David E. Johnson and Paul M. Postal. Arc Pair Grammar. Princeton University Press, 1980.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....illformed in the language. 7 Within initial versions of lfg, suppression could be expressed as an operation deleting the subj function of a lexical form. In hpsg, it would be expressed by a constraint assigning the subj an empty list. Within the version of rg known as Arc Pair Grammar (Johnson and Postal 1980), suppression would correspond to self erasure. 18 A general subject constraint is stated in (32) This constraint is again generic, though its framework specific interpretation is transparent. Within lfg the fsc is interpreted as [e]very lexical form must must have a subject (Bresnan and ....

Johnson, David E., and Paul M. Postal. 1980. Arc Pair Grammar. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

....Smo89, DVS90, Car92, Kel93] More recently, the role of logic has begun to expand beyond just providing formal semantics for the constraints to provide the entire linguistic formalism. See, for instance, Joh89, Sta92, Cor92, BGMV93, BMV94, Kel93, Rog94, Kra95] and, anticipating all of these, JP80] This approach abandons the notion of grammar as a mechanism and, instead, defines a 2 DRAFT language as a class of more or less ordinary mathematical structures via a linguistic theory expressed in a more or less ordinary logical language. 1 Such an approach raises a variety of questions ....

....no C for which nodes labeled 7 This approach, of course, is not unique to GPSG. See, for instance, Peters and Ritchie s notion of ImmediateConstituent Analysis [PR69] Joshi and Levy s Local Constraints [JL77, JLY80, JL82] or, outside the domain of trees, Johnson and Postal s Arc Pair Grammar [JP80] 6 DRAFT B always precede those labeled A whenever they occur in the yield of trees in the set with roots labeled C. The claim that the natural languages can be defined by sets of local trees that exhibit the ECPO property is a claim about the structure of those languages, a purported ....

David E. Johnson and Paul M. Postal. Arc Pair Grammar. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1980.

....c command are not regarded as linguistically significant; instead, their role is taken over by the relation of relative obliqueness that obtains between syntactic dependents of the same head. For 2 The notion of structure sharing has a somewhat obscure origin in modern linguistics. As noted by Johnson and Postal (1980: 479 483) it has played a central role (under various names, e.g. loops , vines , multiattachment and overlapping arcs ) in various theoretical frameworks. See especially the formulation in Johnson and Postal 1980 and the references cited therein) 3 The CONTEXT attribute contains ....

....sharing has a somewhat obscure origin in modern linguistics. As noted by Johnson and Postal (1980: 479 483) it has played a central role (under various names, e.g. loops , vines , multiattachment and overlapping arcs ) in various theoretical frameworks. See especially the formulation in Johnson and Postal 1980 and the references cited therein) 3 The CONTEXT attribute contains linguistic information that bears on certain context dependent aspects of semantic interpretation. 2 example, in HPSG the subject is defined not in terms of a D structure configurational position, but rather as the least ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Johnson, David and Paul Postal. 1980. Arc Pair Grammar. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

....1988, Steedman 1985) and Kroch Joshi (1985) used adjunction within Tree Adjoining Grammars. Intermediate dependencies have generally received less attention, with the exception of control phenomena, which have been successfully modeled in unification based grammars by reentrancy or coindexing (Johnson and Postal 1980, Bresnan 1982, Pollard Sag 1991) Bounded dependencies are of particular interest in lexicalist frameworks such as HPSG since one of their general properties is lexical government: the set of predicates allowing each of them is usually lexically restricted. There are in principle three ways of ....

Johnson, David and Paul Postal. 1980. Arc Pair Grammar. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

....RVSar] More recently, a number of people have noticed that, at least in some cases, extra logical mechanisms for combining constraints can be replaced by ordinary logical operations. See, for instance, Joh89, Sta92, Cor92, BGMV93, BMV94, Kel93, Rog94, Kra95] and, anticipating all of these, JP80] This approach abandons the notion of grammar as a mechanism and, instead, defines a language as a class of more or less ordinary mathematical structures via a linguistic theory expressed in a more or less ordinary logical language. 1 Such an approach raises a variety of questions about the ....

....formal systems that have pu 8 This approach, of course, is not unique to GPSG. See, for instance, Peters and Ritchie s notion of ImmediateConstituent Analysis [PR69] Joshi and Levy s Local Constraints [JL77, JLY80, JL82] or, outside the domain of trees, Johnson and Postal s Arc Pair Grammar [JP80] IRCS Technical Report Number 96 10, May 1996 tative universals as consequences, as opposed to merely providing a technical vocabulary of terms of which autonomously stipulated universals can be expressed. GKPS85, pg. 2] For GKP S, the universal aspects of the theory should be expressed in ....

David E. Johnson and Paul M. Postal. Arc Pair Grammar. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1980.

....work is one of a few references I know of that mentions coinductive techniques for the semantics of Horn clause programs with feature constraints. Finally, credit for the first complete integration of feature logic and linguistic theory may, I think, go to Johnson and Postal s arc pair grammar [34]. This is a fully formalized in first order logic version of earlier work of Postal and Perlmutter on relational grammar. Arc pair grammar, in retrospect, was well ahead of its time. The ideas of DCG, for example, had not even been enunciated. GPSG, although under development, did not have a ....

....grammatical relations and constructions in the LFG style using his logic. This work thus represents a tying together of a full logical system with parts of a linguistic theory of syntax, one of the first such integrations, excepting perhaps the work of Montague [46] and Johnson and Postal [34]. 3.10. Feature logics as constraint systems The view of feature systems and feature logics as subsets of first order logic is continued by Smolka [70] and Nebel and Smolka [53] Once again we explain the class of intended models, then move to the syntax. Smolka considers the concept of feature ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

D. E. Johnson and P. M. Postal. Arc Pair Grammar. Princeton University Press, 1980.

....RVS94] More recently, a number of people have noticed that, at least in some cases, extralogical mechanisms for combining constraints can be replaced by ordinary logical operations. See, for instance, Joh89, Sta92, Cor92, BGMV93, BMV94, Kel93, Rog94, Kra95] and, anticipating all of these, JP80] This approach abandons the notion of grammar as a mechanism and, instead, defines a language as a class of more or less ordinary mathematical structures via a linguistic theory expressed in a more or less ordinary logical language. 1 While this seems to be a natural step in the evolution of ....

....one specified in ID LP 6 This approach, of course, is not unique to GPSG. See, for instance, Peters and Ritchie s notion of Immediate Constituent Analysis [PR69] Joshi and Levy s Local Constraints [JL77, JLY80, JL82] or, outside the domain of trees, Johnson and Postal s Arc Pair Grammar [JP80] format, these rules are not understood to specify a set of rewriting operations that together derive the strings in the intended language. Instead the notion of derivation is replaced with a notion of admissibility. The grammar rules are taken to specify a set of local trees trees ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

David E. Johnson and Paul M. Postal. Arc Pair Grammar. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1980.

....is appointing the Secretary of State to the White House (in some capacity) It cannot be interpreted as the White House appointing anyone. 3 We base our uniqueness criteria on the stratal uniquenesstheorem of Relational Grammar and Arc Pair Grammar (see for example Perlmutter[4] and Johnson[2]) nom :orth destruction :verb destroy :plural none :nom type( verb nom) verb subj ( n n mod) det poss) det poss no other obj ( object) n n mod no other obj ( object) verb subc (nom np :object ( det poss) n n mod) pp of) Figure 1: Sample NOMLEX dictionary entry for ....

David E. Johnson and Paul M. Postal. Arc Pair Grammar. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1980.

.... level, four sister arcs (arcs with the same source node) as shown in Figure 1: one arc labeled [H] with target gave, indicating gave is the head of the clause; one with label [1] and target Joe, indicating Joe is both the predicateargument, and surface subject, of the clause; one with label [3,2] and target Mary, indicating that 1 We use the following R signs: 1 (subject) 2 (direct object) 3 (indirect object) 8 (chSmeur) Cat (Category) C (comp) F (flag) H (head) LOC (locative) M (maxked) as well as the special Null P=slgns 0 and , explainedbelow. 97 s [1] Joe [HI ave [3, ....

....[3,2] and target Mary, indicating that 1 We use the following R signs: 1 (subject) 2 (direct object) 3 (indirect object) 8 (chSmeur) Cat (Category) C (comp) F (flag) H (head) LOC (locative) M (maxked) as well as the special Null P=slgns 0 and , explainedbelow. 97 s [1] Joe [HI ave [3, 2] [2, 8] 1;ea Figure 1: S graph for Joe #ave Mary tea. Mary is the predicate argument indirect object, but the surface direct object, of the clause; and one with label [2,8] and target tea, indicating tea is the predicate argument direct object, but surface ch6meur, of the clause. Such a ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

David E. Johnson and Paul M. Postal. Arc Pair Grammar. Princeton University Press, 1980.

No context found.

David E. Johnson and Paul M. Postal. Arc Pair Grammar. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1980.

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