P. Sells. Lectures on Contemporary Syntactic Theories, CSLI Lecture Notes Number 3, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford, Calif., 1985.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

.... Various versions of this theory have been applied to a number of linguistic issues (mainly) in English [7, 8, 9, 20, 22, 23, 29, 33, 41] The ideas emerging from research in situation semantics have also been coalesced with well developed linguistic theories such as lexical functional grammar [45] and led to rigorous formalisms [31] On the other hand, situation semantics has been compared to other influential mathematical approaches to the theory of meaning, viz. Montague Grammar [21, 26, 42] and DRT [37] 6 Concluding Remarks Serious thinking about the computational aspects of the ....

P. Sells. Lectures on Contemporary Syntactic Theories, CSLI Lecture Notes Number 3, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford, Calif., 1985.

....and Ron Kaplan in the late 1970s. It has been devised as a formalism for representing the native speaker s syntactic knowledge. In this chapter, we briefly describe the formal objects of the theory and the relationships among them, summarizing them from Kaplan and Bresnan [5] and from Sells [13]. The most complete description of the formal principles of the theory can be found in the work of Kaplan and Bresnan [5] 2.1 Constituent Structures and Functional Structures A lexical functional grammar assigns two levels of syntactic description to every sentence of a language: Constituent ....

....We say that the transitive verb subcategorizes for an object. For any given language, some function G is a member of the set of governable grammatical functions if and only if there is at least one semantic form that subcategorizes for it, i.e. G appears within the PRED value of some lexical form [13]. A given lexical entry mentions only a few of the governable functions, and that entry is said to govern the ones it mentions. There are three well formedness conditions on f structures: have at most one value . Completeness Condition: An f structure is locally complete if and only if it ....

P. Sells, Lectures on Contemporary Syntactic Theories. CSLI-Lecture Notes 3, 1985.

....it is implausible to list all the possible movements exhaustively, and specify each movement constraint explicitly in the grammars. 112 The Government Binding (GB) theory [1] provides universal principles to explain the movements. Some of them are shown as follows: 1) Empty Category Principle [7] A trace must be properly governed. 2) C command Principle [7] a c commands 9 iff every branching node donfinafing a dominates . 3) Subjacency Principle [7] Any application of move a may not cross more than one bounding node. Summing up the above principles, we have to find a movexl ....

....and specify each movement constraint explicitly in the grammars. 112 The Government Binding (GB) theory [1] provides universal principles to explain the movements. Some of them are shown as follows: 1) Empty Category Principle [7] A trace must be properly governed. 2) C command Principle [7] a c commands 9 iff every branching node donfinafing a dominates . 3) Subjacency Principle [7] Any application of move a may not cross more than one bounding node. Summing up the above principles, we have to find a movexl constituent to c command a n ace. The constituent can neither relate ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

P. Sells, Lectures On Contemporary Syntactic Theories, Center for the Study of Language and Information, 1985.

....strata into that of higher stratum [3, 4] In this paper, we also propose the framework of the integration of feature structures for music, using an advanced natural language grammar formalism that intrinsically includes hierarchical generation rules. GPSG (generalized phrase structure grammar) [5, 6] is a grammar in which each category is represented by a feature structure, and is a quite helpful method to reduce the number of grammar rules when each feature may have di erent values. Among daughter categories of a grammar rule, there is always a category that inherits important features of ....

Sells, P. Lectures on Contemporary Syntactic Theories. CSLI publications, 1985.

.... 1959) augmented transition networks (Woods, 1970) de nite clause grammars (Pereira Warren, 1980) chart parsing (Younger, 1967; Kay, 1973) feature structures and uni cation (Kay, 1979) taxonomic logics (Brachman Schmolze, 1985) and constraint based approaches to grammar and processing (Sells, 1985; Shieber, 1986) mark some of the milestones in the development of the eld. The 1980s saw an immense increase in the number of research projects and development e orts (some in industrial environments) working on the production of declarative grammatical resources and suitable processing ....

Sells, P. (1985). Lectures on contemporary syntactic theories. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.

....us here; for our purposes we can just assume that it is a final test that tells if the derived tree is 1 Feature structures are recursive sets of attribute value pairs, i.e. a value may itself be a feature structure. They are a commonly used representation in linguistic grammar formalisms, see [15]. f 1 : X] h f 2 : 1 i [f 2 : Y ] substitution adjunction scheme scheme dependencies of entities in a sentence plan (b) c) d) a) h f 1 : 1 i propagation of feature clashes across operations Fig. 1. Illustrations for syntactic generation (the triangles stand for syntactic trees, ....

Peter Sells, Lectures in Contemporary Syntactic Theories, CSLI Lecture Notes, Stanford, 1985

.... complex argument alternation, as not all of its properties are completely understood (i.e. the impossibility of Dative Shift with Latinate verbs, the animacy requirement on the goal) and it has received a variety of analyses in differing frameworks (cf. Larson 1988 for a structural approach, Sells 1985 for a concise summary of the traditional LFG approach, and Levin 1993 for a summary of properties and list of references) In this section we do not do justice to all of its complexities, showing only that Dative Shift can also receive a natural treatment within our approach. English is an ....

Sells, Peter. 1985. Lectures on Contemporary Syntactic Theories. Number 3 in CSLI Lecture Notes. Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University.

....Structure Grammar (HPSG) and Definite Clause Grammar (DCG) For the reader with specific interest in any of these theories, each subsection will contain the most central references to the theory in question. General overviews and comparisons of these theories can also be found in for example [Sells 1985, Horrocks 1987, Zlatev et al. 1989] All these theories build on phrase structure rules, which define grammatical correctness. Such a rule can be viewed as a function from sets of phrase types to sets of phrase types, i.e. from a phrase to its daughter or daughters. For example S NP VP is a ....

Peter Sells. Lectures on Contemporary Syntactic Theories. Number 3 in Lecture Notes. CSLI, Stanford, California, 1985.

....approaches to linguistic analysis. In Section 3 the main idea will be presented and Section 4 gives more details of linguistic channels. Finally in the last section, possible extensions to this approach will be discussed and the main aspects of this approach will be compared with GB and LFG [Sells1985] 2 Dynamism, Communication and Competition Recently, there have been attempts to introduce dynamic approaches based on logic of information flow for modelling some aspects of linguistic phenomena; theories such as situ LFG97 S. Rezaei D. M. W. Crocker: A Dynamic Rep. of Grammatical ....

Sells, Peter. 1985. Lectures on Contemporary Syntactic Theories. CSLI, Stanford.

....la possibilite d etendre la complexite de la grammaire apprise. La difficulte principale reside alors dans le volume des e chantillons d apprentissage necessaires. D autres application sont aussi envisagees, en particulier des applications utilisant les theories des X Bar Grammars [Chomsky81,Sells85] Nous reflechissons aussi sur la phase d optimisation. Les algorithmes actuels produisent un reseau de bonne qualite , nous l avons vu, mais nous pensons qu il est possible de l ameliorer. Il s agit de modifier le reseau au cours de la phase d optimisation. Cette fois ci, nous n avons plus ....

P. Sells. -- Lectures on Contemporary Syntactic Theories. -- Stanford, California, Center for Study of Language and Information, 85.

.... Binding (GB) theory, it tries to combine well researched GB analyses with the high versatility, flexibility and implementability of LFG. The grammar excerpt presented focusses on word order. 1 Introduction 1. 1 Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG) Since its introduction in the late seventies (Sells 1985: 135) LFG has established itself as a popular framework for the description of formal NL grammars. While it has been described as essentially Chomskian (Horrocks 1987: 225) it departs in several ways from the Chomskian theories. While this paper does not aim to be an introduction to LFG, the ....

....itself as a popular framework for the description of formal NL grammars. While it has been described as essentially Chomskian (Horrocks 1987: 225) it departs in several ways from the Chomskian theories. While this paper does not aim to be an introduction to LFG, the abovementioned works, i.e. Sells (1985: 135 190) and Horrocks (1987: 225 286) are hereby recommended for reference. 1.2 Government Binding (GB) There exist a number of different versions of and extensions to the Chomskian theories which are commonly referred to as GB, although Chomsky himself stresses that [t]he terminology is ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Sells, Peter. 1985. Lectures on Contemporary Syntactic Theories. Stanford: CSLI.

.... The methods of logical description discussed above are applicable to a wide variety of grammar formalisms: see in particular GPSG [5] HPSG [11] and GB and its ilk (Van Riemsdijk and Williams [13] A still useful introduction to the contemporary syntactic theories of ten years ago is Sells [14]. S NP VP V NP S S NP VP VP : V NP S : NP VP Figure 5: Evolving tree construction process. Blackburn and Meyer Viol [3] define a very simple tree language for binary trees. Blackburn, Gardent and Meyer Viol [2] demonstrate how such a language can be combined with a modal language ....

P. Sells. Lectures on Contemporary Syntactic Theories. CSLI, 1985.

....of X bar theories. 2.1. Lexicality. The primary defining property of X bar systems is what we shall call Lexicality, which requires all phrasal categories to be projections of lexical categories. A primitive set of preterminals 1 For example, X bar theory is discussed in all three chapters of Sells (1985): in connection with government binding theory (p. 27) with generalized phrase structure grammar (p. 81) and with lexical functional grammar (p. 139) categories that can immediately dominate terminals; in linguistic terms, lexical categories) is assumed. Lexicality means that the complete ....

Sells, Peter. 1985. Lectures on contemporary syntactic theories. CSLI Lecture Notes 3. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

.... each rule in the original grammar which defines a category that could dominate an NP (i.e. could occur above an NP in a parse tree) there will be a new version of that rule for each category on the right of the 2 Actually, in the years since GPSG was first proposed it has changed significantly [12]. So, while the name has remained, the formalism no longer uses this sort of phrase structure rule, but instead uses node admissibility rules. In this paper I will use the original phrase structure rule style, as it is easier to understand the connection to DCG s in that form. rule that could ....

Peter Sells. Lectures on Contemporary Syntactic Theories. Number 3 in CSLI Lecture Notes. Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford, Ca., 1985.

....of f structures. ffl Potential Problems. This section highlights potential problems in trying to perform unification using the methods described here. ffl Conclusion. 5. 2 Unification of Feature Structures A detailed account of unification based approaches to grammar can be found in [20]. This section will briefly describe the operation of unification as it relates to feature structures. Feature structures (or f structures) are simply collections of features and their values. Four examples of f structures are given in Figure 5 1. In (a) the f structure has two features PRED and ....

Peter Sells. Lectures on Contemporary Syntactic Theories, volume 3 of Lecture Notes. CSLI Publications, Stanford University, 1985.

.... needs a complete and unambiguous specification of the meaning being conveyed (as would be the case in most programming languages, for instance) The functional analysis presented in this chapter has much in common with the work on lexical functional grammars (LFG) Bresnan and Kaplan, 1982; Sells, 1985). In both analyses of language understanding, representations and processing mechanisms are motivated from the communicative function of language and the contributions to that function that various elements of a language make. For example, it is not important in such formalisms that each piece of ....

....above is not specific to any particular word and is not associated with any particular lexical entry. It may be noted that in some models (e.g. CA, see Birnbaum and Selfridge, 1981) and in some grammatical theories like lexical functional grammars or LFGs (Bresnan and Kaplan, 1982; see also Sells, 1985), different types of non lexical knowledge are lexicalized by associating appropriate instances of it with each lexical entry. While this may be a useful way of combining different types of knowledge this not only introduces a lot of redundancy between lexical entries of words in the same ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Sells, P. (1985). Lectures on contemporary syntactic theories. Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University.

....meaning than a question with a H accent, and will require a different response from a dialogue system. Pitch range and prominence are perhaps the highest level intonation effects. These effects 1 For example Chomsky s Government Binding Theory or Gazdar s Generalised Phrase Structure Theory (Sells, 1985). CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS 156 could be used by a sophisticated system to judge speaker emotions or intentions. Potentially, all the information that is contained within the phonological description of an utterance is of use to a speech recognition system. Some parts of the phonological ....

Sells, P. (1985). Lectures on Contemporary Syntactic Theories. Centre for the Study of Language and Information.

....generate form an upper bound for the weak generative capacity of HPSG. Chapter 6 Lexical Functional Grammar In this chapter we will present a formulation of Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG) The chapter is based on the original formulation of Kaplan and Bresnan (1982) and the extended survey of Sells (1985). The main purpose of this chapter is to show that LFG grammars can simulate any arbitrary CUG grammar that was presented in Section 3.3. This simulation provides a way of comparing the different grammatical formalisms. For instance, the simulation shows that the generative capacity of LFG is at ....

....For some feature information, 6.1. Introduction in LFG 111 e.g. the feature information that denotes case, a distinction is made between the marked and the unmarked situation. When an f description does not specify this feature information explicitly, the unmarked situation is assumed (cf. Sells 1985, p. 145) In the simulation we ignore the distinction between marked and unmarked situations. We demand that all feature information is specified explicitly. A second shortcut is also found in the f descriptions. This shortcut seems to be introduced because nonterminals may occur an arbitrary ....

Sells, P.: 1985, Lectures on Contemporary Syntactic Theories, Vol. 3 of CSLI Lecture Notes, CSLI, Stanford.

....of its recurrent, feed forward architecture, parses in time proportional to the length of the sentence. Underlying Concepts In contrast to the phrase structure rules of traditional theories of sentence structure, X Bar grammar uses a single structure for all phrases the X Bar template [ Sells, 1985 ] This template is instantiated to provide all of the structures needed, from simple Noun Phrases (NPs) to entire sentences. The template s instantiation for a particular phrase is determined by the interaction of what is allowed in the phrase, as given in the lexical entry for the head word of ....

Sells, P. 1985. Lectures on Contemporary Syntactic Theories. Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford, CA.

....each alternative order can be thought of as the optimal realization of the given information in the input. 1.2. 2 Lexical Functional Grammar This section outlines the basic theoretical assumptions of LFG, a unification based theory without movement (Bresnan and Kaplan 1982, Bresnan 1982, Sells 1985, Bresnan 1995a) The grammatical representation in LFG consists of several different parallel structures: no structure is derived from another structure and the relationship between structures is defined by a mapping function. Especially, LFG separates information about grammatical functions from ....

Sells, Peter. 1985. Lectures on Contemporary Syntactic Theories. Stanford, CSLI Publications.

No context found.

Sells, P., Lectures on Contemporary Syntactic Theorie. z: An Introduction to Government.Binding Theory, Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar, and Lexical-Functional Grammar, CSLI Lecture Notes Series, No. 3, 1985.

No context found.

Peter Sells. Lectures on Contemporary Syntactic Theories. Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford, 1985.

No context found.

Peter Sells. Lectures on contemporary syntactic theories. Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford, California, 1985.

No context found.

Sells, P.: Lectures on contemporary syntactic theories, CSLI (1985).

No context found.

Sells, P. (1985b) Lectures on Contemporary Syntactic Theories. Stanford, Ca.: Center for the Study of Language and Information.

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