Multiple Context-Free Tree Grammars: Lexicalization and Characterization

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

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

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

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

An Alternative Conception of Tree-Adjoining Derivation

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

Punctuation in Quoted Speech

Quoted speech is often set off by punctuation marks, in particular quotation marks. Thus, it might seem that the quotation marks would be extremely useful in identifying these structures in texts. Unfortunately, the situation is not quite so clear. In this work, I will argue that quotation marks are not adequate for either identifying or constraining the syntax of quoted speech. More useful information comes from the presence of a quoting verb, which is either a verb of saying or a punctual verb, and the presence of other punctuation marks, usually commas. Using a lexicalized grammar, we can license most quoting clauses as text adjuncts. A distinction will be made not between direct and indirect quoted speech, but rather between adjunct and non-adjunct quoting clauses.Comment: 11 pages, 11 ps figures, Proceedings of SIGPARSE 96 - Punctuation in Computational Linguistic

Global Thresholding and Multiple Pass Parsing

We present a variation on classic beam thresholding techniques that is up to an order of magnitude faster than the traditional method, at the same performance level. We also present a new thresholding technique, global thresholding, which, combined with the new beam thresholding, gives an additional factor of two improvement, and a novel technique, multiple pass parsing, that can be combined with the others to yield yet another 50% improvement. We use a new search algorithm to simultaneously optimize the thresholding parameters of the various algorithms.Comment: Fixed latex errors; fixed minor errors in published versio

Monoid automata for displacement context-free languages

In 2007 Kambites presented an algebraic interpretation of Chomsky-Schutzenberger theorem for context-free languages. We give an interpretation of the corresponding theorem for the class of displacement context-free languages which are equivalent to well-nested multiple context-free languages. We also obtain a characterization of k-displacement context-free languages in terms of monoid automata and show how such automata can be simulated on two stacks. We introduce the simultaneous two-stack automata and compare different variants of its definition. All the definitions considered are shown to be equivalent basing on the geometric interpretation of memory operations of these automata.Comment: Revised version for ESSLLI Student Session 2013 selected paper

A Processing Model for Free Word Order Languages

Like many verb-final languages, Germn displays considerable word-order freedom: there is no syntactic constraint on the ordering of the nominal arguments of a verb, as long as the verb remains in final position. This effect is referred to as ``scrambling'', and is interpreted in transformational frameworks as leftward movement of the arguments. Furthermore, arguments from an embedded clause may move out of their clause; this effect is referred to as ``long-distance scrambling''. While scrambling has recently received considerable attention in the syntactic literature, the status of long-distance scrambling has only rarely been addressed. The reason for this is the problematic status of the data: not only is long-distance scrambling highly dependent on pragmatic context, it also is strongly subject to degradation due to processing constraints. As in the case of center-embedding, it is not immediately clear whether to assume that observed unacceptability of highly complex sentences is due to grammatical restrictions, or whether we should assume that the competence grammar does not place any restrictions on scrambling (and that, therefore, all such sentences are in fact grammatical), and the unacceptability of some (or most) of the grammatically possible word orders is due to processing limitations. In this paper, we will argue for the second view by presenting a processing model for German.Comment: 23 pages, uuencoded compressed ps file. In {\em Perspectives on Sentence Processing}, C. Clifton, Jr., L. Frazier and K. Rayner, editors. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 199