Gazdar, G., Phrase Structure Grammar, D. Reidel, 1982, pp. 131-186.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....RECURSION AND DEPENDENCIES: AN ASPECT OF TREE ADJOINING GRAMMARS (TAG) AND A COMPARISON OF SOME FORMAL PROPERTIES OF TAGS, GIGS, PLGS, AND LPGS Aravind K. Joshi Department of Computer and Information Science R. 268 Moore School University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA 19104 I.INTRODDCTION During the last few Years there is vigorous activity in constructing highly constrained 8rammarital systems by eliminating the transformational component either totally or partially. There is increasing recognition of the fact that the entire range of dependencies that ....

....dependencies can be unbounded. One of the motivations for transformations was to account for unbounded dependencies. The so called non transformational grammars account for the unbounded dependencies in dtfferent ways. In a tree adjoining grammar (TAG) which has been introduced earlier in (Joshi,1982) unboundedhess is achieved by factoring the dependencies and recursion in a novel and, we believe, in a linuistically interesting anner. All dependencies are defined on a finite set of basic structures (trees) which are bounded. Unhoundedness is then a corollary of a particular composition ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Gazdar,Go,"Phrase structure grammars" in The Nature of Syntactic Representations(eds. Po Jacobson and GoK. Pullum),D. Reidel, 9ordrecht, (to appear).

....linear logic and categorial grammars. In this work we show how linear logic can be used to provide an attractive encoding of phrase structure grammars for parsing structures involving unbounded dependencies. The resulting grammars are closely related to Generalized Phrase Structure Grammars [4, 5]. As part of the presentation we show how a variety of issues, such as island and coordination constraints can be dealt with in this model. 1 Introduction Over the last several years a number of researchers have proposed applications of Girard s Linear Logic [7] to computational linguistics. ....

....logic. In this work we show how linear logic can be used to provide a straightforward, perspicuous encoding of phrase structure grammars for parsing structures involving unbounded dependencies. The resulting grammars are closely related to the Generalized Phrase Structure Grammars of Gazdar [4, 5]. This work builds on earlier work by Pareschi and Miller [24, 25] Some of this work has been described previously in the proceedings of the 1992 JICSLP [9] and in the author s dissertation [10] The outline of this paper is as follows: In Section 2 we will review the basic principals of ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Gerald J. M. Gazdar. Phrase structure grammar. In P. Jacobson and G. K. Pullum, editors, The Nature of Syntactic Representation, pages 131--186. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1982.

....order to ensure that they get the appropriate phonetic and pragmatic interpretation. This connection is established directly in the sign. 3.2 [WH] We now turn to the feature [WH] and its role in the syntax. When this feature was rst introduced in linguistic analysis (see e.g. Chomsky 1977 and Gazdar 1982) it was used as a morhposyntactic feature to mark certain words in the lexicon such as who, which and when. The feature percolated to phrasal levels and was used to account for pied piping e ects. For instance, a PP like in whose opinion should count as a wh phrase. In languages with overt ....

Gazdar, Gerald, 1982. Phrase Structure Grammar. In. P.Jacobson and G.Pullum, eds. The Nature of Syntactic Representation. Dordrecht:Reidel.

....order to ensure that they get the appropriate phonetic and pragmatic interpretation. This connection is established directly in the sign. 3.2 [WH] We now turn to the feature [WH] and its role in the syntax. When this feature was rst introduced in linguistic analysis (see e.g. Chomsky 1977 and Gazdar 1982) it was used as a morhposyntactic feature to mark certain words in the lexicon such as who, which and when. The feature percolated to phrasal levels and was used to account for pied piping e ects. For instance, a PP like in whose opinion should count as a wh phrase. In languages with overt ....

Gazdar, Gerald, 1982. Phrase Structure Grammar. In. P.Jacobson and G.Pullum, eds. The Nature of Syntactic Representation. Dordrecht:Reidel.

.... (Bresnan, Kaplan, Peters, and Zaenen 1982) suggested that a more powerful approach, using syntactic transformations (Chomsky 1957) was called for, but some researchers criticized transformations as having arbitrary power and thus failing to constrain the types of languages that could be expressed (Gazdar 1982). Further criticism of the entire formal approach came from observing that even CF grammars (CFGs) had the power to generate structures, such as a sequence followed by its mirror image, that did not seem to occur in NL (Manaster Ramer 1986) or which placed an extraordinary burden on the human ....

Gazdar, G. (1982). Phrase structure grammar. In P. Jacobson and G. Pullum (Eds.), The Nature of Syntactic Representation. Reidel.

....of extracted elements correlates with the position of a trace at the extraction site, this contrast remains unexplained. 12 If interpretation can take place when the head selecting for the extracted element is encountered, this should be not surprising. Further evidence for their 11 See Gazdar (1982). Goodall (1987) seeks to explain these examples as Principle C violations, but the severe ungrammaticality of the examples in (57) makes such an account quite unlikely. On Goodall s approach, the examples in (57) should be no worse than cases like We compared him i and his i father, which seem ....

Gazdar, Gerald. 1982. Phrase structure grammar. In Pauline Jacobson and Geo#rey K. Pullum, editors, The Nature of Syntactic Representation. Reidel, Dordrecht, pages 131--186.

....(4) Definition: a CFG observing Lexicality and Succession observes Maximality iff for every rule X n Y X n Gamma1 Z, the strings Y and Z are in VM , where VM = fX m j X 2 V T g. Maximality is observed by most varieties of X bar theory, but explicit departures from it can be found in Gazdar (1982) and Gazdar, Pullum and Sag (1982) where S is taken to be a projection of the category verb (specifically V 2 ) VP is distinct from it only in bar level (VP = V 1 ) and V 1 complements are permitted, allowing some lexical heads to have complements of non maximal bar level. 5 ....

Gazdar, Gerald. 1982. Phrase structure grammar. The nature of syntactic representation, ed. by Pauline Jacobson and Geoffrey K. Pullum, 131--186. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

....presented in joint papers with Miller [5, 7] addresses all of the failings of the previous solutions, while maintaining the naturality of Miller and Pareschi s system. 2 Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar The Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar (GPSG) formalism developed by Gerald Gazdar [1, 2, 3] demonstrated that it is possible to parse grammatical structures involving unbounded dependencies, such as relative clauses and wh questions, using a phrase structure grammar. Previously it had been thought that such constructs were too complex for phrase structure grammars, which are ....

Gerald J. M. Gazdar. Phrase Structure Grammar, pages 131--186. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1982.

.... long preceding constituent, as in (50) 50) We gave [every student capable of answering every single tricky question on the details of the new and extremely complicated theory about the causes of political instability in small nations with a history of military rulers] a prize] 10 See Gazdar (1982). Goodall (1987) seeks to explain these examples as Principle C violations, but the severe ungrammaticality of the examples in (46) makes such an account quite unlikely. On Goodall s approach, the examples in (46) should be no worse than cases like We invited Jack s i friends and him i both. ....

Gazdar, Gerald. 1982. Phrase structure grammar. In Pauline Jacobson and Geoffrey K.

....Rather than assuming that the matter is settled, we simply assume the now more or less standard verb phrase modifier category for prepositional phrases at the lexical level. 3. 4 Auxiliaries In this section we present a categorial treatment of auxiliaries in English along the lines of Gazdar et al. 1982) and Bach (1983b) The sequencing and subcategorization requirements of auxiliaries are directly represented in our lexical entries. It is assumed that an auxiliary category will take a verb phrase argument of one verb form and produce a result of a possibly different verb form and a possibly more ....

....n np(P; N; subj) s(perf) n np(P; N; subj) eaten s(bse) n np(P; N; subj) s(bse) n np(P; N; subj) 51) Note that we can analyze even longer sequences of auxiliaries such as will have been eating without overgenerating parse trees for syntactically ill formed sequences. Infinitive Following Gazdar et al. 1982), we will categorize to as a special kind of auxiliary without finite forms. The category we assign to to will produce infinitive form verb phrases from base form verb phrases, thus requiring the lexical entry: s(inf) n np(P; N; subj) s(bse) n np(P; N; subj) to (52) This entry will result ....

Gazdar, G., 1982. Phrase structure grammar. In P. Jacobson and G.K. Pullum, eds., The Nature of Syntactic Representation. Dordrect, Reidel.

No context found.

Gazdar, G., Phrase Structure Grammar, D. Reidel, 1982, pp. 131-186.

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