File size: 53,015 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 | {
"paper_id": "P93-1014",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T08:52:29.984373Z"
},
"title": "A UNIFICATION-BASED PARSER FOR RELATIONAL GRAMMAR",
"authors": [
{
"first": "David",
"middle": [
"E"
],
"last": "Johnson",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "IBM Research Division",
"location": {
"postBox": "P.O. Box 218",
"postCode": "10598",
"settlement": "Yorktown Heights",
"region": "NY"
}
},
"email": ""
},
{
"first": "Adam",
"middle": [],
"last": "Meyers",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "New York University",
"location": {
"postCode": "10003",
"settlement": "New York",
"region": "NY"
}
},
"email": "meyers@acf2.nyu.edu"
},
{
"first": "Lawrence",
"middle": [
"S"
],
"last": "Moss",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {},
"email": "lmoss@indiana.edu"
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "We present an implemented unification-based parser for relational grammars developed within the stratified feature grammar (SFG) framework, which generalizes Kasper-Rounds logic to handle relational grammar analyses. We first introduce the key aspects of SFG and a lexicalized, graph-based variant of the framework suitable for implementing relational grammars. We then describe a head-driven chart parser for lexicalized SFG. The basic parsing operation is essentially ordinary feature-structure unification augmented with an operation of label unification to build the stratified features characteristic of SFG.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "P93-1014",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "We present an implemented unification-based parser for relational grammars developed within the stratified feature grammar (SFG) framework, which generalizes Kasper-Rounds logic to handle relational grammar analyses. We first introduce the key aspects of SFG and a lexicalized, graph-based variant of the framework suitable for implementing relational grammars. We then describe a head-driven chart parser for lexicalized SFG. The basic parsing operation is essentially ordinary feature-structure unification augmented with an operation of label unification to build the stratified features characteristic of SFG.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "Although the impact of relational grammar (RG) on theoretical linguistics has been substantial, it has never previously been put in a form suitable for computational use. RG's multiple syntactic strata would seem to preclude its use in the kind of monotonic, unification-based parsing system many now consider standard ( [1] , [11] ). However, recent work by Johnson and Moss [2] on a Kasper-Rounds (KR) style logic-based formalism [5] for RG, called Stratified Feature Grammar (S FG), has demonstrated that even RG's multiple strata are amenable to a feature-structure treatment.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 321,
"end": 324,
"text": "[1]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
},
{
"start": 327,
"end": 331,
"text": "[11]",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 376,
"end": 379,
"text": "[2]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
},
{
"start": 432,
"end": 435,
"text": "[5]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "INTRODUCTION",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Based on this work, we have developed a unification-based, chart parser for a lexical version of SFG suitable for building computational relational grammars. A lexicalized SFG is simply a collection of stratified feature graphs (Sgraphs), each of which is anchored to a lexical item, analogous to lexicalized TAGs [10] . The ba-sic parsing operation of the system is S-graph unification (S-unification): This is essentially ordinary feature-structure unification augmented with an operation of label unification to build the stratified features characteristic of SFG.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 314,
"end": 318,
"text": "[10]",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "INTRODUCTION",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Rounds and Manaster-Ramer [9] suggested encoding multiple strata in terms of a \"level\" attribute, using path equations to state correspondences across strata. Unfortunately, \"unchanged' relations in a stratum must be explicitly \"carried over\" via path equations to the next stratum. Even worse, these \"carry over\" equations vary from case to case. SFG avoids this problem.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 29,
"text": "[9]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "RELATED WORK",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "SFG's key innovation is the generalization of the concept ]eature to a sequence of so-called relational signs (R-signs). The interpretation of a stratified feature is that each R-sign in a sequence denotes a primitive relation in different strata. 1 For instance, in Joe gave Mary tea there are, at the clause level, four sister arcs (arcs with the same source node), as shown in Figure h one arc labeled [HI with target gave, indicating gave is the head of the clause; one with label [1] and target Joe, indicating Joe is both the predicateargument, and surface subject, of the clause; one with label [3, 2] and target Mary, indicating that Mary is the predicate-argument indirect object, but the surface direct object, of the clause; and one with label [2, 8] and target tea, indicating tea is the predicate-argument direct object, but surface ch6meur, of the clause. Such a structure is called a stratified feature graph (S-graph). This situation could be described in SFG logic with the following formula (the significance of the different label delimiters (,), [, ] is explained below):",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 248,
"end": 249,
"text": "1",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
},
{
"start": 485,
"end": 488,
"text": "[1]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
},
{
"start": 602,
"end": 605,
"text": "[3,",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
},
{
"start": 606,
"end": 608,
"text": "2]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
},
{
"start": 755,
"end": 758,
"text": "[2,",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
},
{
"start": 759,
"end": 761,
"text": "8]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "STRATIFIED FEATURE GRAM-MAR",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "RI:-- [Hi:gave A [1):Joe A [3, 2): Mary A [2, 8): tea .",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "STRATIFIED FEATURE GRAM-MAR",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In RG, the clause-level syntactic information captured in R1 combines two statements: one characterizing gave as taking an initial 1, initial 2 and initial 3 (Ditransltive); and one characterizing the concomitant \"advancement\" of the 3 to 2 and the \"demotion\" of the 2 to 8 (Dative). In SFG, these two statements would be: Ditransitive involves standard Boolean conjunction (A). Dative, however, involves an operator, &, unique to SFG. Formulas involving ~ are called e~tension formulas and they have a more complicated semantics. For example, Dative has the following informal interpretation: Two distinct arcs with labels 3 and 2 may be \"extended\" to (3, 2) and (2, 8) respectively. Extension formulas are, in a sense, the heart of the SFG description language, for without them RG analyses could not be properly represented. 2 2We gloss over many technicalities, e.g., the SFG notion data justification and the formal semantics of stratified features; cf. [2] .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 653,
"end": 656,
"text": "(3,",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
},
{
"start": 657,
"end": 659,
"text": "2)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
},
{
"start": 664,
"end": 667,
"text": "(2,",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
},
{
"start": 668,
"end": 670,
"text": "8)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
},
{
"start": 959,
"end": 962,
"text": "[2]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "STRATIFIED FEATURE GRAM-MAR",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "RG-style analyses can be captured in terms of rules such as those above. Moreover, since the above formulas state positive constraints, they can be represented as S-graphs corresponding to the minimal satisfying models of the respective formulas. We compile the various rules and their combinations into Rule Graphs and associate sets of these with appropriate lexical anchors, resulting in a lexicalized grammar, s S-graphs are formally feature structures: given a collection of sister arcs, the stratified labels are required to be functional. However, as shown in the example, the individual R-signs are not. Moreover, the lengths of the labels can vary, and this crucial property is how SFG avoids the \"carry over\" problem. S-graphs also include a strict partial order on arcs to represent linear precedence (cf. [3] , [9] ). The SFG description language includes a class of linear precedence statements, e.g., (1] -4 (Hi means that in a constituent \"the final subject precedes the head\".",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 817,
"end": 820,
"text": "[3]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
},
{
"start": 823,
"end": 826,
"text": "[9]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "STRATIFIED FEATURE GRAM-MAR",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Given a set 7Z,9 of R-signs, a (stratified) feature (or label) is a sequence of R-signs which may be closed on the left or right or both. Each feature l subsuming (C) a feature f provides a partial description of f. The left-closed bracket [ allows reference to the \"deepest\" (initia~ R-sign of a left-closed feature; the right-closed bracket ] to the \"most surfacy\" (fina~ R-sign of a right-closed feature. The totally closed features are maximal (completely defined) and with respect to label unification, defined below, act like ordinary (atomic) features.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "STRATIFIED FEATURE GRAM-MAR",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Formal definitions of S-graph and other definitions implicit in our work are provided in [2] .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 89,
"end": 92,
"text": "[2]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "STRATIFIED FEATURE GRAM-MAR",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "s We ignore negative constraints here. Figure 3) .",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 48,
"text": "Figure 3)",
"ref_id": "FIGREF6"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "STRATIFIED FEATURE GRAM-MAR",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Given an S-graph G, Null R-signs permit the definitions of the predicate-argument graph, and the surface graph, of G. The predicateargument graph corresponds to all arcs whose labels do not begin with a Null R-sign; the relevant R-signs are the first ones. The surface graph corresponds to all arcs whose labels do not end with a Null R-sign; the relevant R-signs are the final ones. In the example, the arc labeled [0,1] is not a predicate-argument arc, indicating that John bears no predicate-argument relation to the top clause. And the arc labeled [2,1,0] is not a surface arc, indicating that John bears no surface relation to the embedded phrase headed by ill.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "AN EXAMPLE",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The surface graph is shown in Figure 4 and the predicate-argument graph in Figure 5 . Notice that the surface graph is a tree. The treehood of surface graphs is part of the definition of S-graph and provides the foundation for our parsing algorithm; it is the SFG analog to the \"context-free backbone\" typical of unificationbased systems [11] .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 338,
"end": 342,
"text": "[11]",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 38,
"text": "Figure 4",
"ref_id": "FIGREF7"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 83,
"text": "Figure 5",
"ref_id": "FIGREF8"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "AN EXAMPLE",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Given a finite collection of rule graphs, we could construct the finite set of S-graphs reflecting all consistent combinations of rule graphs and then associate each word with the collection of derived graphs it anchors. However, we actually only construct all the derived graphs not involving extractions. Since extractions can affect almost any arc, compiling them into lexicalized S-graphs would be impractical. Instead, extractions are handled by a novel mechanism involving multi-rooted graphs (of. Concluding Remarks).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "LEXICALIZED SFG",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We assume that all lexically governed rules such as Passive, Dative Advancement and Raising are compiled into the lexical entries governing them. Thus, given has four entries (Ditransitive, Ditransitive + Dative, Passive, Dative + Passive). This aspect of our framework is reminiscent of LFG [4] and HPSG [7] , except that in SFG, relational structure is transparently recorded in the stratified features. Moreover, SFG relies neither on LFGstyle annotated CFG rules and equation solving nor on HPSG-style SUBCAT lists. We illustrate below the process of constructing a lexical entry for given from rule graphs (ignoring morphology). The rule graphs used are for Ditransitive, Dative and (Agentless) Passive constructions. Combined, they yield a ditransitivedative-passive S-graph for the use of given occurring in Joe was given ~ea (cf. Figure 6 ).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 292,
"end": 295,
"text": "[4]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
},
{
"start": 305,
"end": 308,
"text": "[7]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 838,
"end": 846,
"text": "Figure 6",
"ref_id": "FIGREF9"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "LEXICALIZED SFG",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "[H] given i. If no A~ can be found, Ai \u2022 Set3.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Dltransitive:",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "ii. If",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Dltransitive:",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Step 2a and 2b both succeed, then Unify-arcs(Ai, A~) \u2022 Set3.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Dltransitive:",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "iii. If",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Dltransitive:",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Step 2a succeeds, but Step 2b fails, then the procedure fails.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Dltransitive:",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "b. Add each remaining arc in Set2 to Set3.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Dltransitive:",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We note that the result of S-unification can be a set of S-graphs. In our experience, the unification of linguistically well-formed lexical S-graphs has never returned more than one S-graph. Hence, S-unification is stipulated to fail if the result is not unique. Also note that due to the nature of label unification, the unification procedure does not guarantee that the unification of two S-graphs will be functional and thus well-formed. To insure functionality, we filter the output.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Dltransitive:",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We All surface arcs which must both follow F and precede A are complete.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Dltransitive:",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "2. Complete : A node is complete if it is either a lexical anchor or else has (obligatory) outgoing SSR arcs, all of which are complete. An arc is complete if its target is complete.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Dltransitive:",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The algorithm is head-driven [8] and was inspired by parsing algorithms for lexicalized TAGs ([6], [10] ).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 32,
"text": "[8]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 93,
"end": 103,
"text": "([6], [10]",
"ref_id": "FIGREF1"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Dltransitive:",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Input: A string of words Wl,..., w~.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Simplified Parsing Algorithm:",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Output: A chart containing all possible parses.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Simplified Parsing Algorithm:",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "A. Initialization:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Method:",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "1.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Method:",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Create a list of k state-sets $1,..., Sk, each empty.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Method:",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "For c = 1,...,k, for each To illustrate, we step through the chart for John seemed ill ( cf. Figure 7) . In the string 0 John 1 seemed 2 ill 3, where the integers represent string positions, each word w is associated via the lexicalized grammar with a finite set of anchored Sgraphs. For expository convenience, we will assume counterfactually that for each w there is only one S-graph G~ with root r~ and anchor w. Also in the simplified case, we assume that the anchor is always the target of an arc whose source is the root. This is true in our example, but false in general.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 93,
"end": 102,
"text": "Figure 7)",
"ref_id": "FIGREF15"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "2.",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "For each G~, r~ has one or more outgoing SSR arcs, the set of which we denote SSR-Out-Arcs(r~). For each w between integers x and y in the string, the Initialization step (step A of the algorithm) adds [n~, x, y] to state set y. We denote state Q in state-set Si as state i:Q. For an input string w = Wl,...,w,~, initialization creates n state-sets and for 1 < i < n, adds states i : Qj,1 _< j < k, to Si , one for each of the k S-graphs G~. associated with wi. After initialization, the example chart consists of states 1:1, 2:1, 3:1.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "2.",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Then the parser traverses the chart from left to right starting with state-set 1 (step B of the algorithm), using left and right completions, according to whether left or right precedence conditions are used. Each completion looks in a state-set to the left of Sc for a state meeting a set of conditions.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "2.",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In the example, for c = 1, step B of the algorithm does not find any states in any state-set preceding S1 to test, so the parser advances c to 2. ",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "2.",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The algorithm described above is simpler than the one we have implemented in a number of ways. We end by briefly mentioning some aspects of the Optional Arcs: On encountering an optional arc, the parser considers two paths, skipping the optional arc on one and attempting to complete it on the other.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "CONCLUDING REMARKS",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Constraint Arcs These are reminiscent of LFG constraint equations. For a parse to be good, each constraint arc must unify with a structural arc.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "CONCLUDING REMARKS",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Multi-tiered S-graphs: These are S-graphs having a non-terminal incomplete arc I (e.g., the",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "CONCLUDING REMARKS",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "[LOC] arc in Figure 8 . Essentially, the parser searches I depth-first for incomplete terminal arcs to complete.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 21,
"text": "Figure 8",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "CONCLUDING REMARKS",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Pseudo-R-signs: These are names of sets of R-signs. For a parse to be good, each pseudo-Rsign must unify with a member of the set it names.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "CONCLUDING REMARKS",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Extractions: Our approach is novel: it uses pseudo-R-signs and multirooted S-graphs, illustrated in Figure 9 , where p is the primary root and d, the dangling root, is the source of a \"slashed arc\" with label of the form (b,/] (b a pseudo-R-sign). Since well-formed final parses must be single-rooted, slashed arcs must eventually unify with another arc.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 100,
"end": 108,
"text": "Figure 9",
"ref_id": "FIGREF16"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "CONCLUDING REMARKS",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "To sum up: We have developed a unificationbased, chart parser for relational grammars based on the SFG formalism presented by Johnson and Moss [2] . The system involves compiling (combinations) of rules graphs and their associated lexical anchors into a lexicalized grammar, which can then be parsed in the same spirit as lexicalized TAGs. Note, though, that SFG does not use an adjunction (or substitution) operation.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 143,
"end": 146,
"text": "[2]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "CONCLUDING REMARKS",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "[10] Yves Schabes. Mathematical and Computational Properties of Lezicalized Grammars. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 1990.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "CONCLUDING REMARKS",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "[11] Stuart Shieber. Constraint-Based Grammar Formalisms. MIT Press, 1992.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "CONCLUDING REMARKS",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"back_matter": [],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "The Logic of Typed Feature Structures",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Bob",
"middle": [],
"last": "Carpenter",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Bob Carpenter. The Logic of Typed Feature Structures. Cambridge UP, Cambridge, 1992.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "Some formal properties of stratified feature grammars",
"authors": [
{
"first": "David",
"middle": [
"E"
],
"last": "Johnson",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Lawrence",
"middle": [
"S"
],
"last": "Moss",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1993,
"venue": "Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "David E. Johnson and Lawrence S. Moss. Some formal properties of stratified feature grammars. To appear in Annals of Mathe- matics and Artificial Intelligence, 1993.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "Are Pair Grammar",
"authors": [
{
"first": "David",
"middle": [
"E"
],
"last": "Johnson",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Paul",
"middle": [
"M"
],
"last": "Postal",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1980,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "David E. Johnson and Paul M. Postal. Are Pair Grammar. Princeton University Press, 1980.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "Lexicalfunctional grammar, a formal system for grammatical representation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Ronald",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kaplan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Joan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bresnan",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1982,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Ronald Kaplan and Joan Bresnan. Lexical- functional grammar, a formal system for grammatical representation. In J. Bresnan, editor, The Mental Representation of Gram- matical Relations. MIT Press, 1982.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "The logic of unification in grammar",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Robert",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kasper",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "William",
"middle": [
"C"
],
"last": "Rounds",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1990,
"venue": "Linguistics and Philosophy",
"volume": "13",
"issue": "",
"pages": "35--58",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Robert Kasper and William C. Rounds. The logic of unification in grammar. Linguistics and Philosophy, 13:35-58, 1990.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "Bidirectional parsing of lexicalized tree adjoining grammars",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Alberto",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lavelli",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Giorgio",
"middle": [],
"last": "Satta",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1991,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 5th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association of Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Alberto Lavelli and Giorgio Satta. Bidirec- tional parsing of lexicalized tree adjoining grammars. In Proceedings of the 5th Confer- ence of the European Chapter of the Associa- tion of Computational Linguistics, 1991.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "Information-based Syntaz and Semantics. CSLI Lecture Notes",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Carl",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pollard",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Ivan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sag",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1987,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Carl Pollard and Ivan Sag. Information-based Syntaz and Semantics. CSLI Lecture Notes. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1987.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "Parsing head-driven phrase structure grammar",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Derek",
"middle": [],
"last": "Proudian",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Carl",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pollard",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1985,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the ACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Derek Proudian and Carl Pollard. Parsing head-driven phrase structure grammar. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the ACL, 1985.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "A logical version of functional grammar",
"authors": [
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [],
"last": "William",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Alexis",
"middle": [],
"last": "Rounds",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Manaster-Ramer",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1987,
"venue": "Proceedings of The 25th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "William C. Rounds and Alexis Manaster- Ramer. A logical version of functional gram- mar. In Proceedings of The 25th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 1987.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF0": {
"num": null,
"text": "We use the following R-signs: 1 (subject), 2 (direct object), 3 (indirect object), 8 (chSmeur), Cat (Category), C (comp), F (flag), H (head), LOC (locative), M (marked), as well as the special Null R-signs 0 and/, explainedbelow.",
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF1": {
"num": null,
"text": "S-graph for Joe gave Mary tea.",
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF2": {
"num": null,
"text": "gave A [1):T A .[2):T A [3):T ; Dative :----(3, 2): T ~ (2, 8_): T.",
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF3": {
"num": null,
"text": "Closed sides are indicated with square brackets and open sides with parentheses. For example, [2, 1) denotes a label that is closed on the left and open on the right, and [3, 2, 1, 0] denotes a label that is closed on both sides. Labels of the form [-.-] are called (totally) closed; of the form (...) (totally) open; and the others partially closed (open) or closed (open) on the right (left), as appropriate. Let B\u00a3 denote the set of features over 7Z\u2022*. B\u00a3 is partially ordered by the smallest relation C_ permitting eztension along open sides. For example, (3) ___ (3,2) U [3,2,1) C [3,2, 1,0].",
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF4": {
"num": null,
"text": "depicts the essential aspects of the Sgraph for John seemed ill. Focus on the features [0,1] and [2,1,0], both of which have the NP John as target (indicated by the ~7's). The R-sign 0 is a member of Null, a distinguished set of R-signs, members of which can only occur next to brackets [ or ]. The prefix [2,1) of the label [2,1,0] is the SFG representation of RG's unaccusative analysis of adjectives. The suffix (1,0] of [2,1,0]; the prefix [0,1) of the label [0,1] in the matrix clause; and the structure-sharing collectively represent the raising of the embedded subject (cf.",
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF5": {
"num": null,
"text": "S-graph for John seemed ill [o,1) (1,o] m [el",
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF6": {
"num": null,
"text": "Raising Rule Graph",
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF7": {
"num": null,
"text": "Surface Graph for John seemed ill [Cat] VP",
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF8": {
"num": null,
"text": "Predicate-Argument Graph for John seemed ill",
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF9": {
"num": null,
"text": "S-graph for Joe was given iea. D113 DAT) U PAS: label unification is that two compatible labels combine to yield a label with maximal nonempty overlap. Left (right) closed labels unify with left (right) open labels to yield left (right) closed labels. There are ten types of label unification, determined by the four types of bracket pairs: totally closed (open), closed only on the left (right). However, in parsing (as opposed to building a lexicalized grammar), we stipulate that successful label unification must result in a ~o~ally closed label. Additionally, we assume that all labels in well-formed lexicalized graphs (the input graphs to the parsing algorithm) are at least partially closed. This leaves only four cases: Case 1. [or] Ll [o~1 = [Or] Case 2. [~) u [~#] = [~#1",
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF10": {
"num": null,
"text": "(o~] LI [~] : [~c~]",
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF11": {
"num": null,
"text": "[+#) u (#+] = [+#+]Note: c~, fl, 7 @ T~S+ and/3 is the longest common, nonempty string.The following list provides examples of each.",
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF12": {
"num": null,
"text": "the same as ordinary label unification under identity. Besides their roles in unifying rule-graphs, Cases 2, 3 and 4 are typically used in parsing bounded control constructions (e.g., \"equi\" and \"raising\") and extractions by meansof \"splicing\" Null R-signs onto the open ends of labels and closing off the labels in the process. We note in passing that cases involving totally open labels may not result in unique unifications, e.g., (1, 2) U (2, 1) can be either (2,1,2) or (1,2,1). In practice, such aberrant cases seem not to arise. Label unification thus plays a central role in building a lexicalized grammar and in parsing. THE PARSING ALGORITHM S-unification is like normal feature structure unification ([1], [11]), except that in certain cases two arcs with distinct labels 1 and l' are replaced by a single arc whose label is obtained by unifying 1 and l'. S-unification is implemented via the procedures Unify-Nodes, Unify-Arcs, and Unify-Sets-of-Arcs: 1. Unify-Nodes(n,n') consists of the steps: a. Unify label(n) and label(n'), where node labels unify under identity b. Unify-Sets-of-Arcs(Out-Arcs(n), Out-Arcs(n')) 2. Unify-Arcs(A,A') consists of the steps: a. Unify label(A) and label(A') b. Unify-Nodes(target (A),target (A')) 3. Unify-Sets-of-Arcs(SeQ, Set2), where Sett = {Aj,...,A~} and Set2 = {Am,..., An}, returns a set of arcs Set3, derived as follows: a. For each arc Ai \u2022 SeQ, attempt to find some arc A~ \u2022 Set2, such that Step 2a of Unify-arcs(Ai,A~) succeeds. If Step 2a succeeds, proceed to Step 2b and remove A~ from Sets. There are three possibilities:",
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF13": {
"num": null,
"text": "distinguish several classes of Arc: (i) Surface Arc vs. Non-Surface, determined by absence or presence of a Null R-sign in a label's last position; (ii) Structural Arc vs. Constraint Arc (stipulated by the grammar writer); and (iii) Relational Arc vs. Category Arc, determined by the kind of label (category arcs are atomic and have R-signs like Case, Number, Gender, etc.). The parser looks for arcs to complete that are Surface, Structural and Relational (SSR). A simplified version of the parsing algorithm is sketched below. It uses the predicates Left-Precedence , Right-Precedence and Complete: . Precedence: Let Q~ = [n~,Li, R~], F \u2022 SSR-Out-Arcs(n~) such that Target(F) = Anchor(Graph(n~)), and A \u2022 SSR-Out-Arcs(ni) be an incomplete terminal arc. Then: A. Left-Precedence(A, n~) is true iff: a. All surface arcs which must follow F are incomplete. b. A can precede F. c. All surface arcs which must both precede F and follow A are complete. B. Right-Precedence(A, n~) is true iff: a. All surface arcs which must precede F are complete. b. A can follow F. c.",
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF14": {
"num": null,
"text": "A left completion succeeds with Qi = state 2:1 = [hi, 1, 2] and Qj = state 1:1 = [nj, 0, 1]. State 2:2 = [n~, 0, 2] is added to state-set $2, where n~ = Unify-at-end-of-Path(n,, nj, [0, 1)). Label [0, 1) is closed off to yield [0, 1] in the output graph, since no further R-signs may be added to the label once the arc bearing the label is complete. The precedence constraints are interpreted as strict partial orders on the sets of outgoing SSR arcs of each node (in contrast to the totally ordered lexicalized TAGs). Arc [0, 1) satisfies leftprecedence because: (i) [0, 1) is an incomplete terminal arc, where a terminal arc is an SSR arc, the target of which has no incomplete outgoing surface arcs; (ii) all surface arcs (here, only [C]) which must follow the [H] arc are incomplete; (iii) [0 1) can precede [H]; and (iv) there are no (incomplete) surface arcs which must occur between [0 1) and [H]. (We say can in (iii) because the parser accomodates variable word order.) The parser precedes to state-set $3. A right completion succeeds with Q~ = state 2:2 = [n~, 0, 2] and Q~ = state 3:1 = [n~,2,3]. State 3:2 -[n~', 0, 3] is added to state set $3, n~' = Unify-at-",
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF15": {
"num": null,
"text": "Chart for John seemed ill.",
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF16": {
"num": null,
"text": "Example: What general algorithm.",
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null
},
"TABREF1": {
"content": "<table><tr><td>end-of-Path(n~, n~, [C]). State 3:2 is a successful</td></tr><tr><td>parse because n~' is complete and spans the entire</td></tr><tr><td>input string.</td></tr><tr><td>To sum up: a completion finds a state Qi =</td></tr><tr><td>[hi, L,, R~] and a state Qj = [nj, Lj, Rj] in adja-</td></tr><tr><td>cent state-sets (Li = Rj or P~/ = Lj) such that</td></tr><tr><td>ni is incomplete and nj is complete. Each success-</td></tr><tr><td>ful completion completes an arc A E SSR-Out-</td></tr><tr><td>Arcs(n~) by unifying nj with the target of A. Left</td></tr><tr><td>completion operates on a state Qi = [ni,Li, c]</td></tr><tr><td>in the current state-set Sc looking for a state</td></tr><tr><td>Qj = [nj, Lj, L~] in state-set SL, to complete some</td></tr><tr><td>arc A E SSR-Out-</td></tr></table>",
"type_str": "table",
"num": null,
"text": "Arcs(ni). Right completion is the same as left completion except that the roles of the two states are reversed: in both cases, success adds a new state to the current state-set So. The parser completes arcs first leftward from the anchor and then rightward from the anchor.",
"html": null
}
}
}
} |