EMELE, M.C., & R. ZAJAC. 1990. Typed unification grammars. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Helsinki.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....definition of guides in [Dymetman et al. 90] for the parsing and generation problems) A complete breadth first search strategy is planned for debugging purposes. The interpreter described above is implemented s and has been used to test several models such as LFG, HPSG, or DCG on toy examples [Emele Zajac 90b, Emele et al. 90, Zajac 90a] 6This outer most, rewriting strategy is similar to hyper resolution in logic programming. The lazy evaluation mech anism is related to .the freeze predicate of, e.g. Prolog II and Sicstus Prolog, though in Prolog, it has to be called explicitly. e.g. the ....

....formal ism does not impose constraints on how the relations between phrases and strings are defined, and the grammar writer has to define them explicitly. One possibility is to use context free like mappings, using for example the same kind of encoding as in DCGs for PATR Iike gramars or HPSG [Emele Zajac 90b] But other possibilities are available as well: using a kind of functional composition reminiscent of categorial gramna.rs as in [Dymetman et al. 90] or linear precedence rules [Pollard Sag 87, Reape 90] For example, a rule like [Shieber 86] l NP VP: head) VP head) headform) finite ....

Martin Emele and R4mi Zajac. "Typed Unification Grammars". Proc. of the 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics - COLING'90, Helsinki, August 1990.

....the help they have given us in performing this research. Appendix: A Comparison of Classification and Unification FUG is only one of a number of grammar formaltsres based on feature logics. The logic underlying FUG is relatively simple, but much more ex pressive logics are now being implemented [Emele and Zajac, 1990; Dfrre and Seiffert, 1991; DSrre and Eisele, 1991] Here we provide an initial for mal characterisation of the relation between classi fication and unification, but abstracting away from the differences between the different unification systems. Crucial to all approaches in unification based ....

Martin Emele and R4mi Zajac. Typed unification grammars. In Pro- ceedings of the 13lb International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING-1990), volume 3, pages 293-298, 1990.

....semantic and pragmatic infor mation with indiscrete constraints. In addi tion, to that, since dependency propagation is a kind of co routine process, programs are very hard to debug and so constraints are tough to stipulate. Ait Kaci s typed unification was applied to a reversible architecture (Emele and Zajac ,1990). All features in sign are sorted and placed in hierarchical structures. Parsing and generation can be executed by rewriting the aConstraints are represented by the usual PROLOG predicates. 120 features into their most specific forms. Their mechanism greatly depends on the hierarchy of ....

....makes the generator execute axioms about object (4) This results in the axiom (1) of lexical information. Sim ilar to the above process, the remaining subgoals (5) and (2) are executed. Finally, the surface string It was a girl that the boy loved is obtained. 5. Discussions As mentioned in (Emele and Zajac,1990), the proposed approach inevitably leads to the consequence that the data structure becomes slightly complicated. However, due 2Because of space limitation, action expressions inform and utter are omitted in the figure. 124 (2) 12) 04) 1)1 Sign:phn: It was Expl that Exp2] ....

Martin Emele and Remi Zajac. 1990. "Typed Unification Grammars". Proceedings of the 13th International

....imple mented uniform architecture is due to [Shieber, 1988] In his approach he follows the paradigm of linguistic processing as deduction introduced by [Pereira and Warren, 1983] in the case of parsing. Currently there are also approaches that view parsing and generation as type rewriting (cf. [Emele and Zajac, 1990], Carpenter, 1992] The advantage of a uniform approach is that inconsistency in the language behaviour can be avoided because either the restrictions are the same for both tasks or not. The main disadvantage which is often claimed, is that it is yet unclear whether and how these systems can be ....

....item sharing approach which is necessary for achieving an efficient and practical interleaving of parsing and generation. We also do not consider approaches, that describe alternative approaches of uniform processing, for example, the view of parsing and generation as type inference (see e.g. [Emele and Zajac, 1990]) or the use of synchronous tree adjoining grammars (see [Shieber and Schabes, 1990] but only under a formal or principle aspect because this would exceed the scope of this work. 2.3.1 The Uniform Architecture of Shieber The first and most prominent attempt to specify a uniform architecture ....

M. C. Emele and R. Zajac. Typed unification grammars. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING), pages 293-298, Helsinki, 1990.

....linguistic theory and on the programming language which is used for the implementation. The first question in grammar encoding is which descriptive tools are made available by the given grammar formalism, i.e. by the implementation language. If you use languages like CUF, Prolog [8] or TFS [12] [13], 61] then what you have is essentially a way to The grammar can be obtained via anonymous ftp. Please ask the author for details. HPSG recursion on c structure subcat. principle nonlocal feature principle sem. principle etc. LFG recursion on c structure completeness coherence functional ....

Martin Emele and R'emi Zajac. Typed unification grammars. In Proceedings of 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Helsinki, Finland, 1990.

....determined in terms of the interaction of such principles. Care is taken that both the statement and the interaction of principles can be formulated in a modular fashion. Computational implementations of HPSG can be roughly classified along to the following lines: some implementations (e.g. TFS [ Zajac, 1990 ] CUF [ Dorre and Dorna, 1993 ] are based on general constraint resolution techniques where HPSG principles are all interpreted alike as constraints a representation associated with a linguistic expression has to satisfy. Another group of implementations (e.g. ALE [ Carpenter and Penn, 1994 ] ....

M. Zajac, R. amd Emele. Typed unification grammars. In COLING 90, pages 293--298, Helsinki, 1990. 5

....satisfy the query and enumerate all possibilities. The algorithm proposed in Carpenter (1992, Chapter 15) is an example for this method. It is implemented in the type constraint part of the ALE 2. 0 system (Carpenter and Penn 1994) Another computational system which can proceed in this way is TFS (Emele and Zajac 1990). 1 Since such systems give full models as answers to queries, no additional knowledge of the signature or theory is needed to interpret the answers. While enumerating models is a correct way to check grammaticality, it has a severe disadvantage: The answers are not compact in the sense that ....

Emele, Martin, and R'emi Zajac. 1990. Typed Unification Grammars. In Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING), ed. Hans Karlgreen. Helsinki.

....Muller, 1995, and others) or by extending the feature logic so as to permit stating linear precedence constraints directly as proposed by Manandhar (1995) To process HPSG grammars, a wide variety of computational systems has been developed. As with GPSG, there are direct approaches such as TFS (Emele and Zajac, 1990) or ConTroll (Gotz and Meurers, 1997a,b) attempting to process the formalism as specified in linguistics. In these systems, an HPSG implementation simply consist of a signature declaring the domain of objects and a theory of usually implicational statements constraining this domain. While the ....

Emele, Martin and Zajac, Remi (1990). Typed Unification Grammars. In H. Karlgreen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING-90). Helsinki.

....of the grammar. The reader interested in further practical aspects of our system is referred to (Gotz and Meurers 1997) Comparison with previous work There are quite a number of typed feature systems available today, among them ale (Carpenter and Penn 1994) cuf (Dorre and Dorna 1993) and tfs (Emele and Zajac 1990; Emele 1994) tfs also offered type constraints and relations and to our knowledge was the first working typed feature systems. However, it had some serious drawbacks. tfs did not allow universal principles with complex antecedents, but only type constraints. And the system did not include a ....

Emele, M. C. and R. Zajac (1990). Typed unification grammars. In Proceedings of the 13 th International Conference on Computational Linguistics.

....project of the German National Science Foundation DFG. nor a pure lexicalist approach a genuine and efficient HPSG interpreter seems to be still being searched for. The direct interpretation of an HPSG grammar by a successive refinement of its phrase structure schemata as it has been suggested in [5] corresponds to a top down parser, whose deficiencies are well known since the early age of top down interpreted Definite Clause Grammars: A phrase structure schema may be inserted (possibly infinitly many times) although its applicability is restricted or even excluded by the input string (e.g. ....

Martin Emele and R'emi Zajac. Typed unification grammars. In Proceedings of 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Helsinki, Finland, 1990.

....uniform architecture is due to [ Shieber, 1988 ] In his approach he follows the paradigm of linguistic processing as deduction introduced by [ Pereira and Warren, 1983 ] in the case of parsing. Currently there are also approaches that view parsing and generation as type rewriting (cf. Emele and Zajac, 1990 ] Carpenter, 1992 ] The advantage of a uniform approach is that inconsistency in the language behaviour can be avoided because either the restrictions are the same for both tasks or not. The main disadvantage which is often claimed, is that it is yet unclear whether and how these systems ....

....item sharing approach which is necessary for achieving an efficient and practical interleaving of parsing and generation. We also do not consider approaches, that describe alternative approaches of uniform processing, for example, the view of parsing and generation as type inference (see e.g. Emele and Zajac, 1990 ] or the use of synchronous tree adjoining grammars (see [ Shieber and Schabes, 1990 ] but only under a formal or principle aspect because this would exceed the scope of this work. 2.3.1 The Uniform Architecture of Shieber The first and most prominent attempt to specify a uniform ....

M. C. Emele and R. Zajac. Typed unification grammars. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING), pages 293--298, Helsinki, 1990. 218

....We should probably emphasize right at the beginning of this report that we borrowed the definitions of these notions from Gerdemann (1995) the most explicit work on this topic (within NLP) that we came across. 2 TFS 2. 1 Introduction The Typed Feature Structure representation formalism, cf. Emele and Zajac (1990b) and Zajac (1992) was developed by Martin Emele and R emi Zajac within the German Polygloss project at IMS, University of Stuttgart. The following description presents briefly the main ideas of the system, Emele (1993) The Typed Feature Structure (TFS) representation formalism is an attempt to ....

....be able to deal with such structures. 47 (105) 1 type attr 1 The only systems that do not allow cyclic structures are ALEP (Genabith et al. 1994, p. 98) and CUF. 48 Most other systems explicitly mention this possibility, e.g. Carpenter and Penn, 1994, p. 9) Erbach, 1994a, p. 8) or (Emele and Zajac, 1990a) 10.2.7 Definite Relations and Macros For the purpose of this subsection, we take recursiveness as the main difference between definite clauses and macros, i.e. macros, which do not allow recursive calls, can be compiled out during the compile time, while definite clauses generally have to be ....

Emele, M. C. and Zajac, R. (1990b). Typed unification grammars. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, COLING-90, pages 293--298.

....are usually employed for both grammar development and linguistic processing, e. g, LFG (Bresnan, 1982) PATR (Shieber, Uszkoreit, et al. 1983) ALE (Carpenter, 1992) STUF (Bouma, Koenig, et al. 1988) ALEP (Alshawi, Arnold, et al. 1991) CLE (Alshawi, 1992) TDL (Krieger Schaefer, 1994) TFS (Emele Zajac, 1990). One essential ingredient of all these formalisms is complex formal descriptions of grammatical units (words, phrases, sentences) by means of sets of attribute value pairs, so called feature terms. These feature terms can be nested, i.e. values can be atomic symbols or feature terms. Feature ....

Emele, M. and Zajac, R. (1990). Typed unification grammars. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Association for Computational Linguistics.

....satisfy the query and enumerate all possibilities. The algorithm proposed in Carpenter (1992, Chapter 15) is an example for this method. It is implemented in the type constraint part of the ALE 2. 0 system (Carpenter and Penn 1994) Another computational system which can proceed in this way is TFS (Emele and Zajac 1990). 1 Since such systems give full models as answers to queries, no additional knowledge of the signature or theory is needed to interpret the answers. While enumerating models is a correct way to check grammaticality, it has a severe disadvantage: The answers are not compact in the sense that ....

Emele, M. and R. Zajac (1990). Typed unification grammars. In H. Karlgreen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING), Helsinki.

No context found.

Martin Emele, Rdmi Zajac: "Typed Unification Grammars.", in: Proceedings of COLINC-90, 1990, this volume

....terms of the space required for the copies themselves. The algorithm has been implemented in Common Lisp and runs on various workstation architectures. It is used as the essential oper ation in the implementation of the interpreter for the Typed Features Structure System (TFS [Emele Zajac 90a, Emele Zajac 90b] The for malism of TFS is based on the notion of inher itance and sets of constraints that categories of the sort signature must satisfy. The formalism supports to express directly principles and generalizations of linguistic theories as they are formulated for example in the framework of ....

Martin C. Emele and Rmi Zajac. Typed unification grammars. In Proceed- ings o,f 13 th International Conference on Com- putational Linguistics, COLINC-90, Helsinki, August 1990.

....in terms of the space required for the copies themselves. The algorithm has been implemented in Common Lisp and runs on various workstation architectures. It is used as the essential operation in the implementation of the interpreter for the Typed Features Structure System (TFS [Emele Zajac 90a, Emele Zajac 90b] The formalism of TFS is based on the notion of inheritance and sets of constraints that categories of the sort signature must satisfy. The formalism supports to express directly principles and generalizations of linguistic theories as they are formulated for example in the framework of HPSG ....

Martin C. Emele and R'emi Zajac. Typed unification grammars. In Proceedings of 13 th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, COLING-90, Helsinki, August 1990.

No context found.

M.C. Emele and R. Zajac: "Typed unification grammars". In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference in Computational Linguistics (CoLing90), ed. H. Karlgren, Helsinki, August.

No context found.

EMELE, M.C., & R. ZAJAC. 1990. Typed unification grammars. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Helsinki.

No context found.

Martin Emele and Rmi Zajac. Typed unification grammars. In Proceedings o! the lgth International Conference on Computational Lingrustics, Vol. ,5, pages 293-298, 1990.

No context found.

M. Emelc aud R. Zajac. Typed unification grammars. In Proceedings of the 13lb International Conference on Computational Linguistics, COLINC 9D, pages 29;I 298, lIclsinki, 1990.

No context found.

Martin C. Emele and Remi Zajac. Typed unification grammars. In COLING-90 [209], pages 293--298.

No context found.

Martin C. Emele and R'emi Zajac. 1990. Typed unification grammars. In Proceedings of the 13 th International Conference on Computational Linguistics.

No context found.

Emele, M. C. and Zajac, R. (1990). Typed unification grammars. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Helsinki, Finland.

No context found.

Emele, Martin and Remi Zajac. 1990. Typed unification grammars. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Helsinki.

First 50 documents

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