-ACC anger-CAUS-TENSE 'Child's sleeping in the car made Mehmet angry.' d. Deniz [\u00e7ocug-un uyu-dug-u ] -na inan-m-\u0131yor D.NOM child-GEN sleep-SUB2g-POSS -DAT believe-NEG-TENSE 'Deniz does not believe the child's sleeping.'",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 381,
"end": 410,
"text": "[\u00c7ocug-un araba-da uyu-ma-s\u0131]",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 547,
"end": 568,
"text": "[\u00e7ocug-un uyu-dug-u ]",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Subordination",
"sec_num": "6.2"
},
{
"text": "(33) a. Deniz i [kendisi-nin i uyu-ma-d\u0131g-\u0131]-n\u0131 s\u00f6yle-di D.NOM self-GEN sleep-NEG-SUB2g-POSS-ACC2 say-TENSE 'Deniz i said that he i did not sleep.' b. *kendisi i [ Deniz'in i uyu-ma-d\u0131g-\u0131 ]-n\u0131 s\u00f6yle-di c. Deniz i adam-\u0131 j [ kendi i/j arkada\u015f-\u0131-n\u0131n g\u00f6r-d\u00fcg-\u00fc ]-ne inan-\u0131yor D.NOM man-ACC self friend-POSS see-SUB2g-POSS-DAT2 believe-TENSE 'Deniz i believes that his i/j friend saw the man j .' d. Deniz i adam-a j [ kendi i/ * j kitab-\u0131-n\u0131 oku-dug-u ]-nu s\u00f6yle-di D.NOM man-DAT self",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Subordination",
"sec_num": "6.2"
},
{
"text": "book-POSS-ACC2 read-SUB2g-POSS-ACC2 say-TENSE 'Deniz i told the man j that he read his i/ * j book.' 33show that the obliqueness order in binding relations is preserved in subordination. This suggests the following bracketing, in which the embedded clause's position in the PAS of the matrix predicate is determined by its grammatical function.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Subordination",
"sec_num": "6.2"
},
{
"text": "Matrix-Pred . . . Matrix-Argument . . . Embedded-Clause . . . Matrix-Argument (34) -SUB1i (-ma) := a \u2022 ma \u2212 b < N\\( a < S\\ f < NP nom ): \u03bbf .f (infinitive) -SUB1g (-mas\u0131) := a \u2022 mas\u0131 \u2212 o < N\\ f < NP agr \\( a < S\\ f < NP nom ): \u03bbf .f (verbal noun) -SUB2g (-d\u0131g\u0131) := a \u2022 d\u0131g\u0131 \u2212 o < N case=obl \\ f < NPagr\\( a < S\\ f < NPnom): \u03bbf .f (nominalization)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Lexical Types. The asymmetries in",
"sec_num": "6.2.1"
},
{
"text": "The wide scope of case markers on subordinate clauses implies that the subordinate markers themselves must have phrasal scope as well. Since case is a nominal inflection, the category of a subordinate marker must be a function onto N. Its argument is IV for infinitives and NP agr \\IV for others, which require genitive subjects (34). This yields two families of functors for subordination. The verb-final characteristics of the embedded clauses is ensured by the backward-looking main functor of the subordinate marker.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Lexical Types. The asymmetries in",
"sec_num": "6.2.1"
},
{
"text": "For morphosyntactic modality, the resulting nominalized predicate can receive only case, hence it has o < N control. Verbal nouns refer to actions, and nominalizations refer to facts. Subordinate markers for the former are tenseless. A subordinate marker replaces the tense of the subordinate verb in nominalizations, yielding a < S control on the verb. For subject raising, the result may undergo any nominal inflection",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Lexical Types. The asymmetries in",
"sec_num": "6.2.1"
},
{
"text": "( b < N).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Lexical Types. The asymmetries in",
"sec_num": "6.2.1"
},
{
"text": "Word order variation within the subordinate clause is constrained by the subject on the left and the verb on the right. This constraint is achieved by categorizing the embedded subjects as NP agr and having a result category of N for all subordinate markers. If there were any contraposed element NP in the embedded clause, the category of the clause would be S\\NP, and the clause could not combine with the contraposed category such as S \u2212t \\(S\\NP) on the right because the extraction category combines with a subordinate marker first, which is onto N, not S\\NP, hence composition (<B) could not take place. 35ais the derivation of subject raising (we use N \u2191 as an abbreviation for a type-raised N when space is limited). We use Steedman's (1996) ana function to denote the binding of the embedded subject. Infinitive -SUB1i has phrasal scope in this example; the DV must be reduced to an IV before the infinitive can apply. Hence the subordination of intransitive clauses is only a special case in which the morphological scope of the infinitive works without rebracketing. Subject raising and coindexation with the matrix subject are made explicit in the raising category of unut. The systematic relationship between the raised and nonraised category of such verbs can be captured by a lexical rule, for example, TV: \u03bbx.\u03bby.forget xy \u21d2 TV: \u03bbf .\u03bby.forget(f [ana y])y.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 731,
"end": 748,
"text": "Steedman's (1996)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF71"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Lexical Types. The asymmetries in",
"sec_num": "6.2.1"
},
{
"text": "(35b-c) contrast subject and nonsubject nominalizations. The difference is captured with the case distinction of the result type ( o < N) for -SUB1g and -SUB2g. These examples also show the possibility of affix composition in the lexicon. For instance, we write -mas\u0131 in (35b), which marks subordination and agreement together, instead of -ma-s\u0131. Otherwise, -ma (SUB1g) would have to look to the right as a functor to enforce agreement, and the verb-final property of subordination could not be assured. 37, coupled with the raising category of the infinitive, yield the derivations in (38) . These examples compose the infinitive complement before a case can be applied on the nominalized predicate. This is possible because of the phrasal scope of -ma and the case markers. (38b) shows that although there may be two accusative-marked NPs, the arguments of the infinitive complement are identifiable; the IV scope of -ma implies that any (di)transitive subordinate verb must find its nonsubject arguments before the matrix verb gets its arguments. This type assignment strategy handles word order variations inside the infinitive complement and the matrix clause transparently. 38 Morphologically, the agreement marker -POSS in OP strategy is a function over the -OP morpheme, but syntactically, the -OP morpheme triggers the agreement in the relative clause. Hence -OP-POSS can be treated as a lexically composite affix and glossed as -OP.AGR. This also ensures the verb-final property of the relativized clause by not positing a rightward-looking functor for -OP. As for attachment modality, relative participles are bound morphemes that are affixed to the predicate. 6.4.2 Derivations. (42a-d) show example derivations for subject, object, indirect object, and adjunct relativization. All nonsubject arguments are handled by a single -OP type (42b-c). Relativizing the specifier of an argument uses the same strategy as the argument. This phenomenon calls for another well-regulated lexical assignment schema, for example, (N \u2191 /N)\\(N\\N)\\IV for the relativized specifier of the subject. (42e) is an example of relativizing the subject's specifier. Configurationality within the noun group is maintained by backward directionality of the categories. ",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 586,
"end": 590,
"text": "(38)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Derivations. Example",
"sec_num": "6.2.2"
},
{
"text": "(f [ana x])x > v < S\\ f < NPnom\\ f < NP dat > v < S\\ f < NPnom < b < N < c < Nacc >T (S\\NP)/(S\\NP\\ f < NPacc) > t < S\\ f < NPnom > t",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Derivations. Example",
"sec_num": "6.2.2"
},
{
"text": "NP agr IV (N \u2191 /N)\\S N IV < S < N \u2191 /N > N \u2191 =S/",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Derivations. Example",
"sec_num": "6.2.2"
},
{
"text": "N N\\N\\N IV (N \u2191 /N)\\(N\\N)\\IV N IV < < N\\N ( N \u2191 /N)\\(N\\N) < N \u2191 /N > N \u2191 =S/IV > S:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Derivations. Example",
"sec_num": "6.2.2"
},
{
"text": "and(sleep(poss child man))(anger man) 'The man whose child slept got angry.'",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Derivations. Example",
"sec_num": "6.2.2"
},
{
"text": "As these examples indicate, -SP and -OP do not range over the verb stem in semantic scope; they cover the entire relative clause. The wide scope of -SP and -OP resolves the inconsistency pointed out in the introduction (5b-c), which was mainly due to coindexation in unification accounts and the lexemic nature of the lexicon. Isolating the relative participle inflections in a morphological component undermines the transparency of derivations. Note also that -OP is categorially transparent to the arity of the verb; a DV must be reduced to an IV before -OP applies to the verb complex (42c). This is possible only when -OP has phrasal scope. -ki ranges over the case-marked noun, which, as (46a-b) indicate, can be lexical or phrasal. In a lexemic analysis, the entire ki-marked noun would have to be rebracketed before the adjective k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck can apply to its right scope (which is ev, not\u00e7ocuk). ",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Derivations. Example",
"sec_num": "6.2.2"
},
{
"text": "(46) a. ev -de -ki house -LOC -PROki b < N c < N\\ o < N l \u2736 N\\ c \u2736 N loc < c < N loc < l \u2736 N",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Derivations. Example",
"sec_num": "6.2.2"
},
{
"text": "< N/ b < N b < N c < N\\ o < N ( l \u2736 N/ n < N)\\ c \u2736 N loc b < N > b < N < c < N loc < l \u2736 N/ n < N > l",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Derivations. Example",
"sec_num": "6.2.2"
},
{
"text": "\u2736 N: \u03bbf .and(at(little house)child)(f [child]) 'the child i , the one i at the little house'",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Derivations. Example",
"sec_num": "6.2.2"
},
{
"text": "There is another ki in Turkish that forms nonrestrictive relative clauses as postmodifiers. It is a Persian borrowing and follows the Indo-European pattern of relative clause formation (47). It can be distinguished from the bound morpheme -ki lexically. Its attachment characteristic is also different than that of -ki (44e). ",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Derivations. Example",
"sec_num": "6.2.2"
},
{
"text": ":= a \u2022 s \u2212 ( o < N/( o \u2736 N pn \\ o \u2736 N pn ))\\ o < N pn : \u03bbx.\u03bby.poss yx -POSS pn := a \u2022 s \u2212 ( o \u2736 N pn \\ o \u2736 N pn )\\ n < N pn : \u03bbf .f",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Derivations. Example",
"sec_num": "6.2.2"
},
{
"text": "The possessive marker's result category is a functor because it enforces agreement with the type raised specifier. 18 (48d-e) indicate that the genitive marker is a type raiser; the possessor scopes over the possessee. For morphosyntactic modality, the genitive marker can be attached to nouns that are inflected up to and including a possessive marker ( o < N). Moreover, nesting in possessives implies that the specifier may be a genitive. Hence, the stem's category must be o < N. But there is a finer control over the possessee argument's category, because it must be inflected with the possessive marker to signify relation of possession (cf. (48a-b)). Semantically, the possessive must outscope nominal modification. For instance, (50a) has the PAS as indicated, hence both markers must range over a noun group, not just the stem. Binding relations require an organization of the type (poss possee possessor) (50b-c). In what follows, we use the function comp to signify that the arguments in the PAS form a compound but say nothing about the range of productivity of this function. The lexical semantics of the arguments and a qualia structure (Pustejovsky 1991) may indicate the function's range of applicability. Lexical type assignments for compound markers are as in (52). . 19 The overall compound may be inflected only for case (see, e.g., (53d) and (53e)). We claim that plural compounds are lexically composite functions in a similar vein. This claim has some empirical support from the lexicalization of -leri as a third person plural possessive marker; see (55b-c). It follows that -leri has the lexi-cal types of -COMP and -COMP2 with plural and possessive composition: \u03bbx.\u03bby.plu (comp xy). ",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 1151,
"end": 1169,
"text": "(Pustejovsky 1991)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF63"
},
{
"start": 1286,
"end": 1288,
"text": "19",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Derivations. Example",
"sec_num": "6.2.2"
},
{
"text": "< N/ b < N b < N o < N/( o \u2736 N\\ o \u2736 N)\\ o < N b < N/ b < N b < N o \u2736 N\\ o \u2736 N\\ n < N > > b < N b < N < < o < N/( o \u2736 N\\ o \u2736 N) o \u2736 N\\ o \u2736 N",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Derivations. Example",
"sec_num": "6.2.2"
},
{
"text": "Theoretical and computational commitment to word-based grammar-and to regard inflectional morphology as a word-internal process-puts artificial limits on specifying the syntactic and semantic domains of all meaning-bearing elements and on the transparent projection of scope from the lexicon. Designating words as minimal units of the lexicon is too constraining for many languages. This traditional notion is also challenged in current linguistic theorizing (e.g., Jackendoff 1997 and Keenan and Stabler 1997) . Marslen-Wilson (1999) argues on psycholinguistic grounds that the lexicon must be morphemic even for morphologically simpler languages such as English.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 466,
"end": 485,
"text": "Jackendoff 1997 and",
"ref_id": "BIBREF35"
},
{
"start": 486,
"end": 496,
"text": "Keenan and",
"ref_id": "BIBREF42"
},
{
"start": 497,
"end": 510,
"text": "Stabler 1997)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF42"
},
{
"start": 513,
"end": 534,
"text": "Marslen-Wilson (1999)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF48"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "7."
},
{
"text": "We have argued in this article that the key to the integration of inflectional morphology and syntax is granting representational status to morphemes, which, in a computational system, requires certain precautions. What we propose is enriching the expressive power of the combinatory morphemic lexicon to factor in morphosyntactic types and attachment modalities. Coupled with flexible constituency in the grammar and directionality information coming from the lexicon, these extensions provide the grammar with the information it requires to compute the transparent semantics of morphosyntactic phenomena. This flexibility causes neither inefficiency in parsing nor uncontrolled expressivity. The extensions do not affect the polynomial worst-case complexity results, and category unity is preserved by lattice consistency. The result is a morphemic grammar-lexicon with computationally desirable features such as modularity and transparency. The system is available at ftp://ftp.lcsl.metu.edu.tr/pub/ tools/msccg.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "7."
},
{
"text": "But seeCreider, Hankamer, and Wood (1995), which argues that the morphotactics of human languages is not regular but linear context free.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In fact, topicalization of nonperipheral arguments (This book, I would give to Mary) requires that (12) be finitely schematized over valencies, such as S, S/NP, S/PP(Steedman 1985). 7 We will not elaborate on the theoretical consequences of having this level of representation; see, for instance,Dowty (1991) andSteedman (1996).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "See Heylen (1997) on use of unary modalities for a similar purpose in lexemic MCG. 9 In a lattice L, x \u2264 y (morphosyntactically, x < y) is equivalent to the consistency properties x \u2227 y = x and x \u2228 y = y. We use the join operator for this check, thus it suffices to have a join semilattice.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "This coincides withSteedman's (1991b) observation that directionality of the main functor's slash is also a property of the same argument. The main functor is the one whose result type determines the overall result type (i.e., X/Y in (15)).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Mediating agreement via unification, type subsumption, or set-valued indeterminacy has important consequences on underspecification, the domain of agreement, and the notion of \"like categories\" in coordination (seeJohnson and Bayer 1995;Dalrymple and Kaplan 2000;Wechsler and Zlati\u0107 2000). Rather than providing an elaborate agreement system, we note that Pulman's techniques provide the mechanism for implementing agreement as atomic unification, subsumption hierarchies represented as lattices, or set-valued features. The categorial ingredient of phrase-internal agreement can be provided by endotypic functors when necessary (see Sections 5 and 6).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Three asterisks in the line indicate that the derivation is not licensed.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The morphological analyzer would be in no better position to handle morpheme-semantics pairing if the architecture inFigure 3bwere implemented with an integrated lexicon of roots and affixes. For instance, -POSS would still require distinct states because of the difference in the semantics of possession and agreement marking coming from the lexicon.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "This is not to say that there is only one model-theoretic interpretation of plu. \"Sets of sets\" and \"set of individuals\" valuations of plu can be carried over the PAS.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "An \"inert\" category such as N may be motivated by the prodrop phenomenon, in which the specifier may be dropped under pragmatically conditioned circumstances. But this analysis disregards the point that binding relations (hence semantics) still require the coindexation of the specifier with some overt referent, which can be inferred from the discourse. Such an interface phenomenon seems to be better suited for handling by interactions in the components of a multidimensional grammar, rather than as a purely syntactic phenomenon.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "I am grateful to the anonymous reviewer who proposed this alternative.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"back_matter": [
{
"text": "The control verb's controlled argument is marked by the infinitive -ma, and the resulting nominalized embedded clause can undergo nominal inflections (36a-b). The infinitive -ma has the lexical type in (34) . A potential conflict between an object control verb's subcategorization and PAS is resolved by case decoration: zorla 'force' and tavsiye et 'recommend' differ in their case requirements and what is controlled (36b-c). tavsiye et's infinitive complement is accusative, whereas zorla's is dative. 6.3.1 Lexical Types. Subject control verbs (e.g.,\u00e7al\u0131\u015f 'try'; s\u00f6z ver 'promise') and object control verbs (e.g., zorla; tavsiye et) have the control property indicated in their PAS (37). The nonraising variety of these verbs is obtained via a lexical rule. ",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 202,
"end": 206,
"text": "(34)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Morphosyntax of Control",
"sec_num": "6.3"
},
{
"text": "There are two strategies for forming relative clauses: the subject participle strategy (SP) and the nonsubject participle strategy (OP). SP is realized by the affixes -(y)An, -(y)AcAk, and -mI\u015f, and OP by -dIk-and -(y)AcAk-. OP triggers agreement similar to that of possessive constructions between the subject and the predicate of the relative clause (39b). We present a formulation of relativization without any use of empty categories, traces, or movement. We follow the Montagovian treatment of relative clauses as noun restrictors of the semantic type \u03bbP. \u03bbQ.and(Q[x] ) (P[x] ), where P is the semantics of the relative clause and Q is the semantics of the predicate taking the relativized noun (x) as the argument. Montagovian analysis assumes a generalized quantifier (GQ) category for the determiner; that is, NP is the functor and VP is the argument. The determiner takes the relativized noun (and its semantically type-raised category) as an argument as well. In a language with determiners, the functor category of the overall NP can be made explicit by lexically value-raising the determiner with GQ semantics from, for example, NP/N to (S/(S\\NP))/N = (S/VP)/N. To achieve the same effect in a language that lacks determiners, we make NP the functor by lexically value-raising the relative participle from (N/N)\\(S\\NP) to (N \u2191 /N)\\(S\\NP), in which N \u2191 /N denotes a value-raised noun, since N \u2191 is a type-raised category. The category of the relative participle unfolds to ((S/(S\\NP) ",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 561,
"end": 572,
"text": "\u03bbQ.and(Q[x]",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 575,
"end": 580,
"text": "(P[x]",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 1484,
"end": 1494,
"text": "((S/(S\\NP)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Relativization",
"sec_num": "6.4"
},
{
"text": "Relativization is strictly head final in Turkish. This implies that all relative participles are backward-looking functors that differ only in case requirements (cf. English relatives, which require different directionality, e.g., (N\\N)/(S\\NP) for subjects and (N\\N)/(S/NP) for nonsubjects). For morphosyntactic modality, the head noun has 6.5 Ki-relativization Ki-relativization is a morphosyntactic process that can generate indefinitely long words of relative pronouns and relative adjectives. -ki can be attached to case-marked nouns whose case relation is one of possession, time, or place (i.e., the genitive and the locative). Its effect is to create a nominal stem on which all inflections can start again (43a-b). It produces relative pronouns (43c) and relative adjectives (43d) with the locative and relative pronouns with the genitive. c. \u03bbx.\u03bbQ.and(Q[x] gen is a shorthand for the N/(N\\N) category of a type-raised genitive. In (43c), pronominal one (PRO) cannot be bound to ev (44a). Adjectival interpretation (43d) associates the relative adjective with the relativized noun (44b). For morphosyntactic modality, ki-marked nouns behave like possessive-marked nouns in case marking, which requires strict control over the possessive ( o \u2736 N). This presents a dilemma: Morphologically, -ki creates a nominal stem that can undergo all nominal inflections again, but, as (45a) indicates, the stem does not take the CASE (ACC, DAT, etc.) that is common to nouns unmarked on the possessive. Thus CASE2 in (45c) must refer to another diacritic (n-relbase, or l \u2736 ) to eliminate (45b). This diacritic controls the result category of -ki. The value-raised varieties of (44a-c) are assigned a type similar to the type of relative participles. Inherently temporal nouns such as sabah ('morning') can take -ki",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 851,
"end": 865,
"text": "\u03bbx.\u03bbQ.and(Q[x]",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": ")/N)\\(S\\NP) and (((S\\NP)/(S\\NP\\NP))/N)\\(S\\NP).",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "The Theory of Parsing, Translation, and Compiling",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Alfred",
"middle": [
"V"
],
"last": "Aho",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Jeffrey",
"middle": [
"D"
],
"last": "Ullman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1972,
"venue": "",
"volume": "1",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Aho, Alfred V. and Jeffrey D. Ullman. 1972. The Theory of Parsing, Translation, and Compiling. Vol. 1. Prentice-Hall.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "Where's morphology? Linguistic Inquiry",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Stephen",
"middle": [
"R"
],
"last": "Anderson",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1982,
"venue": "",
"volume": "13",
"issue": "",
"pages": "571--612",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Anderson, Stephen R. 1982. Where's morphology? Linguistic Inquiry, 13(4):571-612.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "On the relationship between word-grammar and phrase-grammar",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Emmon",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bach",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1983,
"venue": "Natural Language and Linguistic Theory",
"volume": "1",
"issue": "",
"pages": "65--89",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Bach, Emmon. 1983. On the relationship between word-grammar and phrase-grammar. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 1:65-89.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "Strong equivalence of CCG and Set-CCG. Unpublished manuscript",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Jason",
"middle": [],
"last": "Baldridge",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1999,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Baldridge, Jason. 1999. Strong equivalence of CCG and Set-CCG. Unpublished manuscript, University of Edinburgh.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "On categorial and phrase structure grammars",
"authors": [
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bar-Hillel",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Chaim",
"middle": [],
"last": "Yehoshua",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Eliyahu",
"middle": [],
"last": "Gaifman",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Shamir",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1960,
"venue": "Bulletin of the Research Council of Israel",
"volume": "9",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1--16",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua, Chaim Gaifman, and Eliyahu Shamir. 1960. On categorial and phrase structure grammars. Bulletin of the Research Council of Israel, 9F:1-16.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "Deriving the Predicate-Argument structure for a free word order language",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Cem",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bozsahin",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1998,
"venue": "Proceedings of COLING-ACL 1998",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "167--173",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Bozsahin, Cem. 1998. Deriving the Predicate-Argument structure for a free word order language. In Proceedings of COLING-ACL 1998, Montreal, pages 167-173.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "Directionality and the lexicon: Evidence from gapping. Unpublished manuscript",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Cem",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bozsahin",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2000,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Bozsahin, Cem. 2000a. Directionality and the lexicon: Evidence from gapping. Unpublished manuscript, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "Gapping and word order in Turkish",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Cem",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bozsahin",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2000,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Bozsahin, Cem. 2000b. Gapping and word order in Turkish. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, Istanbul.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "A categorial framework for composition in multiple linguistic domains",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Cem",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bozsahin",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Elvan",
"middle": [],
"last": "G\u00f6\u00e7men",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1995,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Cognitive Science of NLP",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Bozsahin, Cem and Elvan G\u00f6\u00e7men. 1995. A categorial framework for composition in multiple linguistic domains. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Cognitive Science of NLP, Dublin.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF9": {
"ref_id": "b9",
"title": "Lexical-Functional syntax. Course notes. Seventh European Summer School in Logic, Language, and Information",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Joan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bresnan",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1995,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Bresnan, Joan. 1995. Lexical-Functional syntax. Course notes. Seventh European Summer School in Logic, Language, and Information, Barcelona.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF10": {
"ref_id": "b10",
"title": "Unification categorial grammar",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Jonathan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Calder",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Ewan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Klein",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Henk",
"middle": [],
"last": "Zeevat",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1988,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "83--86",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Calder, Jonathan, Ewan Klein, and Henk Zeevat. 1988. Unification categorial grammar. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Budapest, pages 83-86.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF11": {
"ref_id": "b11",
"title": "Categorial Grammar, lexical rules, and the English predicative",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Bob",
"middle": [],
"last": "Carpenter",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "Formal Grammar: Theory and Application",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "168--242",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Carpenter, Bob. 1992. Categorial Grammar, lexical rules, and the English predicative. In R. Levine, editor, Formal Grammar: Theory and Application. Oxford University Press, pages 168-242.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF12": {
"ref_id": "b12",
"title": "Type-Logical Semantics",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Bob",
"middle": [],
"last": "Carpenter",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1997,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Carpenter, Bob. 1997. Type-Logical Semantics. MIT Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF13": {
"ref_id": "b13",
"title": "The Turing-completeness of Multimodal Categorial Grammars. In Papers Presented to Johan van Benthem in Honor of his 50th Birthday. ESSLLI, Utrecht. Carpenter, Bob and Gerald Penn. 1994. The Attribute Logic Engine User's Guide, Version 2.0",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Bob",
"middle": [],
"last": "Carpenter",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1999,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Carpenter, Bob. 1999. The Turing-completeness of Multimodal Categorial Grammars. In Papers Presented to Johan van Benthem in Honor of his 50th Birthday. ESSLLI, Utrecht. Carpenter, Bob and Gerald Penn. 1994. The Attribute Logic Engine User's Guide, Version 2.0. Carnegie Mellon University.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF14": {
"ref_id": "b14",
"title": "Remarks on nominalization",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Noam",
"middle": [],
"last": "Chomsky",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1970,
"venue": "Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Ginn",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "184--221",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In R. Jacobs and P. Rosenbaum, editors, Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Ginn, Waltham, MA, pages 184-221.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF15": {
"ref_id": "b15",
"title": "The Minimalist Program",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Noam",
"middle": [],
"last": "Chomsky",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1995,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. MIT Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF16": {
"ref_id": "b16",
"title": "Three generative, lexicalised models for statistical parsing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Michael",
"middle": [],
"last": "Collins",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1997,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the ACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Collins, Michael. 1997. Three generative, lexicalised models for statistical parsing. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the ACL.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF17": {
"ref_id": "b17",
"title": "Preset two-head automata and natural language morphology",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Chet",
"middle": [],
"last": "Creider",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Jorge",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hankamer",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Derick",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wood",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1995,
"venue": "International Journal of Computer Mathematics",
"volume": "58",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1--18",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Creider, Chet, Jorge Hankamer, and Derick Wood. 1995. Preset two-head automata and natural language morphology. International Journal of Computer Mathematics, 58:1-18.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF18": {
"ref_id": "b18",
"title": "Feature indeterminacy and feature resolution. Language",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Mary",
"middle": [],
"last": "Dalrymple",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Ronald",
"middle": [
"M"
],
"last": "Kaplan",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2000,
"venue": "",
"volume": "76",
"issue": "",
"pages": "759--798",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Dalrymple, Mary and Ronald M. Kaplan. 2000. Feature indeterminacy and feature resolution. Language, 76:759-798.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF19": {
"ref_id": "b19",
"title": "Word Meaning and Montague Grammar",
"authors": [
{
"first": "David",
"middle": [],
"last": "Dowty",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1979,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Dowty, David. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Kluwer, Dordrecht.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF20": {
"ref_id": "b20",
"title": "Toward a minimalist theory of syntactic structure",
"authors": [
{
"first": "David",
"middle": [],
"last": "Dowty",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1989,
"venue": "Tilburg Conference on Discontinuous Constituency",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Dowty, David. 1991. Toward a minimalist theory of syntactic structure. In Tilburg Conference on Discontinuous Constituency, January 1989.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF21": {
"ref_id": "b21",
"title": "Non-constituent coordination, wrapping, and Multimodal Categorial Grammars",
"authors": [
{
"first": "David",
"middle": [],
"last": "Dowty",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1996,
"venue": "International Congress of Logic",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Dowty, David. 1996. Non-constituent coordination, wrapping, and Multimodal Categorial Grammars. In International Congress of Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy, Florence, August.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF22": {
"ref_id": "b22",
"title": "Efficient normal-form parsing for Combinatory Categorial Grammar",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Jason",
"middle": [],
"last": "Eisner",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1996,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the ACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "79--86",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Eisner, Jason. 1996. Efficient normal-form parsing for Combinatory Categorial Grammar. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the ACL, pages 79-86.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF23": {
"ref_id": "b23",
"title": "Computational Properties of Principle-Based Grammatical Theories",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Sandiway",
"middle": [],
"last": "Fong",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1991,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Fong, Sandiway. 1991. Computational Properties of Principle-Based Grammatical Theories. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF24": {
"ref_id": "b24",
"title": "Parsing Turkish using the Lexical-Functional Grammar formalism",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Zelal",
"middle": [],
"last": "G\u00fcng\u00f6rd\u00fc",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Kemal",
"middle": [],
"last": "Oflazer",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1995,
"venue": "Machine Translation",
"volume": "10",
"issue": "",
"pages": "293--319",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "G\u00fcng\u00f6rd\u00fc, Zelal and Kemal Oflazer. 1995. Parsing Turkish using the Lexical-Functional Grammar formalism. Machine Translation, 10:293-319.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF25": {
"ref_id": "b25",
"title": "Morphological parsing and the lexicon",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Jorge",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hankamer",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1989,
"venue": "Lexical Representation and Process",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Hankamer, Jorge. 1989. Morphological parsing and the lexicon. In W. Marslen-Wilson, editor, Lexical Representation and Process. MIT Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF26": {
"ref_id": "b26",
"title": "The Grammar and Processing of Order and Dependency: A Categorial Approach",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Mark",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hepple",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1990,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Hepple, Mark. 1990a. The Grammar and Processing of Order and Dependency: A Categorial Approach. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Edinburgh.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF27": {
"ref_id": "b27",
"title": "Normal form theorem proving for the Lambek Calculus",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Mark",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hepple",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1990,
"venue": "Proceedings of COLING",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Hepple, Mark. 1990b. Normal form theorem proving for the Lambek Calculus. In Proceedings of COLING 1990.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF28": {
"ref_id": "b28",
"title": "Parsing and derivational equivalence",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Mark",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hepple",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Glyn",
"middle": [],
"last": "Morrill",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1989,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 4th EACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Hepple, Mark and Glyn Morrill. 1989. Parsing and derivational equivalence. In Proceedings of the 4th EACL, Manchester.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF29": {
"ref_id": "b29",
"title": "Underspecification in Type-Logical Grammars",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Dirk",
"middle": [],
"last": "Heylen",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1997,
"venue": "Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics (LACL)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Heylen, Dirk. 1997. Underspecification in Type-Logical Grammars. In Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics (LACL), Nancy.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF30": {
"ref_id": "b30",
"title": "Types and Sorts: Resource Logic for Feature Checking",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Dirk",
"middle": [],
"last": "Heylen",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1999,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Heylen, Dirk. 1999. Types and Sorts: Resource Logic for Feature Checking. Ph.D. dissertation, Utrecht University.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF31": {
"ref_id": "b31",
"title": "Providing robustness for a CCG system",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Julia",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hockenmaier",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Gann",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bierner",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Jason",
"middle": [],
"last": "Baldridge",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2000,
"venue": "Unpublished manuscript",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Hockenmaier, Julia, Gann Bierner, and Jason Baldridge. 2000. Providing robustness for a CCG system. Unpublished manuscript, University of Edinburgh.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF32": {
"ref_id": "b32",
"title": "Categorial Morphology. Garland",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Jack",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hoeksema",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1985,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Hoeksema, Jack. 1985. Categorial Morphology. Garland, New York.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF33": {
"ref_id": "b33",
"title": "Implications of process-morphology for Categorial Grammar",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Jack",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hoeksema",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Richard",
"middle": [
"D"
],
"last": "Janda",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1988,
"venue": "Categorial Grammars and Natural Language Structures. D. Reidel",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "199--247",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Hoeksema, Jack and Richard D. Janda. 1988. Implications of process-morphology for Categorial Grammar. In Richard T. Oehrle, Emmon Bach, and Deirdre Wheeler, editors, Categorial Grammars and Natural Language Structures. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pages 199-247.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF34": {
"ref_id": "b34",
"title": "The Computational Analysis of the Syntax and Interpretation of \"Free\" Word Order in Turkish",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Beryl",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hoffman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1995,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Hoffman, Beryl. 1995. The Computational Analysis of the Syntax and Interpretation of \"Free\" Word Order in Turkish. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF35": {
"ref_id": "b35",
"title": "The Architecture of the Language Faculty",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Ray",
"middle": [],
"last": "Jackendoff",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1997,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. The Architecture of the Language Faculty. MIT Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF36": {
"ref_id": "b36",
"title": "The syntax/ semantics interface in Categorial Grammar",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Pauline",
"middle": [],
"last": "Jacobson",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1996,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "89--116",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Jacobson, Pauline. 1996. The syntax/ semantics interface in Categorial Grammar. In Shalom Lappin, editor, The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. Blackwell, 89-116.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF37": {
"ref_id": "b37",
"title": "Unacceptable ambiguity in Categorial Grammar",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Roger",
"middle": [],
"last": "Janeway",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1990,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Ninth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "305--316",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Janeway, Roger. 1990. Unacceptable ambiguity in Categorial Grammar. In Proceedings of the Ninth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, pages 305-316.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF38": {
"ref_id": "b38",
"title": "Deductive parsing with multiple levels of representation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Mark",
"middle": [],
"last": "Johnson",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1988,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the ACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "241--248",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Johnson, Mark. 1988. Deductive parsing with multiple levels of representation. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the ACL, pages 241-248.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF39": {
"ref_id": "b39",
"title": "Features and agreement in Lambek Categorial Grammar",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Mark",
"middle": [],
"last": "Johnson",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Sam",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bayer",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1995,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 1995 ESSLLI Formal Grammar Workshop",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "123--137",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Johnson, Mark and Sam Bayer. 1995. Features and agreement in Lambek Categorial Grammar. In Proceedings of the 1995 ESSLLI Formal Grammar Workshop, pages 123-137.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF40": {
"ref_id": "b40",
"title": "Speech and Language Processing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Daniel",
"middle": [],
"last": "Jurafsky",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "James",
"middle": [
"H"
],
"last": "Martin",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2000,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Jurafsky, Daniel and James H. Martin. 2000. Speech and Language Processing. Prentice-Hall.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF41": {
"ref_id": "b41",
"title": "Radical lexicalism",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Lauri",
"middle": [],
"last": "Karttunen",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1989,
"venue": "Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "43--65",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Karttunen, Lauri. 1989. Radical lexicalism. In Mark Baltin and Anthony Kroch, editors, Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure. University of Chicago Press, pages 43-65.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF42": {
"ref_id": "b42",
"title": "Bare grammar. Course notes, Ninth European Summer School on Logic, Language, and Information",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Edward",
"middle": [
"L"
],
"last": "Keenan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Edward",
"middle": [],
"last": "Stabler",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1997,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Keenan, Edward L. and Edward Stabler. 1997. Bare grammar. Course notes, Ninth European Summer School on Logic, Language, and Information, Aix-en-Provence.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF43": {
"ref_id": "b43",
"title": "Efficient parsing for CCGs with generalized type-raised categories",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Nobo",
"middle": [],
"last": "Komagata",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1997,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Fifth Int. Workshop on Parsing Technologies",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "135--146",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Komagata, Nobo. 1997. Efficient parsing for CCGs with generalized type-raised categories. In Proceedings of the Fifth Int. Workshop on Parsing Technologies, pages 135-146.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF44": {
"ref_id": "b44",
"title": "Parsing as natural deduction",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Esther",
"middle": [],
"last": "K\u00f6nig",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1989,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the ACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "272--279",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "K\u00f6nig, Esther. 1989. Parsing as natural deduction. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the ACL, pages 272-279.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF45": {
"ref_id": "b45",
"title": "Referent systems, argument structure, and syntax. ESSLLI lecture notes",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Markus",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kracht",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1999,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Kracht, Markus. 1999. Referent systems, argument structure, and syntax. ESSLLI lecture notes, Utrecht.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF46": {
"ref_id": "b46",
"title": "Relating categorial type logics and CCG through simulation. Unpublished manuscript",
"authors": [
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kruijff",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Geert-Jan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Jason",
"middle": [
"M"
],
"last": "Baldridge",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2000,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Kruijff, Geert-Jan M. and Jason M. Baldridge. 2000. Relating categorial type logics and CCG through simulation. Unpublished manuscript, University of Edinburgh.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF47": {
"ref_id": "b47",
"title": "The mathematics of sentence structure",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Joachim",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lambek",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1958,
"venue": "American Mathematical Monthly",
"volume": "65",
"issue": "",
"pages": "154--170",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Lambek, Joachim. 1958. The mathematics of sentence structure. American Mathematical Monthly, 65:154-170.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF48": {
"ref_id": "b48",
"title": "Abstractness and combination: The morphemic lexicon",
"authors": [
{
"first": "William",
"middle": [],
"last": "Marslen-Wilson",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1999,
"venue": "Language Processing",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "101--119",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Marslen-Wilson, William. 1999. Abstractness and combination: The morphemic lexicon. In Simon Garrod and Martin J. Pickering, editors, Language Processing. Psychology Press, East Sussex, UK, pages 101-119.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF49": {
"ref_id": "b49",
"title": "French clitic movement without clitics or movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Philip",
"middle": [
"H"
],
"last": "Miller",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ivan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sag",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1997,
"venue": "",
"volume": "15",
"issue": "",
"pages": "573--639",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Miller, Philip H. and Ivan A. Sag. 1997. French clitic movement without clitics or movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 15:573-639.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF50": {
"ref_id": "b50",
"title": "Categorial Investigations: Logical and Linguistic Aspects of the Lambek Calculus. Foris, Dordrecht. Moortgat, Michael. 1988b. Mixed composition and discontinuous dependencies",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Michael",
"middle": [],
"last": "Moortgat",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1988,
"venue": "Categorial Grammars and Natural Language Structures. D. Reidel",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "319--348",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Moortgat, Michael. 1988a. Categorial Investigations: Logical and Linguistic Aspects of the Lambek Calculus. Foris, Dordrecht. Moortgat, Michael. 1988b. Mixed composition and discontinuous dependencies. In Richard T. Oehrle, Emmon Bach, and Deirdre Wheeler, editors, Categorial Grammars and Natural Language Structures. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pages 319-348.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF51": {
"ref_id": "b51",
"title": "Adjacency, dependency and order",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Michael",
"middle": [],
"last": "Moortgat",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Richard",
"middle": [
"T"
],
"last": "Oehrle",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1994,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Ninth Amsterdam Colloquium",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Moortgat, Michael and Richard T. Oehrle. 1994. Adjacency, dependency and order. In Proceedings of the Ninth Amsterdam Colloquium.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF52": {
"ref_id": "b52",
"title": "Type Logical Grammar: Categorial Logic of Signs",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Glyn",
"middle": [
"V"
],
"last": "Morrill",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1994,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Morrill, Glyn V. 1994. Type Logical Grammar: Categorial Logic of Signs. Kluwer.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF53": {
"ref_id": "b53",
"title": "Geometry of lexico-syntactic interaction",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Glyn",
"middle": [
"V"
],
"last": "Morrill",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1999,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Ninth EACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Morrill, Glyn V. 1999. Geometry of lexico-syntactic interaction. In Proceedings of the Ninth EACL, Bergen.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF54": {
"ref_id": "b54",
"title": "Deutsche Syntax deklarativ. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar f\u00fcr das Deutsche. Linguistische Arbeiten 394",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Stefan",
"middle": [],
"last": "M\u00fcller",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1999,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "M\u00fcller, Stefan. 1999. Deutsche Syntax deklarativ. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar f\u00fcr das Deutsche. Linguistische Arbeiten 394. Max Niemeyer Verlag, T\u00fcbingen.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF55": {
"ref_id": "b55",
"title": "Two-level description of Turkish morphology",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Kemal",
"middle": [],
"last": "Oflazer",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1994,
"venue": "Literary and Linguistic Computing",
"volume": "9",
"issue": "2",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Oflazer, Kemal. 1994. Two-level description of Turkish morphology. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 9(2).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF56": {
"ref_id": "b56",
"title": "Error-tolerant finite-state recognition with applications to morphological analysis and spelling correction",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Kemal",
"middle": [],
"last": "Oflazer",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1996,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "22",
"issue": "",
"pages": "73--89",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Oflazer, Kemal. 1996. Error-tolerant finite-state recognition with applications to morphological analysis and spelling correction. Computational Linguistics, 22:73-89.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF57": {
"ref_id": "b57",
"title": "An outline of Turkish morphology",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Kemal",
"middle": [],
"last": "Oflazer",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Elvan",
"middle": [],
"last": "G\u00f6\u00e7men",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Cem",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bozsahin",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1994,
"venue": "Report to NATO Science Division SfS III (TU-LANGUAGE)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Oflazer, Kemal, Elvan G\u00f6\u00e7men, and Cem Bozsahin. 1994. An outline of Turkish morphology. Report to NATO Science Division SfS III (TU-LANGUAGE), Brussels.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF58": {
"ref_id": "b58",
"title": "Building a Turkish treebank",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Kemal",
"middle": [],
"last": "Oflazer",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Bilge",
"middle": [],
"last": "Say",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "G\u00f6khan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Dilek Zeynep Hakkani-T\u00fcr",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "T\u00fcr",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2001,
"venue": "Building and Exploiting Syntactically-Annotated Corpora",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Oflazer, Kemal, Bilge Say, Dilek Zeynep Hakkani-T\u00fcr, and G\u00f6khan T\u00fcr. 2001. Building a Turkish treebank. In Anne Abeille, editor, Building and Exploiting Syntactically-Annotated Corpora. Kluwer.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF59": {
"ref_id": "b59",
"title": "A lazy way to chart-parse with Categorial Grammars",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Remo",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pareschi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Mark",
"middle": [],
"last": "Steedman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1987,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 25th",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Pareschi, Remo and Mark Steedman. 1987. A lazy way to chart-parse with Categorial Grammars. In Proceedings of the 25th",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF60": {
"ref_id": "b60",
"title": "Annual Meeting of the ACL",
"authors": [],
"year": null,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "81--88",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Annual Meeting of the ACL, pages 81-88.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF61": {
"ref_id": "b61",
"title": "Prolog and Natural-Language Analysis",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Fernando",
"middle": [
"C N"
],
"last": "Pereira",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Stuart",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": ";",
"middle": [],
"last": "Shieber",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Csli",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [
"A"
],
"last": "Stanford",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pollard",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Ivan",
"middle": [
"A"
],
"last": "Carl",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sag",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1987,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Pereira, Fernando C. N. and Stuart M. Shieber. 1987. Prolog and Natural-Language Analysis. CSLI, Stanford, CA. Pollard, Carl and Ivan A. Sag. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. University of Chicago Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF62": {
"ref_id": "b62",
"title": "Unification encodings of grammatical notations",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Stephen",
"middle": [
"G"
],
"last": "Pulman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1996,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "22",
"issue": "",
"pages": "295--327",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Pulman, Stephen G. 1996. Unification encodings of grammatical notations. Computational Linguistics, 22:295-327.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF63": {
"ref_id": "b63",
"title": "The generative lexicon",
"authors": [
{
"first": "James",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pustejovsky",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1991,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "17",
"issue": "4",
"pages": "409--441",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Pustejovsky, James. 1991. The generative lexicon. Computational Linguistics, 17(4):409-441.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF64": {
"ref_id": "b64",
"title": "A sign-based phrase structure grammar for Turkish",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Onur",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sehitoglu",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1996,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Sehitoglu, Onur. 1996. A sign-based phrase structure grammar for Turkish. Master's thesis, Middle East Technical University.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF65": {
"ref_id": "b65",
"title": "Lexical rules and lexical organization: Productivity in the lexicon",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Onur",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sehitoglu",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Cem",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bozsahin",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1999,
"venue": "Breadth and Depth of Semantic Lexicons. Kluwer",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "39--57",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Sehitoglu, Onur and Cem Bozsahin. 1999. Lexical rules and lexical organization: Productivity in the lexicon. In Evelyne Viegas, editor, Breadth and Depth of Semantic Lexicons. Kluwer, pages 39-57.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF66": {
"ref_id": "b66",
"title": "Dependency and co\u00f6rdination in the grammar of",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Mark",
"middle": [],
"last": "Steedman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1985,
"venue": "Dutch and English. Language",
"volume": "61",
"issue": "3",
"pages": "523--568",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Steedman, Mark. 1985. Dependency and co\u00f6rdination in the grammar of Dutch and English. Language, 61(3):523-568.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF67": {
"ref_id": "b67",
"title": "Combinatory grammars and parasitic gaps",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Mark",
"middle": [],
"last": "Steedman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1987,
"venue": "Natural Language and Linguistic Theory",
"volume": "5",
"issue": "",
"pages": "403--439",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Steedman, Mark. 1987. Combinatory grammars and parasitic gaps. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 5:403-439.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF68": {
"ref_id": "b68",
"title": "Combinators and grammars",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Mark",
"middle": [],
"last": "Steedman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1988,
"venue": "Categorial Grammars and Natural Language Structures. D. Reidel",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "417--442",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Steedman, Mark. 1988. Combinators and grammars. In Richard T. Oehrle, Emmon Bach, and Deirdre Wheeler, editors, Categorial Grammars and Natural Language Structures. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pages 417-442.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF70": {
"ref_id": "b70",
"title": "Type raising and directionality in Combinatory Grammar",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Mark",
"middle": [],
"last": "Steedman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1991,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting of the ACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "71--78",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Steedman, Mark. 1991b. Type raising and directionality in Combinatory Grammar. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting of the ACL, pages 71-78.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF71": {
"ref_id": "b71",
"title": "Surface Structure and Interpretation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Mark",
"middle": [],
"last": "Steedman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1996,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Steedman, Mark. 1996. Surface Structure and Interpretation. MIT Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF72": {
"ref_id": "b72",
"title": "The Syntactic Process",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Mark",
"middle": [],
"last": "Steedman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2000,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Steedman, Mark. 2000a. The Syntactic Process. MIT Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF73": {
"ref_id": "b73",
"title": "Information structure and the syntax-phonology interface",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Mark",
"middle": [],
"last": "Steedman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2000,
"venue": "Linguistic Inquiry",
"volume": "31",
"issue": "4",
"pages": "649--689",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Steedman, Mark. 2000b. Information structure and the syntax-phonology interface. Linguistic Inquiry, 31(4): 649-689.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF75": {
"ref_id": "b75",
"title": "Bound variables in syntax: Are there any?",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Anna",
"middle": [],
"last": "Szabolcsi",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1987,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 6th Amsterdam Colloquium",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "331--350",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Szabolcsi, Anna. 1987. Bound variables in syntax: Are there any? In Proceedings of the 6th Amsterdam Colloquium, pages 331-350.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF76": {
"ref_id": "b76",
"title": "The Generalized LR Parser/Compiler",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Masaru",
"middle": [],
"last": "Tomita",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1988,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Tomita, Masaru. 1988. The Generalized LR Parser/Compiler. Technical report, Center for Machine Translation, Carnegie Mellon University.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF77": {
"ref_id": "b77",
"title": "Parsing some constrained grammar formalisms",
"authors": [
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Vijay-Shanker",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "David",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Weir",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1993,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "19",
"issue": "",
"pages": "591--636",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Vijay-Shanker, K. and David J. Weir. 1993. Parsing some constrained grammar formalisms. Computational Linguistics, 19:591-636.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF78": {
"ref_id": "b78",
"title": "A theory of agreement and its application to Serbo-Croatian. Language",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Stephen",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wechsler",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Larisa",
"middle": [],
"last": "Zlati\u0107",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2000,
"venue": "",
"volume": "76",
"issue": "",
"pages": "799--832",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Wechsler, Stephen and Larisa Zlati\u0107. 2000. A theory of agreement and its application to Serbo-Croatian. Language, 76:799-832.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF79": {
"ref_id": "b79",
"title": "A feature-based categorial morpho-syntax for Japanese",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Pete",
"middle": [
"J"
],
"last": "Whitelock",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1988,
"venue": "Natural Language Parsing and Linguistic Theories. D. Reidel",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "230--261",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Whitelock, Pete J. 1988. A feature-based categorial morpho-syntax for Japanese. In Uwe Reyle and C. Rohrer, editors, Natural Language Parsing and Linguistic Theories. D. Reidel, pages 230-261.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF80": {
"ref_id": "b80",
"title": "On the notions \"lexically related\" and \"head of a word",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Edwin",
"middle": [],
"last": "Williams",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1981,
"venue": "Linguistic Inquiry",
"volume": "12",
"issue": "2",
"pages": "245--274",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Williams, Edwin. 1981. On the notions \"lexically related\" and \"head of a word.\" Linguistic Inquiry, 12(2):245-274.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF81": {
"ref_id": "b81",
"title": "Predictive combinators",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Kent",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wittenburg",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1987,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the ACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "73--79",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Wittenburg, Kent. 1987. Predictive combinators. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the ACL, pages 73-79.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF1": {
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null,
"uris": null,
"text": "tam anlam\u0131yla uygulanamam\u0131\u015f ]-t\u0131 exactly apply-NEG-ASP-TENSE 'Mandatory earthquake insurance had gone into effect, but it had not been enforced properly.' b. y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fcge girmi\u015f-ti ama tam anlam\u0131yla uygulanamam\u0131\u015f-t\u0131 c. Adam-\u0131n [ araba ve ev ]-i man-GEN car and house-POSS"
},
"FIGREF2": {
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null,
"uris": null,
"text": "(5) a. Can [ Ay\u015fe'nin kitab-\u0131 oku-ma-s\u0131 ]-n\u0131 iste-di C.NOM A.-GEN book-ACC read-INF-AGR-ACC want-TENSE 'Can wanted Ay\u015fe to read the book.' lit. 'Can wanted Ay\u015fe's-reading-the-book.' b. Ben [ Mehmet'in\u00e7ocug-a/*-u ver ]-dig-i kitab-\u0131 oku-du-m I.NOM M-GEN child-DAT/*ACC give-REL.OP book-ACC read-TENSE-PERS1 'I read the book that Mehmet gave to the child.' c. Ben [ Mehmet'in kitab-\u0131 ver ]-dig-i\u00e7ocug-u/*-a g\u00f6r-d\u00fc-m I.NOM M-GEN book-ACC give-REL.OP child-ACC/*DAT see-TENSE-PERS1 'I saw the child to whom Mehmet gave the book.'"
},
"FIGREF3": {
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null,
"uris": null,
"text": "HPSG analysis of (5c)."
},
"FIGREF4": {
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null,
"uris": null,
"text": "N, but book is not. The type for books can be obtained morphosyntactically by assigning -s (-PLU) the functor type n \u2736 N\\ b \u2736 N, where b stands for base. A syntactic type such as N\\N overgenerates."
},
"FIGREF5": {
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null,
"uris": null,
"text": "14) a. Mehmet [ [ kitab-\u0131 oku ]-ma ]-y\u0131 istiyor M.NOM book-ACC read-INF-ACC wants 'Mehmet wants to read the book.' b. -INF := ma \u2212 b NP nom ): \u03bbf .f c. fake := fake \u2212 b < N/ b < N: \u03bbx.fake x"
},
"FIGREF7": {
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null,
"uris": null,
"text": "(17) a. Revised Forward Type Raising (>T): NP : a \u21d2 T/(T\\NP ): \u03bbf .f [a] b. Revised Backward Type Raising (<T): NP : a \u21d2 T\\(T/NP ): \u03bbf .f [a] T \u2208 {S,S\\NP, S\\NP\\NP, S\\NP\\NP\\NP}."
},
"FIGREF10": {
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null,
"uris": null,
"text": "25) a. Kitab-\u0131 adam oku-du Book-ACC man.NOM read-TENSE 'The man read the book.' b. *Kitap adam oku-du Book man.NOM read-TENSE"
},
"FIGREF11": {
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null,
"uris": null,
"text": "NPacc): \u03bbg.g[plu(toy car)] NPnom: \u03bby.like(plu(toy car))y > S: like(plu(toy car))mehmet 'Mehmet likes toy cars.' b. Adam-\u0131n [ k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck k\u0131rm\u0131z\u0131 araba ]-s\u0131 Man-GEN little red car-POSS 'the man's little red car' = poss(little(red car))man"
},
"FIGREF12": {
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null,
"uris": null,
"text": "30) a. oyuncak [ [ araba ] -lar ] \\N : \u03bbx.toy x : car : \u03bbx.plu x : \u03bbf .f < N: plu car < N acc : plu car > N: * toy(plu car) b."
},
"FIGREF13": {
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null,
"uris": null,
"text": "32) a. Mehmet [\u00e7ocuk ev-e git-ti ] san-d\u0131 M.NOM child.NOM house-DAT go-TENSE assume-TENSE 'Mehmet assumed that the child went home.' b.\u00c7ocuk"
},
"FIGREF14": {
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null,
"uris": null,
"text": "without the locative. They can be lexicalized without overgeneration with the help"
},
"FIGREF15": {
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null,
"uris": null,
"text": "Adam ki hep uyurman that always sleep-TENSE 'the man, who always sleeps'6.6 Possessive Constructions and Syntactic CompoundsThe grammatical marking of possession is realized through the genitive case on the possessor (N gen ) and the possessive marker on the possessee (N poss ). N gen and N poss must agree in person and number (48a), and the resulting noun group is configurational. Possessives can be nested (48c).(48) a. ev-in kap\u0131-s\u0131 house-GEN3 door-POSS3s 'the door of the house' b. * ev-in kap\u0131 / *ev-in kap\u0131-lar (door-PLU) c. ben-im arkada\u015f-\u0131m-\u0131n ev-i-nin kap\u0131-lar-\u0131 I-GEN1 friend-POSS1s-GEN3 house-POSS3s door-PLU-POSS3s 'my friend's house's doors' d. ben-im arkada\u015f-\u0131m-\u0131n i dost-u-nun j kendisi * i/j I-GEN1 friend-POSS1s-GEN3 buddy-POSS3s-GEN3 self 'my friend's buddy himself' e. Her\u00e7al\u0131\u015fan-\u0131n baz\u0131 hak-lar-\u0131 vard\u0131r every worker-GEN3 some right-PLU-POSS3s exists \u2200x\u2203y((worker(x) \u2227 right(y)) \u2192 has(x, y)) but not \u2203y\u2200x(right(y) \u2227 (worker(x) \u2192 has(x, y))) 6.6.1 Lexical Types for Possessives. Type assignments for the genitive and the possessive can be schematized over person (p) and number (n) features, as in (49). (49) -GEN pn"
},
"FIGREF16": {
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null,
"uris": null,
"text": "50) a. ya\u015fl\u0131 adam-\u0131n k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck k\u0131z-\u0131 old man-GEN3 little daughter-POSS3s 'old man's little daughter' = poss(little daughter)(old man) b. adam i -\u0131n kendi i -si man-GEN self-POSS 'the man himself' c. *kendi i adam i -\u0131 6.6.2 Derivation of Possessive Constructions. Example(51)shows the wide scope of the genitive (51a) and nested genitives (51b)."
},
"FIGREF17": {
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null,
"uris": null,
"text": "poss house(poss friend i) 'my friend's house' 6.6.3 Lexical Types for Compounds. Syntactic compounds exhibit syntactic patterns similar to possessive constructions, but they signify semantic relations of a different kind."
},
"FIGREF18": {
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null,
"uris": null,
"text": "\u03bbx.\u03bby.\u03bbz.comp(comp xy)z (nested comp) Syntactic compounds are formed by means of compound markers that are attached to the head of the compound. For morphosyntactic modality, nonreferentiality of the head implies no inflection ( b \u2736 N) or modification (53a-b). The left component can be a noun group (53c) in which there is ambiguity in the scope of modification. This is regulated by typing, for example, the intersective adjectives ambiguous as noun modifiers ("
},
"FIGREF19": {
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null,
"uris": null,
"text": "otob\u00fcs ye\u015fil bilet-i green c.ye\u015fil otob\u00fcs bilet-i green bus ticket-COMP green(comp ticket bus) or comp(ticket(green bus)) d.otob\u00fcs bilet-i-ni ticket-COMP-ACC2 e.*otob\u00fcs bilet-i-si ticket-COMP-POSS Compound markers serve the dual function of compounding and agreement in possessive constructions; double marking of the possessive is suppressed (cf. 54a-b). The -COMP2 type assignment in (52) handles nested compounds. (54) a.banka-n\u0131n faiz oran-\u0131 bank-GEN interest rate-COMP.POSS 'interest rate of the bank' b.*banka-n\u0131n faiz oran-\u0131-s\u0131 rate-COMP-POSS"
},
"FIGREF20": {
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null,
"uris": null,
"text": "of Compounds. (56) exemplifies derivations with the type assignments in (52). (56a-b) show that both the narrow and the wide scope of the modifier can be accounted for. (56c-d) show that the compound marker interacts with the possessive. Hence, it must carry both poss and comp in possessive constructions involving compounds. (56e-f) are examples of nested compounds. (56f-g) show the effect of strict control ( b \u2736 N) over the compound's head."
},
"TABREF3": {
"content": "<table><tr><td>Average number</td></tr></table>",
"type_str": "table",
"html": null,
"num": null,
"text": "Parsing performance."
},
"TABREF4": {
"content": "<table><tr><td colspan=\"2\">(24) a. IV =</td><td colspan=\"2\">S\\NP</td><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">TV = S\\NP\\NP</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"6\">DV = S\\NP\\NP\\NP</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">b. sev (like) :=</td><td colspan=\"2\">s \u2022 sev \u2212</td><td>v < S\\</td><td>f < NP nom \\</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">c. ver (give) :=</td><td colspan=\"3\">s \u2022 ver \u2212</td><td>v < S\\</td><td>f < NP nom \\</td><td>f < NP dat \\</td></tr><tr><td>v < S\\</td><td colspan=\"3\">f < NP nom \\</td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">v < S\\</td><td>f < NP</td><td>+ref acc \\</td><td>f < NP nom : \u03bby.\u03bbx.like xy</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">e. -ACC :=</td><td/><td/><td/></tr></table>",
"type_str": "table",
"html": null,
"num": null,
"text": "argued that such underspecification for verb-peripheral languages causes undesirable ambiguity. Grammatical relations of the arguments are determined not by directionality but by case in such languages. The category S\\NP nom \\NP acc resolves the ambiguity (24b-c). NP acc : \u03bbx.\u03bby.like xy NP acc : \u03bbx.\u03bby.\u03bbz.give yxz d. NP acc : \u03bbx.\u03bby.like xy \u21d2"
},
"TABREF5": {
"content": "<table/>",
"type_str": "table",
"html": null,
"num": null,
"text": "\u03bbx.\u03bbf .at fx Gapping behavior seems to indicate that Turkish is verb final, not just SOV. SO and OS syntactic types must be distinguished to account for SO & SOV, OS & OSV, *SO & OSV and *OS & SOV. The OS & OSV pattern requires the lexical category S\\NP acc \\NP nom for the verb"
},
"TABREF6": {
"content": "<table><tr><td colspan=\"5\">(27) Type Raising for Turkish: N agr : a \u21d2 T/(T\\</td><td>f < NP agr ): \u03bbf .f [a]</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>\u21d2 T\\(T/</td><td>f < NP agr ): \u03bbf .f [a]</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"3\">T \u2208 {S,S\\NP,S\\NP\\NP, S\\NP\\NP\\NP}</td></tr><tr><td>(28)</td><td>Mehmet</td><td colspan=\"2\">k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck ye\u015fil kitab-\u0131,\u00e7ocuk da</td><td colspan=\"2\">yeni gelen dergi-yi</td><td>oku-du</td></tr><tr><td/><td>M.NOM</td><td colspan=\"4\">little green book-ACC child-COORD new come mag.-ACC read-TENSE</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Nnom</td><td>Nacc</td><td>Nnom</td><td>Nacc</td><td>S\\NPnom\\NPacc</td></tr><tr><td/><td>>T</td><td>>T</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td>S/(S\\NPnom)</td><td>( S \\NP)</td><td/><td/></tr></table>",
"type_str": "table",
"html": null,
"num": null,
"text": ". Similarly, contraposition turns Ns into functors looking for NPs.The noun that is type raised can be a syntactically derived noun (28). SO (and OS) constituency required for gapping is provided by >T and >B."
},
"TABREF11": {
"content": "<table><tr><td colspan=\"2\">c.\u00e7ocug-un</td><td colspan=\"2\">kitab-\u0131</td><td>ver</td><td>-digi</td><td>adam</td><td>uyu-du</td></tr><tr><td/><td>child-<</td><td/><td>>T</td><td/><td/><td><B</td></tr><tr><td/><td>NP agr</td><td colspan=\"5\">TV/DV DV (N \u2191 /N)\\IV agr N</td><td>I V</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>></td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td>TV</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td><</td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>IV agr</td><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td><</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td>N \u2191 /N</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>></td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">N \u2191 =S\\IV</td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>></td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"5\">S: and(sleep man)(give man book child)</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"6\">'The man to whom the child gave the book slept.'</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">d.\u00e7ocug-un uyu</td><td colspan=\"4\">-dugu araba bozul-du</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"6\">child-GEN sleep -OP.AGR car break-TENSE</td></tr><tr><td/><td><</td><td/><td/><td/><td/><td><B</td></tr><tr><td>(42) a.</td><td>kitab-\u0131</td><td colspan=\"2\">oku</td><td/><td/><td>-yan</td><td>adam</td><td>uyu-du</td></tr><tr><td/><td>book-ACC</td><td colspan=\"2\">read</td><td/><td/><td>-SP</td><td>man sleep-TENSE</td></tr><tr><td/><td>>T</td><td/><td/><td/><td/><td><B</td></tr><tr><td/><td>IV/TV</td><td colspan=\"2\">TV</td><td/><td colspan=\"2\">(N \u2191 /N)\\IV</td><td>N</td><td>IV</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"4\">: \u03bbf .f ></td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"3\">IV: \u03bby.read book y</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td><</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"6\">N \u2191 /N: \u03bbx.\u03bbQ.and(Q[x])(read book x)</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>></td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"6\">N \u2191 =S/(S\\NP): \u03bbQ.and(Q[man])(read book man)</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>></td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"4\">S: and(sleep man)(read book man)</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"4\">'The man who read the book slept.'</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">b. adam-\u0131n g\u00f6r</td><td colspan=\"3\">-d\u00fcg\u00fc\u00e7ocuk</td><td>uyu-du</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"6\">man-GEN read -OP.AGR child sleep-TENSE</td></tr><tr><td/><td><</td><td/><td/><td/><td/><td><B</td></tr><tr><td/><td>NP agr</td><td colspan=\"4\">TV (N \u2191 /N)\\IV agr N</td><td>I V</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td><</td><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td>IV agr</td><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td><</td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>N \u2191 /N</td><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td><</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">N \u2191 =S/IV</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>></td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"6\">S: and(sleep child)(see child man)</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"6\">'The child whom the man saw slept.'</td></tr></table>",
"type_str": "table",
"html": null,
"num": null,
"text": "[book] : \u03bbx.\u03bby.read xy : \u03bbP.\u03bbx.\u03bbQ.and(Q[x])(P[x]) : man : \u03bbx.sleep x GEN book-ACC give -OP.AGR man sleep-TENSE"
}
}
}
} |