D-Tree Grammars

DTG are designed to share some of the advantages of TAG while overcoming some of its limitations. DTG involve two composition operations called subsertion and sister-adjunction. The most distinctive feature of DTG is that, unlike TAG, there is complete uniformity in the way that the two DTG operations relate lexical items: subsertion always corresponds to complementation and sister-adjunction to modification. Furthermore, DTG, unlike TAG, can provide a uniform analysis for em wh-movement in English and Kashmiri, despite the fact that the em wh element in Kashmiri appears in sentence-second position, and not sentence-initial position as in English.Comment: Latex source, needs aclap.sty, 8 pages, to appear in ACL-9

Parsing D-Tree grammars

No description supplie

D-Tree substitution grammars

There is considerable interest among computational linguists in lexicalized grammatical frame-works; lexicalized tree adjoining grammar (LTAG) is one widely studied example. In this paper, we investigate how derivations in LTAG can be viewed not as manipulations of trees but as manipulations of tree descriptions. Changing the way the lexicalized formalism is viewed raises questions as to the desirability of certain aspects of the formalism. We present a new formalism, d-tree substitution grammar (DSG). Derivations in DSG involve the composition of d-trees, special kinds of tree descriptions. Trees are read off from derived d-trees. We show how the DSG formalism, which is designed to inherit many of the characterestics of LTAG, can be used to express a variety of linguistic analyses not available in LTAG

Exploring the underspecified world of lexicalized tree adjoining grammars

This paper presents a precise characterization of the underspecification found in Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammars, and shows that, in a sense, the same degree of underspecification is found in Lexicalized D-Tree Substitution Grammars. Rather than describing directly the nature of the elementary objects of the grammar, we achieve our objective by formalizing the way in which underspecification in the derived objects is interpreted: i.e., how trees are read off from derived tree descriptions. Valid tree descriptions for ltag turn out to be those that have a single acceptable interpretation, whereas those for ldsg may have multiple interpretations. In other respects, there is no difference in the way in which ltag and ldsg tree descriptions are interpreted

Search and Result Presentation in Scientific Workflow Repositories

We study the problem of searching a repository of complex hierarchical workflows whose component modules, both composite and atomic, have been annotated with keywords. Since keyword search does not use the graph structure of a workflow, we develop a model of workflows using context-free bag grammars. We then give efficient polynomial-time algorithms that, given a workflow and a keyword query, determine whether some execution of the workflow matches the query. Based on these algorithms we develop a search and ranking solution that efficiently retrieves the top-k grammars from a repository. Finally, we propose a novel result presentation method for grammars matching a keyword query, based on representative parse-trees. The effectiveness of our approach is validated through an extensive experimental evaluation

On the Relation between Context-Free Grammars and Parsing Expression Grammars

Context-Free Grammars (CFGs) and Parsing Expression Grammars (PEGs) have several similarities and a few differences in both their syntax and semantics, but they are usually presented through formalisms that hinder a proper comparison. In this paper we present a new formalism for CFGs that highlights the similarities and differences between them. The new formalism borrows from PEGs the use of parsing expressions and the recognition-based semantics. We show how one way of removing non-determinism from this formalism yields a formalism with the semantics of PEGs. We also prove, based on these new formalisms, how LL(1) grammars define the same language whether interpreted as CFGs or as PEGs, and also show how strong-LL(k), right-linear, and LL-regular grammars have simple language-preserving translations from CFGs to PEGs

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

The formal power of one-visit attribute grammars

An attribute grammar is one-visit if the attributes can be evaluated by walking through the derivation tree in such a way that each subtree is visited at most once. One-visit (1V) attribute grammars are compared with one-pass left-to-right (L) attribute grammars and with attribute grammars having only one synthesized attribute (1S).\ud \ud Every 1S attribute grammar can be made one-visit. One-visit attribute grammars are simply permutations of L attribute grammars; thus the classes of output sets of 1V and L attribute grammars coincide, and similarly for 1S and L-1S attribute grammars. In case all attribute values are trees, the translation realized by a 1V attribute grammar is the composition of the translation realized by a 1S attribute grammar with a deterministic top-down tree transduction, and vice versa; thus, using a result of Duske e.a., the class of output languages of 1V (or L) attribute grammars is the image of the class of IO macro tree languages under all deterministic top-down tree transductions

XMG : eXtending MetaGrammars to MCTAG

In this paper, we introduce an extension of the XMG system (eXtensibleMeta-Grammar) in order to allow for the description of Multi-Component Tree Adjoining Grammars. In particular, we introduce the XMG formalism and its implementation, and show how the latter makes it possible to extend the system relatively easily to different target formalisms, thus opening the way towards multi-formalism.Dans cet article, nous présentons une extension du système XMG (eXtensible MetaGrammar) afin de permettre la description de grammaires darbres adjoints à composantes multiples. Nous présentons en particulier le formalisme XMG et son implantation et montrons comment celle-ci permet relativement aisément détendre le système à différents formalismes grammaticaux cibles, ouvrant ainsi la voie au multi-formalisme