File size: 69,869 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 | {
"paper_id": "P89-1027",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T08:14:44.067795Z"
},
"title": "OF LONG DISTANCE DEPENDENCIES IN LFG AND TAG: FUNCTIONAL UNCERTAINTY IN LFG IS A COROLLARY IN TAG\"",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Aravind",
"middle": [
"K"
],
"last": "Joshi",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia",
"location": {
"postCode": "19104",
"region": "PA"
}
},
"email": "joshi@linc.cis.upenn.edu"
},
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Vijay-Shanker",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {},
"email": ""
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "In this paper the functional uncertainty machinery in LFG is compared with the treatment of long distance dependencies in TAG. It is shown that the functional uncertainty machinery is redundant in TAG, i.e., what functional uncertainty accomplishes for LFG follows f~om the TAG formalism itself and some aspects of the linguistic theory instantiated in TAG. It is also shown that the analyses provided by the functional uncertainty machinery can be obtained without requiring power beyond mildly context-sensitive grammars. Some linguistic and computational aspects of these results have been briefly discussed also.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "P89-1027",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "In this paper the functional uncertainty machinery in LFG is compared with the treatment of long distance dependencies in TAG. It is shown that the functional uncertainty machinery is redundant in TAG, i.e., what functional uncertainty accomplishes for LFG follows f~om the TAG formalism itself and some aspects of the linguistic theory instantiated in TAG. It is also shown that the analyses provided by the functional uncertainty machinery can be obtained without requiring power beyond mildly context-sensitive grammars. Some linguistic and computational aspects of these results have been briefly discussed also.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "The so-called long distance dependencies are characterized in Lexical Functional Grammars (LFG) by the use of the formal device of functional uncertainty, as defined by Kaplan and Zaenan [3] and Kaplan and Maxwell [2] . In this paper, we relate this characterization to that provided by Tree ~,djoining Grammars (TAG), showing a direct correspondence between the functional uncertainty equations in LFG analyses and the elementary trees in TAGs that give analyses for \"long distance\" dependencies. We show that the functional uncertainty machinery is redundant in TAG, i.e., what functional uncertainty accomplishes for LFG follows from the TAG formalism itself and some fundamental aspects of the linguistic theory instantiated in TAG. We thus show that these analyses can be obtained without requiring power beyond mildly context-sensitive grammars. We also *This work was partially supported (for the first author) by the DRRPA grant N00014-85-K0018, AltO grant DAA29-84-9-0027, and NSF grant IRI84-10413-A02. The first author also benefited from some discussion with Mark Johnson and Ron Kaplan at the Titisee Workshop on Unification Grammars, March, 1988. briefly discuss the linguistic and computational significance of these results.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 169,
"end": 190,
"text": "Kaplan and Zaenan [3]",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 217,
"text": "Kaplan and Maxwell [2]",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 1138,
"end": 1160,
"text": "Grammars, March, 1988.",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "INTRODUCTION",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "Long distance phenomena are associated with the so-called movement. The following examples, 1. Mary Henry telephoned.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "INTRODUCTION",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "2. Mary Bill said that Henry telephoned.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "INTRODUCTION",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "telephoned.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Mary John claimed that Bill said that Henry",
"sec_num": "3."
},
{
"text": "illustrate the long distance dependencies due to topicalization, where the verb telephoned and its object Mary can be arbitrarily apart. It is difficult to state generalizations about these phenomena if one relies entirely on the surface structure (as defined in CFG based frameworks) since these phenomena cannot be localized at this level. Kaplan and Zaenan [3] note that, in LFG, rather than stating the generalizations on the c-structure, they must be stated on f-structures, since long distance dependencies are predicate argument dependencies, and such functional dependencies are represented in the f-structures. Thus, as stated in [2, 3] , in the sentences (1) , (2) , and (3) above, the dependencies are captured by the equations (in the LFG notation 1) by 1\" TOPIC =T OBJ, T TOPIC =T COMP OBJ, and 1\" TOPIC =T COMP COMP OBJ, respectively, which state that. the topic Mary is also the object of tele. phoned. In general, since any number of additional complement predicates may be introduced, these equations will have the general form \"f TOPIC =T COMP COMP ... OBJ Kaplan and Zaenen [3] introduced the formal device of functional unc'ertainty, in which this general case is stated by the equation",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 360,
"end": 363,
"text": "[3]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
},
{
"start": 639,
"end": 642,
"text": "[2,",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
},
{
"start": 643,
"end": 645,
"text": "3]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
},
{
"start": 665,
"end": 668,
"text": "(1)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
},
{
"start": 671,
"end": 674,
"text": "(2)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
},
{
"start": 1075,
"end": 1096,
"text": "Kaplan and Zaenen [3]",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Mary John claimed that Bill said that Henry",
"sec_num": "3."
},
{
"text": "The functional uncertainty device restricts the labels (such as COMP \u00b0) to be drawn from the class of regular expressions. The definition of fstructures is extended to allow such equations [2, 3] . Informally, this definition states that if f is a f-structure and a is a regular set, then (fa) = v holds if the value of f for the attribute s is a fstructure fl such that (flY) --v holds, where sy is a string in a, or f = v and e E a.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 189,
"end": 192,
"text": "[2,",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
},
{
"start": 193,
"end": 195,
"text": "3]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "T TOPIC -T COMP\u00b0OBJ",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The functional uncertainty approach may be characterized as a localization of the long distance dependencies; a localization at the level of fstructures rather than at the level of c-structures. This illustrates the fact that if we use CFG-like rules to produce the surface structures, it is hard to state some generalizations directly; on the other hand, f-structures or elementary trees in TAGs (since they localize the predicate argument dependencies) are appropriate domains in which to state these generalizations. We show that there is a direct link between the regular expressions used in LFG and the elementary trees of TAG.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "T TOPIC -T COMP\u00b0OBJ",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In Section 2, we will define briefly the TAG formalism, describing some of the key points of the linguistic theory underlying it. We will also describe briefly Feature Structure Based Tree Adjoining Grammars (FTAG), and show how some elementary trees (auxiliary trees) behave as func: tions over feature structures. We will then show how regular sets over labels (such as COMP \u00b0) can also be denoted by functions over feature structures. In Section 3, we will consider the example of topicalization as it appears in Section 1 and show that the same statements are made by the two formalisms when we represent both the elementary trees of FTAG and functional uncertainties in LFG as functions over feature structures. We also point out some differences in the two analyses which arise due to the differences in the formalisms. In Section 4, we point out how these similar statements are stated differently in the two formalisms. The equations that capture the linguistic generalizations are still associated with individual rules (for the c-structure) of the grammar in LFG. Thus, in order to state generalizations for a phenomenon that is not localized in the cstructure, extra machinery such as functional uncertainty is needed. We show that what this extra machinery achieves for CFG based systems follows as a corollary of the TAG framework. This results from the fact that the elementary trees in a TAG provide an extended domain of locality, and factor out recursion and dependencies. A computational consequence of this result is that we can obtain these analyses without going outside the power of TAG and thus staying within the class of constrained grammatical formalisms characterized as mildly context.sensitive (Joshi [1] ). Another consequence of the differences in the representations (and localization) in the two formalisms is as follows. In a TAG, once an elementary tree is picked, there is no uncertainty about the functionality in long distance dependencies. Because LFG relies on a CFG framework, interactions between uncertainty equations can arise; the lack of such interactions in TAG can lead to simpler processing of long distance dependencies. Finally, we make some remarks as to the linguistic significance of restricting the use of regular sets in the functional uncertainty machinery by showing that the linguistic theory instantiated in TAG can predict that the path depicting the \"movement\" in long distance dependencies can be characterized by regular sets. (Figure 1 ) roughly correspond to \"simple sentences\". Thus, the root of an initial tree is labeled by S or ~. The frontier is all terminals. The auxiliary trees ( Figure 1 ) correspond roughly to minimal recursive constructions. Thus, if the root of an auxiliary tree is labeled by a nonterminal symbol, X, then there is a node (called the foot node) in the frontier which is labeled by X. The rest of the nodes in the frontier are labeled by terminal symbols.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 1723,
"end": 1733,
"text": "(Joshi [1]",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 2491,
"end": 2500,
"text": "(Figure 1",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 2654,
"end": 2662,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "I.I OUTLINE OF THE PAPER",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "2We do not consider lexicalized TAGs (defined by Schabes, Abeille, and Joshi [7] ) which allow both adjoining and sub6titution. The ~uhs of this paper apply directly to them. Besides, they are formally equivalent to TAGs.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 77,
"end": 80,
"text": "[7]",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "I.I OUTLINE OF THE PAPER",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "WP ' A I I P, V",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "~U p:",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Ag~m~ A~am~tm 2. The relation of T/to its descendants, i.e., the view from below. This feature structure is called b,.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "~U p:",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "troo\u00a2 S X brooc \"-...~. ....... v J Aam.~p mat \u2022",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "~U p:",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We will now define the operation of adjoining. Consider the adjoining of/~ at the node marked with * in a. The subtree of a under the node marked with * is excised, and/3 is inserted in its place. Finally, the excised subtree is inserted below the foot node of w, as shown in Figure 1 .",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 276,
"end": 284,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Figure 1: Elementary Trees in a TAG",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "A more detailed description of TAGs and their linguistic relevance may be found in (Kroch and ao hi [51).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 83,
"end": 93,
"text": "(Kroch and",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Figure 1: Elementary Trees in a TAG",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "2.1 FEATURE STRUCTURE BASED TREE ADJOINING GRAMMARS (FTAG)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Figure 1: Elementary Trees in a TAG",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In unification grammars, a feature structure is associated with a node in a derivation tree in order to describe that node and its relation to features of other nodes in the derivation tree. In a FTAG, with each internal node, T/, we associate two feature structures (for details, see [9] ). These two feature structures capture the following relations (Figure 2) 1. The relation ofT/to its supertree, i.e., the view of the node from the top. The feature structure that describes this relationship is called ~. Note that both the t, and b, feature structures hold for the node 7. On the other hand, with each leaf node (either a terminal node or a foot node), 7, we associate only one feature structure (let us call it t,3).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 285,
"end": 288,
"text": "[9]",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 353,
"end": 363,
"text": "(Figure 2)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Figure 1: Elementary Trees in a TAG",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Let us now consider the case when adjoining takes place as shown in the Figure 2 . The notation we use is to write alongside each node, the t and b statements, with the t statement written above the b statement. Let us say that troo~,broot and tloot= bLoo~ are the t and b statements of the root and foot nodes of the auxiliary tree used for adjoining at the node 7. Based on what t and b stand for, it is obvious that on adjoining the statements t, and troot hold for the node corresponding to the root of the auxiliary tree. Similarly, the statements b, and b/oo~ hold for the node corresponding to the foot of the auxiliary tree. Thus, on adjoining, we unify t, with troot, and b, with b/oot. In fact, this adjoining-is permissible only if t.oo~ and t.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 72,
"end": 80,
"text": "Figure 2",
"ref_id": "FIGREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Figure 1: Elementary Trees in a TAG",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "are compatible and so are b/oot and b~. If we do not adjoin at the node, 7, then we unify t, with b,. More details of the definition of FTAG may be found in [8, 9] .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 157,
"end": 160,
"text": "[8,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 161,
"end": 163,
"text": "9]",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Figure 1: Elementary Trees in a TAG",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We now give an example of an initial tree and an auxiliary tree in Figure 3 . We have shown only the necessary top and bottom feature structures for the relevant nodes. Also in each feature structure 3The linguistic relevance of this restriction has been discussed elsewhere (Kroch and Joshi [5] ). The general framework does not necessarily require it.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 275,
"end": 295,
"text": "(Kroch and Joshi [5]",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 67,
"end": 75,
"text": "Figure 3",
"ref_id": "FIGREF1"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Figure 1: Elementary Trees in a TAG",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "shown, we have only included those feature-value pairs that are relevant. For the auxiliary tree, we have labeled the root node S. We could have labeled it S with COMP and S as daughter nodes. These details are not relevant to the main point of the paper. We note that, just as in a TAG, the elementary trees which are the domains of dependencies are available as a single unit during each step of the derivation. For example, in al the topic and the object of the verb belong to the same tree (since this dependency has been factored into al) and are coindexed to specify the movemeat due to topicalization. In such cases, the dependencies between these nodes can be stated directly, avoiding the percolation of features during the derivation process as in string rewriting systems. Thus, these dependencies can be checked locally, and thus this checking need not be linked to the derivation process in an unbounded manner. to adjoining, since this feature structure is not known, we will treat it as a variable that gets instantiated on adjoining. This treatment can be formalized by treating the auxiliary trees as functions over feature structures (by A-abstracting the variable corresponding to the feature structure for the tree that will appear below the foot node). Adjoining corresponds to applying this function to the feature structure corresponding to the subtree below the node where adjoining takes place.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Figure 1: Elementary Trees in a TAG",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Treating adjoining as function application, where we consider auxiliary trees as functions, the representation of/3 is a function, say fz, of the form (see Figure 2) ~f. ($roo, A .. ",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 170,
"end": 181,
"text": "($roo, A ..",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 156,
"end": 165,
"text": "Figure 2)",
"ref_id": "FIGREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Figure 1: Elementary Trees in a TAG",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "If we now consider the tree 7 and the node T?, to allow the adjoining of/3 at the node ~, we must represent 7 by (...~. A f~(b.) A...)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": ".(broot A f))",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Note that if we do not adjoin at ~7, since t, and /3, have to be unified, we must represent 7 by the formula (...~Ab~A...) which can be obtained by representing 7 by",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": ".(broot A f))",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In [8, 9], we have described a calculus, extending the logic developed by Rounds and Kasper [4, 6] , to encode the trees in a FTAG. We will very briefly describe this representation here.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 95,
"text": "Rounds and Kasper [4,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 98,
"text": "6]",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A CALCULUS TO REPRESENT FTAG",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "To understand the representation of adjoining, consider the trees given in Figure 2 , and in particular, the node rl. The feature structures associated with the node where adjoining takes place should reflect the feature structure after adjoining and as well as without adjoining. Further, the feature structure (corresponding to the tree structure below it) to be associated with the foot node is not known prior to adjoining, but becomes specified upon adjoining. Thus, the bottom feature structure associated with the foot node, which \"is b foot before adjoining, is instantiated on adjoining by unifying it with a feature structure for the tree that will finally appear below this node. Prior",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 75,
"end": 83,
"text": "Figure 2",
"ref_id": "FIGREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A CALCULUS TO REPRESENT FTAG",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "(...t~ A X(b~) A...)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A CALCULUS TO REPRESENT FTAG",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "where I is the identity function. Similarly, we must allow adjoining by any auxiliary tree adjoinable at 7/(admissibility of adjoining is determined by the success or failure of unification). Thus, if /31,... ,/3, form the set of auxiliary trees, to allow for the possibility of adjoining by any auxiliary tree, as well as the possibility of no adjoining at a node, we must have a function, F, given by",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A CALCULUS TO REPRESENT FTAG",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "F = Af.(f~x(f) V... V f:~(f) V f)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A CALCULUS TO REPRESENT FTAG",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "and then we represent 7 by",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A CALCULUS TO REPRESENT FTAG",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "In this way, we can represent the elementary trees (and hence the grammar) in an extended version of K-K logic (the extension consists of adding Aabstraction and application).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "(. ..t, A F(b,) A .. .).",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We will now relate the analyses of long distance dependencies in LFG and TAG. For this purpose, we will focus our attention only on the dependencies due to topicalization, as illustrated by sentences 1, 2, and 3 in Section 1.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "TAG ANALYSES FOR LONG DISTANCE DE-PENDENCIES",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "To facilitate our discussion, we will consider regular sets over labels (as used by the functional uncertainty machinery) as functions over feature structures (as we did for auxiliary trees in FTAG). In order to describe the representation of regular sets, we will treat all labels (attributes) as functions over feature structures. Thus, the label COMP, for example, is a function which given a value feature structure (say v) returns a feature structure denoted by COMP : v. Therefore, we can denote it by Av.COMP : v. In order to describe the representation of arbitrary regular sets we have to consider only their associated regular expressions. For example, COMP \u00b0 can be represented by the function C* which is the fixed-point 4 of",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "TAG ANALYSES FOR LONG DISTANCE DE-PENDENCIES",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "F = Av.(F(COMP : v) V v) s",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "TAG ANALYSES FOR LONG DISTANCE DE-PENDENCIES",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Thus, the equation",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "TAG ANALYSES FOR LONG DISTANCE DE-PENDENCIES",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "T TOPIC =T COMP*OBJ",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "TAG ANALYSES FOR LONG DISTANCE DE-PENDENCIES",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "is satisfied by a feature structure that satisfies",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "TAG ANALYSES FOR LONG DISTANCE DE-PENDENCIES",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "TOPIC : v A C* (OBJ : v).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "TAG ANALYSES FOR LONG DISTANCE DE-PENDENCIES",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "This feature structure will have a general form described by TOPIC : v A COMP : COMP : ... OBJ : v. Consider the FTAG fragment (as shown in Figure 3) which can be used to generate the sentences 1, 2, and 3 in Section 1. The initial tree al will be represented by cat : \"~ A F(topic : v A F(pred : telephonedAobj : v)). Ignoring some irrelevant details (such as the possibility of adjoining at nodes other than the S node), we cnn represent ax as",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 91,
"end": 99,
"text": "OBJ : v.",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 140,
"end": 146,
"text": "Figure",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "TAG ANALYSES FOR LONG DISTANCE DE-PENDENCIES",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "al = topic : v A F(obj : v)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "TAG ANALYSES FOR LONG DISTANCE DE-PENDENCIES",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Turning our attention to /~h let us consider the bottom feature structure of the root of/~1. Since its COMP ~ the feature structure associated with the foot node (notice that no adjoining is allowed at the foot node and hence it has only one feature structure), and since adjoining can take place at the root node, we have the representation of 81 as where F is the function described in Section 2.2. From the point of view of the path from the root to the complement, the NP and VP nodes are irrelevant, so are any adjoinings on these nodes. So once again, if we discard the irrelevant information (from the point of view of comparing this analyses with the one in LFG), we can simplify the representation of 81 as",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "TAG ANALYSES FOR LONG DISTANCE DE-PENDENCIES",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "As explained in Section 2.2, since j31 is the only auxiliary tree of interest, F would be defined as F = a/.Zl(/)v/.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Af.F(comp : f)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Using the definition of/~1 above, and making some reductions we have",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Af.F(comp : f)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "F = Af.F(comp : f) V f",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Af.F(comp : f)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "This is exactly the same analysis as in LFG using the functional uncertainty machinery. Note that the fixed-point of F isC,. Now consider al. Obviously any structure derived from it can now be represented as",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Af.F(comp : f)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "topic : v A C * (obj : v)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Af.F(comp : f)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "This is the same analysis as given by LFG.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Af.F(comp : f)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In a TAG, the dependent items are part of the same elementary tree. Features of these nodes can be related locally within this elementary tree (as in a,). This relation is unaffected by any adjoinings on nodes of the elementary tree. Although the paths from the root to these dependent items are elaborated by the adjoinings, no external device (such as the functional uncertainty machinery) needs to be used to restrict the possible paths between the dependent nodes. For instance, in the example we have considered, the fact that TOPIC = COMP : COMP...",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Af.F(comp : f)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": ": OBJ follows from the TAG framework itself. The regular path restrictions made in functional uncertainty statements such as in TOPIC = COMP*OBJ is redundant within the TAG framework.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Af.F(comp : f)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We have compared LFG and TAG analyses of long distance dependencies, and have shown that what functional uncertainty does for LFG comes out as a corollary in TAG, without going beyond the power of mildly context sensitive grammars.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "COMPARISON OF THE TWO FORMALISMS",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "Both approaches aim to localize long distance dependencies; the difference between TAG and LFG arises due to the domain of locality that the formalisms provide (i.e., the domain over which statements of dependencies can be stated within the formalisms).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "COMPARISON OF THE TWO FORMALISMS",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "In the LFG framework, CFG-like productions are used to build the c-structure. Equations are associated with these productions in order to build the f-structure. Since the long distance dependencies are localized at the functional level, additional machinery (functional uncertainty) is provided to capture this localization. In a TAG, the elementary trees, though used to build the \"phrase structure\" tree, also form the domain for localizing the functional dependencies. As a result, the long distance dependencies can be localized in the elementary trees. Therefore, such elementary trees tell us exactly where the filler \"moves\" (even in the case of such unbounded dependencies) and the functional uncertainty machinery is not necessary in the TAG framework. However, the functional uncertainty machinery makes explicit the predictions about the path between the \"moved\" argument (filler) and the predicate (which is close to the gap). In a TAG, this prediction is not explicit. Hence, as we have shown in the case of topicalization, the nature of elementary trees determines the derivation sequences allowed and we can confirm (as we have done in Section 3) that this prediction is the same as that made by the functional uncertainty machinery.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "COMPARISON OF THE TWO FORMALISMS",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "The functional uncertainty machinery is a means by which infinite disjunctions can be specified in a finite manner. The reason that infinite number of disjunctions appear, is due to the fact that they correspond to infinite number of possible derivations. In a CFG based formalism, the checking of dependency cannot be separated from the derivation process. On the other hand, as shown in [9], since this separation is possible in TAG, only finite disjunctions are needed. In each elementary tree, there is no uncertainty about the kind of dependency between a filler and the position of the corresponding gap. Different dependencies correspond to different elementary trees. In this sense there is disjunction, but it is still only finite. Having picked one tree, there is no uncertainty about the grammatical function of the filler, no matter how many COMPs come in between due to adjoin-ing. This fact may have important consequences from the point of view of relative efficiency of processing of long distance dependencies in LFG and TAG. Consider, for example, the problem of interactions between two or more uncertainty equations in LFG as stated in [2] . Certain strings in COMP \u00b0 cannot be solutions for",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 1156,
"end": 1159,
"text": "[2]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "INTERACTIONS AMONG UNCER-TAINTY EQUATIONS",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "(f TOPIC) = (.f COMP\" GF)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "INTERACTIONS AMONG UNCER-TAINTY EQUATIONS",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "when this equation is conjoined (i.e., when it interacts) with (f COMP SUBJ NUM) = SING and (f TOPIC NUM) = PL. In this case, the shorter string COMP SUBJ cannot be used for COMP\" GF because of the interaction, although the strings COMP i SUB J, i >_ 2 can satisfy the above set of equations. In general, in LFG, extra work has to be done to account for interactions. On the other hand, in TAG, as we noted above, since there is no uncertainty about the grammatical function of the filler, such interactions do not arise at all.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "INTERACTIONS AMONG UNCER-TAINTY EQUATIONS",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "From the definition of TAGs, it can be shown that the paths are always context-free sets [11] . If there are linguistic phenomena where the uncertainty machinery with regular sets is not enough, then the question arises whether TAG can provide an adequate analysis, given that paths are contextfree sets in TAGs. On the other hand, if regular sets are enough, we would like to explore whether the regularity requirement has a linguistic significance by itself. As far as we are aware, Kaplan and Zaenen [3] do not claim that the regularity requirement follows from the linguistic considerations. Rather, they have illustrated the adequacy of regular sets for the linguistic phenomena they have described. However, it appears that an appropriate linguistic theory instantiated in the TAG framework will justify the use of regular sets for the long distance phenomena considered here.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 89,
"end": 93,
"text": "[11]",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 503,
"end": 506,
"text": "[3]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "REGULAR SETS IN FUNCTIONAL UNCERTAINTY",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "To illustrate our claim, let us consider the elementary trees that are used in the TAG analysis of long distance dependencies. The elementary trees, Sl and/31 (given in Figure 3 ), are good representative examples of such trees. In the initial tree, \u00a2zt, the topic node is coindexed with the empty NP node that plays the grammatical role of object. At the functional level, this NP node is the object of the S node of oq (which is captured in the bottom feature structure associated with the S node). Hence, our representation of at (i.e., looking at it from the top) is given by topic : v A F(obj : v), capturing the \"movement\" due to topicalization. Thus, the path in the functional structure between the topic and the object is entirely determined by the function F, which in turn depends on the auxiliary trees that can be adjoined at the S node. These auxiliary trees, such as/~I, are those that introduce complementizer predicates. Auxiliary trees, in general, introduce modifiers or complementizer predicates as in/~1. (For our present discussion we can ignore the modifier type auxiliary trees). Auxiliary trees upon adjoining do not disturb the predicate argument structure of the tree to which they are adjoined. If we consider trees such as/~I, the complement is given by the tree that appears below the foot node. A principle of a linguistic theory instantiated in TAG (see [5] ), similar to the pro-jec~ion principle, predicts that the complement of the root (looking at it from below) is the feature structure associated with the foot node and (more importantly) this relation cannot be disrupted by any adjoinings. Thus, if we are given the feature structure, f, for the foot node (known only after adjoining), the bottom feature structure of the root can be specified as comp : jr, and that of the top feature structure of the root is F(comp : f), where F, as in a,, is used to account for adjoinings at the root.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 1386,
"end": 1389,
"text": "[5]",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 169,
"end": 177,
"text": "Figure 3",
"ref_id": "FIGREF1"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "REGULAR SETS IN FUNCTIONAL UNCERTAINTY",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "To summarize, in al, the functional dependency between the topic and object nodes is entirely determined by the root and foot nodes of auxiliary trees that can be adjoined at the S node (the effect of using the function F). By examining such auxiliary trees, we have characterized the latter path as Af.F(comp : f). In grammatical terms, the path depicted by F can be specified by rightlinear productions F -* F comp : / I Since right-linear grammars generate only regular sets, and TAGs predict the use of such right-linear rules for the description of the paths, as just shown above, we can thus state that TAGs give a justification for the use of regular expressions in the functional uncertainty machinery.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "REGULAR SETS IN FUNCTIONAL UNCERTAINTY",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "We will now show that what functional uncertainty accomplishes for LFG can be achieved within the FTAG framework without requiring power beyond that of TAGs. FTAG, as described in this paper, is unlimited in its generative capacity. By placing no restrictions on the feature structures associated with the nodes of elementary trees, it is possible to generate any recursively enumerable language. In [9], we have defined a restricted version of FTAG, called RFTAG, that can generate only TALs (the languages generated by TAGs). In RFTAG, we insist that the feature structures that are associated with nodes are bounded in size, a requirement similar to the finite closure membership restriction in GPSG. This restricted system will not allow us to give the analysis for the long distance dependencies due to topicalization (as given in the earlier sections), since we use the COMP attribute whose value cannot be bounded in size. However, it is possible to extend RFTAG in a certain way such that such analysis can be given. This extension of RFTAG still does not go beyond TAG and thus is within the class of mildly context-sensitive grammar formalisms defined by Joshi [1] . This extension of RFTAG is discussed in [10] .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 1171,
"end": 1174,
"text": "[1]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
},
{
"start": 1217,
"end": 1221,
"text": "[10]",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "GENERATIVE CAPACITY AND LONG DISTANCE DEPENDENCY",
"sec_num": "4.3"
},
{
"text": "To give an informal idea of this extension and a justification for the above argument, let us consider the auxiliary tree,/~1 in Figure 3 . Although we coindex the value of the comp feature in the feature structure of the root node of/~1 with the feature structure associated with the foot node, we should note that this coindexing does not affect the context-freeness of derivation. Stated differently, the adjoining sequence at the root is independent of other nodes in the tree in spite of the coindexing. This is due to the fact that as the feature structure of the foot of/~1 gets instantiated on adjoining, this value is simply substituted (and not unified) for the value of the comp feature of the root node. Thus, the comp feature is being used just as any other feature that can be used to give tree addresses (except that comp indicates dominance at the functional level rather than at the tree structure level). In [10], we have formalized this notion by introducing graph adjoining grammars which generate exactly the same languages as TAGs. In a graph adjoining grammar, /~x is represented as shown in Figure 4 . Notice that in this representation the comp feature is like the features 1 and 2 (which indicate the left and right daughters of a node) and therefore not used explicitly.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 129,
"end": 137,
"text": "Figure 3",
"ref_id": "FIGREF1"
},
{
"start": 1115,
"end": 1123,
"text": "Figure 4",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "GENERATIVE CAPACITY AND LONG DISTANCE DEPENDENCY",
"sec_num": "4.3"
},
{
"text": "We have shown that for the treatment of long distance dependencies in TAG, the functional un- certainty machinery in LFG is redundant. We have also shown that the analyses provided by the functional uncertainty machinery can be obtained without going beyond the power of mildly context-sensitive grammars. We have briefly discussed some linguistic and computational aspects of these results. We believe that our results described in this paper can be extended to other formalisms, such as Combinatory Categorial Grammars (CCG), which also provide an e~ended domain of locality. It is of particular interest to carry out this investigation in the context of CCG because of their weak equivalence to TAG (Weir and Joshi [12] ). This exploration will help us view this equivalence from the structural point of view.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 702,
"end": 722,
"text": "(Weir and Joshi [12]",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "CONCLUSION",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "Because of lack of space, we will not define the LFG notation. We assume that the reader is familiar with it.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"back_matter": [],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "How much context-sensitivity is necessary for characterizing structural descriptions --Tree Adjoining Grammars",
"authors": [
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [
"K"
],
"last": "Joshi",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": null,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "A. K. Joshi. How much context-sensitivity is necessary for characterizing structural de- scriptions --Tree Adjoining Grammars. In D.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "Natural Language Processing q Theoretical, Computational and Psychological Perspective",
"authors": [
{
"first": "L",
"middle": [],
"last": "Dowty",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "Karttunen",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Zwicky",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1983,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Dowty, L. Karttunen, and A. Zwicky, editors, Natural Language Processing q Theoretical, Computational and Psychological Perspective, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 1985. Originally presented in 1983.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "An algorithm for functional uncertainity",
"authors": [
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [
"M"
],
"last": "Kaplan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [
"T"
],
"last": "Maxwell",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1988,
"venue": "12 th International Conference on Comput. Ling",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "R. M. Kaplan and J. T. Maxwell. An al- gorithm for functional uncertainity. In 12 th International Conference on Comput. Ling., 1988.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "Long distance dependencies,constituent structure, and functional uncertainity",
"authors": [
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [
"M"
],
"last": "Kaplan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "Zaenen",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1988,
"venue": "Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "R. M. Kaplan and A. Zaenen. Long distance dependencies,constituent structure, and func- tional uncertainity. In M. Baltin and A. Kroch, editors, Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure, Chicago University Press, Chicago. IL, 1988.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "A logical semantics for feature structures",
"authors": [
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kasper",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "W",
"middle": [
"C"
],
"last": "Rounds",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1986,
"venue": "24 th meeting Assoc",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "R. Kasper and W. C. Rounds. A logical se- mantics for feature structures. In 24 th meet- ing Assoc. Comput. Ling., 1986.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "Linguistic Relevance of Tree Adjoining Grammars",
"authors": [
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kroch",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [
"K"
],
"last": "Joshi",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1985,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "A. Kroch and A.K. Joshi. Linguistic Rele- vance of Tree Adjoining Grammars. Technical Report MS-CIS-85-18, Department of Com- puter and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 1985. to appear in Linguistics and Philosophy, 1989.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "A complete logical calculus for record structures representing linguistic information",
"authors": [
{
"first": "W",
"middle": [
"C"
],
"last": "Rounds",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kasper",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1986,
"venue": "IEEE Symposium on Logic and Computer Science",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "W. C. Rounds and R. Kasper. A complete logical calculus for record structures repre- senting linguistic information. In IEEE Sym- posium on Logic and Computer Science, 1986.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "New parsing strategies for tree adjoining grammars",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Y",
"middle": [],
"last": "Schabes",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "Abeille",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [
"K"
],
"last": "Joshi",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1988,
"venue": "12 th International Conference on Assoc. Comput. Ling",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Y. Schabes, A. Abeille, and A. K. Joshi. New parsing strategies for tree adjoining gram- mars. In 12 th International Conference on Assoc. Comput. Ling., 1988.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "A Study of Tee Adjoining Grammars",
"authors": [
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Vijayashanker",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1987,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "K. Vijayashanker. A Study of Tee Adjoining Grammars. PhD thesis, University of Penn- sylvania, Philadelphia, Pa, 1987.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF9": {
"ref_id": "b9",
"title": "Feature structure based tree adjoining grammars",
"authors": [
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Vijay-Shanker",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [
"K"
],
"last": "Joshi",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1988,
"venue": "12 th International Conference on Comput. Ling",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "K. Vijay-Shanker and A. K. Joshi. Fea- ture structure based tree adjoining grammars. In 12 th International Conference on Comput. Ling., 1988.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF10": {
"ref_id": "b10",
"title": "Unification based approach to tree adjoining grammar",
"authors": [
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Vijay-Shanker",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [
"K"
],
"last": "Joshi",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1989,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "K. Vijay-Shanker and A.K. Joshi. Unification based approach to tree adjoining grammar. 1989. forthcoming.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF11": {
"ref_id": "b11",
"title": "Characterizing structural descriptions produced by various grammatical formalisms",
"authors": [
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Vijay-Shanker",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [
"J"
],
"last": "Weir",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [
"K"
],
"last": "Joshi",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1987,
"venue": "25 th meeting Assoc. Comput. Ling",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "K. Vijay-Shanker, D. J. Weir, and A. K. Joshi. Characterizing structural descriptions produced by various grammatical formalisms. In 25 th meeting Assoc. Comput. Ling., 1987.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF12": {
"ref_id": "b12",
"title": "Combinatory categorial grammars: generative power and relationship to linear context-free rewriting systems",
"authors": [
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [
"J"
],
"last": "Weir",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [
"K"
],
"last": "Joshi",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1988,
"venue": "26 ta meeting Assoc. Comput. Ling",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "D. J. Weir and A. K. Joshi. Combinatory cat- egorial grammars: generative power and rela- tionship to linear context-free rewriting sys- tems. In 26 ta meeting Assoc. Comput. Ling., 1988.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF0": {
"uris": null,
"text": "Feature Structures and Adjoining",
"num": null,
"type_str": "figure"
},
"FIGREF1": {
"uris": null,
"text": "Example of Feature Structures Associated with Elementary Trees",
"num": null,
"type_str": "figure"
},
"FIGREF2": {
"uris": null,
"text": "tin [8], we have established that the fixed-point exists. aWe use the fact that R\" = R'RU {e}. aLf(comp : f ^ s~bj : (...) ^...)",
"num": null,
"type_str": "figure"
},
"FIGREF3": {
"uris": null,
"text": "Figure 4: An Elementary DAG",
"num": null,
"type_str": "figure"
}
}
}
} |