BAYER, SAM, & MARK JOHNSON. 1995. Features and agreement. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the ACL, Cambridge, Mass. ACL.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

.... gov gen dat 2 Feature decompositions of nominative accusative systems often introduce a feature which, like Jakobson s directional or ascriptive feature, cross classifies direct and oblique cases. The analyses in Bierwisch 1967, Williams 1981 and Bayer and Johnson 1995 illustrate this strategy. However, since this additional structure is not motivated by any systematic neutralisation of direct and oblique cases in German, it is not incorporated in (7) Isolated dative accusative forms, such as 1pl uns and 2pl euch, can be characterised as [gov , gen ] 4 ....

Bayer, Sam, and Mark Johnson. 1995. Features and agreement. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Morristown, NJ.

....properties of the u; t operations in combination with the built in asymmetry of the derivability relation. Cases of coordination of unlike categories illustrate this type of reasoning in terms of subsumption relations between types. For discussion, see [Morrill 90b, Morrill 94a, Hendriks 95, Bayer Johnson 95] Consider the following examples from [Sag e.a. 85] In (37a) we find coordination of an adjectival complement (stupid) with a noun phrase (a liar) The (37b) example shows that coordination of unlike categories does not come for free : the subcategorizational requirements of, in this case, the ....

....context of the noun phrase the longwinded and a bully man. ok np=n; n=n; n ) np fail np=n; np; n ) np np=n; n=n) t np; n ) np tL (38) featural decomposition. Another suggested application of the Boolean type constructors relates to feature decomposition of categories, cf. Kanazawa 92, Bayer Johnson 95] Suppose we want to distinguish plural and singular nominals. Introduction of new atomic types n sing and n plur misses the point that these types share the nominal information, while differing in their number properties. With the additive connectives, we could form the types n u sing versus n u ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Bayer, S. and M. Johnson (1995), `Features and agreement' Proceedings ACL 1995, San Francisco, 70--76.

....context of the verb is, and as a consequence this verb can also take as complement the coordination of these two categories, as shown in sentence 50: 50) Jack is boring and a fool. An account that encodes this generalization suggested by Milward is the implication based account presented in [Bayer 1995,1996] In this account, Bayer uses an extension to the Lambek Calculus (LC, explained in section 2) in which features are treated as atomic propositions. Categories are a combination of these features, and they are constructed using four operators: the slash operators and n and two other ....

....than . For example, given a category NP SG 3 (Noun Phrase, singular, third person) it is logically stronger than the antecedent NP, in category SnNP and, as a consequence, they can be combined. Moreover, any category can be replaced with a logically weaker one, using the inference rule P [Bayer 1995]. The rule P can be thought of as weakening the features associated with an argument but, on the other hand, strengthening the argument speci cation of a predicate when it is used with the introduction and elimination rules, listed in gure 3 6. For example, by using rule P the category NP SG 3 ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Bayer, S.; Johnson, M. Features and Agreement. Proceedings of ACL 95.

.... Assuming feature logic as the base logic entailment checking amounts to a subsumption test which is a well known quasi linear time decidable problem [2] 20] Section 2 reviews linguistic motivation in favor of the subsumption based approach, which we borrow from recent work by Bayer and Johnson [3]. The formal framework for our combined logics will be the (easy) extension of Lambek s calculus with subtyping and is presented in Section 3. Next, we define in Section 4 the layered Lambek system over arbitrary base logics (for the description of basic types) as well as the special case, where ....

....basic types) as well as the special case, where feature logic is emplyed. Section 5 closes with a discussion on conceivable limitations and the possibility of having both the subsumption based and the unification based approaches in one system. 2 Double Coordinations Recently, Bayer and Johnson [3] have given an analysis of agreement phenomena in coordinations, which strongly supports the view of subsumption based argument binding and which we review here as the primary linguistic motivation for our approach. Consider examples 1a d. On Constraint Based Lambek Calculi 3 (1) a. Kim [ VP [ ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Sam Bayer and Mark Johnson. Features and agreement. In Proceedings of the 33nd Annual Meeting of the ACL, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass., 1995.

....the formulas of MALL2 that respect the rules of polarity. In particular, they include the five formulas of M.Emms [3] but an infinite number of others too. Let us illustrate the execution of our decision procedure in L2 with additives by taking an example borrowed from computational linguistics [2]. Example 10. Parsing the German sentence er findet und hilft Frauen presents a difficulty caused by a coordination of unlike categories. The verb findet requires an accusative complement and the verb hilft a dative complement so that the conjunction findet und hilft requires a complement that can ....

S. Bayer and M. Johnson. Features and agreement. In 33rd Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, San Francisco, pages 70--76, 1995.

....Logic glue language approach of Dalrymple and colleagues. The primary problem they discuss is the duplication of resources in coordination constructions. While coordination is not discussed in the present paper, it seems that the treatment of coordination and feature dependencies offered in Bayer and Johnson (1995) generalizes unproblematically to R LFG. JLLI178.tex; 24 07 1998; 15:25; no v. p.27 28 Mark Johnson This section explores whether the treatment of features can also be recast in such a resource conscious manner. Bayer and Johnson (1995) argue that such an approach is empirically superior to ....

....of coordination and feature dependencies offered in Bayer and Johnson (1995) generalizes unproblematically to R LFG. JLLI178.tex; 24 07 1998; 15:25; no v. p.27 28 Mark Johnson This section explores whether the treatment of features can also be recast in such a resource conscious manner. Bayer and Johnson (1995) argue that such an approach is empirically superior to standard feature structure unification based treatments of agreement in its account of certain coordination constructions, and here we argue that it also provides a straightforward account of the Icelandic quirky case marking construction. ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Bayer, Samuel and Mark Johnson. 1995. Features and agreement. In The Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 70--76, San Francisco. Morgan Kaufmann.

....to produce 2 . To formulate larger grammars it would be worthwhile introducing additional Linear Logic connectives. For example, the additive connective provides disjunction of features, while the additive connective Phi can be used to express the overspecified features required by the Bayer and Johnson (1995) analysis of feature distributivity in coordination. Indeed, it is straightforward to translate these analyses into R LFG. Johnson (1997) shows how optionality can be expressed using the additive connective and the additive identity 1 . The relationship between f formulae and the more usual ....

Bayer, Samuel and Mark Johnson. 1995. Features and agreement. In The Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 70--76, San Francisco. Morgan Kaufmann.

....of Grammar (UBG) where agreeing categories impose constraints on some shared agreement value, and the construction is well formed only if these constraints are satisfiable or mutually consistent. The second is a simple theory of agreement inspired by Lambek Categorial Grammar (LCG) presented in Bayer and Johnson (1995). In this theory agreement phenomena are modelled in terms of the requirement that arguments must be subsumed by, or logically imply, the corresponding argument specification of a predicate or functor category. We will see that this model, when embedded in the logic of LCG, makes a number of ....

Bayer, Samuel and Mark Johnson. 1995. Features and agreement. In The Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 70--76, San Francisco.

No context found.

BAYER, SAM, & MARK JOHNSON. 1995. Features and agreement. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the ACL, Cambridge, Mass. ACL.

No context found.

Bayer, S. and M. Johnson (1995), `Features and agreement' Proceedings ACL 1995, San Francisco, 70--76.

No context found.

Sam Bayer and Mark Johnson. 1995. Features and Agreement. In ACL33.

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