1,062 research outputs found

    Some Novel Applications of Explanation-Based Learning to Parsing Lexicalized Tree-Adjoining Grammars

    Get PDF
    In this paper we present some novel applications of Explanation-Based Learning (EBL) technique to parsing Lexicalized Tree-Adjoining grammars. The novel aspects are (a) immediate generalization of parses in the training set, (b) generalization over recursive structures and (c) representation of generalized parses as Finite State Transducers. A highly impoverished parser called a ``stapler'' has also been introduced. We present experimental results using EBL for different corpora and architectures to show the effectiveness of our approach.Comment: uuencoded postscript fil

    Incremental Parser Generation for Tree Adjoining Grammars

    Full text link
    This paper describes the incremental generation of parse tables for the LR-type parsing of Tree Adjoining Languages (TALs). The algorithm presented handles modifications to the input grammar by updating the parser generated so far. In this paper, a lazy generation of LR-type parsers for TALs is defined in which parse tables are created by need while parsing. We then describe an incremental parser generator for TALs which responds to modification of the input grammar by updating parse tables built so far.Comment: 12 pages, 12 Postscript figures, uses fullname.st

    Capturing CFLs with Tree Adjoining Grammars

    Full text link
    We define a decidable class of TAGs that is strongly equivalent to CFGs and is cubic-time parsable. This class serves to lexicalize CFGs in the same manner as the LCFGs of Schabes and Waters but with considerably less restriction on the form of the grammars. The class provides a normal form for TAGs that generate local sets in much the same way that regular grammars provide a normal form for CFGs that generate regular sets.Comment: 8 pages, 3 figures. To appear in proceedings of ACL'9

    An Alternative Conception of Tree-Adjoining Derivation

    Get PDF
    The precise formulation of derivation for tree-adjoining grammars has important ramifications for a wide variety of uses of the formalism, from syntactic analysis to semantic interpretation and statistical language modeling. We argue that the definition of tree-adjoining derivation must be reformulated in order to manifest the proper linguistic dependencies in derivations. The particular proposal is both precisely characterizable through a definition of TAG derivations as equivalence classes of ordered derivation trees, and computationally operational, by virtue of a compilation to linear indexed grammars together with an efficient algorithm for recognition and parsing according to the compiled grammar.Comment: 33 page

    Interaction Grammars

    Get PDF
    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

    Parsing With Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammar

    Get PDF
    Most current linguistic theories give lexical accounts of several phenomena that used to be considered purely syntactic. The information put in the lexicon is thereby increased in both amount and complexity: see, for example, lexical rules in LFG (Kaplan and Bresnan, 1983), GPSG (Gazdar, Klein, Pullum and Sag, 1985), HPSG (Pollard and Sag, 1987), Combinatory Categorial Grammars (Steedman, 1987), Karttunen\u27s version of Categorial Grammar (Karttunen 1986, 1988), some versions of GB theory (Chomsky 1981), and Lexicon-Grammars (Gross 1984). We would like to take into account this fact while defining a formalism. We therefore explore the view that syntactical rules are not separated from lexical items. We say that a grammar is lexicalized (Schabes, AbeilK and Joshi, 1988) if it consists of: (1) a finite set of structures each associated with lexical items; each lexical item will be called the anchor of the corresponding structure; the structures define the domain of locality over which constraints are specified; (2) an operation or operations for composing the structures. The notion of anchor is closely related to the word associated with a functor-argument category in Categorial Grammars. Categorial Grammar (as used for example by Steedman, 1987) are \u27lexicalized\u27 according to our definition since each basic category has a lexical item associated with it

    Principles and Implementation of Deductive Parsing

    Get PDF
    We present a system for generating parsers based directly on the metaphor of parsing as deduction. Parsing algorithms can be represented directly as deduction systems, and a single deduction engine can interpret such deduction systems so as to implement the corresponding parser. The method generalizes easily to parsers for augmented phrase structure formalisms, such as definite-clause grammars and other logic grammar formalisms, and has been used for rapid prototyping of parsing algorithms for a variety of formalisms including variants of tree-adjoining grammars, categorial grammars, and lexicalized context-free grammars.Comment: 69 pages, includes full Prolog cod

    Multiple Context-Free Tree Grammars: Lexicalization and Characterization

    Get PDF
    Multiple (simple) context-free tree grammars are investigated, where "simple" means "linear and nondeleting". Every multiple context-free tree grammar that is finitely ambiguous can be lexicalized; i.e., it can be transformed into an equivalent one (generating the same tree language) in which each rule of the grammar contains a lexical symbol. Due to this transformation, the rank of the nonterminals increases at most by 1, and the multiplicity (or fan-out) of the grammar increases at most by the maximal rank of the lexical symbols; in particular, the multiplicity does not increase when all lexical symbols have rank 0. Multiple context-free tree grammars have the same tree generating power as multi-component tree adjoining grammars (provided the latter can use a root-marker). Moreover, every multi-component tree adjoining grammar that is finitely ambiguous can be lexicalized. Multiple context-free tree grammars have the same string generating power as multiple context-free (string) grammars and polynomial time parsing algorithms. A tree language can be generated by a multiple context-free tree grammar if and only if it is the image of a regular tree language under a deterministic finite-copying macro tree transducer. Multiple context-free tree grammars can be used as a synchronous translation device.Comment: 78 pages, 13 figure
    • …
    corecore