Bresnan, J. W. (1982). The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....2) and a lexical introduction probability (term 3) Note that we can drop the Y term as mentioned above. P( Y ; h; rulename j X;w) P(rulename j X;w) 2) P( h j X;w; rulename) 3) The rst of these probabilities corresponds to the psycholinguistic notion of Lexical Preference [Ford et al. 1982] when the expansion is of a verb phrase to its subcategorized constituents. The lexical introduction probability is novel in that it requires us to collect n ary lexical statistics, where n is as large as the grammar requires (essentially the length of the longest right hand side of a rule) While ....

Marilyn Ford, Joan Bresnan, and Ronald M. Kaplan, \A CompetenceBased Theory of Syntactic Closure," In Joan Bresnan, editor, The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. MIT Press, 1982.

....describe the ACOOL and M COOL tools which we developed to solve these problems. We also look at related efforts, and mention some ideas for future work. 2 The Knowledge Acquisition and Maintenance Problems At the Center for Machine Translation, we use Lex ical Functional Grammar (LFG) Kaplan Bresnan, 1982] as a basis for our syntactic grammars as well as our linking rules [Levin, 1987] for mapping syn tactic functions to and from semantic roles. The lat ter we refer to as mapping rules . These mapping rules are used in conjunction with a domain model to build or generate from the interlingua ....

.... features for subcategorization (TRANS, COMP TYPE) and features for syntactic semantic argument link ing (CLASS, MAPPINGS) CLASS here refers to the type of linking rules a verb or adjective [Levin and Rappaport, 1987] will use for its syntactic arguments (SUBJ, OBJ, OBJ2, XCOMP, and COMP [Kaplan Bresnan, 1982]) Semantic knowledge about the world is stored in a domain model organized in an is a hierarchy using frames that correspond to the various events (PHYSICAL EVENT ASSEMBLE MONTAR) and objects (PHYSICAL OBJECT TRANSFORMER TRANSFORMADOR) relations (AGENT, THEME) 3 be tween these objects and ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Joan Bresnan, Polyadicity, Joan Bresnan, editior. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, MIT Press, Cambirdge, MA, 149-172 1982.

....restrictions on its arguments. For instance, the definition of the move predicate specifies that its agent argument be an instance of the concrete entity type. The grammar is a unification augmented context free grammar based on both Functional Grammar [9] and Lexical Functional Grammar [10]. Its main job is to assign deep syntactic roles to phrases in the sentence. For instance, in both the active sentence I drew the vector and the passive sentence The vector was drawn, the noun phrase the vector is assigned to the same deep syntactic role (argument) of the verb draw. The ....

Bresnan, J., The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. 1982, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

.... wellformedhess of possible utterances is described in terms of identity constraints a linguistic structure must fulfill taking into account information of different strata (e.g. phonology, syntax and semantics) in a uniform and completely declarative way, e.g. Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG, [Bresnan, 1982]) Head Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG, Pollard and Sag, 1987] and constraint based categorial frameworks (cf. Uszkoreit, 1986a] and [Zeevat et al. 1987] Most important from a reversibility standpoint is that the theories only characterize what constraints are important during ....

.... well formedness of possible utterances is described in terms of identity constraints a linguistic struc ture must fulfill taking into account information of different strata (e.g. phonology, syntax and semantics) in a uniform and completely declarative way, e.g. Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG, [Bresnan, 1982]) Head Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG, Pollard and Sag, 1987] and constraint based categorial frameworks (cf. Uszkoreit, 1986a] and [Zeevat et al. 1987] Most important from a reversibility standpoint is that the theories only characterize what constraints are important during ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

J. Bresnan, editor. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Re- lations. MIT Press, 1982.

....of a variety of languages including languages with more flexible word order such as Latin and Russian. 2. 2 Lexical And Semantic Properties Instead of focusing on just atomic categories to describe language syntax as de scribed above, many linguistic theories, such as Lexical Functional Grammar [24], Functional Unification Grammar [25] Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar [26] Unification Categorial Grammar [27, 28] Head Driven Phrase Structure Grammar [29] Definite Clause Grammars [30] and Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammar [31] make use of lexical and semantic properties by using ....

J. Bresnan. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1982.

....such a large system that is specialized on the domain of computer installation and maintenance manuals is exactly the fine grained semantic distinctions and a broad coverage. This is not to say that there is no syntactic component in KBMT. In fact, the syntactic formalism underlying KBMT 89 is LFG [6]. But syntactic processing is not the focus of the research: The use of world knowledge is widely and correctly perceived as the salient property of a knowledge based machine translation system. 14] p. 36 The lexicon structure given in [18] is that of the project DIONYSUS, where a lexical ....

J. Bresnan, editor (1982). The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

....when present as one of the input arguments, is mapped to the speci er. Nonlexical cases of functional categories need to be accommodated. This can be done by adding a special clause which adds them in to the mapping. 7.3. 3 LFG The following is a mapping from SynReps to f structures in LFG [3]. 2 This is similar to the use of macros in programming languages. 25 Let s = hHead; Spec; 2 6 4 ARG 1 A 1 . ARG n A n 3 7 5 ; hAdj 1 ; Adj n ii be a SynRep. Then let t(s) 2 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 4 ARG 1 t(A 1 ) ARG n t(A n ) PRED ....

J. (ed.) Bresnan. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1982.

....analysis is arguably decades away from producing computationally feasible implementations. Chapter 2. Previous Work 10 2.5 Using lexical information Luckily, it turns out that we can ignore semantics and pragmatics completely and still obtain good accuracy by using words alone as features. [Ford et al. 1982] proposed the idea of lexical preferences that we should prefer some parses over others on the basis of the words involved. These preferences are usually derived empirically from some large corpus. For example, lexical information should be sufficient to resolve (2.2) since steering wheels are ....

Ford, M., Bresnan, J., and Kaplan, R. (1982). The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, chapter A competence based theory of syntactic closure. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

....in sections 2 and 3. From section 4 to 6, we will intend to show how this framework can be applied to anaphora resolution. Now we are going to compare SUG with other well known formalisms such as Head Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) Pollar Sag 95) Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG) Bresnan 82) and Slot Grammars (SG) McCord 90) HPSG and LFG are constraint based, highly lexicalized grammatical theories in which many phenomena are treated in the lexicon instead of in the rules; SG is another lexicalist grammar which has been used in several applications of NLP; whereas DCG and SUG are ....

J. Bresnan, The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, The MIT Press, Cambridge, 1982.

.... about classes of words with common behavior or to eliminate redundant speci cation across entries (Pollard and Sag (P S) 1987:192) One mechanism for accomplishing this that has been proposed in a number of frameworks is known as a lexical (redundancy) rule (see Stanley 1967; Jackendo 1975; Bresnan 1982; Shieber et al. 1983; P S 1987; P S 1994, among others) 1 A typical lexical rule, from the HPSG framework, is given in (1) 2 (1) Lexical Rule for English Passive (Simpli ed) 2 6 6 6 6 6 6 4 category 2 6 6 6 6 4 head verb vform psp valence 2 6 4 subj D NP 1 ....

Bresnan, J. (Ed.) 1982. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

....ParGram encompasses linguistic research in LFG based parallel grammar development for di erent languages: English, French, and German; recently, the University of Bergen as a new partner has started developing a Norwegian grammar, and a Japanese grammar is being developed by Fuji Xerox. LFG (Bresnan (1982, 2000) is particularly well suited for high level syntactic analysis in multilingual NLP tasks. The LFG formalism assigns natural language sentences two levels of linguistic representation a constituent phrase structure (c structure) and a functional structure (f structure) which are related ....

Bresnan, J., editor (1982). The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

....got to clue you in. 3.3 Broad Coverage English Parsing Grammar The underlying principle behind our approach to syntactic analysis is to provide a solid foundation for semantic interpretation. We have incorporated aspects of both Functional Grammar [Halliday, 1985] and Lexical Functional Grammar [Bresnan, 1982] in our approach. Our usage of Functional Grammar has been primarily limited to our analysis of tense. As mentioned, the focus of our approach has been on constructing deep syntactic functional analyses. Deep functional syntactic representations have been demonstrated to translate directly into ....

Bresnan, J. (1982). The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. The MIT Press.

.... often called, have a venerable history stretching back at least to Jackendo 1975, and they ve played an important role in numerous computational linguistic systems, as well as in certain highly lexicalized theoretical grammar frameworks such as HPSG (Pollard and Sag (P S) 1987, 1994) and LFG (Bresnan 1982). In HPSG in particular, lexical rules have come to play a greater and greater role in recent years, to the extent that nowadays, when a new analysis of some phenomenon is proposed, the analytic tool of choice is as likely as not to be a lexical rule. This is deeply disconcerting, at least to us, ....

Bresnan, J. (Ed.) 1982. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

....( frame draw) agent ( frame i) theme ( frame vector) Figure 4: Sample Parser Output The underlying principle behind our approach to syntactic analysis is to provide a solid foundation for semantic interpretation. Functional Grammar [Halliday, 1985] and Lexical Functional Grammar [Bresnan, 1982] provide the linguistic framework within which the AUTOSEM grammar was written. Functional syntactic representations have been demonstrated to translate straightforwardly into quasi logical formulas [van Genabith and Crouch, 1996] and thus provide useful input for semantic interpretation ....

Bresnan, J. (1982). The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. The MIT Press.

....in (24b) associates arguments with nonsubject functions. This association is based on the relative ordering determined in (25) by treating positive values in (22a) as marked and negative values as unmarked. As in argument structures, leftmost elements are highest . 25) Markedness hierarchy (mh) (Bresnan 2001:309) subj # obj, obl # # obj # (Negatively specified features are unmarked. The mapping principles, along with the other other rules and constraints that apply to argument structures, are subject to a general monotonicity requirement, meaning that they can add but not change features. This ....

Bresnan, Joan (ed.) 1982a. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge: MIT Press.

.... ; 13) Theme Suppression th [ Gammar] 14) Applicative ; appl : 15) Reciprocalization i . i . 3 The Development of the Linking Idea ffl Ostler (1979) is generally credited with first coming up with the idea of linking. ffl The early LFG papers as in Bresnan (1982a,b) assumed that grammatical functions were associated with thematic roles via lexical assignment. From Bresnan (1982a) 16) subj) obj) love( arg 1, arg 2 ) lexical assignment of grammatical functions (agent) theme) predicate argument structure ffl But there was no clear ....

....allows for case stacking while still passing on the information contributed by the case markers. 34) Principle of Morphological Composition: Where x is a string of attributes: Stem Aff = Stem Aff (gf n ) gf m ) x) gf n ) gf m (gf n ) x) 5. 4 Summary ffl In Nordlinger 1998 as in Mohanan 1982, case morphology and grammatical relations are put in a direct correspondence with one another without the mediation of argument structure. ffl In Butt s 1998 approach to Urdu causatives, in contrast, case marking interacted with linking principles, but did not wholly determine them. 182 6 ....

In J. Bresnan (Ed.) 1982. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

....As in GB, subcategorisation in LFG is based on a syntactic representation of predicate argument structure. In addition, the notion of grammatical function occupies a central role in determining which of the arguments semantically selected by a predicate are syntactically realised and how. In Bresnan (1982), grammatical functions are defined as universal syntactic primitives of the grammar and classified according two main parameters: subcategorisability and semantic restrictedness. Subjects, objects 2 See Manzini (1983) Chomsky (1986b) and references therein. Recommendations 9 August, 1996 ....

.... within the predicate argument structure of a lexical form: Biuniqueness of Function Argument Assignments G= g 1 , g n is a possible grammatical function assignment to P(1, m) if and only if the mapping from 1, m to G defined by i 7 g i is injective (one to one and into) (Bresnan (1982, 163) Grammatical function assignment lists serve as subcategorisation frames. Subcategorisation is checked in Functional Structure for Completeness and Coherence (Kaplan Bresnan, 1982) Completeness ensures that all subcategorised arguments are present in functional structure (e.g. it rules ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Bresnan, J. (ed.) (1982). The mental representation of grammatical relations, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Ma.

....use 35 August, 1997 Chapter 4 Bibliographic references and indexes 4.1 Bibliographic references EAGLES uses the Harvard style for bibliographic citations and references, and no other. This allows you to give references highly important for human knowledge by using the cite command (Bresnan, 1982; Chomsky, 1981; Dowty, 1982; Dowty, 1989) This was produced with the following: cite bre82,chom81,dow82b,dow89 . There are even some references that are highly stimulating (Talmy, 1985) However, as Alsina Mchombo (1988) demonstrates, you can also use a kind of nominal form for citations. ....

Bresnan, J. (ed.) (1982). The mental representation of grammatical relations, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Ma.

.... distributions of deverbal adjectives based on past participles and used attributively, hereafter, APPs) These distributions, although widely recognized, have not been sufficiently explained in the rather substantial literature on the subject of APPs (e.g. Lakoff 1965, Hirtle 1971, Wasow 1977, Bresnan 1982, Levin Rappaport 1986, Langacker 1987, Grimshaw Vikner 1993) 1 That is, certain types of contrasts are well known and are accounted for in a fairly straightforwardly way by various approaches. These include the examples in (1) 1) a. a worked man b. a frozen river But less discussed ....

Bresnan, Joan. 1982. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, Mass: MIT 15 Press.

....for discussion of these points. A similar hierarchy of grammatical functions, and the view of this hierarchy as cross linguistic and independent of word order (or constituent structure) and morphology is also posited in Relational Grammar (Perlmutter and Rosen, 1984) Lexical Functional Grammar (Bresnan, 1982), and Head Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (Pollard and Sag, 1987) where it is called the obliqueness hierarchy) i.a. In these theories, however, the hierarchy is stipulated simply as a linear ordering of grammatical functions (which are taken as primitive) i.e. S DO IO (Other) ....

Bresnan, Joan (ed.): 1982, The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, MIT Press, Cambridge.

....my thoughts on OT and optionality through many long discussions. I accept sole responsibility for any remaining errors. 1 It would be more precise to say that a form can be grammatical and still violate constraints. 2 OT LFG is a version of OT syntax which uses Lexical Functional Grammar (Bresnan, 1982; Dalrymple et al. 1995) for its representations and as its theory of GEN (see (1) below) 1 winning candidates in production. Fourth, this OT approach to linking has interesting implications for Dowty s theory of proto roles. In section 2, I briefly present the basic architecture of standard ....

Bresnan, Joan (ed.) (1982). The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

....PARGRAM encompasses linguistic research in LFG based parallel grammar development for different languages: English, French, and German; recently, the University of Bergen as a new partner has started developing a Norwegian grammar, and a Japanese grammar is being developed by Fuji Xerox. LFG (Bresnan (1982, 2000) is particularly well suited for high level syntactic analysis in multilingual NLP tasks. The LFG formalism assigns natural language sentences two levels of linguistic representation a constituent phrase structure (c structure) and a functional structure (f structure) which are ....

Bresnan, J., editor (1982). The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

....With this definition the constraint expressed in LFG as ( topic) comp obj) would in FLUF be written as below. We assume that the variables M and D represents the mother and daughter constituents in the rule. and(M=add pair(topic,T,empty) D=func unc(comp,add pair(obj,T,empty) Turning to negation (for example, Karttunen 1984, Langholm 1989, Carpenter 1992) this can not be expressed in FLUF. What can be done is to give relations, as the ones below, which states how negation should be computed when it occurs together with other expressions. This might give a sufficient behaviour of negation for some cases but can not ....

In: J Bresnan (ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusets. 20 Karttunen, Lauri (1984). Features and Values. 10th International Conference on Computational Linguistics/22nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Stanford, California, pp 28-33.

....my thoughts on OT and optionality through many long discussions. I accept sole responsibility for any remaining errors. 1 It would be more precise to say that a form can be grammatical and still violate constraints. 2 OT LFG is a version of OT syntax which uses Lexical Functional Grammar (Bresnan, 1982; Dalrymple et al. 1995) for its representations and as its theory of GEN (see (1) below) 1 winning candidates in production. Fourth, this OT approach to linking has interesting implications for Dowty s theory of proto roles. In section 2, I briefly present the basic architecture of standard ....

Bresnan, Joan (ed.) (1982). The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

....and non metaphoric meaning alternations (such as those described in Apresjan (1974) and Pustejovsky (1991) as well as some productive derivational processes such as formation of deverbal nominals or deverbal adjectives. Thus the LRs in this paradigm include the phenomena covered by LRs in LFG in Bresnan (1982), but also many of the Lexical Inference Rules (LIRs) from Ostler and Atkins (1992) which necessarily include semantic shifts. When LRs are added to the lexicographer s arsenal, the lexicon as a whole becomes a list of (super)entries plus a list of LRs. The discussion below highlights some a ....

Bresnan, Joan, ed. (1982). The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge MA: --- 34 --- MIT Press.

....thus an essential feature of lexical organization in a theory like HPSG. It is a fundamental mechanism for expressing common properties of lexical items that are divergent in other respects. Further generalizations about lexical entries are expressed by lexical rules. 20 As in early work in LFG (Bresnan, ed. 1982), these systematically expand the set of basic (or canonical ) lexical entries, specifying only particular noncanonical properties that hold of the output forms. Among these is the passive lexical rule, sketched in (15) 15) Passive Lexical Rule (PLR) 2 6 6 4 trans verb SUBJ hNP i i ....

Bresnan, Joan, ed. 1982. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.

....motivations and potential for high quality translation, of the underlying computational technology, as well as the technical details of the translation component realized in an experimental translation prototype. 4. 2 Parallel Grammar Development for Multilingual NLP Lexical Functional Grammar (Bresnan 1982) is particularly well suited for high level syntactic analysis in multilingual NLP tasks. The LFG formalism assigns natural language sentences two levels of linguistic representation a constituent phrase structure (c structure) and a functional structure (f structure) which are related in terms ....

Bresnan, J. (Ed.) (1982). The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

....being exposed to a training set of sentences. Several linguistic theories are influenced by UG considerations. The most obvious example is Government and Binding Theory (GB) 23] Other approaches, which are less obviously motivated by acquisition theory, include Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG) [7], Generalised Phrase Structure Grammar (GPSG) 38] and Head Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) 96] 2 An implementation of a model of grammaticality would therefore draw upon these linguistic theories. The model based component of the critic (of the Grammar Garden) draws upon GPSG s ....

Joan Bresnan, editor. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. The MIT Press, 1978.

....is naturally captured if reversible grammars are used. 2. 2 Constraint logic programming Since the last decade a family of linguistic theories known under the term constraintbased grammar theories has begun to play an important role within the field of natural language processing, e.g. lfg [ Bresnan, 1982 ] hpsg [ Pollard and Sag, 1994 ] In the last few years constraint based formalisms have undergone a rigorous formal investigation (consider for example [ Shieber, 1989; Smolka, 1992 ] This has led to a general characterisation of constraint based formalisms where feature structures are ....

J. Bresnan, editor. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. MIT Press, 1982.

....at the syntax semantics pragmatics interface which emphasizes the signi cance of relational constraints, and treats purely syntactic, purely semantic and purely pragmatic constraints as parochial special cases. This puts cot in line with integrated grammar formalisms such as HPSG [PS94] and LFG [Bre82], in that it emphasizes the integration of information from di erent components, and suggests that syntax, semantics and pragmatics are mutually constraining. 40 40 With regard to the modularity of language, there is a signi cant di erence between the practice in ot syntax semantics and that in ....

Joan Bresnan, editor. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1982.

....on their occurrence, as well as the structure of phrases and clauses. A computational grammar like TAG instantiates those analyses in a formal notation (which I will describe below) Thus, it is possible to use TAG and assume the Minimalist framework, a Lexical Functional Grammar framework (Bresnan, 1982), or some other theoretical system for capturing syntactic analyses. It turns out that most computational linguists working with TAG have assumed a largely Principles and Parameters Minimalist framework, and so the analyses I will examine will do so as well. In the TAG approach, a grammar is a ....

Bresnan, J. (1982). The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

....functional equations (f equations) are the descriptions, and that the constituent structure (c structure) and functional structure (f structure) pairs that they generate are the model objects. But f structures are things constructed by an algorithm (the f description solution algorithm (Kaplan Bresnan, 1982, pp. 189 203) and are best thought of as algebraic objects that describe an infinite set of model objects (any that specify at least the information contained in the f structure) For if a lexical item is underspecified, say unmarked for number, then (in the absence of other agreement information) the ....

....as all being descriptions of constraints on legal linguistic objects in a domain of model objects. And so we will develop these ideas in two stages. Firstly, rather than constructing f structures by solving f equations hung on a c structure as in the standard LFG solution algorithm (Kaplan Bresnan, pp. 189 203) we will show how it is possible to develop a representation (of algebraic objects) whereby f structures can be found by deforming these objects (loosely, annotated c structures) We will then begin to describe how, once we have this idea, there is no need to actually build and deform these ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Bresnan, J. (Ed). (1982a). The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

.... Carnegie Mellon University March 11, 1996 Abstract Recent work on order domains and linearization in HPSG, and also conceptually related work in categorial grammar, is argued to mirror the key ideas that motivated the separation between c structure and f structure in the earliest work in LFG (Bresnan 1982). This paper argues that: i) to be descriptively adequate, all constraint based frameworks do indeed need a dissociation between functor argument structure and surface phrase structure, ii) while linearization HPSG can technically be regarded as a one level one stratum architecture, the ....

.... phrase structure indeed they hewed to this line closely, since they denied the need for transformational operations, which much of modern linguistics has used to produce dissociations between the two (as in Chomsky (1957) and subsequent work) In contrast, Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG: Bresnan 1982) was designed to easily permit a much looser relationship between these two notions, and, recently, cases of marked deviation between these two levels have led researchers in HPSG to adopt an order domain or linearization framework (Reape 1993, Reape 1994, Reape forthcoming, Pollard et al. 1993, ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Bresnan, J. (Ed.). 1982. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

....numbers of single rule instances. The details of linguistic description have been more and more relocated into the lexicon of those grammars, where the basic SRL definitions are attached to single words. Two prominent variants of those grammar formalisms are Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG) BK88] and Head Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) PS88] Parsing algorithms for those grammars are often based on chart parsing techniques ( Gor88] generalizations of the Earley and CKY algorithms for context free grammars ( Ear70, You67] The overall goal of the approaches mentioned, is ....

J. Bresnan and R. Kaplan. The mental representation of grammatical relations. MIT Press, 1988.

....of a variety of languages including languages with more flexible word order such as Latin and Russian. 2. 2 Lexical And Semantic Properties Instead of focusing on just atomic categories to describe language syntax as described above, many linguistic theories, such as Lexical Functional Grammar [24], Functional Unification Grammar [25] Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar [26] Unification Categorial Grammar [27, 28] Head Driven Phrase Structure Grammar [29] Definite Clause Grammars [30] and Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammar [31] make use of lexical and semantic properties by using ....

J. Bresnan. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1982.

....Therefore, each alternative order can be thought of as the optimal realization of the given information in the input. 1.2. 2 Lexical Functional Grammar This section outlines the basic theoretical assumptions of LFG, a unification based theory without movement (Bresnan and Kaplan 1982, Bresnan 1982, Sells 1985, Bresnan 1995a) The grammatical representation in LFG consists of several different parallel structures: no structure is derived from another structure and the relationship between structures is defined by a mapping function. Especially, LFG separates information about grammatical ....

....in the analysis of coordination in LFG. Kaplan and Maxwell (1995) following Bresnan et al. 1985) extend the function application device so that it is defined for sets of functions, and treat a set formally as the generalization of its functional elements. As originally formulated by Kaplan and Bresnan (1982), the function application equation (f a) v holds if and only if f denotes an f structure which yields the value v when applied to the attribute a. For example, in the second f structure in (67a) f tense) Pst. The extended definition of function application says that if s denotes a set of ....

Bresnan, Joan (ed.). 1982. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.

....there is no such source for a moved form aren t. Lexicalist constraintbased theories such as Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar (gpsg, Gazdar et al. 1982) Head Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (hpsg, Pollard and Sag, 1994; Kim and Sag, 1996) and Lexical Functional Grammar (lfg, Kaplan and Bresnan, 1982), which generate the overt structures without movements, can simply postulate as an addition to the plural and second person are, a speci c rst person singular negative lexical form of aren t that can only be inserted into the inverted position: 1 (2) aren t 1 : neg . # aren t 2 : ....

Bresnan, J. (ed) 1982. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

No context found.

Bresnan, J. W. (1982). The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

No context found.

Bresnan, Joan, ed. (1982). The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

No context found.

Joan Bresnan. 1982. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

No context found.

Bresnan J (ed) 1982. The mental representation of grammatical relations. MIT Pree,Cambridge, Massachusetts.

No context found.

Joan Bresnan, editor. The mental representation of grammatical relations. MIT Press Series on Cognitive Theory and Mental Representation. Cambridge, Massachusetts -- London, England, 1982.

No context found.

Bresnan J (ed) 1982. The mental representation of grammatical relations. MIT Pree,Cambridge, Massachusetts.

No context found.

Bresnan, Joan (ed). 1982. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. MIT Press Series on Gognitive Theory and Mental Representation, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

No context found.

J. Bresnan, ed., The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1982. 185

No context found.

Bresnan, J. W.,(ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations (MIT Press, Cambridge, 1982).

No context found.

J. Bresnan ed., The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. (MIT Press, Cambridge Mass., 1982). 13.

No context found.

Joan Bresnan, editor. 1982. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. MIT Press.

No context found.

Joan Bresnan, editor. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1982.

No context found.

In: J Bresnan (ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusets. Martelli, A. and U. Montanari (1982). An Efficient Unification Algorithm, ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 4(2), pp. 258-282, 1982.

First 50 documents  Next 50

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC