Johnson, M. (1999). Type-driven semantic interpretation and feature dependencies in R-LFG. In M. Dalrymple (Ed.), Semantics and Syntax in Lexical Functional Grammar: The Resource Logic Approach, pp. 359388. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Home/Search Document Details and Download
Summary Related Articles Check |
This paper is cited in the following contexts:
Generation and Parsing in Optimality Theoretic Syntax - Issues in.. - Kuhn (2000) (2 citations) (Correct)
....sec. 3) raises the issue whether a unication based framework is the adequate setting for OT at all. He suggests that functional uniqueness from classical LFG may not really be required. Rather, a purely resource based feature interpretation may suOEce, as proposed in resource sensitive LFG (R LFG; Johnson 1999a generalization of the linear logic based semantics for LFG, see the other contributions in 22 the input representation could be kept separate from the candidate s f structure. As in the high level specication in sec. 2.3, the constraints could then see both the input and the candidate analysis. ....
Johnson, M. (1999). Type-driven semantic interpretation and feature dependencies in R-LFG. In M. Dalrymple (Ed.), Semantics and Syntax in Lexical Functional Grammar: The Resource Logic Approach, pp. 359388. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Generation and Parsing in Optimality Theoretic Syntax - Issues in.. - Kuhn (1999) (2 citations) (Correct)
....set in this context are analyses of this very string. So, no matter which one will win according to the optimization, the optimal analysis will trivially have this string as its yield, although this string is ungrammatical. The same is illustrated by the abstract illustration (30) taken from (Johnson 1998a, sec. 4.1) 30) Inputs i 2 i 1 Candidates c 4 c 3 c 2 c 1 increasing optimality Strings s 3 s 2 s 1 Parsing the string s 2 will produce the analyses c 2 and c 3 . Being more optimal (i.e. further to the right in this abstract illustration) the candidate analysis c 2 will win the ....
Johnson, M. (1998b). Type-driven semantic interpretation and feature dependencies in R-LFG. Manuscript.
Resource Logics, Grammars, and Processing - Kruijff (1999) (Correct)
....to be relevant to the aims of this workshop is twofold. Firstly, mmlg as a framework providing tools has been used to formalize various theories of grammars on the basis of resource sensitive logics. For a version of Minimalism, see for example [1] for formalizations of LFG see work by Johnson [10, 11], and for dependency grammar see [14] Secondly, as we already pointed out earlier, we believe that the issue of processing appeals to people working on resource logics as well as to those developing formal grammars. The overview of the paper is as follows. We begin with a brief review of mmlg in ....
Mark Johnson. Type-driven semantic interpretation and feature dependencies in R-LFG. In Mary Dalrymple, editor, Glue Languages. CSLI Publications, Stanford CA, 1998.
Resource Sensitivity in the Syntax-Semantics Interface and the.. - Kuhn (1998) (Correct)
.... 17 Dalrymple and colleagues point out that the glue language semantics replaces the Completeness and Coherence conditions of standard LFG, but to my knowledge, the observation that even instantiated symbols are made redundant has not been stated in the literature (it should be noted however that Johnson (1997, 1998) proposes a variant of LFG that uses linear logic even as a replacement for f descriptions) 23) weil) because Anna Anna ein a Kaninchen rabbit sieht sees (24) VP NP NP V DET N Anna ein Kaninchen sieht f : subj g : Theta case nom obj h : Theta case acc g oe : f oe ....
Johnson, M. (1998). Type-driven semantic interpretation and feature dependencies in R-LFG.
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