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

The use of shared forests in TAG parsing

No description supplie

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

Unification-Based Tree Adjoining Grammars

Many current grammar formalisms used in computational linguistics take a unification-based approach that use structures (called feature structures) containing sets of feature-value pairs. In this paper, we describe a unification-based approach to Tree Adjoining Grammars (TAG). The resulting formalism (UTAG) retains the principle of factoring dependencies and recursion that is fundamental to TAGs. We also extend the definition of UTAG to include the lexicalized approach to TAGs (see [Schabes et al., 1988]). We give some linguistic examples using UTAG and informally discuss the descriptive capacity of UTAG, comparing it with other unificationbased formalisms. Finally, based on the linguistic theory underlying TAGs, we propose some stipulations that can be placed on UTAG grammars. In particular, we stipulate that the feature structures associated with the nodes in an elementary tree are bounded ( there is an analogous stipulation in GPSG). Grammars that satisfy these stipulations are equivalent to TAG. Thus, even with these stipulations, UTAGs have more power than CFG-based unification grammars with the same stipulations