| Kathleen R. McKeownandCecile R. Paris. Functional unification grammar revisited. In ACL-87 |
....The input specifications for both of these sentences are shown in Figure 2. These specifications freely intermix upper model roles and concepts (e.g. domain, range, 5 Note that this is not intended to single out mumble 86: the problem is quite general; cf. unification based frameworks such as [29], or the Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG) based approach of [35] As mentioned above, the current developments within most such approaches are now considering extensions similar to that covered by the upper model. 6 Moreover, when additional information is required, that information is supplied ....
McKeown, Kathleen R. and Paris, C'ecile L. (1987) `Functional Unification Grammar Revisited'. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics, pp97103.
....specification is then passed to a syntactic grammar that enforces syntactic rules such as number agreement, chooses closed class words, inflects open class words and linearizes the syntactic structure into a natural language string. Constraints on lexical and syntactic choice are bidirectional [33,10]; in some situations, the choice of a word will determine the elements of the sentence syntactic structure, while in other cases, choice of syntactic structure limits the words that can be used. In addition, there are also constraints between words themselves [53,52] When generating a simple ....
K. McKeown and C. L. Paris. Functional unification grammar revisited. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Stanford, Ca., July 1987. Association for Computational Linguistics.
No context found.
Kathleen R. McKeownandCecile R. Paris. Functional unification grammar revisited. In ACL-87
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