Joshi, A. K.: 1987b, Tree adjoining grammars: How much contextsensitivity is required ro provide reasonable structural descriptions?, in D. Dowty, L. Karttunen and A. Zwicky (eds), Narural Language Parsing, Cambridge University Press.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....from that shown above which uses context free rules. The approach uses the notion of tree rewriting as defined in the Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammar (LTAG) formalism (Joshi and Schabes, 1992) 1 which re 1 This is a lexicalized version of Tree Adjoining Grammar (Joshi et al. 1975; Joshi, 1985). tains the notion of lexicalization that is crucial in the success of a statistical parser while permitting a simple definition of tag dictionary. For example, the parse in Figure 1 can be generated by assigning the structured labels shown in Figure 2 to each word in the sentence (for ....

A. K. Joshi. 1985. Tree Adjoining Grammars: How much context Sensitivity is required to provide a reasonable structural description. In D. Dowty, I. Karttunen, and A. Zwicky, editors, Natural Language Pars i ng, pages 206--250. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

....could also be used for a more sophisticated distributed configuration of the agents model. In Silva s model there is a possibility of agentification inside the syntactical agent, though this fact comes more from the formalism used to implement the syntactical agent (Tree Adjoining Grammar [JOSH 85] which contemplates negotiation phases in order to construct the syntactic tree) than the syntactic analysis task itself (other formalisms could lead to different considerations) 5.4 Knowledge distribution among the agents In Paiva s model the agents are reasonably simple, resembling ....

JOSHI, A., Tree adjoining grammars: How much context sensitivity is required to provide reasonable structural descriptions. In: D.R. Dowty, L. Kartutunen and A. Zwicky, eds., Natural Language Parsing, Cambridge Press, 1985.

....units easily accessible to later levels of processing not just basic grammatical elements like subject noun and verb group, but more complex relations like nominal apposition as well. Punctuation marks are treated as full fledged lexical items in a Feature Based Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammar (Joshi, 1985; Schabes, 1990; Vijay Shanker Joshi, 1991) The localization of both syntactic and semantic dependencies provides an elegant framework for encoding punctuation in the sentence grammar. The elementary units of LTAG are of a suitable size for stating most of the constraints we are interested in, ....

JOSHI A. K. (1985). Tree Adjoining Grammars: How much context Sensitivity is required to provide a reasonable structural description. In D. DOWTY, I. KARTTUNEN & A. ZWICKY, Eds., Natural Language Parsing, p. 206--250. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

....on T. T q (npwh which (optap epsilon) n computer) q (vfa did) np (pnposs (pn john) vp (dv write) np (det the) nposs (n program) optpp epsilon) optrel epsilon) pp (p on) np gap) Fig. 5. A Sample Interaction With The Large Lolli Definite Clause Grammar. Grammars [14, 15]. It is a legitimate question to ask then, what is the computational complexity of the formalism underlying these parsers. At present we are prepared to provide only a partial answer. It is well known that fragments of propositional linear logic are far more complex than equivalent fragments of ....

Aravind K. Joshi. Tree adjoining grammars: How much context-sensitivity is required to provide reasonable structural description? In David Dowty, Lauri Karttunen, and Arnold Zwicky, editors, Natural language processing: psycholinguistic, computational and theoretical perspectives, pages 206--250. Cambridge University Press, New York, 1983.

....and Joshi, 1991#. Tree Adjoining Languages fall into the class of mildly context sensitive languages, and as such are more powerful than context free languages. The TAG formalism in general, and lexicalized TAGs in particular, are well suited for linguistic applications. As #rst shown by Joshi #1985# and Kroch and Joshi #1987#, the properties of TAGs permit one to encapsulate diverse syntactic phenomena in a very natural way. The XTAG grammar development system makes limited use of feature structures which can be attached to nodes in the trees that make up a grammar. Typically, feature ....

Joshi, Aravind K. 1985. Tree Adjoining Grammars: Howmuch context Sensitivity is required to provide a reasonable structural description. In D. Dowty, I. Karttunen, and A. Zwicky, editors, Natural Language Parsing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., pages 206#250.

....task based on a variety of pragmatic factors, and will not be discussed in this paper. 3 Analysis of Input Our approach to the analysis stage of simplification uses rich syntactic information, based on a simple dependency representation provided by Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammar (LTAG) [Joshi, 1985], Schabes et al., 1988] and uses the supertagging techniques described in [Joshi and Srinivas, 1994] In this 4 Knowledge Based Systems, 10(1997) 183 190 section, for convenience, we outline the basics of LTAG, supertagging and related ideas. 3.1 Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammars The basic ....

....described in [Joshi and Srinivas, 1994] In this 4 Knowledge Based Systems, 10(1997) 183 190 section, for convenience, we outline the basics of LTAG, supertagging and related ideas. 3. 1 Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammars The basic elements of Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammar (LTAG) [Joshi, 1985; Schabes et al., 1988; Kroch and Joshi, 1985] are called elementary trees. Each elementary tree is associated with at least one lexical item called the anchor of that tree. All the arguments of the anchor are realized as substitution or adjunction slots within an elementary tree. Thus an ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Joshi, AK. Tree Adjoining Grammars: How much context sensitivity is required to provide a reasonable structural description, In D Dowty, I Karttunen and A Zwicky (eds.), Natural Language Parsing, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1985.

....and Joshi, 1991) Tree Adjoining Languages fall into the class of mildly context sensitive languages, and as such are more powerful than context free languages. The TAG formalism in general, and lexicalized TAGs in particular, are well suited for linguistic applications. As first shown by Joshi (1985) and Kroch and Joshi (1987) the properties of TAGs permit one to encapsulate diverse syntactic phenomena in a very natural way. The XTAG grammar development system makes limited use of feature structures which can be attached to nodes in the trees that make up a grammar. Typically, feature ....

Joshi, Aravind K. 1985. Tree Adjoining Grammars: How much context Sensitivity is required to provide a reasonable structural description. In D. Dowty, I. Karttunen, and A. Zwicky, editors, Natural Language Parsing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., pages 206--250.

....reaching the onset of chaos via period doubling. They have shown that these systems are not regular, but are finitely described by Indexed Context Free Grammars. It may, of course, be just be a coincidence that several modern computational linguistic grammatical theories also fall in this class (Joshi, 1985; Joshi et al. 1989; Pollard, 1984) In conclusion, I have merely illuminated the possibility of the existence of a naturalistic alternative to explicit recursive rules as a description for the complexity of language. Such a mathematical description would be compact, parsimonious in fact, ....

Joshi, A. K. (1985). Tree Adjoining Grammars: How much context-sensitivity is required to provide reasonable structural descriptions?. In D. R. Dowty, L. Karttunen & A. M. Zwicky, (Eds.), Natural Language Parsing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

....as well as syntactically. Frequently a representational choice is simplified by this ability to use semantic knowledge, thus capturing complex constraints on a construction s constituents, in a sort of semantic analogue to the complex syntactic constraints expressible in a theory like TAG (Joshi 1985). But Lakoff (1987) Fillmore et al. 1988) and Kay (1990) have argued that allowing semantic and pragmatic constraints on constructions is more than just a representational simplification. They present constructions which cannot be correctly described without semantic and pragmatic contraints. ....

JOSHI, ARAVIND K. 1985. Tree adjoining grammars: how much context-sensitivity is required to provide reasonable structural descriptions? In Natural Language Parsing, ed. by David R. Dowty, Lauri Kartunnen, & Arnold Zwicky, 206--250. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

....uses rich syntactic information, that combines constituency and dependency information. We use partial parsing and simple dependency attachment techniques for fast and robust parsing. This model is based on a simple dependency representation provided by Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammar (LTAG) [Joshi, 1985], Schabes et al., 1988] and uses the supertagging techniques described in [Joshi and Srinivas, 1994] The elementary trees of LTAG localize dependencies, including long distance dependencies, by requiring that all and only the dependent elements be present within the same tree. As a result of ....

Joshi, AK. Tree Adjoining Grammars: How much context sensitivity is required to provide a reasonable structural description, In D Dowty, I Karttunen and A Zwicky (eds.), Natural Language Parsing, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1985. 12

.... memberships expressed as semantic features as a means of capturing generalizations about manner of motion verbs in Synchronous Tree Adjoining Grammars, STAGs, Shieber and Schabes, 1990; Shieber and Schabes, 1991) which characterize transductions between Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammars, LTAG, (Joshi, 1985; Schabes et al. 1988) Our approach allows STAGs, which are essentially transfer based, to take advantage of the same types of generalizations which are generally thought of as wholly the domain of interlingua systems, without giving up any of the lexical specificity unique to transferbased ....

Joshi, A. K. (1985). Tree Adjoining Grammars: How much context Sensitivity is required to provide a reasonable structural description. In Dowty, D., Karttunen, I., and Zwicky, A., editors, Natural Language Parsing, pages 206--250. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

....[15] Tree Adjoining Languages (TALs) fall into the class of mildly context sensitive languages, and as such are strictly more powerful than context free languages. The TAG formalism in general, and lexicalized TAGs in particular, are well suited for linguistic applications. As first shown by [9] and [13] the properties of TAGs permit us to encapsulate diverse syntactic phenomena in a very natural way. For example, TAG s extended domain of locality and its factoring of recursion from local dependencies lead to a localization of so called unbounded dependencies. The primitive elements of ....

Aravind K. Joshi. Tree Adjoining Grammars: How much context sensitivity is required to provide a reasonable structural description. In D. Dowty, I. Karttunen, and A. Zwicky, editors, Natural LanguageParsing,pages 206--250.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 1985.

....mildly modified. Chapter 2 The Formalism of TAGs Tree Adjoining Grammars (TAGs) were first developed by Joshi, Levy, and Takahashi[26] As first shown by Joshi and Kroch, the properties of TAGs permit us to encapsulate diverse syntactic phenomena such as unbounded dependencies in a natural way[25][29] A Tree Adjoining Grammar consists of a quintuple ( Sigma; NT ; I; A; S) where Sigma is a finite set of terminal symbols, NT is a finite set of non terminal symbols, S is a distinguished nonterminal symbol, I is a finite set of finite trees, called initial trees, and A is a finite set of ....

....type structures (e.g. SP NP N ) will be used for all the three arguments. 5.3 Handling of Scrambling in Other Formalisms MCTAG MCSG HG LIG CCG TAG GPSG Figure 5. 12: MCSG relations Joshi showed how TAGs factor recursion and the domain of dependencies, leading to the localization of dependencies[25]. Their long distance behavior follows from the operation of composition, which is called adjunction. He points out that TAGs have more power than CFGs, and this extra power is a corollary of factorization of recursion and the domain of dependencies. He proposed that the class of grammars that is ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Aravind K. Joshi. Tree Adjoining Grammars: How much context Sensitivity is required to provide a reasonable structural description. In D. Dowty, I. Karttunen, and A. Zwicky, editors, Natural Language Parsing, pages 206--250. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 1985.

....the computational complexity of dynamical systems reaching the onset of chaos via period doubling. They have shown that these systems are not regular, but are finitely described by indexed context free grammars. Several modern computational linguistic grammatical theories fall in this class (Joshi 1985, Pollard 1984) 1.2 Language and Its Acquisition Certainly one of the most important questions for the study of human language is: How do people unfailingly manage to acquire such a complex rule system A system so complex that it has resisted the efforts of linguists to date to adequately ....

Joshi, A. K. (1985), Tree adjoining grammars: how much context-sensitivity is required to provide reasonable structural descriptions?, in L. K. D. R. Dowty & A. M. Zwicky, eds, `Natural Language Parsing', Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

.... ff5 NP Bill Figure 8: LTAG: Sample elementary trees ff2 S NP(wh)# S NP# VP V NP likes ffl fi1 S NP# VP V S think fi2 S V S does ff3 NP who ff4 NP Harry ff5 NP Bill substitution adjoining Figure 9: LTAG derivation for who does Bill think Harry likes sensitive grammars (Joshi (1985)) Contextfree languages (CFL) are properly contained in the class of languages of LTAG, which in turn are properly contained in the class of contextsensitive languages. There is a machine characterization of TAG (LTAG) called embedded pushdown automaton (EPDA) Vijay Shanker (1987) i.e. for ....

Joshi A. K. (1985). Tree-adjoining grammars: How much context sensitivity is required to provide reasonable structural descriptions? In D.

.... The Feature Based Tree Adjoining Grammar formalism (FB LTAG) is based on the Tree Adjoining Grammar (TAG) formalism developed by Joshi, Levy, and Takahashi [9] which has been extended to include lexicalization [15] and unification based feature structures [19] As first shown by Joshi and Kroch [8, 11], the properties of TAGs permit us to encapsulate diverse syntactic phenomena such as unbounded dependencies in a very natural way. The primitive elements of the standard TAG formalism are known as elementary trees. Elementary trees are of two types: initial trees and auxiliary trees. In ....

Aravind K. Joshi. Tree Adjoining Grammars: How much context sensitivity is required to provide a reasonable structural description. In D. Dowty, I. Karttunen, and A. Zwicky, editors, Natural Language Parsing, pages 206--250. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 1985.

No context found.

Joshi, A. K.: 1987b, Tree adjoining grammars: How much contextsensitivity is required ro provide reasonable structural descriptions?, in D. Dowty, L. Karttunen and A. Zwicky (eds), Narural Language Parsing, Cambridge University Press.

No context found.

A.K. Joshi. Tree Adjoining Grammars: How much context sensitivity is required to provide a reasonable structural description. In I. Karttunen D. Dowty and A. Zwicky, editors, Natural Language Parsing, pages 206--250, Cambridge, U.K., 1985. Cambridge University Press.

No context found.

Joshi, A., \Tree adjoining grammars: How much context-sensitivity is required to provide reasonable structural description?" in [2], 1985, pp. 206-250. 11

No context found.

Joshi, A. K., Tree adjoining grammars: How much context-sensitivity is required to provide reasonable structural description, in: D. Dowty, L. Karttunen and A. Zwicky, editors, Natural Language Parsing, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1985 pp. 206--250.

No context found.

Joshi, A. (1985), "Tree Adjoining Grammars: How Much Context Sensitivity is Required to Provide Reasonable Structural Descriptions?" in D. Dowty, L. Karttunen, and A.

No context found.

Aravind K. Joshi. 1985. Tree Adjoining Grammars: How much context Sensitivity is required to provide a reasonable structural description.

No context found.

Aravind K. Joshi, Tree adjoining grammars: How much contextsensitivity is required to provide reasonable structural descriptions? Editors: D.Dowty,L. Karttuhen, A. Zwicky, Natural Language Parsing pages 206 - 250 Cambridge University Press, 1985

No context found.

Aravind K. Joshi, 1985, "Tree Adjoining Grammars : How much context sensitivity is required to provide a reasonable structural description," Natural Language Parsing, pp. 206-250, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

No context found.

Joshi, A. K.: 1987b, Tree adjoining grammars: How much contextsensitivity is required ro provide reasonable structural descriptions?, in D. Dowty, L. Karttunen and A. Zwicky (eds), Narural Language Parsing, Cambridge University Press.

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