File size: 86,723 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 | {
"paper_id": "P88-1024",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T08:51:51.738391Z"
},
"title": "ATOMIZATION IN GRAMMAR SHARING",
"authors": [
{
"first": "M~umi",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kamey-M~",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Micrneleclmnim and Compui~\" Technology Coopomtion (MCC)",
"location": {
"addrLine": "3500 West Balcones C.enm\" Drive",
"postCode": "78759",
"settlement": "Austin",
"region": "Tcxas"
}
},
"email": "megumi@mcc~om"
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "new insights with which to account for certain linguistic We describe a prototype SK~RED CmAt~eAR for the syntax of simple nominal expressions in Arabic, E~IL~lx, French, German, and Japanese implemented at MCC. In this Oamm~', a complex inheritance ian/cc of shared gr~mmAtlcal templates provides pans that each language can put together to form lansuug~specific gramm-ti~tl templates. We conclude that grammar shsrin 8 is not only possible but also desirable. It forces us to reveal crossliuguistically invm'iant grammatie~ primitives that may otherwise rem~ conflamd with other primitives if we deal only with a single ~.nousge or l-n~uuge type. We call this the process of OaA~O~AT~CAL ^TOI~aZAT~ON. The specific implementation reported here uses catcgorial tmifr, ation grammar. The topics include the mono-lcvel nominal category N, the functional distinction between ARGUMENT and NON-ARGUMENT of nominals, grammatical agreement, and word order types.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "P88-1024",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "new insights with which to account for certain linguistic We describe a prototype SK~RED CmAt~eAR for the syntax of simple nominal expressions in Arabic, E~IL~lx, French, German, and Japanese implemented at MCC. In this Oamm~', a complex inheritance ian/cc of shared gr~mmAtlcal templates provides pans that each language can put together to form lansuug~specific gramm-ti~tl templates. We conclude that grammar shsrin 8 is not only possible but also desirable. It forces us to reveal crossliuguistically invm'iant grammatie~ primitives that may otherwise rem~ conflamd with other primitives if we deal only with a single ~.nousge or l-n~uuge type. We call this the process of OaA~O~AT~CAL ^TOI~aZAT~ON. The specific implementation reported here uses catcgorial tmifr, ation grammar. The topics include the mono-lcvel nominal category N, the functional distinction between ARGUMENT and NON-ARGUMENT of nominals, grammatical agreement, and word order types.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "The multill.eual pmjec~ of MCC a~mpts to build a grammatical system hierarchic~tily shared by multiple languages (Slucum & Justos 1985) . ~ ~ as proposed should have an advantage over a system with separate grammars for different languages: It should reduce the ~ of a mnllflinsual rule base, and fecilltat~ the addition of new languages. Bef~e Inesenting evidence for such advantages, however, there is the basic question m be answered: Is grammar sharing at all possible? Although it is well known that languages possess similarities based on genetic, typological, of areal grounds, the question remains whether and how these ~imilarities translate into computational techniques.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 113,
"end": 135,
"text": "(Slucum & Justos 1985)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Is grammar sharing possible?",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In this paper, we will describe a prototype shared for simple nominal expressions in Arabic, English, French, German~ and Japanese. x We conclude that grammar sharing is not only possible but also desirable. It forces us to reveal crces-liuguiatic~y invariant grRmmAtiCal primitives that may otherwise confiated with other primitives if we deal only with a single language of language type. We call this the process of ~Tlf.~.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Is grammar sharing possible?",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "ATOMmA~ON 2 forced by grammar sharing. Each language or language type is then characterized by particular combinations of such primitives, often providing Xpreliminary investigations have also been made on Spanish, Russian, and Chinese.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Is grammar sharing possible?",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "2The verb atom/ze means \"to separate of be separated into free atoms\" (The Collins English Dictionary, 2nd edition, 1986) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 70,
"end": 121,
"text": "(The Collins English Dictionary, 2nd edition, 1986)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Is grammar sharing possible?",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "problems. Before we go into more derail, the following is our view of what general components and mechanisms COllStiUlle 8 shared gr~ntle~l SyStem-Bask mechanisms In a shared grammar:. The process of buildiug a shared grammaT, in our view, requires (i) linguistic description of a set of languages in a common theoretical framework, (ii) a mechanism for E~1~ACr1~O a common grammatical asse~on from two or more assertions, and (fii) a mechanism for MEROINO grammatical asse~ous. The linguistic description should define certain string-combination operations (defined on siring I\"YI~) associated with information structures. Then what we do is identify shamble packages of common string-types and information slmctures among independently motivated languuge-spccific grammatical assertaions. These packages are then put into the shared part of the grammnr D and the remaining language-specifics are potential sources for mofe sharing. This extraction is essential in what we call ATOMIZATION, which is basically \"breaking up of grammatical a~gions into mailer independeot parts\" (Le. decomposition). If we assume that all grammatical aase~iem ~e expressed in terms of FEAI\"ORE ST~UCTtn~ES (Shieber 1986) , the atomi.Jtlon process would be defined mound the notion of <~2q~.,,H~TION (i.e. reverse of Ut~C.A~ON) as follows:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 1188,
"end": 1202,
"text": "(Shieber 1986)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Is grammar sharing possible?",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "basic at~s/za~a.. Given two feature structures, Xa for category X in language A end Xb for category X in language B, the shared m'ucture X~t for category X is the ~'nON of Xa and Xb (i.e., the must specific feature slmcmm in commnn with both Xa and Xb). Xa is separated out of eithar Xa or Xb, and placed into the shared space. Consequently, a ~ ofdering is established wlm~fin Xa sue~ Xa and Xb, respectively.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Is grammar sharing possible?",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "There is an underlying assumption that two languagespecific de~uitiom of a commn~ grammatical camgony share something in comn~a no matter how small it is. This means that the linguis~ descriptive basis is questionable if the content of Xa above is nulL Conversely, if clo~ly common information structures appear under languagespecific definitions of distinct grammatical categories, we may suspect a basis for a new common grammatical category.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Is grammar sharing possible?",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Once the shared and iauguage-spucific pm'ts are separated out, a mechanism for merging them is necessary for successfully incorporating the shared assertion into the language-specific assertion. ~m~c.ATIO~ by n~rr~.~c~ is such a merging mechanism that we employ in our system (see below). The shared space is a complex inheritance lattice that provides various predefined grammatical assertions that can be freely merged to create language- Shared inheritance lattice: Let us now take \u2022 look at a grossly simplified shared inheritance lattice that results from the process described above. See Figure 1 . Them is \u2022 universal notion N(ominal) in all five languages under consideration. This common notion is part of the N definition of each language by inheritance. There ~e some nominals that am 'complete' in the ~mse that they can be used as subjects or objects (e.g. I saw \u00a2~s/\u00a2~ cat.). Some others am 'incomplete' in that they cmnot be used as such (e. 8. I saw scat.).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 594,
"end": 602,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Is grammar sharing possible?",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "General notions Complete and Incomplete are thauby defined for characterizing relevant nominal classes of each language (see the diacmufion on ARG vs. NON-ARG below). Since Determiners in English, German, and ~ch make such incomplete nominals complete, the Determiner definition inherits (i.e. includes) the definition of Complete. Lexical items in these languages are defined by multiply inheriting relevant assertions:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Is grammar sharing possible?",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In what follows, we will f'n'st describe the specific linguistic and computational approaches that we employed to build our first shared grammar. We will then discuss the grammatiCul primitives for chm'ac~rizing scne~d nominals, ednommal modifiers, agreem~t, and word order types, illustrating solutions to specific cross-linguistic problems. We will end with prospects for further work.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Is grammar sharing possible?",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Grammatical framework: We use a cutogorial unification grammar (CUG) OVittenbur8 1986a; Karmmea 1986; Uzkoreit 1986b) . The one described here is a nondirectional categorial system (e.g. Montague 1974; Schmerling 1983; van Benthem 1986: Ch.7) with a nondirected functional application rule as the only reduction rule (i.e., a functor XIY may combine with adjacent Y in either direction to build X). Non-directionality allows for desired flexibility in the shared part of the grammsr. A sepm-ate compommt constrains the linear ord~ of elements in each lmguage (see Arislar 1988 for motivation).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 88,
"end": 101,
"text": "Karmmea 1986;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 117,
"text": "Uzkoreit 1986b)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 187,
"end": 201,
"text": "Montague 1974;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
},
{
"start": 202,
"end": 218,
"text": "Schmerling 1983;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 219,
"end": 236,
"text": "van Benthem 1986:",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Framework",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Unification and template inheritance: CUG's lexical orlentafioo end unification arc employed. In the t.e~coN of each kngusgu, lexical itema are defined to be the unification of language-specific \u00a2mAMMA~C.~ ~T~S (Shinber 1984 (Shinber , 1986 Ftickeoger et al. 1985; Pollmd & Sag 1987) . These language-specific templates, prefixed with AR(abic), EN(glish), FR(ench), OE(rman), and JA(panese), In fesm~ slzuctun= composed by multiplc inheritance from sluu'ed gra~atle~! templates prefixed with SO (for \"Shm~d Grammar\"). SG-templates are tbemsclves composed by multiple iulm'imnce in a complex INHI~rrANCZ LATI'/CE, whose holXom-end feeds into language-specific templmes. Tbe CUG parser (MCC's Astm, Wittenberg 1986b) applies reduction rules to the feature struclan~ of words in the input slring. 3 Arabic and: Japanese strings are currently represented in RomAn letters (augmanted for Arabic) with spaces between 'words'. 4 3Tho parser is linked m an independently developed morphology analyzer (Slocum 1988 ). This enables each word to undergo a morphological analysis including a dictionary look-up of the root morpheme, and to output a list (or altel'llative ]JsLq) of ~mmatiCal ~m~la~ llsm~ that, when their contents ere unified, produce a single fealme s~rucmre (or more than one if the word is ambiguous) for that particular token word. 4If we were to process Japanese texts directly, the system would have to perform morphological end syntactic analyses simultaneously since there is no explicit word boundaries. (Thh is one of the strong motivations for our recent movement toward building a new CUG-based morphology system.)",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 211,
"end": 224,
"text": "(Shinber 1984",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 225,
"end": 240,
"text": "(Shinber , 1986",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 241,
"end": 264,
"text": "Ftickeoger et al. 1985;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 265,
"end": 283,
"text": "Pollmd & Sag 1987)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 993,
"end": 1005,
"text": "(Slocum 1988",
"ref_id": "BIBREF23"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Framework",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Simple nominals: The present linguistic coverage is the syntax of ~ NOMINALS: nouns and nominal expressions with lexical or phrasal modifiers such as attributive adjectives (e.g. long), demonstratives (e.g. th/s), articles (e.g. the), quanth\"ters (e.g. a//), nmnera~ (e.g. three), genitives (e.g. of the Sun), and pp-modifiers (e.g./n the ocean). Complex nominals including conjunctions, derived nominals, gerunds, nominal compound& and relative clause modification have not been handled yet.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Present linguistic coverage",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Data ualysis: We first analyzed a data chart of simple nominals in each language. The chart focused on the syntactic well-formedness of nominal expression& in particular, the order and dispensability of elements when the nominal expression acts as an argument (e.g. subject, object) to a verb or an adposition (Le. preposition or postposition).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Present linguistic coverage",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "By design, the SG-LATHCE captures shared grammatical fealmcs in the given set of languages, whether they me due to universal, typological, genetic, or meal bases. As our research proceeded, we observed an atomization process whereby more and more grammatical properties were distinguished. This was because certain grammatical characterizations that seemed most natural for some language(s) were only partially relevant to others, which forced us to break them down into smaller parts so that other languages can use only the relevant parts.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Shared templates overview",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Modules in the SG-iattke: As the shared templates underwent atomization, we created sublattices corresponding to independent grammatical modules so that a grammar writer can make a langnage-specific combination of shared templates by consciously selecting one or more from each group. The existing subgroups me: (i) categorial grammar categories (the theory-dependent aspect of the shared grammar), (ii) common syntactic categories (theory-independent linguistic notions), (iii) grammatical agreement (to handle grammatical agreement within nominals), (iv) reference types (semantic features of the nominals, e.g. definite, indef'mite, specific), (v) determiner types (to handle co-occurrence and order restrictions among determiners), and (vi) atlributive modifier types (to handle order restrictions among attributive modifiers). We will focus on (i)-(iii) in this paper.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Shared templates overview",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Kinds of SG-templates: SG-templatns as they exist fall under the following types. The most general distinction can be made between ATOMIC and COM~rrE templates.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Shared templates overview",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Atomic templates inherit from no other template. They result from the atomization process, and are primitive parts that a grammar writer can put together to create mere complex templates. A composite template inherits from at least one other, to which a partial slructure defined for itself may be added. We may also distinguish between UTn.r~ and sUeSTA~rnve templates. Utility templates contribute integral parts of categodal grammar categories such as how many arguments they need to combine within none for a BASIC CATEGORY, ~ one or more for a PUNCIDR CA'EBGORYo Substantive templates supply grammatical categndes and features expressed in terms of various linguistic notions. Specific examples are discussed below.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Shared templates overview",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The basic graph structure l~lure2. Tae notation for a word whose resulting structure is ot A ca~gnry is either SATURXT~D (looking for no argumen0 or UNSATU~TED (needing to combine with one or more arguments). It is saturated when the value of ARGUMENTS is 'closed' with symbol #. An unsaturated category may seek one or more arguments, each of which is either unspecified ([ ]) or typed (e.g. [cat: N]). Overall \u2022 saturation is sought in parsing. The parser assigns index numbers to words in the input string from left to right, and coindexes corresponding subsWactares under ELEMENTS. The ELEMENTS component currently has A for the word for which this structure is defined, B for the first argument, and C for the second argument. These labels simply flag PATHS for accessing particular elements. There can be any number of order-relevant labels corresponding to an element. These labels, with coindices with respective elements, are in the ORDER component, which is subject to the Word Order ConsU'alnt (discussed later). TYPE is the slot for assigning the pseudo-functional category ARG or NON-ARG that we found significant in the present cross-linguistic treatment of nominals (see below). AGR(eement) and FEATS subgraphs contain grammatical and pragmatic agreement features, respectively (discussed later ",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Highlights of shared grammatical atoms",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "%SG-WO RD-FEATS-ARE-TOP-FEATS $SG-LEX \",,,/ JA-N EN-N FR-N GEoN AR-N FISUm 3. C~nerai N",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Highlights of shared grammatical atoms",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "A few more remarks about the notation follow. A value can be either atomic (e.g N), a disjunction of atomic: values enclosed in curly brackets (e. 8. {N P]), or a complex feature structure. It can also be umi~ffied ([ D. The identity of two or more values is fo~.~d by reenmmt structmm indicated by coindexing (e.g. I[ ] and <I>). Such coreferring value slots automatically point to a sin81e data structure entered through any one of the slots.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Highlights of shared grammatical atoms",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Category N: We posit the universal categmy N for nominals. Nominals here are those that realize AR~ such as subjects and objects.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Universal mono-level category N",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Nominals are more commonly labeled NP, a phrase typically built axound N or CN (comm*~ noun), as in phrase structure NP->DET N as well as in the categorlal grammar characterization of DET as a functor NPICN (Le. combines with CN and builds NP) (e.g. Ades & Steedm~n 1982; Wittenberg 1986a ). This BI.LEV]~ View of nominals is motivated by facts in western European languages. In English, for instance, while cat or wide cat cannot f'dl a subject position, a cat and thLv ca: can. In comrast, while he can be a subject, it cannot be modified as ~ he or srange h~. This motivates the following category-assJguments with a constraint that only NPs can be arguments: ca: is CN, he is NP, a and #~s are NP/CN, and white and sWange are CN/CN. This, bewevef, requires that plurals and mass nouns be CN and NP at the sanlc time since ca~, gold, white cats, white gold, these cms, and this gold can all be arguments. The count/nmss distinction is also often blurred since a singular count noun llke ca: may be used as a mass noun referring to the meat of the cat, and a mass noun like gold may be used as a singular count noun referring to a UNIT of gold or a KIND of gold (see e.g. Bach 1986) . The boundmT between NP and CN is at best Ftr22Y.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 250,
"end": 271,
"text": "Ades & Steedm~n 1982;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 272,
"end": 288,
"text": "Wittenberg 1986a",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 1174,
"end": 1184,
"text": "Bach 1986)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Universal mono-level category N",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "When we ~ to othm\" languages, the basis for the bi-level view vmisbes. In Japanese, for instance, neko 'cat' can be an argument on its own, and pronoun kam 'he' can be modified as in ano kate 'that he' and okas/na kate 'strange he'. In short, there is no basic syntactic diff~iew.e among count nouns, pronouns, and mass nouns (and no singular/plural distinction on a 'count' noun). All of them behave iJ~ plural and mass nouns in English. This supports a mono-level view of nominals, which we intend to captm~ with category N. Figure 3 shows the SGtemplates relevant to the most general characterization of N in each language. SG-templates in the following illustrations are marked as follows: atomic templates SG-x (boldface), utility templates 9~SG-x, and substantive templates $SG-x.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 527,
"end": 535,
"text": "Figure 3",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Universal mono-level category N",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "At the moat general level, the basic llomlnall ill Gezman (OE-N) and Arabic (AR-N) must be unsaturated because gcnitivc-inflectod Ns may take arguments. The basic nominals in Japanese (JA-N), English (EN-N), md French fiR-N), on the other hand, are basic categories that are salmated? In *_d,]ition, all but JA-N inherit relevant AGR(eemant) templates (see below). Crucially, note that what 1oo~ like a reasonable characterization of N in each language actually consists of a particular selection from the common set of primitives.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Universal mono-level category N",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "ARGUMENT and NON-ARGUMENT: We posit a pseudc~functiomd level of description in terms of ARG(ument) and NON-ARG for category N instead of the categozy=level distinction between NP and CN. ARG may function as an ~t alone, and NON-ARG cannot.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Universal mono-level category N",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "5Note that English possessive marker's is not treated as an inflection here. NON-ARG becomes ARG only by being combined with a certain modifier or by undergoing a semantic change (e.g massifying). In this view, the ARG/NON-ARG distinction is 'grounded on a complex intcraction of morphology, semantics, and syntax.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Universal mono-level category N",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In English and Germa~ singular count nouns (e.g. wee, Baum) are NON-ARG while plurals, mass (~ngu~) nouns, proper names, and pronouns are ARG. The NON-ARG nouns become 'complete' ARG nominals either by being modified with deteTmin~'s of by chmsing int~ mass nouns (typically changing an object reference into a property/substance mfe~nce, e.g., i uaed app/, /n my p/e.).\u00b0 In French, all forms of commo~ nouns (i.e. singul&, plural, and mass) me NON-ARG, in need of delcrminers to become ARC; (e.g~ $'a/~ *ar~ arbrea 'I saw tn~J'; *AmourlL' omour e~ delica~ 'Love is delkate').",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Universal mono-level category N",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In Japanese, them ~e few NON-ARG nouns (e.g., kam 'person' (HONORIFIC)), which can become ARG with any modifier such as a relative clause or an adjective (e.g. ~mana tam 'free person (HON.)'3 In Arabic, the morphological distinction of nouns between a~rexzo vs. UNA~VeXED corresponds to NON-ARG md ARG statues, respectively, s For instance, the unmlnexed form q~.ma.~ CAT-DUAL NOM-UNANNEX 'tWO Ca~' may occur u mbject alone whereas the mnexed form q'.~a: CAT.DU~M ce~not. The latter must be modified with a noun-based modifier such as a genitive phrase, and this modifier must be unsnncxod (e.g. with rajulin MAN-ffeN.UNANNIDG q't~a: raju//n 'mAn's two cats'). These facts in Japanese mul Arabic show that the proposed fun~onal distinction for nominals is motivated independently from the syntaodc role of determiuen since ueithcr language has modifiers of categmy DET that we find in Engl_i~h; French, and Gennm (more discussed later).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Universal mono-level category N",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We realize that the ARG/NON-ARG distinction itself is not a final solution until fine-grained syntactic-romantic interdependence is fleshed out. For now, we simply posit pseudo-functional types ARG md NON-ARG, which me either changed or passed up within the nominal slructure: 9 $SG-ARG: Category NIN: Adnominal modif'~m (N-MODs) are now universally NIN (Le. a functor that combines with N and builds N). This includes both determiners and aUribulive modif'u:rs. Figure 4 shows the SG-templates for the basic N-MOD. Different kinds of N-MOD must then distinguish whether it takes one or two arguments and whether the resulting nominal with modification is ARG or NON-ARG. Each distinction is briefly illustrated below.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 463,
"end": 471,
"text": "Figure 4",
"ref_id": "FIGREF3"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Universal mono-level category N",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Two kinds of Igenltlve: Genitive N-MOD functors may take different numbers of arguments crosslinsuist/cally. An inf~ted genitive nominal (e.g. GE:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Universal mono-level category N",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Marias, AR: rajulln 'man's') takes one, while a genitive 8dposition (e.g. EN: o)) takes two. The former is captured with SG-I~ONAI.~ENrrIVE-CASE-MOD, and the latter, with SG-PARTICLE-GENITIVE-CASE-MOD. see ~,ur, s.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Universal mono-level category N",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Non-universal determiner category: In the present ~roach, DET(enniner) is a modifim-type (including &ticks, demonstratives, quantifiers, numerals, and possessives) such that at least one of its members is needed for making an ARG nominal out of a NON-ARG. The fact that a nominal with a del~rmln~r is always ARG Iranslates into SG-DET inheriting from SG-ARG among others. DET is present in English, German, and French, but not in Japmese or Arabic (or Russian o~ Chinese). Demommnfive~ quanlifiers, numerals, and possessives in the latter lansuagea do not sham the syntactic function of DET. We suspect that the presence of DET is an areal property of western Eeropean lmgeaSes.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Universal mono-level category N",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The sublatticc in Figure 6 highlights two aspects of DET. One is the diff~,~.,ce between DET and ADJ(ective) in Engfish, German, and French with respect to the ARG status of the resulting nominal. DET always builds ARG cancelling whatever the type of the incoming nominal whereas ADJ passes the type of the incoming nominal to the top. The other is the place of demonslralives in relation to DET. Eve~ language has demonstratives encoding two or tluue degre~ of speaker proximity (e.g. JAPANESE: kono (close to the speaker), sow (close to the addressee), 61n implementation, this latter process may be triggered by a unary rule COUNT->MASS. 7They are assigned a NON-ARG category MN (for 'modified noun') separate from the ARG category N. Any modifier changes it into ARG. SA/mEX~ here means 'needing to be mmexed to a nounbased modifier', and UN~ means 'completed'.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 26,
"text": "Figure 6",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Universal mono-level category N",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Th~ arc also called NONNUNATED ~ NUNATED fOl'l~, respectively, in Semitic linguistics (Aristar, personal communication) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 86,
"end": 119,
"text": "(Aristar, personal communication)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Universal mono-level category N",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "9An intnging direction is shown in Kritka's (1987) categorial grammar t~ttmenL He assigns the singular count noun in English (i.e. our NON-ARG) m unsatnmted nominal category looking for its numerical value both in syntax and semantics. The sJSnificance of determiners is here as suppliers of numerical values. How this approach can be extended to cover the NON-ARG nominals in Arabic and JapAnese (which ale not in need of numerical values per se) remRin~ to be seen. Although it ma~s sense to see NON-ARG as a functor looking for more semantic determinaeon, implemeneng it would require a reduction rule for TWO FONc'roRs U30~O FOR EAC~ oTtm~ The current system would cause an infinite regression with such a rule. and ano (away from either)), but they belong to the class of determiners only ff the language has DET.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Universal mono-level category N",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Two kinds of features are distinguished, linguistic features relevant to GRAMMATICAL A~'r (e.g. Frenc~ grammatical gender i~l~*~ table \u00b0a table' f.), and refexent fealm~s relevant to ~AC~ATXC A~Rmgdm~r (e.g. using s~ to refer to a female person; using appropriate numend classifiers fur counting objects in Japanese). The former is under aUribute AGR, and the latter is under FEATS. The N-internal gramma,~c~l agn:emunt (AGR) requires that certain features of the HEAD Nominal must agree with those of MOD.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammatical agreement (AGR)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "For instance, English has number agreement (e.g. th/s book, *tho~ book, *th/,v boo~). Among the five languages under consideration, all but Japanese have AGR.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammatical agreement (AGR)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Although them is c~oss-linguistic variation in AGR features, it is not random (Moravcsik 1978) . Table I sums up the N-intemai AGR features in the four languages. All AGR features go under atlribute AGR so that its presence simply corresponds to the inescoce of grmmnatical agreement in a language. EN-N, for instance, inherits the shared template for number agreement, and FR-N those for number and gender agreements. See below:. $SG-NBR-AGR: Seperating AGR end FEATS enables us to cte.a~ SOtemplates that impose the most general agreement conslraint ~-g~miless of the precise content of agreement fea~. Three agreement templates produce the combined effect of N-intenml agreement conslrsint, SG-AGR, SG-AGR-ARGUMENTS, and the composite of the two, SG-AGR-WITH-ARGUMEN'I~. See Figure 7 .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 78,
"end": 94,
"text": "(Moravcsik 1978)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF19"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 97,
"end": 104,
"text": "Table I",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 778,
"end": 786,
"text": "Figure 7",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammatical agreement (AGR)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "[",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammatical agreement (AGR)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The reenlrancies impose the strict identity of AGR features: (0 $SG-AGR--betwem the topmost structure and the dcmmt that the graph is defined for, (fi) $SG-AGR-ARGUMENTS---between the topmost structure and the first argument, and (iii) $SG-AGR-WITH-ARGUMENTS--among all the three. (0 goes into ALL NOMINALS, pussing the Dominql's AGR featams to the top level This is because the AGR features must always be available at the top level of a nominal so that they can be used when the nominal is further modified. (ii) goes into ADNO~AL MODn~mRS, passing the head nominai's AGR realtors to the top leveL (ih~ goes into ONLY THOSE ADNOMINAL MODwle.gS SUBJECT TO THB AG~ CONS' IRAINI** for instance, demomtratives (e.g. these) but not attributive adjectives (e.g. sma//) in English, and both demonstratives and adjectives in French (see this diff~ce in the above inberitance). This is an example where a better language-specific treatment is obtained from the gnunmar-sharing perspective. If only English is handled, one may simply force the identity of NBR features amidst all kinds of other featmes, but in the light of eruss-linguistic variation and invsrisnts, it lends itself naturally to separating out two kinds of features that correspond to diff~t semantic intcqnetation processes.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammatical agreement (AGR)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In connecting word order typology and categoriai grnmm~r~ we have benefited from work of Grcenberg (1966) , Lelmumn (1973 ), Vennemann (1974 , 1976 , 1981 , Kecnma (1979) , Flynn (1982) , and Hawkins (1984) . Amon 8 these, we have a f'h-st-cut implementation of Vamemmm's (1981) and Plyun's (1982) view that the functor types based on CATEOORY CONSTANCY have a significant relation to the default word order of a language. A functor is c^Teoo~Y.COm-T~aCr ff it builds the same catego~ as its argum~t(s). It is CATEGORY.NON-CONSTANT if it builds a different category from its m-gument(s). These notions ~e also called m~xJrt, mc md ~x~c, respectively, by Ber-Hillel (1953) , and are crucially used in lqyma's high-level word order convention s~.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 89,
"end": 105,
"text": "Grcenberg (1966)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 121,
"text": "Lelmumn (1973",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 140,
"text": "), Vennemann (1974",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 147,
"text": ", 1976",
"ref_id": "BIBREF27"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 154,
"text": ", 1981",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 170,
"text": "Kecnma (1979)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 185,
"text": "Flynn (1982)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
},
{
"start": 192,
"end": 206,
"text": "Hawkins (1984)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
},
{
"start": 262,
"end": 278,
"text": "Vamemmm's (1981)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 283,
"end": 297,
"text": "Plyun's (1982)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 654,
"end": 671,
"text": "Ber-Hillel (1953)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Category constancy and word order typology",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The definitiom of the notions MOD (modifier), HEAD (head), FN (run.ion), and ARG (argument) follow:.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Category constancy and word order typology",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\u2022 MOD is a categm'y-comtant functor (XIX) that combines with HEAD (X). (see above for SG-MOB)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Category constancy and word order typology",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\u2022 FN is a category-non-comtant functor (YIX) that combines with ARG (X Them is crms-linguis~ evidenc~ that MOD-I-IEAD mid FN-ARG urdcn tend to go in opposite directions. This remounts to two basic word order types in languages: Figure 7 . AGREEMENT Arabic (HEAD < MOD) and Japanese (MOD < HEAD), with few exceptions. The three European languages, however, observe the default order only with 'heavier' (i J:. phrasal or clausal) modifiers, namely, genitives, ppmodifiers, and relative clauses. Lex/cal modifiers, including numerals, demonslratives, and adjectives (more or less), go in the opposite ordering. The exceptionally ordered MODs of the five languages revealed en implk:ational chain amnng modifiers: Numerals < Demonstratives < Adjectives < Genitives .: Relative clauses. Exceptional order was found with those MODs s~arting from the left-end of this hierarchy: JA: marked use of Numerals, AR: enmarked use of Numerals and Demonslratives, FR: Numerals, Demonstratives, and used of Adjectlve~ EN&GE: Numerals, Demomlrafives, and Adjectives. The generalization is that a non-default order for a modifier type x implies the now default order for other types located to the LeFr of x in the given chain.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 228,
"end": 236,
"text": "Figure 7",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Category constancy and word order typology",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "WI~ we found mppo~ the general implicational hierm~hy that Hawkin~ (1984) found in his cross-linguistic study. We can ~ maintain, therefin'e, that there is such a thing as the default .o~ with a qualification that it maybe oven'idden by non-random, subclaasea. In our current implementation, we simply assign another category MOD2 on those 'exceptional' modifiers in order to free them from the general order conslraint on MOD, which we hope to improve in the future. 10",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 59,
"end": 73,
"text": "Hawkin~ (1984)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Category constancy and word order typology",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "There are two potential problems in m effort to develop a shared grammar as described be~ One is the need for serious cooperation amang the developers. A small change in shared templates can always affect language-specific templmns that someoue else is workln~ on. The other problem is the sheer complexity of the inheritance lattice. Both problems can be most cffcctively reduc~_d by a sophisticated edits tooL",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Potential problems and solutions",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We have shown a specific implementation of grammar sharin8 using graph unification by inheritance. Although the case discussed covers only simple nominals in five languages, we believe that the fundamental process that we GRAMMATICAL ATOMIZATION will remain crucial in developing a shared grammar of any sU'uctural complexity a~l linguistic coverage. The specif~ merits of this process is that (a) it tends to prevent the grammar writer from implementing treatments that work only for a language or a language type, and that (b) it pmvidas insights as to how certain conflated properties in a languase actually mnsist of smaller independent pros. In the end, when a prototype shared grammar anains a reasonable scale, we hope to verify the prediction that it will facilitate adding coverage for new languages.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusions and future prospects",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The purpose of this wo~ at MCC was to demonstrate the feasibility of a shared syn~ rule base for dissimilar languages. We only assumed that languages are used to . convey information contents that can be represented in a common knowledge base. As the next step, therefore, we have chosen to connect syntax with 'deeper' levels of information pmces~in~ (i.e. sern*.tlcs, discourse, and knowledge base) rather them continuing to increase the syntactic coverage alone. Our current effort is on developing a blackboard-like system for controlling various knowledge sources (i.e. morphology, syntax, semantics, discourse, and a commmutense knowledge base (MCC's CYC, Lanat and Feigenhaum 1987)). In the future, we hope to see a shared grammar integrated in a full-blown interface tool for man-machine commuuical/on.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusions and future prospects",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"back_matter": [
{
"text": "This shared grammar work is a collaborative effort of a team at MCC. I am especially indebted to my fellow linguis~ Anthony Arists~ and Carol Juatus, for their insights into multilingual facts and numerous discussions. I would also like. to tl~nk Rich Cohen, Martha Morgan, Elaine Rich, Jonathan Slecum, Ksystyna Wachowicz, and Kent Wittenburg for valuable comments and discussions at various phases of the work. Thank~ also go to AI Mendall and Michael O'Leary for implementing the interface tool, e~l to anonymous ACL reviewers for helpful comments. I am responsible, however, for this particular exposition of the work and remaining shortcomings.I\u00b0We envision using a data structure of type inheritance lattice defined for each lanouage to express word order constraints in order to handle non-default orde~m 8. The basic idea is that an order constraint stated on a d_,~'__~-ndant (e.g. DEM < head) ovearides that stated on its anc~tont (e.g. head < MOD). This differs from GPSG's LP rules (Gazdar & Pullum 1981; Gazd& et al. 1985; Uzlmreit 1986) in that the order conslraints apply to items located anywhen\" in the derivational Iree struclrue, not limited to sister constituents, and the pieces of an item can be scattered in the tree. It is in spirit ~imilar to LFG's functional precedence conslraints (Kaplun 1988; Kameyama forthcoming).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Acknowledgments",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "On the order of words",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Anthony",
"middle": [],
"last": "Aries",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Mark",
"middle": [],
"last": "Steedman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1982,
"venue": "Lingusitics and Philosophy",
"volume": "4",
"issue": "",
"pages": "517--558",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Aries, Anthony and Mark Steedman. 1982. On the order of words. Lingusitics and Philosophy, 4, 517-558.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "Word-order constraints in a n~0tilingeal categorial grammar",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Anthony",
"middle": [],
"last": "Aristar",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1988,
"venue": "Proceedings for the 12th International Conference on Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Aristar, Anthony. 1988. Word-order constraints in a n~0tilingeal categorial grammar. To appear in the Proceedings for the 12th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Bedapest.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "The algebra of events",
"authors": [
{
"first": "~mmon",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bach",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1986,
"venue": "Linguistics and Philosophy",
"volume": "9",
"issue": "",
"pages": "5--16",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Bach, ~mmon. 1986. The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy, 9, 5-16.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "47-58\u2022 van Benthem, Johan. 1986. Categorial grammar. Essays in Logical Semantics",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Y",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bar-Hillel",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1953,
"venue": "DonkechC Reidel",
"volume": "29",
"issue": "",
"pages": "123--150",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Bar-Hillel, Y. 1953. A quas/-arithmetical notation for syntactic description. Language, 29(1), 47-58\u2022 van Benthem, Johan. 1986. Categorial grammar. Essays in Logical Semantics (Chapter 7). DonkechC Reidel, 123-150.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "Structure-sharing in lexical rcprcsentation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Daniel",
"middle": [],
"last": "Flickengcr",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Cad",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pollard",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Thomas",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wasow",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1985,
"venue": "The Pruccedings for the 24th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Flickengcr, Daniel, Cad Pollard, and Thomas Wasow. 1985. Structure-sharing in lexical rcprcsentation. The Pruccedings for the 24th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "A categorial theory of stricture building",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Michael",
"middle": [],
"last": "Flynn",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1982,
"venue": "Order, Concord, and Constituency",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Flynn, Michael 1982. A categorial theory of stricture building. In G. Gazdar, G. Pollum, and E. Klein (eds), Order, Concord, and Constituency. Dordrecht: Foris.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "Subcategorizat/on, constituent order, and the notion 'head",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Gerald",
"middle": [],
"last": "Gazdsr",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Geoffrey",
"middle": [
"K"
],
"last": "Pullum",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1981,
"venue": "The Scope of Lexical Rules",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "107--123",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Gazdsr, Gerald and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 1981. Subcategorizat/on, constituent order, and the notion 'head'. In Moongat, M., H. v.d. Huist, and T. Hoekstra (eds), The Scope of Lexical Rules. Dordrecht, Holland: Foris, 107-123. ; Ewen Klcin;",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "\u2022 Generalized Phrase Slnumm~ Grammar",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Geoffrey",
"middle": [
"K"
],
"last": "",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Ivan",
"middle": [
"A"
],
"last": "Sag",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1985,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Geoffrey K. pollum; and Ivan A. Sag. 1985\u2022 Generalized Phrase Slnumm~ Grammar. Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishing and Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Joseph",
"middle": [],
"last": "Greenberg",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1966,
"venue": "Universals of Language",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "73--113",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Greenberg, Joseph. 1966. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In J. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Language (2nd edition). Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 73-113.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF9": {
"ref_id": "b9",
"title": "Modifier-head or function-argument relations in phrase slructure? The evidence of some word order universals",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Jolm",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hawkins",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1984,
"venue": "Lingua",
"volume": "63",
"issue": "",
"pages": "107--138",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Hawkins, Jolm. 1984. Modifier-head or function-argument relations in phrase slructure? The evidence of some word order universals. Lingua, 63, 107-138.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF10": {
"ref_id": "b10",
"title": "forthcoming. Functional precedence conditions on overt and zero pmnominals",
"authors": [
{
"first": "*",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kameyam",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Megumi",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": null,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Kameyam* Megumi. forthcoming. Functional precedence conditions on overt and zero pmnominals. Manuscript.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF11": {
"ref_id": "b11",
"title": "Three seductions of computational psycholinguistics",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Ronald",
"middle": [
"M"
],
"last": "Kapian",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1988,
"venue": "Linguistic Theory and Computer Applications",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Kapian, Ronald M. 1988. Three seductions of computational psycholinguistics. In Whitelock, Peter;, Harold Somen, Paul Bennett, Rod Johnson, and Mary McGee Wood (eds), Linguistic Theory and Computer Applications. Academic Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF12": {
"ref_id": "b12",
"title": "LaurL 1986\u2022 Radical lexicalism. Paper presented at the Workshop on Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Slntcture at the Summer Linguistic Institute",
"authors": [
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Karttunen",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": null,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Karttunen, LaurL 1986\u2022 Radical lexicalism. Paper presented at the Workshop on Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Slntcture at the Summer Linguistic Institute, New York. [To appear in Kroch, Anthony et aL (eds), Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure.]",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF13": {
"ref_id": "b13",
"title": "On surface form and logical form",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Edward",
"middle": [],
"last": "Keemn",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1979,
"venue": "Studies in the Linguistic Sciences (special issue)",
"volume": "8",
"issue": "2",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Keemn, Edward. 1979. On surface form and logical form. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences (special issue), 8(2).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF14": {
"ref_id": "b14",
"title": "\u2022 Nominal ref~uce and tempm-al constitution: towards a semantics of quantity",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Manfred",
"middle": [],
"last": "Krifka",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1987,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Sixth Amsterdam Colloquium",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "153--173",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Krifka, Manfred. 1987\u2022 Nominal ref~uce and tempm-al constitution: towards a semantics of quantity. In J. Gmenendijk, M. Stokhof, and F. VelUnan (eds), Proceedings of the Sixth Amsterdam Colloquium, University of Amsterdam, Institu~ for Language, Logic, and Information, 153-173.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF16": {
"ref_id": "b16",
"title": "A structural principle of language and its implications",
"authors": [
{
"first": "P",
"middle": [],
"last": "Winfred",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1973,
"venue": "Language",
"volume": "49",
"issue": "",
"pages": "47--66",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Winfred P. 1973. A structural principle of language and its implications. Language, 49, 47-66.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF17": {
"ref_id": "b17",
"title": "On the thresholds of knowledge. Paper presented at the Workshop on Foundations of AI, MIT",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Douglas",
"middle": [
"B"
],
"last": "Lenat",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Edward",
"middle": [
"A"
],
"last": "Feigenbanm",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1987,
"venue": "the Proceedings for the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Lenat, Douglas B. and Edward A. Feigenbanm. 1987. On the thresholds of knowledge. Paper presented at the Workshop on Foundations of AI, MIT, June. Also in the Proceedings for the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Milan.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF18": {
"ref_id": "b18",
"title": "Formal Philosophy:. Selected Papers of Richard Montague",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Richard",
"middle": [],
"last": "Montague",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1974,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "247--279",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Montague, Richard. 1974. The proper Ireatment of quanlffication in English\u2022 In Rich Thomason (ed\u2022), Formal Philosophy:. Selected Papers of Richard Montague. New Haven: Yale, 247-279.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF19": {
"ref_id": "b19",
"title": "AgreemanL In",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Edith",
"middle": [],
"last": "Moravcsik",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1978,
"venue": "Universals of Human Language",
"volume": "3",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Moravcsik, Edith. 1978. AgreemanL In J. H. Greenberg et al. (eds), Universals of Human Language, VoL 3. Stanford: Stanford University Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF20": {
"ref_id": "b20",
"title": "Head-driven Phrase SU'UCUI.-'~ Grammar~ The \u00a2oursc ~ for [he Linguistic Institute at Stanford University. Schmerlin 8. Susan. 1983. Two theories of syntactic categories",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Cad",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pollard",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Ivan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sag",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1987,
"venue": "Linguistics and Philosophy",
"volume": "6",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Pollard, Cad and Ivan Sag. 1987. Head-driven Phrase SU'UCUI.-'~ Grammar~ The \u00a2oursc ~ for [he Linguistic Institute at Stanford University. Schmerlin 8. Susan. 1983. Two theories of syntactic categories. Linguistics and Philosophy, 6, 393.421.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF21": {
"ref_id": "b21",
"title": "The design of a computer language for linguiStiC informaliolL The Pr~__J~yl_ |n~s for the 10th International Conference on Computational Linguistics",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Stuart",
"middle": [],
"last": "Shicher",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1984,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "362--366",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Shicher, Stuart. 1984. The design of a computer language for linguiStiC informaliolL The Pr~__J~yl_ |n~s for the 10th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, 362-366.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF22": {
"ref_id": "b22",
"title": "\u2022 An Introduction to Unification-based Approaches to Grammar\u2022 CSLI Lecutre Notes 4. Stanford: CSLL (available from the University of Chicago P~s)",
"authors": [],
"year": null,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "\u2022 An Introduction to Unification-based Approaches to Grammar\u2022 CSLI Lecutre Notes 4. Stanford: CSLL (available from the University of Chicago P~s)",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF23": {
"ref_id": "b23",
"title": "Morphological processing in the Nabu system",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Jonathan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Slocum",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1988,
"venue": "the ProceeA_ings for the 2rid Confezence on Applied Natural Language Pmcessh]8. ACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Slocum, Jonathan. 1988. Morphological processing in the Nabu system. In the ProceeA_ings for the 2rid Confezence on Applied Natural Language Pmcessh]8. ACL.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF24": {
"ref_id": "b24",
"title": "Transprtability to other languages: the natm~ language processing project in the AI program at MCC",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Carol",
"middle": [],
"last": "Juatus",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1985,
"venue": "ACM Transactions on Offke Information Systems",
"volume": "3",
"issue": "2",
"pages": "204--230",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "and Carol Juatus\u2022 1985\u2022 Transprtability to other languages: the natm~ language processing project in the AI program at MCC. ACM Transactions on Offke Information Systems, 3(2), 204-230.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF25": {
"ref_id": "b25",
"title": "Comtraints on order",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Ham",
"middle": [],
"last": "Uzkm~t",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1986,
"venue": "CSLI Repog No. CSLI-86-46. \u2022 1986b. Categorial unification gramman. The ~gs for the 1 lth International Conference on Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "187--194",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Uzkm~t, Ham. 1986a. Comtraints on order. Stanford, CA: CSLI Repog No. CSLI-86-46. \u2022 1986b. Categorial unification gramman. The ~gs for the 1 lth International Conference on Computational Linguistics, 187-194.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF26": {
"ref_id": "b26",
"title": "Topics, subjects and word one-'r: From SXV tu SVX via TVX",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Then",
"middle": [],
"last": "Venuemann",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1974,
"venue": "Historical Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "339--376",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Venuemann, Then. 1974. Topics, subjects and word one-'r: From SXV tu SVX via TVX. In J. M. Andsrson ~nd C. Jones (eds), Historical Linguistics, I\u2022 Amsterdam: North-Holland, 339-376.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF27": {
"ref_id": "b27",
"title": "Categorial grammar and the order of meaningful elements",
"authors": [],
"year": 1976,
"venue": "IAnguistic studies offered to Joseph Greenberg on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "615--634",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "\u2022 1976. Categorial grammar and the order of meaningful elements. In A. Jnilland (ed.), IAnguistic studies offered to Joseph Greenberg on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday. California: Saratoga, 615-634.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF28": {
"ref_id": "b28",
"title": "Categorial grammar md consistent basic VX ~iafizafion",
"authors": [],
"year": 1977,
"venue": "\u2022 1981. Typology, universals and change of language. Paper prmentad at the International Conference on Historical Syntax, Poman. and Ray H&low",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "227--254",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "\u2022 1981. Typology, universals and change of language. Paper prmentad at the International Conference on Historical Syntax, Poman. and Ray H&low. 1977. Categorial grammar md consistent basic VX ~iafizafion. Theoretical linguistics, <3), 227-254.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF29": {
"ref_id": "b29",
"title": "Natural language processing with combinat~ry categorial grammar in a graphimificafion-based formalkuk Doctoral Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin. \u2022 1986b. A parsor for portable NL interfaces using graph-unification-based ~mmnrS",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Kent",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wittenhorg",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1986,
"venue": "The ~gS for the 5th National Conference on Artificial IntelLigence",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1053--1058",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Wittenhorg, Kent. 1986a. Natural language processing with combinat~ry categorial grammar in a graph- imificafion-based formalkuk Doctoral Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin. \u2022 1986b. A parsor for portable NL interfaces using graph-unification-based ~mmnrS. The ~gS for the 5th National Conference on Artificial IntelLigence, 1053-1058.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF0": {
"num": null,
"uris": null,
"text": "A simplified shared httt/\u00a2e",
"type_str": "figure"
},
"FIGREF1": {
"num": null,
"uris": null,
"text": "Each word must be associated with a complete CUG feature structure. The current implementation uses a malx~ notation for ACYCLIC DIRP.~-I-~ GRAPH. ~ Figure 2syntactic type of (~ <-relative linear position of (~ <-grammatical agreement features of o< (optional) <-pragmatic agreement features of ~-, <-the functional type of \u00a2x (see below) <-elements within c~ <-order of elements (see below) <-arguments sought (see below)",
"type_str": "figure"
},
"FIGREF2": {
"num": null,
"uris": null,
"text": "inheritance of composite templates $SG-N (above) %SC,-HEAD.-FEAT~ARF_,-TOP.FEATS %SG-FI1L~-ARG~iG-G~SG-MOD $SG-N-MOD<-for the general sdnominal modifier",
"type_str": "figure"
},
"FIGREF3": {
"num": null,
"uris": null,
"text": "more than two arguments soughl $SG...GENrnv~ <-assigns the genitive case featun [result: [elements: [a: [feats: [case: genitive]]]]] inheritance of composite templates $SG-N-MOD (above) $SG-CASE-MOD: <-for the general case-mod [result: [elements: ]a: [cat: {'P N') <-P or N feats: [mod-t'ype: case-meal]]]]] ~S G-INI~..EC'MON~.-Ca~E-M OD $SG-GENF~VE S SC~-PAR'n CLE-C~-q E-M O D AR: rsjulin 'man's' EN: of JA: no Flgu~ $. Genitive Case MOD",
"type_str": "figure"
},
"FIGREF4": {
"num": null,
"uris": null,
"text": "~-qutdB as 'pz.cmdas')The N-level default word order in a language is determined as follows: Every language has ~posrnoN-s (prepositions and postpositions), universally a category-non-constant functor PPIN. A postpositionai laaguage (i.e. a language that uses only or predominantly postpositions) then belongs to TYPE 1 (ARG < FN), and a prepositional language belongs to TYPE 2 (FN < ARG). in the present case, EN, G~ ~ and AR are propositional while JA is postpositiuneLThe default MOD order is most faithfully observed in inheritance of composite templates ~ $SG-ARG (see above), %SG-ARGUMENTS-REST-SATURATED (see above) DET) $SG-DEM(onstrative) $SG-ATI'RIBUTIVE-ADJECTIVE $SG-HEAD-TYPE-IS-TOP-TYPE: ~/'\"~ / ~:[result: [ t: >eel eme~l : > [b: 1[ ]]]]] i ENoATTIRB-ADJ GE-ATTRIB-ADJ FR-ATTRIB-ADJ AR-ATTRIB-ADJ JA-A3\"rRIB-ADJ a: [agr: I[ ll]]] :$SG-AGR-ARGUMENTS: [result: [agr: <1>] arguments: [first: [result: [AO~ I[ ]]]]]",
"type_str": "figure"
},
"TABREF2": {
"text": "atomic templates %SG-HF.AD-FF.ATS-ARE-TOP-FEATS:",
"num": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td colspan=\"4\">(result: [feats: elements: [b: [feats: 1[ ])]]] <1></td><td><-passes the features of the second element to the top</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">%SG.-FIRST-ARGUMENT: [result: [elements: [b: arguments: [first: [result:</td><td><1>]] 1[ ]]]]]</td><td><-slot for the first argument</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">%SG-GET.-ORDER: [result: ]order: [[<1>]] <-passes the ORDER content of the first argument to the top arguments: [first: [result: [order: 1[ ]]]]]</td></tr><tr><td>$SG-MOD: [result:</td><td>[eat:</td><td>4[ ]</td><td colspan=\"2\"><-for \u2022 category-constant functor MOD (see below)</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"3\">elements: [s: [index: <1>] b: <3>]</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"4\">order: limed: 1[ ]] [head: 2[ ]]]</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">arguments: [f'h'St: [result: 3[cat: index: <2>]]] <4></td></tr></table>",
"type_str": "table",
"html": null
}
}
}
} |