File size: 84,946 Bytes
6fa4bc9 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 1572 1573 1574 1575 1576 1577 1578 1579 1580 1581 1582 1583 1584 1585 1586 1587 | {
"paper_id": "P96-1011",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T09:03:10.387357Z"
},
"title": "Efficient Normal-Form Parsing for Combinatory Categorial Grammar*",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Jason",
"middle": [],
"last": "Eisner",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "University of Pennsylvania",
"location": {
"addrLine": "200 S. 33rd St",
"postCode": "19104-6389",
"settlement": "Philadelphia",
"region": "PA",
"country": "USA"
}
},
"email": "eisner@linc@edu"
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "Under categorial grammars that have powerful rules like composition, a simple n-word sentence can have exponentially many parses. Generating all parses is inefficient and obscures whatever true semantic ambiguities are in the input. This paper addresses the problem for a fairly general form of Combinatory Categorial Grammar, by means of an efficient, correct, and easy to implement normal-form parsing technique. The parser is proved to find exactly one parse in each semantic equivalence class of allowable parses; that is, spurious ambiguity (as carefully defined) is shown to be both safely and completely eliminated.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "P96-1011",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "Under categorial grammars that have powerful rules like composition, a simple n-word sentence can have exponentially many parses. Generating all parses is inefficient and obscures whatever true semantic ambiguities are in the input. This paper addresses the problem for a fairly general form of Combinatory Categorial Grammar, by means of an efficient, correct, and easy to implement normal-form parsing technique. The parser is proved to find exactly one parse in each semantic equivalence class of allowable parses; that is, spurious ambiguity (as carefully defined) is shown to be both safely and completely eliminated.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "Combinatory Categorial Grammar (Steedman, 1990) , like other \"flexible\" categorial grammars, suffers from spurious ambiguity (Wittenburg, 1986) . The non-standard constituents that are so crucial to CCG's analyses in (1), and in its account of intonational focus (Prevost ~ Steedman, 1994) , remain available even in simpler sentences. This renders (2) syntactically ambiguous.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 47,
"text": "(Steedman, 1990)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF20"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 143,
"text": "(Wittenburg, 1986)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF27"
},
{
"start": 263,
"end": 289,
"text": "(Prevost ~ Steedman, 1994)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF19"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "(1) a. Coordination: [ The practical problem of \"extra\" parses in (2) becomes exponentially worse for longer strings, which can have up to a Catalan number of parses. An *This material is based upon work supported under a National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship. I have been grateful for the advice of Aravind Joshi, Nobo Komagata, Seth Kulick, Michael Niv, Mark Steedman, and three anonymous reviewers.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 22,
"text": "[",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "exhaustive parser serves up 252 CCG parses of (3), which must be sifted through, at considerable cost, in order to identify the two distinct meanings for further processing. 1 3 This paper presents a simple and flexible CCG parsing technique that prevents any such explosion of redundant CCG derivations. In particular, it is proved in \u00a74.2 that the method constructs exactly one syntactic structure per semantic reading--e.g., just two parses for (3) . All other parses are suppressed by simple normal-form constraints that are enforced throughout the parsing process. This approach works because CCG's spurious ambiguities arise (as is shown) in only a small set of circumstances. Although similar work has been attempted in the past, with varying degrees of success (Karttunen, 1986; Wittenburg, 1986; Pareschi & Steedman, 1987; Bouma, 1989; Hepple & Morrill, 1989; KSnig, 1989; Vijay-Shanker & Weir, 1990; Hepple, 1990; Moortgat, 1990; ttendriks, 1993; Niv, 1994 ), this appears to be the first full normal-form result for a categorial formalism having more than contextfree power.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 448,
"end": 451,
"text": "(3)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
},
{
"start": 769,
"end": 786,
"text": "(Karttunen, 1986;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
},
{
"start": 787,
"end": 804,
"text": "Wittenburg, 1986;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF27"
},
{
"start": 805,
"end": 831,
"text": "Pareschi & Steedman, 1987;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 832,
"end": 844,
"text": "Bouma, 1989;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
},
{
"start": 845,
"end": 868,
"text": "Hepple & Morrill, 1989;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
},
{
"start": 869,
"end": 881,
"text": "KSnig, 1989;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF14"
},
{
"start": 882,
"end": 909,
"text": "Vijay-Shanker & Weir, 1990;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF24"
},
{
"start": 910,
"end": 923,
"text": "Hepple, 1990;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
},
{
"start": 924,
"end": 939,
"text": "Moortgat, 1990;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
},
{
"start": 940,
"end": 956,
"text": "ttendriks, 1993;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 957,
"end": 966,
"text": "Niv, 1994",
"ref_id": "BIBREF17"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "Definitions and Related Work CCG may be regarded as a generalization of contextfree grammar (CFG)--one where a grammar has infinitely many nonterminals and phrase-structure rules. In addition to the familiar atomic nonterminal categories (typically S for sentences, N for 1Namely, Mary pretends to like the galoot in 168 parses and the corner in 84. One might try a statistical approach to ambiguity resolution, discarding the low-probability parses, but it is unclear how to model and train any probabilities when no single parse can be taken as the standard of correctness. nouns, NP for noun phrases, etc.), CCG allows infinitely many slashed categories. If z and y are categories, then x/y (respectively z\\y) is the category of an incomplete x that is missing a y at its right (respectively left). Thus verb phrases are analyzed as subjectless sentences S\\NP, while \"John likes\" is an objectless sentence or S/NP. A complex category like ((S\\NP) \\ (S\\NP))/N may be written as S\\NP\\(S\\NP)/N, under a convention that slashes are left-associative.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "2",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The results herein apply to the TAG-equivalent CCG formalization given in (Joshi et M., 1991) . 2 In this variety of CCG, every (non-lexical) phrasestructure rule is an instance of one of the following binary-rule templates (where n > 0):",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 93,
"text": "(Joshi et M., 1991)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "2",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "(4) Forward generalized composition >Bn:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "2",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": ";~/y y ~[nZn''\" ] ",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 17,
"text": "~[nZn''\" ]",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "2",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Instances with n --0 are called application rules, and instances with n > 1 are called composition rules. In a given rule, x, y, zl... z~ would be instantiated as categories like NP, S/I~P, or S\\NP\\(S\\NP)/N. Each of ]1 through In would be instantiated as either / or \\. A fixed CCG grammar need not include every phrase-structure rule matching these templates. Indeed, (Joshi et al., 1991) place certain restrictions on the rule set of a CCG grammar, including a requirement that the rule degree n is bounded over the set. The results of the present paper apply to such restricted grammars and also more generally, to any CCG-style grammar with a decidable rule set.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 369,
"end": 389,
"text": "(Joshi et al., 1991)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "12z llzl",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Even as restricted by (Joshi et al., 1991) , CCGs have the \"mildly context-sensitive\" expressive power of Tree Adjoining Grammars (TAGs). Most work on spurious ambiguity has focused on categorial formalisms with substantially less power. (Hepple, 1990) and (Hendriks, 1993) , the most rigorous pieces of work, each establish a normal form for the syntactic calculus of (Lambek, 1958) , which is weakly context-free. (Kbnig, 1989; Moortgat, 1990) have also studied the Lambek calculus case. (Hepple & Morrill, 1989) , who introduced the idea of normalform parsing, consider only a small CCG fragment that lacks backward or order-changing composition; (Niv, 1994) extends this result but does not show completeness. (Wittenburg, 1987) assumes a CCG fragment lacking order-changing or higherorder composition; furthermore, his revision of the combinators creates new, conjoinable constituents that conventional CCG rejects. (Bouma, 1989) proposes to replace composition with a new combinator, but the resulting product-grammar scheme as-2This formalization sweeps any type-raising into the lexicon, as has been proposed on linguistic grounds (Dowty, 1988; Steedman, 1991, and others) . It also treats conjunction lexically, by giving \"and\" the generalized category x\\x/x and barring it from composition. signs different types to \"John likes\" and \"Mary pretends to like,\" thus losing the ability to conjoin such constituents or subcategorize for them as a class. (Pareschi & Steedman, 1987) do tackle the CCG case, but (Hepple, 1987) shows their algorithm to be incomplete.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 42,
"text": "(Joshi et al., 1991)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
},
{
"start": 238,
"end": 252,
"text": "(Hepple, 1990)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
},
{
"start": 257,
"end": 273,
"text": "(Hendriks, 1993)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
},
{
"start": 369,
"end": 383,
"text": "(Lambek, 1958)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
},
{
"start": 416,
"end": 429,
"text": "(Kbnig, 1989;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 430,
"end": 445,
"text": "Moortgat, 1990)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
},
{
"start": 490,
"end": 514,
"text": "(Hepple & Morrill, 1989)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
},
{
"start": 650,
"end": 661,
"text": "(Niv, 1994)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF17"
},
{
"start": 714,
"end": 732,
"text": "(Wittenburg, 1987)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF28"
},
{
"start": 921,
"end": 934,
"text": "(Bouma, 1989)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
},
{
"start": 1139,
"end": 1152,
"text": "(Dowty, 1988;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
},
{
"start": 1153,
"end": 1180,
"text": "Steedman, 1991, and others)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 1459,
"end": 1486,
"text": "(Pareschi & Steedman, 1987)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 1515,
"end": 1529,
"text": "(Hepple, 1987)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "12z llzl",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Overview of the Parsing Strategy",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "3",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "As is well known, general CFG parsing methods can be applied directly to CCG. Any sort of chart parser or non-deterministic shift-reduce parser will do. Such a parser repeatedly decides whether two adjacent constituents, such as S/NP and I~P/N, should be combined into a larger constituent such as S/N. The role of the grammar is to state which combinations are allowed. The key to efficiency, we will see, is for the parser to be less permissive than the grammar--for it to say \"no, redundant\" in some cases where the grammar says \"yes, grammatical.\" (5) shows the constituents that untrammeled CCG will find in the course of parsing \"John likes Mary.\" The spurious ambiguity problem is not that the grammar allows (5c), but that the grammar allows both (5f) and (5g)--distinct parses of the same string, with the same meaning. 5 The proposal is to construct all constituents shown in (5) except for (5f). If we slightly constrain the use of the grammar rules, the parser will still produce (5c) and (5d)--constituents that are indispensable in contexts like (1)--while refusing to combine those constituents into (5f). The relevant rule S/I~P NP --* S will actually be blocked when it attempts to construct (5f). Although rule-blocking may eliminate an analysis of the sentence, as it does here, a semantically equivalent analysis such as (5g) will always be derivable along some other route.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "3",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In general, our goal is to discover exactly one analysis for each <substring, meaning> pair. By practicing \"birth control\" for each bottom-up generation of constituents in this way, we avoid a population explosion of parsing options. \"John likes Mary\" has only one reading semantically, so just one of its analyses (5f)-(5g) is discovered while parsing (6). Only that analysis, and not the other, is allowed to continue on and be built into the final parse of (6).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "3",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "(6) that galoot in the corner that thinks [John likes Mary]s",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "3",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "For a chart parser, where each chart cell stores the analyses of some substring, this strategy says that all analyses in a cell are to be semantically distinct. (Karttunen, 1986) suggests enforcing that property directly--by comparing each new analysis semantically with existing analyses in the cell, and refusing to add it if redundant--but (Hepple & Morrill, 1989) observe briefly that this is inefficient for large charts. 3 The following sections show how to obtain effectively the same result without doing any semantic interpretation or comparison at all.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 161,
"end": 178,
"text": "(Karttunen, 1986)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
},
{
"start": 343,
"end": 367,
"text": "(Hepple & Morrill, 1989)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "3",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "It is convenient to begin with a special case. Suppose the CCG grammar includes not some but all instances of the binary rule templates in (4). (As always, a separate lexicon specifies the possible categories of each word.) If we group a sentence's parses into semantic equivalence classes, it always turns out that exactly one parse in each class satisfies the following simple declarative constraints:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A Normal Form for \"Pure\" CCG",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "(7) a. No constituent produced by >Bn, any n ~ 1, ever serves as the primary (left) argument to >Bn', any n' > 0. b. No constituent produced by <Bn, any n > 1, ever serves as the primary (right) argument to <Bn', any n' > 0.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A Normal Form for \"Pure\" CCG",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "The notation here is from (4). More colloquially, (7) says that the output of rightward (leftward) composition may not compose or apply over anything to its right (left). A parse tree or subtree that satisfies (7) is said to be in normal form (NF) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 243,
"end": 247,
"text": "(NF)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A Normal Form for \"Pure\" CCG",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "As an example, consider the effect of these restrictions on the simple sentence \"John likes Mary.\" Ignoring the tags -OT, -FC, and -Be for the moment, (8a) is a normal-form parse. Its competitor (85) is not, nor is any larger tree containing (8b). But non-3How inefficient? (i) has exponentially many semantically distinct parses: n = 10 yields 82,756,612 parses (2\u00b0) --48,620 equivalence classes. Karttunen's in 10 method must therefore add 48,620 representative parses to the appropriate chart cell, first comparing each one against all the previously added parses--of which there are 48,620/2 on average--to ensure it is not semantically redundant. (Additional comparisons are needed to reject parses other than the lucky 48,620.) Adding a parse can therefore take exponential time. Structure sharing does not appear to help: parses that are grouped in a parse forest have only their syntactic category in common, not their meaning. Karttunen's approach must tease such parses apart and compare their various meanings individually against each new candidate. By contrast, the method proposed below is purely syntactic--just like any \"ordinary\" parser--so it never needs to unpack a subforest, and can run in polynomial time. standard constituents are allowed when necessary: (8c) is in normal form (cf. (1)). It is not hard to see that (7a) eliminates all but right-branching parses of \"forward chains\" like A/B B/C C or A/B/C C/D D/E/F/G G/H, and that (Tb) eliminates all but left-branching parses of \"backward chains.\" (Thus every functor will get its arguments, if possible, before it becomes an argument itself.) But it is hardly obvious that (7) eliminates all of CCG's spurious ambiguity. One might worry about unexpected interactions involving crossing composition rules like A/B B\\C--~ A\\C. Significantly, it turns out that (7) really does suffice; the proof is in \u00a74.2.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A Normal Form for \"Pure\" CCG",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "It is trivial to modify any sort of CCG parser to find only the normal-form parses. No semantics is necessary; simply block any rule use that would violate (7). In general, detecting violations will not hurt performance by more than a constant factor. Indeed, one might implement (7) by modifying CCG's phrase-structure grammar. Each ordinary CCG category is split into three categories that bear the respective tags from (9). The 24 templates schematized in (10) replace the two templates of (4). Any CFG-style method can still parse the resulting spuriosity-free grammar, with tagged parses as in (8). In particular, the polynomial-time, polynomialspace CCG chart parser of (Vijay-Shanker & Weir, 1993) can be trivially adapted to respect the constraints by tagging chart entries.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A Normal Form for \"Pure\" CCG",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "(9) -FC output of >Bn, some n > 1 (a forward composition rule) -BC output of <Bn, some n > 1 (a backward composition rule) -OT output of >B0 or <B0 (an application rule), or lexical item 10 ",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A Normal Form for \"Pure\" CCG",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "g f )~Cl~C2...ACn.f(g(Cl)(C2)''\" (Cn)) (12) a. A/C/F AIClD D/F AIB BICID DIE ElF b. AIClF A/C/E E/F A/C/D D/E A/B B/C/D C. ~y.l(g(h(k(~)))(y)) A/c/F A/B B/C/D f g h k",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A Normal Form for \"Pure\" CCG",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "It is interesting to note a rough resemblance between the tagged version of CCG in (10) and the tagged Lambek cMculus L*, which (Hendriks, 1993) developed to eliminate spurious ambiguity from the Lambek calculus L. Although differences between CCG and L mean that the details are quite different, each system works by marking the output of certain rules, to prevent such output from serving as input to certain other rules.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 128,
"end": 144,
"text": "(Hendriks, 1993)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A Normal Form for \"Pure\" CCG",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "We wish to establish that each semantic equivalence class contains exactly one NF parse. But what does \"semantically equivalent\" mean? Let us adopt a standard model-theoretic view.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Semantic equivalence",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "For each leaf (i.e., lexeme) of a given syntax tree, the lexicon specifies a lexical interpretation from the model. CCG then provides a derived interpretation in the model for the complete tree. The standard CCG theory builds the semantics compositionally, guided by the syntax, according to (11) . We may therefore regard a syntax tree as a static \"recipe\" for combining word meanings into a phrase meaning.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 292,
"end": 296,
"text": "(11)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Semantic equivalence",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "One might choose to say that two parses are semantically equivalent iff they derive the same phrase meaning. However, such a definition would make spurious ambiguity sensitive to the fine-grained semantics of the lexicon. Are the two analyses of VP/VP VP VP\\VP semantically equivalent? If the lexemes involved are \"softly knock twice,\" then yes, as softly(twice(knock)) and twice(softly(knock)) arguably denote a common function in the semantic model. Yet for \"intentionally knock twice\" this is not the case: these adverbs do not commute, and the semantics are distinct.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Semantic equivalence",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "It would be difficult to make such subtle distinctions rapidly. Let us instead use a narrower, \"intensional\" definition of spurious ambiguity. The trees in (12a-b) will be considered equivalent because they specify the same \"recipe,\" shown in (12c). No matter what lexical interpretations f, g, h, k are fed into the leaves A/B, B/C/D, D/E, E/F, both the trees end up with the same derived interpretation, namely a model element that can be determined from f, g, h, k by calculating Ax~y.f(g(h(k(x)))(y)).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Semantic equivalence",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "By contrast, the two readings of \"softly knock twice\" are considered to be distinct, since the parses specify different recipes. That is, given a suitably free choice of meanings for the words, the two parses can be made to pick out two different VP-type functions in the model. The parser is therefore conservative and keeps both parses. 4 4.2 Normal-form parsing is safe & complete The motivation for producing only NF parses (as defined by (7)) lies in the following existence and uniqueness theorems for CCG.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Semantic equivalence",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "Theorem 1 Assuming \"pure CCG,\" where all possible rules are in the grammar, any parse tree ~ is semantically equivalent to some NF parse tree NF (~) . (This says the NF parser is safe for pure CCG: we will not lose any readings by generating just normal forms.)",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 145,
"end": 148,
"text": "(~)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Semantic equivalence",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "Theorem 2 Given distinct NF trees a # o/ (on the same sequence of leaves). Then a and a t are not semantically equivalent. (This says that the NF parser is complete: generating only normal forms eliminates all spurious ambiguity.)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Semantic equivalence",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "Detailed proofs of these theorems are available on the cmp-lg archive, but can only be sketched here. Theorem 1 is proved by a constructive induction on the order of a, given below and illustrated in (13):",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Semantic equivalence",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 For c~ a leaf, put NF(c~) = a. t (Hepple 8z Morrill, 1989; Hepple, 1990; Hendriks, 1993) appear to share this view of semantic equivalence. Unlike (Karttunen, 1986) , they try to eliminate only parses whose denotations (or at least A-terms) are systematically equivalent, not parses that happen to have the same denotation through an accident of the lexicon.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 60,
"text": "(Hepple 8z Morrill, 1989;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 61,
"end": 74,
"text": "Hepple, 1990;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 90,
"text": "Hendriks, 1993)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 166,
"text": "(Karttunen, 1986)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Semantic equivalence",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": ":",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "R S",
"sec_num": "83"
},
{
"text": ":~ ~ def =Q-~7~1~1~'/72 NF (/72~7) = NF(~)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "R S",
"sec_num": "83"
},
{
"text": "This construction resembles a well-known normalform reduction procedure that (Hepple & Morrill, 1989) propose (without proving completeness) for a small fragment of CCG. The proof of theorem 2 (completeness) is longer and more subtle. First it shows, by a simple induction, that since c~ and ~' disagree they must disagree in at least one of these ways: (a) There are trees/?, 3' and rules R # R' such that <R, fl, 7> is a subtree of a and <R',/3, 7> is a subtree of a'. (For example, S/S S\\S may form a constituent by either <Blx or >Blx.) (b) There is a tree 7 that appears as a subtree of both c~ and cd, but combines to the left in one case and to the right in the other. Either condition, the proof shows, leads to different \"immediate scope\" relations in the full trees ~ and ~' (in the sense in which f takes immediate scope over 9 in f(g(x)) but not in f(h(g(x))) or g(f(z))). Condition (a) is straightforward. Condition (b) splits into a case where 7 serves as a secondary argument inside both cr and a', and a case where it is a primary argument in c~ or a'. The latter case requires consideration of 7's ancestors; the NF properties crucially rule out counterexamples here.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 77,
"end": 101,
"text": "(Hepple & Morrill, 1989)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "R S",
"sec_num": "83"
},
{
"text": "The notion of scope is relevant because semantic interpretations for CCG constituents can be written as restricted lambda terms, in such a way that constituents having distinct terms must have different interpretations in the model (for suitable interpretations of the words, as in \u00a74.1). Theorem 2 is proved by showing that the terms for a and a' differ somewhere, so correspond to different semantic recipes.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "R S",
"sec_num": "83"
},
{
"text": "Similar theorems for the Lambek calculus were previously shown by (Hepple, 1990; ttendriks, 1993 ). The present proofs for CCG establish a result that has long been suspected: the spurious ambiguity problem is not actually very widespread in CCG.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 66,
"end": 80,
"text": "(Hepple, 1990;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 96,
"text": "ttendriks, 1993",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "R S",
"sec_num": "83"
},
{
"text": "Theorem 2 says all cases of spurious ambiguity can be eliminated through the construction given in theorem 1. But that construction merely ensures a right-branching structure for \"forward constituent chains\" (such as h/B B/C C or h/B/C C/D D/E/F/G G/H), and a left-branching structure for backward constituent chains.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "R S",
"sec_num": "83"
},
{
"text": "So these familiar chains are the only source of spurious ambiguity in CCG.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "R S",
"sec_num": "83"
},
{
"text": "Extending the Approach to \"Restricted\" CCG",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "5",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The \"pure\" CCG of \u00a74 is a fiction. Real CCG grammars can and do choose a subset of the possible rules.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "5",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "For instance, to rule out (14), the (crossing) backward rule N/N ~I\\N ---* I~/N must be omitted from English grammar.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "5",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "(14) [theNP/N [[bigN/N [that likes John]N\\N ]N/N galootN ]N]NP",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "5",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "If some rules are removed from a \"pure\" CCG grammar, some parses will become unavailable. Theorem 2 remains true (< 1 NF per reading). Whether theorem 1 (>_ 1 NF per reading) remains true depends on what set of rules is removed. For most linguistically reasonable choices, the proof of theorem 1 will go through, 5 so that the normal-form parser of \u00a74 remains safe. But imagine removing only the rule B/a C --~ B: this leaves the string A/B B/C C with a left-branching parse that has no (legal) NF equivalent.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "5",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In the sort of restricted grammar where theorem 1 does not obtain, can we still find one (possibly non-NF) parse per equivalence class? Yes: a different kind of efficient parser can be built for this case.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "5",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Since the new parser must be able to generate a non-NF parse when no equivalent NF parse is available, its method of controlling spurious ambiguity cannot be to enforce the constraints (7). The old parser refused to build non-NF constituents; the new parser will refuse to build constituents that are semantically equivalent to already-built constituents.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "5",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "This idea originates with (Karttunen, 1986 ). However, we can take advantage of the core result of this paper, theorems 1 and 2, to do Karttunen's redundancy check in O(1) time--no worse than the normal-form parser's check for -FC and -Be tags. (Karttunen's version takes worst-case exponential time for each redundancy check: see footnote \u00a73.)",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 42,
"text": "(Karttunen, 1986",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "5",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The insight is that theorems 1 and 2 establish a one-to-one map between semantic equivalence classes and normal forms of the pure (unrestricted) CCG: (15) Two parses a, ~' of the pure CCG are semantically equivalent iff they have the same normal form: gF(a) = gF(a').",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 150,
"end": 154,
"text": "(15)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "5",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The NF function is defined recursively by \u00a74.2's proof of theorem 1; semantic equivalence is also defined independently of the grammar. So 15is meaningful and true even if a, a' are produced by a restricted CCG. The tree NF(a) may not be a legal parse under the restricted grammar. However, it is still a perfectly good data structure that can be maintained outside the parse chart, to serve 5For the proof to work, the rules S and T must be available in the restricted grammar, given that R and Q are. This is usually true: since (7) favors standard constituents and prefers application to composition, most grammars will not block the NF derivation while allowing a non-NF one. (On the other hand, the NF parse of A/B B/C C/D/E uses >B2 twice, while the non-NF parse gets by with >B2 and >B1.) as a magnet for a's semantic class. The proof of theorem 1 (see (13)) actually shows how to construct NF(a) in O(1) time from the values of NF on smaller constituents. Hence, an appropriate parser can compute and cache the NF of each parse in O(1) time as it is added to the chart. It can detect redundant parses by noting (via an O(1) array lookup) that their NFs have been previously computed. Figure (1) gives an efficient CKY-style algorithm based on this insight. (Parsing strategies besides CKY would Mso work, in particular (Vijay-Shanker & Weir, 1993) .) The management of cached NFs in steps 9, 12, and especially 16 ensures that duplicate NFs never enter the oldNFs array: thus any alternative copy of a.nfhas the same array coordinates used for a.nfitself, because it was built from identical subtrees.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 1327,
"end": 1355,
"text": "(Vijay-Shanker & Weir, 1993)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF25"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 1192,
"end": 1202,
"text": "Figure (1)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "5",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The function Pre:ferableTo(~, r) (step 15) provides flexibility about which parse represents its class. PreferableTo may be defined at whim to choose the parse discovered first, the more leftbranching parse, or the parse with fewer nonstandard constituents. Alternatively, PreferableTo may call an intonation or discourse module to pick the parse that better reflects the topic-focus division of the sentence. (A variant algorithm ignores PreferableTo and constructs one parse forest per reading. Each forest can later be unpacked into individual equivalent parse trees, if desired.) (Vijay-Shanker & Weir, 1990 ) also give a method for removing \"one well-known source\" of spurious ambiguity from restricted CCGs; \u00a74.2 above shows that this is in fact the only source. However, their method relies on the grammaticality of certain intermediate forms, and so can fail if the CCG rules can be arbitrarily restricted. In addition, their method is less efficient than the present one: it considers parses in pairs, not singly, and does not remove any parse until the entire parse forest has been built.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 584,
"end": 611,
"text": "(Vijay-Shanker & Weir, 1990",
"ref_id": "BIBREF24"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "5",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Extensions to the CCG Formalism",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "6",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In addition to the Bn (\"generalized composition\") rules given in \u00a72, which give CCG power equivalent to TAG, rules based on the S (\"substitution\") and T (\"type-raising\") combinators can be linguistically useful. S provides another rule template, used in the analysis of parasitic gaps (Steedman, 1987; Szabolcsi, 1989 Type-raising presents a greater problem. Various new spurious ambiguities arise if it is permitted freely in the grammar. In principle one could proceed without grammatical type-raising: (Dowty, 1988; Steedman, 1991) have argued on linguistic grounds that type-raising should be treated as a mere lexical redundancy property. That is, whenever the lexicon contains an entry of a certain cate-85 gory X, with semantics x, it also contains one with (say) category T/(T\\X) and interpretation Ap.p(z).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 285,
"end": 301,
"text": "(Steedman, 1987;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF22"
},
{
"start": 302,
"end": 317,
"text": "Szabolcsi, 1989",
"ref_id": "BIBREF23"
},
{
"start": 505,
"end": 518,
"text": "(Dowty, 1988;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
},
{
"start": 519,
"end": 534,
"text": "Steedman, 1991)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "6",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "As one might expect, this move only sweeps the problem under the rug. If type-raising is lexical, then the definitions of this paper do not recognize (19) as a spurious ambiguity, because the two parses are now, technically speaking, analyses of different sentences. Nor do they recognize the redundancy in (20), because--just as for the example \"softly knock twice\" in \u00a74.1--it is contingent on a kind of lexical coincidence, namely that a type-raised subject commutes with a (generically) type-raised object. Such ambiguities are left to future work. ",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "6",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The main contribution of this work has been formal: to establish a normal form for parses of \"pure\" Combinatory Categorial Grammar. Given a sentence, every reading that is available to the grammar has exactly one normal-form parse, no matter how many parses it has in toto.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusions",
"sec_num": "7"
},
{
"text": "A result worth remembering is that, although TAG-equivalent CCG allows free interaction among forward, backward, and crossed composition rules of any degree, two simple constraints serve to eliminate all spurious ambiguity. It turns out that all spurious ambiguity arises from associative \"chains\" such as A/B B/C C or A/B/C C/D D/E\\F/G G/H. (Wit-tenburg, 1987; Hepple & Morrill, 1989) anticipate this result, at least for some fragments of CCG, but leave the proof to future work.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 342,
"end": 361,
"text": "(Wit-tenburg, 1987;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 362,
"end": 385,
"text": "Hepple & Morrill, 1989)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusions",
"sec_num": "7"
},
{
"text": "These normal-form results for pure CCG lead directly to useful parsers for real, restricted CCG grammars. Two parsing algorithms have been presented for practical use. One algorithm finds only normal forms; this simply and safely eliminates spurious ambiguity under most real CCG grammars.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusions",
"sec_num": "7"
},
{
"text": "The other, more complex algorithm solves the spurious ambiguity problem for any CCG grammar, by using normal forms as an efficient tool for grouping semantically equivalent parses. Both algorithms are safe, complete, and efficient.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusions",
"sec_num": "7"
},
{
"text": "In closing, it should be repeated that the results provided are for the TAG-equivalent Bn (generalized composition) formalism of (Joshi et al., 1991) , optionally extended with the S (substitution) rules of (Szabolcsi, 1989) . The technique eliminates all spurious ambiguities resulting from the interaction of these rules. Future work should continue by eliminating the spurious ambiguities that arise from grammatical or lexical type-raising.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 129,
"end": 149,
"text": "(Joshi et al., 1991)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
},
{
"start": 207,
"end": 224,
"text": "(Szabolcsi, 1989)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF23"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusions",
"sec_num": "7"
}
],
"back_matter": [],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "* word i stretches from point i -1 to point i *)",
"authors": [],
"year": null,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "(* word i stretches from point i -1 to point i *)",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "7> that could be formed by combining some /9 6 C[start, miaq with some 7 e C[mid, ena~ by a rule/~ of the (restricted) grammar 8. a.nf := NF(a) (* can be computed in constant time using the .nf fields of fl, 7, and other constituents already in C. Subtrees are also NF trees. *) 9. ezistingNF := oldNFs",
"authors": [],
"year": null,
"venue": "0 to n-width 5. end := start + width 6. for mid := start + 1 to end-1 7. for each parse tree ~ = <R",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "start := 0 to n-width 5. end := start + width 6. for mid := start + 1 to end-1 7. for each parse tree ~ = <R,/9, 7> that could be formed by combining some /9 6 C[start, miaq with some 7 e C[mid, ena~ by a rule/~ of the (restricted) grammar 8. a.nf := NF(a) (* can be computed in constant time using the .nf fields of fl, 7, and other constituents already in C. Subtrees are also NF trees. *) 9. ezistingNF := oldNFs[~.nf .rule, c~.nf .leftchild.seqno, a.nf .rightchild.seqno] 10. if undefined(existingNF)",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "seqno := (counter := counter + 1) (* number the new NF ~ add it to oldNFs *)",
"authors": [
{
"first": "~",
"middle": [],
"last": "Nf",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": null,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "~.nf.seqno := (counter := counter + 1) (* number the new NF ~ add it to oldNFs *)",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "elsif PreferableTo(a, ezistingNF.currparse) (* replace reigning parse? *)",
"authors": [],
"year": null,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "elsif PreferableTo(a, ezistingNF.currparse) (* replace reigning parse? *)",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "Efficient processing of flexible categorial grammar",
"authors": [
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "References Gosse",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bouma",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1989,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Fourth Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "19--26",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "References Gosse Bouma. 1989. Efficient processing of flexible categorial grammar. In Proceedings of the Fourth Conference of the European Chapter of the Associ- ation for Computational Linguistics, 19-26, Uni- versity of Manchester, April.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "Type raising, functional composition, and non-constituent conjunction",
"authors": [
{
"first": "David",
"middle": [],
"last": "Dowty",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1988,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "David Dowty. 1988. Type raising, functional com- position, and non-constituent conjunction. In R.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "Categorial Grammars and Natural Language Structures",
"authors": [
{
"first": "E",
"middle": [],
"last": "Oehrle",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bach",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wheeler",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": null,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Oehrle, E. Bach and D. Wheeler, editors, Catego- rial Grammars and Natural Language Structures.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "Methods for parsing combinatory categorial grammar and the spurious ambiguity problem",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Mark",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hepple",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1987,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Mark Hepple. 1987. Methods for parsing combina- tory categorial grammar and the spurious ambi- guity problem. Unpublished M.Sc. thesis, Centre for Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF9": {
"ref_id": "b9",
"title": "The Grammar and Processing of Order and Dependency: A Categorial Approach",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Mark",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hepple",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1990,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Mark Hepple. 1990. The Grammar and Process- ing of Order and Dependency: A Categorial Ap- proach. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF10": {
"ref_id": "b10",
"title": "Parsing and derivational equivalence",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Mark",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hepple",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Glyn",
"middle": [],
"last": "Morrill",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1989,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Fourth Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "10--18",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Mark Hepple and Glyn Morrill. 1989. Parsing and derivational equivalence. In Proceedings of the Fourth Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10-18, University of Manchester, April.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF11": {
"ref_id": "b11",
"title": "Studied Flexibility: Categories and Types in Syntax and Semantics",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Herman",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hendriks",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1993,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Herman Hendriks. 1993. Studied Flexibility: Cate- gories and Types in Syntax and Semantics. Ph.D. thesis, Institute for Logic, Language, and Compu- tation, University of Amsterdam.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF12": {
"ref_id": "b12",
"title": "The convergence of mildly context-sensitive grammar formalisms",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Aravind",
"middle": [],
"last": "Joshi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Vijay-Shanker",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "David",
"middle": [],
"last": "Weir",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1991,
"venue": "Foundational Issues in Natural Language Processing",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Aravind Joshi, K. Vijay-Shanker, and David Weir. 1991. The convergence of mildly context-sensitive grammar formalisms. In Foundational Issues in Natural Language Processing, MIT Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF13": {
"ref_id": "b13",
"title": "Radical lexicalism",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Lauri",
"middle": [],
"last": "Karttunen",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1986,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Lauri Karttunen. 1986. Radical lexicalism. Report No. CSLI-86-68, CSLI, Stanford University.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF14": {
"ref_id": "b14",
"title": "Parsing as natural deduction",
"authors": [
{
"first": "E",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ksnig",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1989,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 27lh Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Vancouver",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "E. KSnig. 1989. Parsing as natural deduction. In Proceedings of the 27lh Annual Meeting of the As- sociation for Computational Linguistics, Vancou- ver.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF15": {
"ref_id": "b15",
"title": "The mathematics of sentence structure",
"authors": [
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lambek",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1958,
"venue": "American Mathematical Monthly",
"volume": "65",
"issue": "",
"pages": "154--169",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "J. Lambek. 1958. The mathematics of sen- tence structure. American Mathematical Monthly 65:154-169.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF16": {
"ref_id": "b16",
"title": "Unambiguous proof representations for the Lambek Calculus",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Michael",
"middle": [],
"last": "Moortgat",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1990,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Seventh Amsterdam Colloquium",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Michael Moortgat. 1990. Unambiguous proof repre- sentations for the Lambek Calculus. In Proceed- ings of the Seventh Amsterdam Colloquium.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF17": {
"ref_id": "b17",
"title": "A psycholinguistically motivated parser for CCG",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Michael",
"middle": [],
"last": "Niv",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1994,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Michael Niv. 1994. A psycholinguistically moti- vated parser for CCG. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics, Las Cruces, NM, June.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF18": {
"ref_id": "b18",
"title": "A lazy way to chart parse with eombinatory grammars",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Remo",
"middle": [],
"last": "Paresehi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Mark",
"middle": [],
"last": "Steedman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": null,
"venue": "Proceedings of the P5th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Remo Paresehi and Mark Steedman. A lazy way to chart parse with eombinatory grammars. In Pro- ceedings of the P5th Annual Meeting of the As- sociation for Computational Linguistics, Stanford University, July.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF19": {
"ref_id": "b19",
"title": "Specifying intonation from context for speech synthesis",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Scott",
"middle": [],
"last": "Prevost",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Mark",
"middle": [],
"last": "Steedman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1994,
"venue": "Speech Communication",
"volume": "15",
"issue": "",
"pages": "139--153",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Scott Prevost and Mark Steedman. 1994. Specify- ing intonation from context for speech synthesis. Speech Communication, 15:139-153.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF20": {
"ref_id": "b20",
"title": "Gapping as constituent coordination",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Mark",
"middle": [],
"last": "Steedman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1990,
"venue": "Linguistics and Philosophy",
"volume": "13",
"issue": "",
"pages": "207--264",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Mark Steedman. 1990. Gapping as constituent coor- dination. Linguistics and Philosophy, 13:207-264.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF22": {
"ref_id": "b22",
"title": "Combinatory grammars and parasitic gaps",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Mark",
"middle": [],
"last": "Steedman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1987,
"venue": "Natural Language and Linguistic Theory",
"volume": "5",
"issue": "",
"pages": "403--439",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Mark Steedman. 1987. Combinatory grammars and parasitic gaps. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 5:403-439.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF23": {
"ref_id": "b23",
"title": "Bound variables in syntax: Are there any?",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Anna",
"middle": [],
"last": "Szabolcsi",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1989,
"venue": "Semantics and Contextual Expression",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "295--318",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Anna Szabolcsi. 1989. Bound variables in syntax: Are there any? In R. Bartsch, J. van Benthem, and P. van Emde Boas (eds.), Semantics and Con- textual Expression, 295-318. Forts, Dordrecht.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF24": {
"ref_id": "b24",
"title": "Polynomial time parsing of combinatory \u00a2ategorial grammars",
"authors": [
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Vijay-Shanker",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "David",
"middle": [],
"last": "Weir",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1990,
"venue": "Proceedings of the P8th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "K. Vijay-Shanker and David Weir. 1990. Polyno- mial time parsing of combinatory \u00a2ategorial gram- mars. In Proceedings of the P8th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF25": {
"ref_id": "b25",
"title": "Parsing some constrained grammar formalisms",
"authors": [
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Vijay-Shanker",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "David",
"middle": [],
"last": "Weir",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1993,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "19",
"issue": "4",
"pages": "591--636",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "K. Vijay-Shanker and David Weir. 1993. Parsing some constrained grammar formalisms. Compu- tational Linguistics, 19(4):591-636.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF26": {
"ref_id": "b26",
"title": "The equivalence of four extensions of context-free grammars",
"authors": [
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Vijay-Shanker",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "David",
"middle": [],
"last": "Weir",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1994,
"venue": "Mathematical Systems Theory",
"volume": "27",
"issue": "",
"pages": "511--546",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "K. Vijay-Shanker and David Weir. 1994. The equiv- alence of four extensions of context-free gram- mars. Mathematical Systems Theory, 27:511-546.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF27": {
"ref_id": "b27",
"title": "Natural Language Parsing with Combinatory Calegorial Grammar in a Graph-Unification-Based Formalism",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Kent",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wittenburg",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1986,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Kent Wittenburg. 1986. Natural Language Pars- ing with Combinatory Calegorial Grammar in a Graph-Unification-Based Formalism. Ph.D. the- sis, University of Texas.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF28": {
"ref_id": "b28",
"title": "Predictive combinators: A method for efficient parsing of Combinatory Categorial Grammars",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Kent",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wittenburg",
"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": "Kent Wittenburg. 1987. Predictive combinators: A method for efficient parsing of Combinatory Categorial Grammars. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics, Stanford University, July.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF1": {
"uris": null,
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "2Z211Zl Backward generalized composition <Bn: yl.z...-12z2 Ilzl x\\y x I.z....",
"num": null
},
"FIGREF2": {
"uris": null,
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "n (i) ... S/S S/S S/S S S\\S S\\S S\\S ...",
"num": null
},
"FIGREF3": {
"uris": null,
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "blocked by (Ta) (eq,,i.alently, nofi~X..~itted b~ (10a ) ) S/NP-FC I~P-OT [ Mary S/(S\"\\NP)-OT (S\\NP)/IIP-OT",
"num": null
},
"FIGREF4": {
"uris": null,
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "a. Forward application >BO: ~ x/y-OT y-Be t -'+ x--OT y-OT ) b. Backward application <B0: y-Be ~ x\\y-OT j\" ~ x-OT 9-O'1\" ) y l,,z,, l~z~ llz1-BC ---, x l,z,~..-]2z2 llz1-FC c. Fwd. composition >Bn (n > 1): x/ya. Syn/sem for >Bn (n _> 0): .~Cn.f(g(Cl)(C2)'\"(Cn)) b. Syn/sem for <B, (, > 0): y I.z.-",
"num": null
},
"FIGREF5": {
"uris": null,
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "(<R, ~, 3'> denotes the parse tree formed by combining subtrees/~, 7 via rule R.) If ~ = <R, fl, 7>, then take NF(c~) = <R, gF(fl), NF(7)> , which exists by inductive hypothesis, unless this is not an NF tree. In the latter case, WLOG, R is a forward rule and NF(fl) = <Q,~l,flA> for some forward composition rule Q. Pure CCG turns out to provide forward rules S and T such that a~ = <S, ill, NF(<T, ~2, 7>)> is a constituent and is semantically equivalent to c~. Moreover, since fll serves as the primary subtree of the NF tree NF(fl),/31 cannot be the output of forward composition, and is NF besides. Therefore a~ is NF: take NF(o 0 = o/. (13) If NF(/3) not output of fwd. composition,",
"num": null
},
"FIGREF6": {
"uris": null,
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "~.nfocurrparse := 20. return(all parses from C[0, n] having root category S) Figure 1: Canonicalizing CCG parser that handles arbitrary restrictions on the rule set. (In practice, a simpler normal-form parser will suffice for most grammars.) parse from every equivalence class.",
"num": null
},
"FIGREF7": {
"uris": null,
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "a. No constituent produced by >Bn, any n _> 2, ever serves as the primary (left) argument to >S. b. No constituent produced by <Bn, any n > 2, ever serves as the primary (right) argument to <S.",
"num": null
},
"FIGREF8": {
"uris": null,
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "19) [JohnNp lefts\\NP]S vs. [Johns/(S\\NP) lefts\\NP]S (20) [S/(S\\NPs) [S\\NPs/NPo/NP I T\\(T/NPo)]]S/SI VS. [S/(S\\NPs) S\\NPs/NPo/NPI] T\\(T/NPO)]S/S I",
"num": null
},
"TABREF0": {
"html": null,
"type_str": "table",
"text": "[John likes]s/NP, and [Mary pretends to like]s/NP], the big galoot in the corner. b. Extraction: Everybody at this party [whom [John likes]s/NP] is a big galoot. (2) a. John [likes Mary]s\\NP. b. [.John likes]s/N P Mary.",
"content": "<table/>",
"num": null
},
"TABREF1": {
"html": null,
"type_str": "table",
"text": "",
"content": "<table><tr><td>a. [John]s/(s\\sp)</td><td/></tr><tr><td>b. [likes](S\\NP)/Np</td><td/></tr><tr><td>C. [John likes]s/N P</td><td/></tr><tr><td>d. [Mary]N P</td><td/></tr><tr><td>e. [likes Mary]s\\N P</td><td/></tr><tr><td>f. [[John likes] Mary]s</td><td>~ to be disallowed</td></tr><tr><td>g, [</td><td/></tr></table>",
"num": null
}
}
}
} |