File size: 69,221 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 | {
"paper_id": "P99-1012",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T09:32:12.151948Z"
},
"title": "Preserving Semantic Dependencies in Synchronous Tree Adjoining Grammar*",
"authors": [
{
"first": "William",
"middle": [],
"last": "Schuler",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "University of Pennsylvania",
"location": {
"addrLine": "200 South 33rd Street Philadelphia",
"postCode": "19104",
"region": "PA",
"country": "USA"
}
},
"email": "schuler@linc@cis.upenn"
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "Rambow, Wier and Vijay-Shanker (Rainbow et al., 1995) point out the differences between TAG derivation structures and semantic or predicateargument dependencies, and Joshi and Vijay-Shanker (Joshi and Vijay-Shanker, 1999) describe a monotonic compositional semantics based on attachment order that represents the desired dependencies of a derivation without underspecifying predicate-argument relationships at any stage. In this paper, we apply the Joshi and Vijay-Shanker conception of compositional semantics to the problem of preserving semantic dependencies in Synchronous TAG translation (Shieber and Schabes, 1990; Abeill~ et al., 1990). In particular, we describe an algorithm to obtain the semantic dependencies on a TAG parse forest and construct a target derivation forest with isomorphic or locally non-isomorphic dependencies in O(n 7) time.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "P99-1012",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "Rambow, Wier and Vijay-Shanker (Rainbow et al., 1995) point out the differences between TAG derivation structures and semantic or predicateargument dependencies, and Joshi and Vijay-Shanker (Joshi and Vijay-Shanker, 1999) describe a monotonic compositional semantics based on attachment order that represents the desired dependencies of a derivation without underspecifying predicate-argument relationships at any stage. In this paper, we apply the Joshi and Vijay-Shanker conception of compositional semantics to the problem of preserving semantic dependencies in Synchronous TAG translation (Shieber and Schabes, 1990; Abeill~ et al., 1990). In particular, we describe an algorithm to obtain the semantic dependencies on a TAG parse forest and construct a target derivation forest with isomorphic or locally non-isomorphic dependencies in O(n 7) time.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "The primary goal of this paper is to solve the problem of preserving semantic dependencies in Isomorphic Synchronous Tree Adjoining Grammar (ISTAG) Shieber and Schabes, 1990 ), a variant of Tree Adjoining Grammar (Joshi, 1985) in which source and target elementary trees are assembled into isomorphic derivations. The problem, first described in Rambow, Wier and Vijay-Shanker (Rainbow et al., 1995) , stems from the fact that the TAG derivation structure -even using a flat adjunction of modifiers (Schabes and Shieber, 1994) -deviates from the appropriate dependency *The author would like to thank Karin Kipper, Aravind Joshi, Martha Palmer, Norm Badler, and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments. This work was partially supported by NSF Grant SBP~8920230 and ARO Grant DAAH0404-94-GE-0426. structure in certain cases. This can result in translation errors.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 148,
"end": 173,
"text": "Shieber and Schabes, 1990",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
},
{
"start": 213,
"end": 226,
"text": "(Joshi, 1985)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
},
{
"start": 346,
"end": 399,
"text": "Rambow, Wier and Vijay-Shanker (Rainbow et al., 1995)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 499,
"end": 526,
"text": "(Schabes and Shieber, 1994)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
},
{
"start": 615,
"end": 661,
"text": "Aravind Joshi, Martha Palmer, Norm Badler, and",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "For example, if we parse sentence (1),",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "(1) X is supposed to be able to fly.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "using the trees in Figure 1 , we get the following derivation:l a:fly I 131 :be-able-to(VP) I j32:is-supposed-to (VP) with the auxiliary is-supposed-to adjoining at the VP to predicate over be-able-to and the auxiliary be-able-to adjoining at the VP to predicate over fly. If we then try to assemble an isomorphic tree in a language such as Portuguese (which makes less use of raising verbs) using the ISTAG transfer rules in Figure 2 , we will be forced into an ill-formed derivation:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 113,
"end": 117,
"text": "(VP)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 27,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 426,
"end": 434,
"text": "Figure 2",
"ref_id": "FIGREF1"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": ": voar",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": ";31 :~-capaz-de (VP) I /~2 :~-pressuposto-que (S ?) because the raising construction is-supposedto translates to a bridge construction dpressuposto-que and cannot adjoin anywhere in the tree for ~-capaz-de (the translation of beable-to) because there is no S-labeled adjunction site.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 46,
"end": 51,
"text": "(S ?)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "I",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The correct target derivation: a:voar ~l:~-capaz-de(VP) ~2:~-pressuposto-que (S) 1The subject is omitted to simplify the diagram. Figure 1 : Sample elementary trees for \"supposed to be able to fly\" which yields the translation in sentence (2),",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 77,
"end": 80,
"text": "(S)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 130,
"end": 138,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "I",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "(2) t~ pressuposto que X 6 capaz de voar.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "I",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "is not isomorphic to the source. Worse, this non-isomorphism is unbounded, because the bridge verb pressuposto may have to migrate across any number of intervening raising verbs to find an ancestor that contains an appropriate adjunction site: This sort of non-local non-isomorphic transfer cannot be handled in a synchronous TAG that has an isomorphism restriction on derivation trees\u2022 On the other hand, we do not wish to return to the original non-local formulation of synchronous TAG (Shieber and because the non-local inheritance of links on the derived tree is difficult to implement, and because the non-local formulation can recognize languages beyond the generative power of TAG. Rambow, Wier and Vijay-Shanker themselves introduce D-Tree Grammar (Rambow et al., 1995) and Candito and Kahane introduce the DTG variant Graph Adjunction Grammar (Candito and Kahane, 1998b) in order to solve this problem using a derivation process that mirrors composition more directly, but both involve potentially significantly greater recognition complexity than TAG.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 756,
"end": 777,
"text": "(Rambow et al., 1995)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
},
{
"start": 852,
"end": 879,
"text": "(Candito and Kahane, 1998b)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "I",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Our solution is to retain ISTAG, but move the isomorphism restriction from the derivation structure to the predicate-argument attachment structure described in (Joshi and Vijay-Shanker, 1999) . This structure represents the composition of semantic predicates for lexicalized elementary trees, each of which contains a 'predicate' variable associated with the situation or entity that the predicate introduces, and a set of 'argument' variables associated with the foot node and substitution sites in the original elementary tree. The predicates are composed by identifying the predicate variable in one predicate with an argument variable in another, so that the two variables refer to the same situation or entity.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 160,
"end": 191,
"text": "(Joshi and Vijay-Shanker, 1999)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Overview",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Composition proceeds from the bottom up on the derivation tree, with adjuncts traversed in order from the lowest to the highest adjunction site in each elementary tree, in much the same way that a parser produces a derivation. Whenever an initial tree is substituted, its predicate variable is identified in the composed structure with an argument variable of the tree it substitutes into. Whenever an auxiliary tree is adjoined, the predicate variable of the tree it adjoins into is identified in the composed structure with one of its own argument variables. In cases of adjunction, an auxiliary tree's semantics can also specify which variable will become the predicate variable of the composed structure for use in subsequent adjunctions at higher adjunction sites: a modifier auxiliary will return the host tree's original predicate variable, and a predicative auxiliary will return its own predicate variable. 2 Since the traversal must 2See (Schabes and Shieber, 1994) and assume the predicative auxiliary tree/31 :beable-to has a predicate variable s2, representing the situation of something being possible, and an argument variable s3, representing the thing that is possible. If fll is now adjoined into a, the composed structure would have sl identified with s3 (since the situation of flying is the thing that is possible), and s2 as an overall predicate variable, so if another tree later adjoins into this composed structure rooted on a, it will predicate over s2 (the situation that flying is possible) rather than over a's original predicate variable sl (the situation of flying by itself). Note that Joshi and Vijay-Shanker do not require the predicate and modifier distinctions, because they can explicitly specify the fates of any number of predicate variables in a tree's semantic representation. For simplicity, we will limit our discussion to only the two possibilities of predicative and modifier auxiliaries, using one predicate variable per tree. If we represent each such predicate-argument attachment as an arc in a directed graph, we can view the predicate-argument attachment structure of a derivation as a dependency graph, in much the same way as Candito and Kahane interpret the original derivation trees (Candito and Kahane, 1998a) . More importantly, we can see that this definition predicts the predicateargument dependencies for sentences (1) and 2 ",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 948,
"end": 975,
"text": "(Schabes and Shieber, 1994)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
},
{
"start": 2238,
"end": 2265,
"text": "(Candito and Kahane, 1998a)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Overview",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "and Schabes (Shieber and Schabes, 1990) using Synchronous TAG, in that the former preserves the scope ordering of predicative adjunctions, which may be permuted in the latter, altering the meaning of the sentence. 3 It is precisely this scope-preserving property we hope to exploit in our formulation of a dependency-based isomorphic synchronous TAG in the next two sections. However, as Joshi and Vijay-Shanker suggest, the proper treatment of synchronous translation to logical form may require a multicomponent Synchronous TAG analysis in order to handle quantifiers, which is beyond the scope of this paper. For this reason, we will focus on examples in machine translation.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 39,
"text": "Schabes (Shieber and Schabes, 1990)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "9{)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Obtaining Source Dependencies",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "3",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "If we assume that this attachment structure captures a sentence's semantic dependencies, then in order to preserve semantic dependencies in synchronous TAG translation, we will need to obtain this structure from a source derivation and then construct a target derivation with an isomorphic structure.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "3",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The first algorithm we present obtains semantic dependencies for derivations by keeping track of an additional field in each chart item during parsing, corresponding to the predicate variable from Section 2. Other than the additional field, the algorithm remains essentially the same as the parsing algorithm described in (Schabes and Shieber, 1994) , so it can be applied as a transducer during recognition, or as a post-process on a derivation forest (Vijay-Shanker and Weir, 1993). Once the desired dependencies are obtained, the forest may be filtered to select a single most-preferred tree using statistics or rule-based selectional restrictions on those dependencies. 4",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 322,
"end": 349,
"text": "(Schabes and Shieber, 1994)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "3",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "For calculating dependencies, we define a function arg(~) to return the argument position associated with a substitution site or foot node ~? in elementary tree V. Let a dependency be defined as a labeled arc (\u00a2, l, ~b), from predicate \u00a2 to predicate \u00a2 with label I.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "3",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\u2022 For each tree selected by \u00a2, set the predicate variable of each anchor item to \u00a2.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "3",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "3See (Joshi and Vijay-Shanker, 1999 ) for a complete description.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 35,
"text": "(Joshi and Vijay-Shanker, 1999",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "3",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "4See (Schuler, 1998) for a discussion of statistically filtering TAG forests using semantic dependencies.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 20,
"text": "(Schuler, 1998)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "3",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\u2022 For each substitution of initial tree a\u00a2 with predicate variable w into \"),\u00a2 at node address U, emit (\u00a2, arg(v , r/), w)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "3",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\u2022 For each modifier adjunction of auxiliary tree/3\u00a2 into tree V\u00a2 with predicate variable X, emit (\u00a2, arg(p, FOOT), X) and set the predicate variable of the composed item to X.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "3",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\u2022 For each predicative adjunction of auxiliary tree /3\u00a2 with predicate variable w into tree \"),\u00a2 with predicate variable X, emit (\u00a2, arg(/3, FOOT), X) and set the predicate variable of the composed item to w.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "3",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\u2022 For all other productions, propagate the predicate variable up along the path from the main anchor to the root.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "3",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Since the number of possible values for the additional predicate variable field is bounded by n, where n is the number of lexical items in the input sentence, and none of the productions combine more than one predicate variable, the complexity of the dependency transducing algorithm is O(nT).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "3",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "This algorithm can be applied to the example derivation tree in Section 1, a:fly I /31 :be-able-to(VP) I /32 :is-supposed-to(VP) which resembles the stacked derivation tree for Candito and Kahane's example 5a, \"Paul claims Mary said Peter left.\" First, we adjoin/32 :is-supposed-to at node VP of/31 :be-able-to, which produces the dependency (is-supposed-to,0,be-able-to}. Then we adjoin ~31:be-able-to at node VP of a:fly, which produces the dependency (be-able-to,0,fly). The resulting dependencies are represented graphi-Cally in the dependency structure below: \u00a20 :supposed-to This example is relatively straightforward, simply reversing the direction of adjunction dependencies as described in (Candito and Kahane, 1998a) , but this algorithm can transduce the correct isomorphic dependency structure for the Portuguese derivation as well, similar to the distributed derivation tree in Candito and Kahane's example 5b, \"Paul claims Mary seems to adore hot dogs,\" (Rambow et al., 1995) , where there is no edge corresponding to the dependency between the raising and bridge verbs: We begin by adjoining ~1 :g-capaz-de at node VP of c~:voar, which produces the dependency (~-capaz-de, 0,voar), just as before. Then we adjoin p2:~-pressuposto-que at node S of c~:voar. This time, however, we must observe the predicate variable of the chart item for c~:voar which was updated in the previous adjunction, and now references ~-capaz-de instead of voar. Because the transduction rule for adjunction uses the predicate variable of the parent instead of just the predicate, the dependency produced by the adjunetion of ~2 is (~-pressuposto-que, 0,~capaz-de), yielding the graph:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 699,
"end": 726,
"text": "(Candito and Kahane, 1998a)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
},
{
"start": 968,
"end": 989,
"text": "(Rambow et al., 1995)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "3",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "As Candito and Kahane point out, this derivation tree does not match the dependency structure of the sentence as described in Meaning Text Theory (Mel'cuk, 1988) , because there is no edge in the derivation corresponding to the dependency between surprise and have-to (the necessity of Paul's staying is what surprises Mary, not his staying in itself). Using the above algorithm, however, we can still produce the desired dependency structure: The derivation examples above only address the preservation of dependencies through adjunction.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 146,
"end": 161,
"text": "(Mel'cuk, 1988)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "3",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Let us now attempt to preserve both substitution and adjunction dependencies in transducing a sentence based on Candito and Kahane's example 5c, \"That Paul has to stay surprised Mary,\" in order to demonstrate how they interact. 5 We begin with the derivation tree: al :surprise c~2 :stay(S0) c~4 :Mary(NPl) c~a:Paul(NP0) ~:have-to(VP)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "3",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "5We have replaced want to in the original example with have to in order to highlight the dependency structure and set aside any translation issues related to PRO control.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "3",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Once a source derivation is selected from the parse forest, the predicate-argument dependencies can be read off from the items in the forest that constitute the selected derivation. The resulting dependency graph can then be mapped to a forest of target derivations, where each predicate node in the source dependency graph is linked to a set of possible elementary trees in the target grammar, each of which is instantiated with substitution or adjunction edges leading to other linked sets in the forest. The elementary trees in the target forest are determined by the predicate pairs in the transfer lexicon, and by the elementary trees that can realize the translated targets. The substitution and adjunction edges in the target forest are determined by the argument links in the transfer lexicon, and by the substitution and adjunction configurations that can realize the translated targets' dependencies.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Obtaining Target Derivations",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "Mapping dependencies into substitutions is relatively straightforward, but we have seen in Section 2 that different adjunction configurations (such as the raising and bridge verb ad-junctions in sentences (1) and (2)) can correspond to the same dependency graph, so we should expect that some dependencies in our target graph may correspond to more than one adjunction configuration in the target derivation tree. Since a dependency may be realized by adjunctions at up to n different sites, an unconstrained algorithm would require exponential time to find a target derivation in the worst case. In order to reduce this complexity, we present a dynamic programming algorithm for constructing a target derivation forest in time proportional to O(n 4) which relies on a restriction that the target derivations must preserve the relative scope ordering of the predicates in the source dependency graph.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Obtaining Target Derivations",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "This restriction carries the linguistic implication that the scope ordering of adjuncts is part of the meaning of a sentence and should not be re-arranged in translation. Since we exploit a notion of locality similar to that of Isomorphic Synchronous TAG, we should not expect the generative power of our definition to exceed the generative power of TAG, as well.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Obtaining Target Derivations",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "First, we define an ordering of predicates on the source dependency graph corresponding to a depth-first traversal of the graph, originating at the predicate variable of the root of the source derivation, and visiting arguments and modifiers in order from lowest to highest scope. In other words, arguments and modifiers will be ordered from the bottom up on the elementary tree structure of the parent, such that the foot node argument of an elementary tree has the lowest scope among the arguments, and the first adjunct on the main (trunk) anchor has the lowest scope among the modifiers.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Obtaining Target Derivations",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "Arguments, which can safely be permuted in translation because their number is finitely bounded, are traversed entirely before the parent; and modifiers, which should not be permuted because they may be arbitrarily numerous, are traversed entirely after the parent. This enumeration will roughly correspond to the scoping order for the adjuncts in the source derivation, while preventing substituted trees from interrupting possible scoping configurations. We can now identify all the descendants of any elementary tree in a derivation because they will form a consecutive series in the enumeration described above. It therefore provides a convenient way to generate a target derivation forest that preserves the scoping information in the source, by 'parsing' the scope-ordered string of elementary trees, using indices on this enumeration instead of on a string yield.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Obtaining Target Derivations",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "It is important to note that in defining this algorithm, we assume that all trees associated with a particular predicate will use the same argument structure as that predicate. 6 We also assume that the set of trees associated with a particular predicate may be filtered by transferring information such as mood and voice from source to target predicates.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Obtaining Target Derivations",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "Apart from the different use of indices, the algorithm we describe is exactly the reverse of the transducer described in Section 3, taking a dependency graph 79 and producing a TAG derivation forest containing exactly the set of derivation trees for which those dependencies hold. Here, as in a parsing algorithm, we define forest items as tuples of (~/\u00a2, 'q, _1_, i,j, X) where a, ~, and 7 are elementary trees with node'O, \u00a2 and \u00a2 are predicates, X and w be predicate variables, and T and _1_ are delimiters tbr opening and closing adjunction, but now let i, j, and k refer to the indices on the scoping enumeration described above, instead of on an input string. In order to reconcile scoping ranges for substitution, we must also define a function first (C) to return the leftmost (lowest) edge of the \u00a2's range in the scope enumeration, and last(C) to return the rightmost (highest) edge of the \u00a2's range in the scope enumeration.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 350,
"end": 372,
"text": "(~/\u00a2, 'q, _1_, i,j, X)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 758,
"end": 761,
"text": "(C)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Obtaining Target Derivations",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 For each tree 7 mapped from predicate \u00a2 at scope i, introduce (~,\u00a2, first(C), i + 1, \u00a2}.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Obtaining Target Derivations",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 If (\u00a2,arg(7,~) ,co) E 79, try substitution of c~ into 3':",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 16,
"text": "(\u00a2,arg(7,~)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Obtaining Target Derivations",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "(c~\u00a2, ROOT, T, first(co), last(co), co)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Obtaining Target Derivations",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 If (\u00a2, arg(/3, FOOT), X) E 79, try modifier adjunction of fl into -),: (V~,~h_l_,i,j,x) (/3\u00a2, ROOT, T, j, k, w) (V\u00a2, ~, -l-, i, k, x) \u2022 If (\u00a2, arg(/3, FOOT), X) E 79, try predicative adjunction of/3 into V: (V\u00a2, ~, _I_, i, j, x) (/3\u00a2, ROOT, T, j, k, w) (V\u00a2, ~, T, i, k, w) \u2022 Apply productions for nonterminal projection as in the transducer algorithm, propagating index ranges and predicative variables up along the path from the main anchor to the root.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 73,
"end": 89,
"text": "(V~,~h_l_,i,j,x)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 95,
"text": "(/3\u00a2,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 101,
"text": "ROOT,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 104,
"text": "T,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 107,
"text": "j,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 110,
"text": "k,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 111,
"end": 113,
"text": "w)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 135,
"text": "(V\u00a2, ~, -l-, i, k, x)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 209,
"end": 213,
"text": "(V\u00a2,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 214,
"end": 216,
"text": "~,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 217,
"end": 221,
"text": "_I_,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 222,
"end": 224,
"text": "i,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 225,
"end": 227,
"text": "j,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 228,
"end": 236,
"text": "x) (/3\u00a2,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 237,
"end": 242,
"text": "ROOT,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 243,
"end": 245,
"text": "T,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 246,
"end": 248,
"text": "j,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 249,
"end": 251,
"text": "k,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 252,
"end": 259,
"text": "w) (V\u00a2,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 260,
"end": 262,
"text": "~,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 263,
"end": 265,
"text": "T,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 266,
"end": 268,
"text": "i,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 269,
"end": 271,
"text": "k,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 272,
"end": 274,
"text": "w)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "7, \u00b1, , ,-)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Since none of the productions combine more than three indices and one predicate variable, and since the indices and predicate variable may have no more than n distinct values, the algorithm runs in O(n 4) time. Note that one of the indices may be redundant with the predicate variable, so a more efficient implementation might be possible in dO(n3).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "7, \u00b1, , ,-)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We can demonstrate this algorithm by translating the English dependency graph from Section 1 into a derivation tree for Portuguese. First, we enumerate the predicates with their relative scoping positions: at the bottom, we assign to these constituents the relative scoping ranges of 1-2, 2-3, and 3-$, respectively, where $ is a terminal symbol.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "7, \u00b1, , ,-)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "There is also a dependency from is-supposedto to be-able-to allowing us to adjoin /32:dpressuposto-que to /31:d-capaz-de to make it cover the range from 2 to $, but there would be no S node to host its adjunction, so this possibility can not be added to the forest. We can, however, adjoin/32:d-pressuposto-que to the instance of a:voar extending to/31 :d-capaz-de that covers the range from 1 to 3, resulting in a complete analysis of the entire scope from 1 to $, (from (~:voar to/32:pressuposto) rooted on voar: (O~voar, l,2,..) (/3capaz, 2, 3, ..) (/3press, 3, $, ..) <O~voar ' 1, 3, capaz) <avoar, 1, $, press} which matches the distributed derivation tree where both auxiliary trees adjoin to roar. Let us compare this to a translation using the same dependency structure, but different words:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 580,
"end": 594,
"text": "' 1, 3, capaz)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 515,
"end": 571,
"text": "(O~voar, l,2,..) (/3capaz, 2, 3, ..) (/3press, 3, $, ..)",
"ref_id": "FIGREF1"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "7, \u00b1, , ,-)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "[3] \u00a20 :is-going-to",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "7, \u00b1, , ,-)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "[2] \u00a2l:be-able-to",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "I",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "[1] \u00a22:fly Once again we select trees in the target language, and enumerate them with scoping ranges in a pre-order traversal, but this time the construction at scope position 3 must be translated as a raising verb (vai) instead of as a bridge construction (d-pressuposto-que): (avoar, l,2,..> (/3capaz,2,3,..> (/3vai,3,$,..> (avoar, l,2,..) (/3capaz,2,3,..> (/3press, 3,$,..> Since there is a dependency from be-able-to to fly, we can adjoin/31:d-capaz-de to a:voar such that it covers the range of scopes from 1 to 3 (from roar to d-capaz-de), so we add this possibility to the forest.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 278,
"end": 341,
"text": "(avoar, l,2,..> (/3capaz,2,3,..> (/3vai,3,$,..> (avoar, l,2,..)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 342,
"end": 376,
"text": "(/3capaz,2,3,..> (/3press, 3,$,..>",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "I",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Although we can still adjoin/31 :ser-capaz-de at the VP node of a:voar, we will have nowhere to adjoin /32:vai, since the VP node of a:voar is now occupied, and only one predicative tree may adjoin at any node. 7",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "I",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "(avoar, 1, 2,..) (t3capaz, 2, 3, ..) (/3vai, 3, $, ..) (avoar, 1, 3, capaz> (avoar , l, 2, ..) (/3capaz, 2, 3, -.) (/3;ress, 3,$,..) (avoar, 1, 3, capaz)",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 84,
"text": "(avoar, 1, 3, capaz> (avoar ,",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 85,
"end": 132,
"text": "l, 2, ..) (/3capaz, 2, 3, -.) (/3;ress, 3,$,..)",
"ref_id": "FIGREF1"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "I",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "7See (Schabes and Shieber, 1994) for the motivations of this restriction.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 32,
"text": "(Schabes and Shieber, 1994)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "I",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Fortunately, we can also realize the dependency between vai and ser-capaz-de by adjoining/32 :vai at the VP. <avo r, l, 2, ..) <13capaz, 2, 3, ..) (/3va , 3, $, ..)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "I",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The new instance spanning from 2 to $ (from ~1 :capaz to/32 :vai) can then be adjoined at the VP node of roar, to complete the derivation.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "< capaz, 2, $, vai)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "( avoar , 1, 2, ..) (flcapaz, 2, 3,..) (~vai, 3, $,..) (~cap~z, 2, $, vai) (Olvoar , 1, $, vai) This corresponds to the stacked derivation, with p2:vai adjoined to t31:ser-capaz-de and 1~1 :ser-capaz-de adjoined to a:voar: We have presented two algorithms -one for interpreting a derivation forest as a semantic dependency graph, and the other for realizing a semantic dependency graph as a derivation forest -that make use of semantic dependencies as adapted from the notion of predicate-argument attachment in (Joshi and Vijay-Shanker, 1999 ), and we have described how these algorithms can be run together in a synchronous TAG translation system, in CO(n 7) time, using transfer rules predicated on isomorphic or locally nonisomorphic dependency graphs rather than isomorphic or locally non-isomorphic derivation trees. We have also demonstrated how such a system would be necessary in translating a real-world example that is isomorphic on dependency graphs but globally non-isomorphic on derivation trees. This system is currently being implemented as part of the Xtag project at the University of Pennsylvania, and as natural language interface in the Human Modeling and Simulation project, also at Penn.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 75,
"end": 84,
"text": "(Olvoar ,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 87,
"text": "1,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 90,
"text": "$,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 95,
"text": "vai)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 512,
"end": 542,
"text": "(Joshi and Vijay-Shanker, 1999",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "< capaz, 2, $, vai)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "~Although this does not hold for certain relative clause elementary trees with wh-extractions as substitutions sites (since the wh-site is an argument of the main verb of the clause instead of the foot node), Candito and Kahane(Candito and Kahane, 1998b) suggest an alternative analysis which can be extended to TAG by adjoining the relative clause into its wh-word as a predicative adjunct, and adjoining the wh-word into the parent noun phrase as a modifier, so the noun phrase is treated as an argument of the wh-word rather than of the relative clause.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"back_matter": [],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "Using lexicalized tree adjoining grammars for machine translation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Anne",
"middle": [],
"last": "Abeill6",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Yves",
"middle": [],
"last": "Schabes",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Aravind",
"middle": [
"K"
],
"last": "Joshi",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1990,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Coraputatio'nal Linguistics (COLING '90)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Anne Abeill6, Yves Schabes, and Aravind K. Joshi. 1990. Using lexicalized tree adjoining grammars for machine translation. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Coraputatio'nal Linguistics (COLING '90), Helsinki, Finland, Au- gust.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "Can the TAG derivation tree represent a semantic graph?",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Marie-Helene",
"middle": [],
"last": "Candito",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Sylvain",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kahane",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1998,
"venue": "Proceedings of the TAG+4 Workshop",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Marie-Helene Candito and Sylvain Kahane. 1998a. Can the TAG derivation tree represent a semantic graph? In Proceedings of the TAG+4 Workshop, University of Pennsylvania, August.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "Defining DTG derivations to get semantic graphs",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Marie-Helene",
"middle": [],
"last": "Candito",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Sylvain",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kahane",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1998,
"venue": "Proceedings of the TAG+~ Workshop",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Marie-Helene Candito and Sylvain Kahane. 1998b. Defining DTG derivations to get semantic graphs. In Proceedings of the TAG+~ Workshop, Univer- sity of Pennsylvania, August.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "Compositional Semantics with Lexicalized Tree-Adjoining Grammar (LTAG): How Much Underspecification is Necessary?",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Aravind",
"middle": [],
"last": "Joshi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Vijay-Shanker",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1999,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Computational Semantics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Aravind Joshi and K. Vijay-Shanker. 1999. Com- positional Semantics with Lexicalized Tree- Adjoining Grammar (LTAG): How Much Under- specification is Necessary? In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Computational Semantics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "How much context sensitivity is necessary for characterizing structural descriptions: Tree adjoining grammars",
"authors": [
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Aravind",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Joshi",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1985,
"venue": "Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational and theoretical perspectives",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "206--250",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Aravind K. Joshi. 1985. How much context sensitiv- ity is necessary for characterizing structural de- scriptions: Tree adjoining grammars. In L. Kart- tunen D. Dowty and A. Zwicky, editors, Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational and theoretical perspectives, pages 206-250. Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "Asymmetries in long distance extraction in a TAG grammar",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Anthony",
"middle": [
"S"
],
"last": "Kroch",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1989,
"venue": "Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "66--98",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Anthony S. Kroch. 1989. Asymmetries in long dis- tance extraction in a TAG grammar. In M. Baltin and A. Kroch, editors, Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure, pages 66-98. University of Chicago Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "Dependency syntax: theory and practice",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Igor",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mel",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "'",
"middle": [],
"last": "Cuk",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1988,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Igor Mel'cuk. 1988. Dependency syntax: theory and practice . State University of NY Press, Albany.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "Synchronous Models of Language",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Owen",
"middle": [],
"last": "Rainbow",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Giorgio",
"middle": [],
"last": "Satta",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1996,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (A CL '96)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Owen Rainbow and Giorgio Satta. 1996. Syn- chronous Models of Language. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (A CL '96).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "D-tree grammars",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Owen",
"middle": [],
"last": "Rambow",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "David",
"middle": [],
"last": "Weir",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Vijay-Shanker",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1995,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (A CL '95)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Owen Rambow, David Weir, and K. Vijay-Shanker. 1995. D-tree grammars. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics (A CL '95).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF9": {
"ref_id": "b9",
"title": "An alternative conception of tree-adjoining derivation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Yves",
"middle": [],
"last": "Schabes",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Stuart",
"middle": [
"M"
],
"last": "Shieber",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1994,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "20",
"issue": "1",
"pages": "91--124",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Yves Schabes and Stuart M. Shieber. 1994. An al- ternative conception of tree-adjoining derivation. Computational Linguistics, 20(1):91-124.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF10": {
"ref_id": "b10",
"title": "Expoiting semantic dependencies in parsing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "William",
"middle": [],
"last": "Schuler",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1998,
"venue": "Proceedings of the TAG+4 Workshop",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "William Schuler. 1998. Expoiting semantic depen- dencies in parsing. Proceedings of the TAG+4 Workshop.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF11": {
"ref_id": "b11",
"title": "Synchronous tree adjoining grammars",
"authors": [
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Stuart",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Yves",
"middle": [],
"last": "Shieber",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Schabes",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1990,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING '90)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Stuart M. Shieber and Yves Schabes. 1990. Syn- chronous tree adjoining grammars. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Compu- tational Linguistics (COLING '90), Helsinki, Fin- land, August.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF12": {
"ref_id": "b12",
"title": "Restricting the weakgenerative capability of synchronous tree adjoining grammars",
"authors": [
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Stuart",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Shieber",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1994,
"venue": "Computational Intelligence",
"volume": "10",
"issue": "4",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Stuart M. Shieber. 1994. Restricting the weak- generative capability of synchronous tree adjoin- ing grammars. Computational Intelligence, 10(4).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF13": {
"ref_id": "b13",
"title": "The use of shared forests in tree adjoining grammar parsing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Vijay-Shanker",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [
"J"
],
"last": "Weir",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1993,
"venue": "Proceedings of EA CL '93",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "384--393",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "K. Vijay-Shanker and D.J. Weir. 1993. The use of shared forests in tree adjoining grammar parsing. In Proceedings of EA CL '93, pages 384-393.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF1": {
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null,
"uris": null,
"text": "Synchronous tree pairs for \"supposed to be able to fly\" proceed from the bottom up, the attachment of predicates to arguments is neither destructive nor underspecified at any stage in the interpretation. For example, assume the initial tree a:fly has a predicate variable s], representing the situation of something flying, and an argument variable xl, representing the thing that is flying;"
},
"FIGREF3": {
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null,
"uris": null,
"text": "capaz-de(VP) ~2:fi-pressuposto-que(S)"
},
"FIGREF4": {
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null,
"uris": null,
"text": "adjoining fl:have-to at node VP of c~2:stay to produce a composed item with have-to as its predicate variable, as well as the dependency (have-to, 0,stay/. When a2:stay substitutes at node So of c~l:surprise, the resulting dependency also uses the predicate variable of the argument, yielding (surprise, 0,have-to)."
},
"FIGREF5": {
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null,
"uris": null,
"text": "\u00a20:is-supposed-to I [2] \u00a2l:be-able-to I [i] \u00a22:fly Then we construct a derivation forest based on the translated elementary trees a:voar,/31 :dcapaz-de, and /32 :d-pressuposto-que. Beginning"
},
"FIGREF6": {
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null,
"uris": null,
"text": "31:6-capaz-de(VP) [3-$]~2:6-pressup.-que(S)"
}
}
}
} |