File size: 71,399 Bytes
6fa4bc9 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 | {
"paper_id": "P94-1018",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T09:18:57.791145Z"
},
"title": "A Psycholinguistically Motivated Parser for CCG",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Michael",
"middle": [],
"last": "Niv",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Technion -Israel Institute of Technology Haifa",
"location": {
"country": "Israel"
}
},
"email": "niv@linc.cis.upenn.edu"
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "Considering the speed in which humans resolve syntactic ambiguity, and the overwhelming evidence that syntactic ambiguity is resolved through selection of the analysis whose interpretation is the most 'sensible', one comes to the conclusion that interpretation, hence parsing take place incrementally, just about every word. Considerations of parsimony in the theory of the syntactic processor lead one to explore the simplest of parsers: one which represents only analyses as defined by the grammar and no other information. Toward this aim of a simple, incremental parser I explore the proposal that the competence grammar is a Combinatory Categorial Grammar (CCG). I address the problem of the proliferating analyses that stem from CCG's associativity of derivation. My solution involves maintaining only the maximally incremental analysis and, when necessary, computing the maximally right-branching analysis. I use results from the study of rewrite systems to show that this computation is efficient.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "P94-1018",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "Considering the speed in which humans resolve syntactic ambiguity, and the overwhelming evidence that syntactic ambiguity is resolved through selection of the analysis whose interpretation is the most 'sensible', one comes to the conclusion that interpretation, hence parsing take place incrementally, just about every word. Considerations of parsimony in the theory of the syntactic processor lead one to explore the simplest of parsers: one which represents only analyses as defined by the grammar and no other information. Toward this aim of a simple, incremental parser I explore the proposal that the competence grammar is a Combinatory Categorial Grammar (CCG). I address the problem of the proliferating analyses that stem from CCG's associativity of derivation. My solution involves maintaining only the maximally incremental analysis and, when necessary, computing the maximally right-branching analysis. I use results from the study of rewrite systems to show that this computation is efficient.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "The aim of this paper is to work towards a computational model of how humans syntactically process the language that they hear and read. The endpoint of this enterprise is a precise characterization of the process that humans follow, getting details such as timing and garden pathing exactly right.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "*The research reported here was conducted as part of my Ph.D. thesis work at the University of Pennsylvania and supported by the following grants: DARPA N00014-90-J-1863, ARO DAAL03-89-C-0031, NSF IRI 90-16592, Ben Franklin 91S.3078C-1. Preparation of this paper was supported by a postdoctoral fellowship at the Technion in Israel. I am grateful to Mark Hepple, Mitch Marcus, Mark Steedman, VM Tannen, and Henry Thompson for helpful suggestions, and to Jeff Siskind for help with typesetting CCG derivations. Any errors are my own.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 350,
"end": 412,
"text": "Mark Hepple, Mitch Marcus, Mark Steedman, VM Tannen, and Henry",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "Recently, a great deal of evidence has accumulated that humans resolve syntactic ambiguity by considering the meaning of the available analyses and selecting the 'best' one. Various criteria for goodness of meaning have been advanced in the psycholinguistic literature: e.g. thematic compatibility and lexical selection (Trueswell and Tanenhaus 1994) , discourse felicity of definite expressions (Altmann et al. 1994) , temporal coherence in discourse (Trueswell and Tanenhaus 1991) , grammatical function vis avis given/new status (Niv 1993b) , and general world-knowledge (Kawamoto and Farrar 1993) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 320,
"end": 350,
"text": "(Trueswell and Tanenhaus 1994)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF22"
},
{
"start": 396,
"end": 417,
"text": "(Altmann et al. 1994)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 452,
"end": 482,
"text": "(Trueswell and Tanenhaus 1991)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF21"
},
{
"start": 532,
"end": 543,
"text": "(Niv 1993b)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF14"
},
{
"start": 574,
"end": 600,
"text": "(Kawamoto and Farrar 1993)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Ambiguity Resolution",
"sec_num": "1.1"
},
{
"text": "Many of the works cited above consider the timing of the ambiguity resolution decision. The evidence is overwhelming that ambiguity is resolved within a word or two of the arrival of disambiguating information--that is, when there is a meaningbased criterion which militates toward one or another syntactically available analysis, that analysis is selected. Should the other analysis turn out to be the ultimately correct analysis, a garden path will result. Given that the various analyses available are compared on various criteria of sensibleness, it follows that these analyses are constructed and maintained in parallel until disambiguating information arrives. Indeed, there is psycholinguistic evidence that the processor maintains the various analyses in parallel (Nicol and Pickering 1993; MacDonland et al. 1992 ).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 772,
"end": 798,
"text": "(Nicol and Pickering 1993;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
},
{
"start": 799,
"end": 821,
"text": "MacDonland et al. 1992",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Ambiguity Resolution",
"sec_num": "1.1"
},
{
"text": "Our parser, therefore, must be able to build and maintain analyses in parallel. It must also extract from the developing parse in a prompt fashion all of the semantically relevant syntactic commitments (e.g. predicate-argument relations) in order to allow the interpretation module that it feeds to make accurate evaluations of the meaning. Recovery from garden paths is not addressed in this paper.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Ambiguity Resolution",
"sec_num": "1.1"
},
{
"text": "Let us adopt the widely held position that humans posses a representation of grammatical competence which is independent of any process (e.g. production, perception, acquisition) that uses it. Steedman (1994) argues that if two theories of the grammar and processor package have identical empirical coverage, but one has a more complex parser, then the other is preferred. This preference is not just on philosophical grounds of cleanliness of one's theories, but stems from consideration of the evolution of the human linguistic capacity: A theory whose grammar requires a complex parser in order to be of any use would entail a more complex or less likely evolutionary path which the parser and grammar took together than would a theory whose grammar requires little specialized apparatus by way of a parser, and could thus have evolved gradually.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 193,
"end": 208,
"text": "Steedman (1994)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF20"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Parser and Grammar",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "So what is the simplest parser one can construct? In other words, what is the minimal addition of computational apparatus to the competence grammar necessary to make it parse? From the argument in section 1.1, this addition must include a mechanism for maintaining analyses in parallel. Minimally, nothing else is necessary --the data structure which resides in each parallel slot in the parser is a direct representation of an analysis as defined by the competence machinery.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Parser and Grammar",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Suppose the grammatical competence is one that always divides an English clause into a subject and a predicate (VP henceforth). Suppose also that the primary operations of the grammar are putting constituents together. Could the minimal parser for such a grammar account for the minimal pair in (1)?",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Parser and Grammar",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "(1) a. The doctor sent for the patient arrived.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Parser and Grammar",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "b. The flowers sent for the patient arrived.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Parser and Grammar",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "(1)a is a garden path. In (1)b the garden path is avoided because flowers are not good senders. The difference between (1)a and b indicates that well before the word 'arrived' is encountered, the processor has already resolved the ambiguity introduced by the word 'sent'. That is, in the main-verb analysis of 'sent', the interpreter is aware of the relation between the subject the verb before the end of the VP. But the minimal parser cannot put the subject together with 'sent' or 'sent for the' because the latter are not a complete VP! There are two possible solutions to this problem, each relaxes one of the two suppositions above: Steedman (1994) argues for a grammatical theory (CCG) which does not always make the subjectpredicate juncture the primary division point of a clause. Shieber and Johnson (1993) on the other hand, argue that there is no need to assume that a constituent has to be complete before it is combined with its sister(s). At this time, neither approach is sufficiently developed to be evaluable (e.g. they both lack broad coverage grammar) so either one is viable. In this paper, I develop the first.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 639,
"end": 654,
"text": "Steedman (1994)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF20"
},
{
"start": 790,
"end": 816,
"text": "Shieber and Johnson (1993)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF17"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Parser and Grammar",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "CCG is a lexicalized grammar formalism --a lexicon assigns each word to one or more grammatical categories. Adjacent constituents can combine by one of a small number of combinatory rules. A derivation is a binary tree whose leaves are each a single-word constituent, and whose internal nodes are each a constituent which is derived from its children by an application of one of the combinatory rules. A string w is grammatical just in case there exists a derivation whose frontier is w. I equivocate between a derivation and the constituent at its root. An analysis of a string w is a sequence of derivations such that the concatenation of their frontiers is w.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Preliminaries",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Let us consider the simplest conceivable parser. Its specification is \"find all analyses of the string so far.\" It has a collection of slots for maintaining one analysis each, in parallel. Each slot maintains an analysis of the string seen so far --a sequence of one or more derivations. The parser has two operations, as shown in figure 1.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Simplest Parser",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "This parser succeeds in constructing the incremental analysis (2) necessary for solving the problem in (1).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Simplest Parser",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "1Two common combinatory rules, type-raising and substitution are not listed here. The substitution rule (Steedman 1987 ) is orthogonal to the present discussion and can be added without modification. The rule for type-raising (see e.g. Dowty 1988) can cause difficulties for the parsing scheme advocated here (Hepple 1987) and is therefore assumed to apply in the lexicon. So a proper name, for example, would be have two categories: np and s/(s\\np).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 104,
"end": 118,
"text": "(Steedman 1987",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
},
{
"start": 309,
"end": 322,
"text": "(Hepple 1987)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Simplest Parser",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "X/Y Y X >0 X/Y YIZ X[Z >1 X/Y Y]-Z11Z2 X~z [Z2 >2 Backward Combination rule name X/Y YIZ1...IZ. XIZI...[Z. >n Y X\\Y , X <0 YIZ x\\Y , xlz <1 Y]-Z, [Z2 X\\Y ~ X]-ZIIZ2 \" <2 Y[Z1... [Zn X\\Y ' X[Z1... [Zn <n",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Forward combination rule name",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "IZ stands for either/Z or \\Z. Underlined regions in a rule must match. get the next word from the input stream for each analysis a in the parser's memory empty the slot containing a for each lexical entry e of the word make a copy a ~ of a add the leaf derivation e to the right of a ~ add a ~ as a new analysis",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Forward combination rule name",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\u2022 combine for each analysis a in the parser's memory if a contains more than one constituent and some rule can combine the rightmost two constituents in a then make a copy a ~ of a replace the two constituents of a ~ by their combination add a / as a new analysis (2) s/(s\\np)/, n >0s\\np/pp",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Forward combination rule name",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "s/(s\\np) >I s/pp",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Forward combination rule name",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "But this parser is just an unconstrained shiftreduce parser that simulates non-determinism via parallelism. It suffers from a standard problem of simple bottom-up parsers: it can only know when a certain substring has a derivation, but in case a substring does not have a derivation, the parser cannot yet know whether or not a larger string containing the substring will have a derivation. This means that when faced with a string such as",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Forward combination rule name",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "(3) The insults the new students shouted at the teacher were appalling. the parser will note the noun-verb ambiguity of 'insults', but will be unable to use the information that 'insults' is preceded by a determiner to rule out the verb analysis in a timely fashion. It would only notice the difficulty with the verb analysis after it had come to the end of the string and failed to find a derivation for it. This delay in ruling out doomed analyses means that the parser and the interpreter are burdened with a quickly proliferating collection of irrelevant analyses.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Forward combination rule name",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Standard solution to this problem (e.g. Earley's 1970 parser; LR parsing, Aho and Johnson 1974) consider global properties of the competence grammar to infer that no grammatical string will begin with a determiner followed by a verb. These solutions exact a cost in complicating the design of the parser: new data structures such as dotted rules or an LR table must be added to the parser. The parser is no longer a generic search algorithm for the competence grammar. Given the flexibility of CCG derivations, one may consider imposing a very simple constraint on the parser: every prefix of a grammatical string must have a derivation. But such a move it too heavy-handed. Indeed CCG often gives left-branching derivations, but it is not purely left-branching. For example, the derivation of a WH-dependency requires leaving the WHfiller constituent uncombined until the entire gapcontaining constituent is completed, as in (4).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 61,
"text": "Earley's 1970 parser;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 95,
"text": "LR parsing, Aho and Johnson 1974)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Forward combination rule name",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "whose cat did Fred find n s/s s/(s\\np) >i s\\np/np q/(s/np)/n >0 q/(s/np) s/(s\\np) s/np >I >0 4",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "(4)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The Viable Analysis Criterion",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "(4)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Given the desideratum to minimize the complexity of the biologically specified parser, I propose that the human parser is indeed as simple as the scancombine algorithm presented above, and that the ability to rule out analyses such as determiner+verb is not innate, but is an acquired skill. This 'skill' is implemented as a criterion which an analysis must meet in order to survive. An infant starts out with this criterion completely permissive. Consequently it cannot process any utterances longer than a few words without requiring excessively many parser slots. But as the infant observes the various analyses in the parser memory and tracks their respective outcomes, it notices that certain sequences of categories never lead to a grammatical overall analysis.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "(4)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "After observing an analysis failing a certain number of times and never succeeding, the child concludes that it is not a viable analysis and learns to discard it. The more spurious analyses are discarded, the better able the child is to cope with longer strings. The collection of analyses that are maintained by the parser is therefore filtered by two independent processes: The Viable Analysis Criterion is a purely syntactic filter which rules out analyses independently of ambiguity. The interpreter considers the semantic information of the remaining analyses in parallel and occasionally deems certain analyses more sensible than their competitors, and discards the latter.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "(4)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Given that English sentences rarely require more than two or three CCG constituents at any point in their parse, and given the limited range of categories that arise in English, the problem of learning the viable analysis criterion from data promises to be comparable to other n-gram learning tasks. The empirical validation of this proposal awaits the availability of a broad coverage CCG for English, and other languages. 2",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "(4)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "CCG and flexible derivation",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "5",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "CCG's distinguishing characteristic is its derivational flexibility --the fact that one string is potentially assigned many truth-conditionally equivalent analyses. This feature is crucial to the present approach of incremental parsing (as well as for a range of grammatical phenomena, see e.g. Steedman 1987 Steedman , 1994 Dowty 1988) . But the additional ambiguity, sometimes referred to as 'spurious', is also a source of difficulty for parsing. For example, the truth-conditionally unambiguous string 'John was thinking that Bill had left' has CCG derivations corresponding to each of the 132 different binary trees possible for seven leaves. The fact that this sentence makes no unusual demands on humans makes it clear that its exponentially prolif~ crating ambiguous analyses are pruned somehow. The interpreter, which can resolve many kinds of ambiguity, cannot be used to for this task: it has no visible basis for determining, for example, that the single-constituent analysis 'John was thinking'",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 295,
"end": 308,
"text": "Steedman 1987",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
},
{
"start": 309,
"end": 324,
"text": "Steedman , 1994",
"ref_id": "BIBREF20"
},
{
"start": 325,
"end": 336,
"text": "Dowty 1988)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Problem",
"sec_num": "5.1"
},
{
"text": "2In addition to the category-ambiguity problem in (3), the viable analysis criterion solves other problems, analogous to shift-reduce ambiguities, which are omitted here for reasons of space. The interested reader is referred to Niv (1993a) for a comprehensive discussion and an implementation of the parser proposed here. somehow makes more sense (in CCG) than the twoconstituent analysis 'John'+'was thinking'.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Problem",
"sec_num": "5.1"
},
{
"text": "Note that the maximMly left-branching derivation is the one which most promptly identifies syntactic relations, and is thus the preferred derivation. It is possible to extend the viable analysis criterion to encompass this consideration of efficiency as well. The infant learns that it is usually most efficient to combine whenever possible, and to discard an analysis in which a combination is possible, but not taken. 3.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Problem",
"sec_num": "5.1"
},
{
"text": "While this left-branching criterion eliminates the inefficiency due to flexibility of derivation, it gives rise to difficulties with (5). ",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Problem",
"sec_num": "5.1"
},
{
"text": "Following up on the work of Lambek (1958) who proposed that the process of deriving the grammaticality of a string of categories be viewed as a proof, there have been quite a few proposals put forth for computing only normal forms of derivations or proofs (KSnig 1989; Hepple and Morrill 1989; Hepple 1991; inter alia). The basic idea with all of these works is to define 'normal forms' --distinguished members of each equivalence class of derivations, and to require the parser to search this smaller space of possible derivations. But none of the proposed methods result in parsing systems which proceed incrementally through the string. 4 Karttunen (1989) and others have proposed chart-based parsers which directly address the derivational ambiguity problem. For the present purpose, the principal feature of chart parsing -the factoring out of constituents from analyses -turns out to create an encumberance: The interpreter cannot compare constituents, or arcs, for the purposes of ambiguity resolution. It must compare analyses of the entire prefix so far, which are awkward to compute from the developing chart.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 41,
"text": "Lambek (1958)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
},
{
"start": 642,
"end": 658,
"text": "Karttunen (1989)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Previous Approaches",
"sec_num": "5.2"
},
{
"text": "3 Discussion of the consequences of this move on the processing of picture noun extractions and ambiguityrelated filled-gap effects is omitted for lack of space. See Niv (1993a) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 166,
"end": 177,
"text": "Niv (1993a)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Previous Approaches",
"sec_num": "5.2"
},
{
"text": "4In the case of Hepple's (1991) proposal, a leftbranching normal form is indeed computed. But its computation must be delayed for some words, so it does not provide the interpreter with timely information about the incoming string. Pareschi and Steedman (1987) propose the following strategy: (which can be taken out of the chart-parsing context of their paper) construct only maximally left-branching derivations, but allow a limited form of backtracking when a locally non-left-branching derivation turns out to have been necessary. For example, when parsing 5 The idea with this 'revealing' operation is to exploit the fact that the rules >n and <n, when viewed as three-place relations, are functional in all three arguments. That is, knowledge any two of {left constituent, right constituent, result), uniquely determines the third. There are many problems with the completeness and soundness Pareschi and Steedman's proposal (Hepple 1987; Niv 1993a) . For example, in (7), the category b\\c cannot be revealed after it had participated in two combinations of mixed direction: <0 and >0. Pareschi and Steedman's idea of lazy parsing is very attractive in the present setting. I propose to replace their unification-based revealing operation with a normal-form based manipulation of the derivation history. The idea is to construct and maintain the maximally incremental, left-branching derivations. (see section 4.) When a constituent such as the VP 'loves Mary' in (5) may be necessary, e.g. whenever the right-most constituent in an analysis is of the form X\\Y, the next-to-rightmost derivation is rewritten to its equivalent rightbranching derivation by repeated application the local transformations , defined in (8) and (9). The right frontier of the rewritten derivation now provides all the grammatically possible attachment sites. Results from the study of rewrite systems (see Klop (1992) for an overview) help determine the computational complexity of this operation:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 31,
"text": "Hepple's (1991)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
},
{
"start": 232,
"end": 260,
"text": "Pareschi and Steedman (1987)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
},
{
"start": 931,
"end": 944,
"text": "(Hepple 1987;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
},
{
"start": 945,
"end": 955,
"text": "Niv 1993a)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
},
{
"start": 1890,
"end": 1901,
"text": "Klop (1992)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Previous Approaches",
"sec_num": "5.2"
},
{
"text": "If x is a node in a binary tree let A(x) (resp. p(x)) refer to its left (right) child.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A Rewrite System for Derivations",
"sec_num": "6.1"
},
{
"text": "Any subtree of a derivation which matches the left-hand-side of either (8) or (9) is called a redez.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A Rewrite System for Derivations",
"sec_num": "6.1"
},
{
"text": "The result of replacing a redex by the corresponding right-hand-side of a rule is called the eontractum. A derivation is in normal form (NF) if it contains no redexes. In the following I use the symbol --~ to also stand for the relation over pairs of derivations such that the second is derived from the first by one application of ,7. Let ~--be the converse of---*. Let ( , be ~ U ~---. Let ,~ be the reflexive transitive closure of --~ and similarly, the reflexive transitive closure of ~---, and , ,, the reflexive transitive closure of ~ ,. Note that .... is an equivalence relation.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A Rewrite System for Derivations",
"sec_num": "6.1"
},
{
"text": "A rewrite system is strongly normalizing (SN) iff every sequence of applications of ~ is finite. Each application of ---+ decreases a, the score of the derivation. This follows from the monotonic dependency of the score of the root of the derivation upon the scores of each sub-derivation, and from the fact that locally, the score of a redex decreases when ---+ is applied: In figure 2, a derivation is depicted schematically with a redex whose sub-constituents are named a, b, and c. Applying ~ reduces ~(e), hence the score of the whole derivation. So far I have shown that every sequence of applications of ----+ is not very long: at most quadratic in the size of the derivation. I now show that when there is a choice of redex, it makes no difference which redex one picks. That is, all redex selection strategies result in the same normal form.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 45,
"text": "(SN)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A Rewrite System for Derivations",
"sec_num": "6.1"
},
{
"text": "A rewrite system is Church-Rosser (CR)just in case w, y.(z ,, ,, y ~ 3z.(z---~ z ^ y ,, z) Theorem 2 ~ is CR.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 54,
"end": 90,
"text": "y.(z ,, ,, y ~ 3z.(z---~ z ^ y ,, z)",
"ref_id": "FIGREF8"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A Rewrite System for Derivations",
"sec_num": "6.1"
},
{
"text": "proof From theorem 1 and lemmas 2 and 3.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A Rewrite System for Derivations",
"sec_num": "6.1"
},
{
"text": "[] Therefore any maximal sequence of applications of ~ will lead to the normal form 7. We are free to select the most efficient redex selection scheme. From lemma 1 the worst case is quadratic. Niv (1994) shows that the optimal strategy, of applying --+ closest as possible to the root, yields ---+ applications sequences of at most n steps. 7Assuming, as is the case with extant CCG accounts, that constraints on the applicability of the combinatory rules do not present significant roadblocks to the derivation rewrite process. Arrows are annotated by the substrucure to which they are applied Note that all that was said in this section generalizes beyond CCG derivations to any associative algebra.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 194,
"end": 204,
"text": "Niv (1994)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A Rewrite System for Derivations",
"sec_num": "6.1"
},
{
"text": "Given the rightmost subconstituent recovered using the normal form technique above, how should parsing proceed? Obviously, if the leftward looking category which precipitated the normal form computation is a modifier, i.e. of the form X\\X, then it ought to be combined with the recovered constituent in a form analogous to Chomsky adjunction. But what if this category is not of the form X\\X? For example, should the parser compute the reanalysis in (10)?",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Discussion",
"sec_num": "6.2"
},
{
"text": "(lO) a/b b/C>lC/d s\\(a/b)\\(b/d) a/c >1 a/d a/b b/c c/d>lS\\(a/b)\\(b/d ) b/d <0 s\\(a/b) <0 S",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Discussion",
"sec_num": "6.2"
},
{
"text": "Ascribing the same non-garden-path status to the reanalysis in (10) that we do to (6) would constitute a very odd move: Before reanalysis, the derivation encoded the commitment that the /b of the first category is satisfied by the b of the b/c in the second category. This commitment is undone in the reanalysis. This is an undesirable property to have in a computational model of parsing commitment, as it renders certain revisions of commitments eas-ier than others, without any empirical justification. Furthermore, given the possibility that the parser change its mind about what serves as argument to what, the interpreter must be able to cope with such non-monotonic updates to its view of the analysis so far --this would surely complicate the design of the interpreter, s Therefore, constituents on the right-frontier of a right-normal-form should only combine with 'endocentric' categories to their right. The precise definition of 'endocentric' depends on the semantic formalism used --it certainly includes post-head modifiers, and might also include coordination.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Discussion",
"sec_num": "6.2"
},
{
"text": "Stipulating that certain reanalyses are impossible immediately makes the parser 'incomplete' in the sense that it cannot find the analysis in (10). From the current perspective of identifying garden paths, this incompleteness is a desirable, even a necessary property. In (10), committing to the composition of a/b and b/c is tantamount to being led down the garden path. In a different sense, the current parser is complete: it finds all analyses if the Viable Analysis Criterion and the interpreter never discard any analyses.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Discussion",
"sec_num": "6.2"
},
{
"text": "The current proposal shifts some of the burden traditionally associated with the parser to other components of the human cognitive faculty: the interpreter resolves ambiguity, and an acquired skill removes 'garbage' analyses from the parser's memory --solving the so-called spurious ambiguity problem, as well as effectively applying grammarglobal constraints traditionally computed by topdown techniques or grammar compilation. The resultant parser adheres to the desideratum that it be a generic search algorithm for the grammar formalism, provided the definition of CCG explicitly includes the notion of 'derivation' and explicates the truth-conditional equivalence relation. Such inclusions have indeed been proposed (Steedman 1990 ",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 721,
"end": 735,
"text": "(Steedman 1990",
"ref_id": "BIBREF19"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "7"
}
],
"back_matter": [],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "Categorial Grammars and Natural Language Structures",
"authors": [],
"year": null,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Deirdre Wheeler (Eds.), Categorial Grammars and Natural Language Structures. Reidel.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "An Efficient Context-Free Parsing Algorithm",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Jay",
"middle": [],
"last": "Earley",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1970,
"venue": "Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery",
"volume": "13",
"issue": "",
"pages": "94--102",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Earley, Jay. 1970. An Efficient Context-Free Pars- ing Algorithm. Communications of the Asso- ciation for Computing Machinery 13:94-102.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "Methods for Parsing Combinatory Grammars and the Spurious Ambiguity Problem",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Mark",
"middle": [
"R"
],
"last": "Hepple",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1987,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Hepple, Mark R. 1987. Methods for Parsing Combi- natory Grammars and the Spurious Ambiguity Problem. Master's thesis, University of Edin- burgh.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "Efficient Incremental Processing with Categorial Grammar",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Mark",
"middle": [
"R"
],
"last": "Hepple",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1991,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "79--86",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Hepple, Mark R. 1991. Efficient Incremental Pro- cessing with Categorial Grammar. In Proceed- ings of the 29th Annual Meeting of the Associ- ation for Computational Linguistics, 79-86.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "Parsing and Derivational Equivalence",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Mark",
"middle": [
"R"
],
"last": "Hepple",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Glyn",
"middle": [
"V"
],
"last": "Morrill",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1989,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the European Chapter",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Hepple, Mark R. and Glyn V. Morrill. 1989. Pars- ing and Derivational Equivalence. In Proceed- ings of the Annual Meeting of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "Radical Lexicalism",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Lauri",
"middle": [],
"last": "Karttunen",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1989,
"venue": "Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "43--65",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Karttunen, Lauri. 1989. Radical Lexicalism. In Mark Baltin and Anthony S. Kroch (Eds.), Al- ternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure, 43- 65. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "The Return of Visiting Relatives: Pragmatic Effects in Sentence Processing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Alan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kawamoto",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "William",
"middle": [],
"last": "Farrar",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1993,
"venue": "Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology",
"volume": "46",
"issue": "3",
"pages": "463--487",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Kawamoto, Alan and William Farrar. 1993. The Return of Visiting Relatives: Pragmatic Ef- fects in Sentence Processing. Quarterly Jour- nal of Experimental Psychology 46A(3):463 - 487.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "Term Rewrite Systems",
"authors": [
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Klop",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Klop, Jan W. 1992. Term Rewrite Systems.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "Handbook of Logic in Computer Science",
"authors": [],
"year": null,
"venue": "",
"volume": "2",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1--116",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "In Samson Abramsky, Dov M. Gabbay, and T. S. E. Maibaum (Eds.), Handbook of Logic in Computer Science, Vol. 2, 1 -116. Oxford: Clarendon Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF9": {
"ref_id": "b9",
"title": "Parsing as Natural Deduction",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Esther",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ksnig",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1989,
"venue": "Proceedings of the g7th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "272--279",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "KSnig, Esther. 1989. Parsing as Natural Deduction. In Proceedings of the g7th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 272-279, June.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF10": {
"ref_id": "b10",
"title": "The Mathematics of Sentence Structure",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Joachim",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lambek",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1958,
"venue": "American Mathematical Monthly",
"volume": "65",
"issue": "",
"pages": "154--169",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Lambek, Joachim. 1958. The Mathematics of Sentence Structure. American Mathematical Monthly 65:154-169.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF11": {
"ref_id": "b11",
"title": "Working Memory Constraints on the Processing of Syntactic Ambiguity",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Maryellen",
"middle": [],
"last": "Macdonland",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Adam",
"middle": [],
"last": "Just",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Patricia",
"middle": [],
"last": "Carpenter",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "Cognitive Psychology",
"volume": "24",
"issue": "",
"pages": "56--98",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "MacDonland, Maryellen, Adam Just, and Patri- cia Carpenter. 1992. Working Memory Con- straints on the Processing of Syntactic Ambi- guity. Cognitive Psychology 24:56-98.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF12": {
"ref_id": "b12",
"title": "Processing Syntactically Ambiguous Sentences: Evidence from Semantic Priming",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Janet",
"middle": [
"L"
],
"last": "Nicol",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Martin",
"middle": [
"J"
],
"last": "Pickering",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1993,
"venue": "Journal of Psycholinguistic Research",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Nicol, Janet L. and Martin J. Pickering. 1993. Pro- cessing Syntactically Ambiguous Sentences: Evidence from Semantic Priming. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF13": {
"ref_id": "b13",
"title": "A Computational Model of Syntactic Processing: Ambiguity Resolution from Interpretation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Michael",
"middle": [],
"last": "Niv",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1993,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Niv, Michael. 1993a. A Computational Model of Syntactic Processing: Ambiguity Resolution from Interpretation. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania. (ftp://ftp.cis.upenn.edu/pub/- ircs/tr/93-27.ps).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF14": {
"ref_id": "b14",
"title": "Resolution of Syntactic Ambiguity: the Case of New Subjects",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Michael",
"middle": [],
"last": "Niv",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1993,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Niv, Michael. 1993b. Resolution of Syntactic Am- biguity: the Case of New Subjects. In Proceed- ings of the 15th Annual Conference of the Cog- nitive Science Society, Hillsdale, NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF15": {
"ref_id": "b15",
"title": "The complexity of normal form rewrite sequences for Associativity",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Michael",
"middle": [],
"last": "Niv",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1994,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Niv, Michael. 1994. The complexity of normal form rewrite sequences for Associativity. Tech- nical Report LCL 94-6, Computer Science Department, Technion. (ftp://ftp.cis.upenn.- edu/pub/niv/rewrite.ps).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF16": {
"ref_id": "b16",
"title": "A Lazy Way to Chart Parse with Combinatory Grammars",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Remo",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pareschi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Mark",
"middle": [
"A"
],
"last": "Steedman",
"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": "Pareschi, Remo and Mark a. Steedman. 1987. A Lazy Way to Chart Parse with Combinatory Grammars. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF17": {
"ref_id": "b17",
"title": "Variations on Incremental Interpretation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Stuart",
"middle": [
"M"
],
"last": "Shieber",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Mark",
"middle": [],
"last": "Johnson",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1993,
"venue": "Journal of Psycholinguistic Research",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Shieber, Stuart M. and Mark Johnson. 1993. Vari- ations on Incremental Interpretation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. (to appear).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF18": {
"ref_id": "b18",
"title": "Combinatory Grammars and Parasitic Gaps",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Mark",
"middle": [
"J"
],
"last": "Steedman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1987,
"venue": "Natural Language and Linguislic Theory",
"volume": "5",
"issue": "",
"pages": "403--439",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Steedman, Mark J. 1987. Combinatory Gram- mars and Parasitic Gaps. Natural Language and Linguislic Theory 5:403-439.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF19": {
"ref_id": "b19",
"title": "Gapping as Constituent Coordination",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Mark",
"middle": [
"J"
],
"last": "Steedman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1990,
"venue": "Linguistics and Philosophy",
"volume": "13",
"issue": "",
"pages": "207--264",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Steedman, Mark J. 1990. Gapping as Con- stituent Coordination. Linguistics and Philos- ophy 13:207-264.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF20": {
"ref_id": "b20",
"title": "Grammars and Processors",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Mark",
"middle": [
"J"
],
"last": "Steedman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1994,
"venue": "Aspects of Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Steedman, Mark J. 1994. Grammars and Proces- sors. In Hans Kamp and Christian Rohrer (Eds.), Aspects of Computational Linguistics. Springer Verlag. (to appear).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF21": {
"ref_id": "b21",
"title": "Tense, Temporal Context and Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution. Language and Cognitive Processses",
"authors": [
{
"first": "John",
"middle": [
"C"
],
"last": "Trueswell",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Michael",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Tanenhaus",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1991,
"venue": "",
"volume": "6",
"issue": "",
"pages": "303--338",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Trueswell, John C. and Michael K. Tanenhaus. 1991. Tense, Temporal Context and Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution. Language and Cogni- tive Processses 6:303-338.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF22": {
"ref_id": "b22",
"title": "Toward a Lexicalist Framework of Constraint-Based Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution",
"authors": [
{
"first": "John",
"middle": [
"C"
],
"last": "Trueswell",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Michael",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Tanenhaus",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1994,
"venue": "Perspectives on Sentence Processing",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Trueswell, John C. and Michael K. Tanenhaus. 1994. Toward a Lexicalist Framework of Constraint-Based Syntactic Ambiguity Reso- lution. In Charles Clifton, Lyn Frazier, and Keith Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on Sentence Processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF0": {
"uris": null,
"text": "Figure 1: Parser operations",
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null
},
"FIGREF2": {
"uris": null,
"text": "X[Y1...[Ym_I/Ym Ym IZl''']Zn X lYe.-. [Ym-~ IZ~... IZ,Ym IZ~'--IZ. XIY1.-.IY.~_I\\Ym W\\X <m W [Y1-.. IY.~-~ \\Ym <n W WI\"\" [Y~-I [Za'.-[Z,",
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null
},
"FIGREF3": {
"uris": null,
"text": "Theorem 1 ---* is SN 5 proof Every derivation with n internal nodes is assigned a positive integer score. An application of is guaranteed to yield a derivation with a lower 5Hepple and Morrill (1989) Proved SN for a slight variant of ---*. The present proof provides a tighter score function, see lemma 1 below.",
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null
},
"FIGREF4": {
"uris": null,
"text": "Schema for one redex in DRS score. This is done by defining functions # and for each node of the derivation as follows: (~ if x is a leaf node #(x) = + #(A(x)) + #(p(x)) otherwise f0 if x is a leaf node ~(x) = ~\u00a2r(A(x)) + ~(p(x)) + #(A(x)) otherwise",
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null
},
"FIGREF5": {
"uris": null,
"text": ") -=-#(a)-t-#(b)+I cr(d) = or(a) + ~(b) + #(a) ~(~) = ~(d) + ~(c) + #(d) a derivation x, let n = #x. Every sequence of applications of ---+ is of length at most n(n -1)/2. 6proof By induction on n: Base case: n = 1; 0 applications are necessary. Induction: Suppose true for all derivations of fewer than n internal nodes. Let m = #A(x). So 0 < 6Niv (1994) shows by example that this bound is tight. m_<n--1 and#p(x)=n-m-1. ~(~) -n(n -1)/2 = = a(A(x)) + a(p(x)) + #(A(x)) -n(n -1",
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null
},
"FIGREF6": {
"uris": null,
"text": ") A rewrite system is Weakly Church-Rosser (WCR) just in ease w, ~, w.(w~ ~ ^ w~ y) ~ 3z.(, ~ z ^ y ,, z)Lemma 2 ---, is WCR. proof Let w be a derivation with two distinct redexes x and y, yielding the two distinct derivations w I and w\" respectively. There are a few possibilities: case 1: x and y share no internal nodes. There are three subcases:x dominates y (includes y as a subconstituent), x is dominated by y, or z and y are incomparable with respect to dominance. Either way, it is clear that the order of application of ---+ makes no difference. case 2: x and y share some internal node. Without loss of generality, y does not dominate x. There exists a derivation z such that w~----~ zAw\"---~ z. This is depicted in figure 3. (Note that all three internal nodes in figure 3 are of the same rule direction, either > or <.) [] Lemma 3 (Newman) WCR A SN D CR.",
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null
},
"FIGREF8": {
"uris": null,
"text": "Why --~ is weakly Church-Rosser",
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null
},
"TABREF1": {
"num": null,
"type_str": "table",
"html": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td>\u2022 scan</td></tr></table>",
"text": "The combinatory rules"
},
"TABREF4": {
"num": null,
"type_str": "table",
"html": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td>).</td></tr><tr><td>Bibliography</td></tr><tr><td>Aho, ACM Computing Surveys 6(2):99-124.</td></tr><tr><td>Altmann, Gerry T., Alan Garnham, and Judith A.</td></tr><tr><td>Henstra. 1994. Effects of syntax in human sen-</td></tr><tr><td>tence parsing: Evidence against a structure-</td></tr><tr><td>based proposal mechanism. Journal of Ex-</td></tr><tr><td>perimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and</td></tr><tr><td>Cognition 20(1):1-8.</td></tr><tr><td>Dowty, David. 1988. Type Raising, Functional</td></tr><tr><td>Composition, and Non-Constituent Conjunc-</td></tr><tr><td>tion. In Richard T. Oehrle, Emmon Bach, and</td></tr><tr><td>sI am indebted to Henry Thompson for a discussion</td></tr><tr><td>of monotonicity.</td></tr></table>",
"text": "Alfred and S. C. Johnson. 1974. LR Parsing."
}
}
}
} |