Interaction Grammars

Interaction Grammar (IG) is a grammatical formalism based on the notion of polarity. Polarities express the resource sensitivity of natural languages by modelling the distinction between saturated and unsaturated syntactic structures. Syntactic composition is represented as a chemical reaction guided by the saturation of polarities. It is expressed in a model-theoretic framework where grammars are constraint systems using the notion of tree description and parsing appears as a process of building tree description models satisfying criteria of saturation and minimality

Lexicalization and Grammar Development

In this paper we present a fully lexicalized grammar formalism as a particularly attractive framework for the specification of natural language grammars. We discuss in detail Feature-based, Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammars (FB-LTAGs), a representative of the class of lexicalized grammars. We illustrate the advantages of lexicalized grammars in various contexts of natural language processing, ranging from wide-coverage grammar development to parsing and machine translation. We also present a method for compact and efficient representation of lexicalized trees.Comment: ps file. English w/ German abstract. 10 page

Concurrent Lexicalized Dependency Parsing: The ParseTalk Model

A grammar model for concurrent, object-oriented natural language parsing is introduced. Complete lexical distribution of grammatical knowledge is achieved building upon the head-oriented notions of valency and dependency, while inheritance mechanisms are used to capture lexical generalizations. The underlying concurrent computation model relies upon the actor paradigm. We consider message passing protocols for establishing dependency relations and ambiguity handling.Comment: 90kB, 7pages Postscrip

Wide-coverage deep statistical parsing using automatic dependency structure annotation

A number of researchers (Lin 1995; Carroll, Briscoe, and Sanfilippo 1998; Carroll et al. 2002; Clark and Hockenmaier 2002; King et al. 2003; Preiss 2003; Kaplan et al. 2004;Miyao and Tsujii 2004) have convincingly argued for the use of dependency (rather than CFG-tree) representations for parser evaluation. Preiss (2003) and Kaplan et al. (2004) conducted a number of experiments comparing “deep” hand-crafted wide-coverage with “shallow” treebank- and machine-learning based parsers at the level of dependencies, using simple and automatic methods to convert tree output generated by the shallow parsers into dependencies. In this article, we revisit the experiments in Preiss (2003) and Kaplan et al. (2004), this time using the sophisticated automatic LFG f-structure annotation methodologies of Cahill et al. (2002b, 2004) and Burke (2006), with surprising results. We compare various PCFG and history-based parsers (based on Collins, 1999; Charniak, 2000; Bikel, 2002) to find a baseline parsing system that fits best into our automatic dependency structure annotation technique. This combined system of syntactic parser and dependency structure annotation is compared to two hand-crafted, deep constraint-based parsers (Carroll and Briscoe 2002; Riezler et al. 2002). We evaluate using dependency-based gold standards (DCU 105, PARC 700, CBS 500 and dependencies for WSJ Section 22) and use the Approximate Randomization Test (Noreen 1989) to test the statistical significance of the results. Our experiments show that machine-learning-based shallow grammars augmented with sophisticated automatic dependency annotation technology outperform hand-crafted, deep, widecoverage constraint grammars. Currently our best system achieves an f-score of 82.73% against the PARC 700 Dependency Bank (King et al. 2003), a statistically significant improvement of 2.18%over the most recent results of 80.55%for the hand-crafted LFG grammar and XLE parsing system of Riezler et al. (2002), and an f-score of 80.23% against the CBS 500 Dependency Bank (Carroll, Briscoe, and Sanfilippo 1998), a statistically significant 3.66% improvement over the 76.57% achieved by the hand-crafted RASP grammar and parsing system of Carroll and Briscoe (2002)

Structure Unification Grammar: A Unifying Framework for Investigating Natural Language

This thesis presents Structure Unification Grammar and demonstrates its suitability as a framework for investigating natural language from a variety of perspectives. Structure Unification Grammar is a linguistic formalism which represents grammatical information as partial descriptions of phrase structure trees, and combines these descriptions by equating their phrase structure tree nodes. This process can be depicted by taking a set of transparencies which each contain a picture of a tree fragment, and overlaying them so they form a picture of a complete phrase structure tree. The nodes which overlap in the resulting picture are those which are equated. The flexibility with which information can be specified in the descriptions of trees and the generality of the combination operation allows a grammar writer or parser to specify exactly what is known where it is known. The specification of grammatical constraints is not restricted to any particular structural or informational domains. This property provides for a very perspicuous representation of grammatical information, and for the representations necessary for incremental parsing. The perspicuity of SUG\u27s representation is complemented by its high formal power. The formal power of SUG allows other linguistic formalisms to be expressed in it. By themselves these translations are not terribly interesting, but the perspicuity of SUG\u27s representation often allows the central insights of the other investigations to be expressed perspicuously in SUG. Through this process it is possible to unify the insights from a diverse collection of investigations within a single framework, thus furthering our understanding of natural language as a whole. This thesis gives several examples of how insights from investigations into natural language can be captured in SUG. Since these investigations come from a variety of perspectives on natural language, these examples demonstrate that SUG can be used as a unifying framework for investigating natural language