Shieber, Stuart and Yves Schabes. 1990. Synchronous Tree Adjoining Grammars. In Proceedings of the 13 th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING '90), Helsinki, Finland.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

.... watashi which is a translation of I. Then a correct translation watashi ha takusi ni noru is generated. 5 Discussion Unlike most of existing MT approaches that consist of three major components[l, 2] analysis, transfer, and generation the pattern based MT is based on a synchronous model[5, 3] of transla tion. That is, the analysis of a source sentence is directly connected to the generation of a target sentence through the translation knowledge (i.e. patterns) This simple architecture makes it much easier to customize a system for improving translation quality than the conventional ....

Shieber, S. M., and Schabes Y., "Synchronous TreeAdjoining Grammars," Proc. of the 13th COLING, pp. 253-258, August 1990.

....match a source language parse tree can be used to generate a target language parse tree from their set of right hand sides, which produces a translation of the source tree. This translation technique resembles previous work on machine translation using synchronous Tree Adjoining Grammars (cf. [17], 1] The Proteus translation system learns transfer rules from pairs of aligned source and target regularized parses, Proteus s representation of predicate argument structure. The system uses the transfer rules described in this paper to map source language regularized parses generated by our ....

Stuart Shieber and Yves Schabes. Synchronous Tree-Adjoining Grammars. In Proceedings of Coling 1990: The 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, 1990.

....degrees of generality. See, e.g. 1] 30] 60] 63] 65] 75] 78] 79] 80] 81] 179] 209] 211] 225] One such system is the LTAG system [1] for English French and FrenchEnglish. The system is a transfer approach that uses synchronous treeadjoining grammars (as described in [192]) to map shallow tree adjoining grammar (TAG) 113] derivations from one language onto another. The mapping is performed by means of a bilingual lexicon which directly associates source and target trees through links between lexical items and their arguments. Roughly, each bilingual entry contains ....

S.M. Shieber and Y.Schabes. Synchronous Tree Adjoining Grammars. In Proceedings of Thirteenth International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 253--258, Helsinki, Finland, 1990.

....of generality. See, e.g. 1] 30] 60] 63] 65] 70] 75] 78] 79] 80] 81] 181] 211] 213] 227] One such system is the LTAG system [1] for English French and FrenchEnglish. The system is a transfer approach that uses synchronous treeadjoining grammars (as described in [194]) to map shallow tree adjoining grammar (TAG) 113] derivations from one language onto another. The mapping is performed by means of a bilingual lexicon which directly associates source and target trees through links between lexical items and their arguments. Roughly, each bilingual entry contains ....

S.M. Shieber and Y.Schabes. Synchronous Tree Adjoining Grammars. In Proceedings of Thirteenth International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 253--258, Helsinki, Finland, 1990.

....to (i) analyze the word order and figure out which sign order is more appropriate, and (ii) generate the glosses and embed parameters indicating grammatical information, such as sentence types, facial expressions, and mor phological information. We use a Synchronous Tree Adjoining Grammar (STAG) [21, 20] for mapping this information from English to ASL. A sign synthesizer is employed for the second step. It assumes that the embedded glosses representation is already in correct sign order with appropriately assigned grammatical and morphological parameters. For each sign, it first uses the gloss ....

....system for translating between English sentences and ASL glosses. A Tree Adjoining Grammar (TAG) is a tree rewriting system [14] the primitive elements of which are elementary trees (see Figure 2) In a Lexicalized TAG, these elementary trees are anchored by lexical items, such as nouns and verbs [21]. The elementary trees also have argument positions for the subjects and objects of verbs, adjectives, and other predicates, which constrain the way they can be combined, and which determine the predicate argument structure of the input sentence. Elementary trees are combined by the operations of ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Stuart Shieber and Yves Schabes. Synchronous tree adjoining grammars. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING '90), Helsinki, Finland, August 1990.

.... PG is similar to recent versions of TAG (cf. e.g. Joshi et al. 91] in several important respects: it uses lexicalized initial trees (including substitution trees) it generates derived trees synchronously linked to conceptual structures described in the same formalism (as in Synchronous TAGs [Shieber, Schabes 90] and it factors dominance relationships and linear precedence in surface structure trees ( Joshi 87] PG differs from recent TAG versions in that the adjoining operation and auxiliary trees are absent. Adjunction is replaced by a combination of substitution the only composition ....

Shieber, S.M., Schabes, Y. (1990). Synchronous Tree-Adjoining Grammars. In: Karlgren, H. (Ed.), COLING-90: Papers presented to the 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Helsinki.

....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 for parsing and generation has been made in [Shieber, 1988] In particular, Shieber ....

....at least in the case of adverbial modifiers. Thus using the modification above, it would not be possible to process a sentence like heute erzaehlt peter gerne luegen . But then, we have to live with the original verb second rule. We now present a solution which is similar to the one presented in [Shieber et al. 1990]. Our approach 13We assume that only the empty head rule has this feature, and that other empty rules do not. 97 works as follows. When the predictor is applied on a selected element, that could predict the empty head rule, then after unification with the (restricted) selected element but before ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

S. M. Shieber and Y. Schabes. Synchronous tree- adjoining grammars. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Com- putational Linguistics (COLING), Helsinki, 1990. 200

....and when adjoining a tree the new semantic representation is applied to the old one. This contrasts with traditional approaches where each node in the syntactic structure is associated with a semantic representation. Although this insight has been present from the beginning of the work on LTAG (Shieber Schabes 1990) a systematic formulation was begun only recently by Joshi and Vijay Shanker (1999) One of their goals was to investigate the role of underspeci cation in compositional semantics; they suggested that LTAG derivation trees provide just the right amount of underspeci cation necessary for scope ....

Shieber, S. M. & Schabes, Y.: 1990, Synchronous Tree-Adjoining Grammars, Proceedings of COLING, pp. 253-258.

....integrating lexico syntactic and semantic properties, which is of special importance in the case of connectives because syntactic cues function also as semantic cues. We propose to describe the interrelation between syntax and semantics in a modified version of the formalism of synchronous TAGs (Shieber Schabes 1990), which allows one (i) to factor the interacting constraints (a general property of TAGs) ii) to express the interplay between syntax and semantics (a general property of synchronous TAGs) iii) to take into account a richer, non local semantics (a property of the formalism we consider) As ....

....a natural candidate is a synchronization mechanism, in which syntactic composition and semantic construction are paired, whenever possible and desirable. 4. 1 Synchronous TAGs TAGs offer the possibility of synchronizing syntactic and semantic operations in the formalism of synchronous TAGs (Shieber and Schabes 1990, Shieber 1994, Rambow and Satta 1996) However, there are two general limits to the mechanism of synchronous TAGs, whatever version of it we choose. 12 The problem is actually more general, since such variations exist for many presuppositional conjunctions, e.g. puisque (since) comme (as) ....

Shieber, Stuart M., and Yves Schabes. 1990. Synchronous Tree--Adjoining Grammars. In 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, 253-- 258.

....formalism for analysis and generation. Somewhat simplified, and in the terminology of TAGs (cf. Joshi Schabes, 1997) PG defines lexically anchored initial trees and generates derived trees synchronously linked to conceptual structures described in the same formalism (as in Synchronous TAGs; Shieber Schabes, 1990) and it factors dominance relationships and linear precedence in surface structure trees (Joshi, 1987) PG differs from recent TAG versions in that there are no auxiliary trees, and that adjunction is replaced by a combination of substitution the only composition operation and finite state ....

SHIEBER, S.M., SCHABES, Y. (1990). Synchronous Tree-Adjoining Grammars. Procs. of COLING-90, Helsinki.

....processing, we further assume that Webber s LTAG for discourse is modi ed in two ways. First, the structures associated by the grammar with the discourse units are descriptions of trees rather than trees. Second, the syntax semantic interface is made precise by using a synchronous LTAG (Shieber and Schabes, 1990) i.e. two LTAGs, one for the syntax and one for the semantics, which are interfaced via a synchronisation relation. In short, the grammar framework we are assuming is a discourse variant of Kallmeyer s Synchronous Local Tree Description Grammar (Kallmeyer, 1998; Kallmeyer, 1999) We assume a ....

Shieber, S. and Y. Schabes: 1990, `Synchronous Tree Adjoining Grammars'. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Helsinki.

....variable. Since we wish to generate scripts in languages that do not support lambda expressions, we prefer to use a transfer formalism that allows its compositional units to explicitly wrap around each other in the same way. For this purpose, we have adapted Synchronous Tree Adjoining Grammars [27, 29, 30], which makes use of the wrapping operation of adjunction in Tree Adjoining Grammar to translate natural language instructions in English into executable scripts in Python. The implementation of variable references described above is based on the TAG treatment of compositional semantics, and ....

Shieber, S. and Y. Schabes. 1990. Synchronous tree adjoining grammars. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Helsinki, Finland.

....with only synchronous parallelism and it is interesting to note that these L systems have the anti#AFL property #where none of the standard closures apply#. 4 CFG is a formalism that only has independent parallelism. 2 3 LSTAG We #rst look at the formalism of Synchronous TAG #STAG##Shieber and Schabes# 1990# since it is an example of a tree#rewriting system that has synchronized parallelism. As a preliminary we #rst informally de#ne Tree Adjoining Grammars #TAG#. For example# Figure 1 shows an example of a tree for a transitive verb cooked. Each node in the tree has a unique address obtained by ....

Shieber# Stuart and Yves Schabes. 1990. Synchronous Tree Adjoining Grammars. In Proceedings of the 13 th International Conference on Computational Linguistics #COLING#90## Helsinki# Finland.

....V P N P N N N V P N P D N P a b c e g f d V eat to cat with the without N red A N N V V P P N N P P i speak with about V V h Adv Adv ne pas Figure 1. Examples of elementary trees grammars representing semantic and pragmatic constraints of the application [8]. We are currently designing and testing a lexicon following these principles and based on the GOCAD corpus [6] This lexicon is used now with a parser able to exploit partially this enrichment and to perform local analyses and will be coupled with a speech recognition module. ....

Stuart Shieber and Yves Schabes, `Synchronous Tree Adjoining Grammars', in COLING, volume 3, pp. 253--260, Helsinki, (1990). Computational Linguistics and Ontologies 200 Patrice Lopez

.... Synchronous Tree Adjoining Grammars Synchronous TAGs are a variant of TAGs introduced by [Sheiber and Schabes, 1990] to characterize correspondences between tree adjoining languages. They can be used for relating TAGs for two different languages for the purpose of machine translation [Abeille et al. 1990] or for relating a syntactic TAG and a semantic one for the same language [Sheiber and Schabes, 1990, ....

....by [Sheiber and Schabes, 1990] to characterize correspondences between tree adjoining languages. They can be used for relating TAGs for two different languages for the purpose of machine translation [Abeille et al. 1990] or for relating a syntactic TAG and a semantic one for the same language [Sheiber and Schabes, 1990, Abeille, 1992] for the purpose of generation [Sheiber and Schabes, 1991] or semantic analysis. For example, consider the synchronous transfer between grammars of English and French. Although the approach is not directional, call English the source and French the target language. The transfer ....

Stuart Sheiber and Yves Schabes. Synchronous tree adjoining grammars. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING '90), Helsinki, August 1990. Association for Computational Linguistics. 7

....to build and extend, they must be structured in a more modular fashion. For instance, the factoring of phrase structure information postulated in the so called treeadjoining grammar formalism can eliminate the need for many of the constraints found in more traditional constraint based formalisms [99]. Our research (funded in part by U S WEST Advanced Technologies and NSF) will make use of the computational infrastructure requested in this proposal in several ways. ffl The computations necessary to enable statistical natural language analysis require large quantities of data and tremendous ....

Stuart M. Shieber and Yves Schabes. Synchronous tree-adjoining grammars. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 1--6, 1990.

.... Bishop, Cote and Schabes [Abeill e et al..1990] Abeill e [Abeill e1988] Schabes and Waters [Schabes and Waters1995] Rambow, Vijay Shanker and Weir [Rambow et al..1995] Joshi and Srinivas [Joshi and Srinivas1994] Rambow [Rambow1994] Vijay Shanker [Vijay Shanker1992] Shieber and Schabes [Shieber and Schabes1990] A reader interested in TAGs will find these papers very useful. Additional useful references will be found in the Special Issue of Computational Intelligence (November 1994) CI1994] devoted to TreeAdjoining Grammars. A wide coverage lexicalized TAG grammar for English (about 300,000 inflected ....

....skeletons, those with TAG skeletons need only finite valued features due to EDL and FRD, thus reducing the role of unification as compared to CFG based systems [Joshi et al..1991] 9. 2 Synchronous TAGs Synchronous TAGs are a variant of TAGs, which characterize correspondences between languages [Shieber and Schabes1990] Using EDL and FRD, synchronous TAGs allow the application of TAGs beyond syntax to the task of semantic interpretation, language generation and automatic translation. The task of interpretation consists of associating a syntactic analysis of a sentence with some other structure a logical form ....

Stuart Shieber and Yves Schabes. 1990. Synchronous Tree-Adjoining Grammars. In Proceedings of the 13 th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING'90), Helsinki, Finland, August.

No context found.

Shieber, Stuart and Yves Schabes. 1990. Synchronous Tree Adjoining Grammars. In Proceedings of the 13 th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING '90), Helsinki, Finland.

No context found.

S. M. Shieber and Y. Schabes. 1990. Synchronous treeadjoining grammars. In ACL, pages 253--258.

No context found.

SHIEBER, S. M., AND SCHABES, Y. Synchronous tree-adjoining grammars. In COLING'90 (1990), vol. 1, pp. 1--6.

No context found.

Shieber, S. & Y. Schabes. 1990. Synchronous Tree-Adjoining Grammars. COLING-90, 253-- 258.

No context found.

Stuart M. Shieber and Yves Schabes. 1990. Synchronous tree-adjoining grammars. The Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 253 -- 258.

No context found.

Stuart M. Shieber and Yves Schabes. Synchronous tree-adjoining grammars. In COLING90

No context found.

Stuart Sheiber and Yves Schabes. Synchronous tree adjoining grammars. In Pro# ceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics #COL# ING #90## Helsinki# August 1990. Association for Computational Linguistics.

No context found.

Shieber S., Schabes Y. Synchronous Tree Adjoining Grammars. In COLING, volume 3, p. 253-- 260, Helsinki (1990).

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