12,267 research outputs found
Factoring Predicate Argument and Scope Semantics : underspecified Semantics with LTAG
In this paper we propose a compositional semantics for lexicalized tree-adjoining grammar (LTAG). Tree-local multicomponent derivations allow separation of the semantic contribution of a lexical item into one component contributing to the predicate argument structure and a second component contributing to scope semantics. Based on this idea a syntax-semantics interface is presented where the compositional semantics depends only on the derivation structure. It is shown that the derivation structure (and indirectly the locality of derivations) allows an appropriate amount of underspecification. This is illustrated by investigating underspecified representations for quantifier scope ambiguities and related phenomena such as adjunct scope and island constraints
Inductive and Coinductive Components of Corecursive Functions in Coq
In Constructive Type Theory, recursive and corecursive definitions are
subject to syntactic restrictions which guarantee termination for recursive
functions and productivity for corecursive functions. However, many terminating
and productive functions do not pass the syntactic tests. Bove proposed in her
thesis an elegant reformulation of the method of accessibility predicates that
widens the range of terminative recursive functions formalisable in
Constructive Type Theory. In this paper, we pursue the same goal for productive
corecursive functions. Notably, our method of formalisation of coinductive
definitions of productive functions in Coq requires not only the use of ad-hoc
predicates, but also a systematic algorithm that separates the inductive and
coinductive parts of functions.Comment: Dans Coalgebraic Methods in Computer Science (2008
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 ādeepā hand-crafted wide-coverage with āshallowā 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)
- ā¦