Linguistik-Klassifikation
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Preprint (53)
- Conference Proceeding (34)
- Article (13)
- Part of a Book (9)
- Book (8)
- Working Paper (4)
- Review (2)
- diplomthesis (1)
Language
- English (98)
- German (21)
- Portuguese (4)
- French (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (124)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (124)
Keywords
- Computerlinguistik (38)
- Japanisch (18)
- Deutsch (16)
- Maschinelle Übersetzung (12)
- Syntaktische Analyse (10)
- Multicomponent Tree Adjoining Grammar (8)
- Semantik (6)
- Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammar (5)
- Grammatik (4)
- Korpus <Linguistik> (4)
Institute
- Extern (90)
- Universitätsbibliothek (1)
This paper sets up a framework for LTAG (Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammar) semantics that brings together ideas from different recent approaches addressing some shortcomings of TAG semantics based on the derivation tree. Within this framework, several sample analyses are proposed, and it is shown that the framework allows to analyze data that have been claimed to be problematic for derivation tree based LTAG semantics approaches.
LTAG semantics for questions
(2004)
This papers presents a compositional semantic analysis of interrogatives clauses in LTAG (Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammar) that captures the scopal properties of wh- and nonwh-quantificational elements. It is shown that the present approach derives the correct semantics for examples claimed to be problematic for LTAG semantic approaches based on the derivation tree. The paper further provides an LTAG semantics for embedded interrogatives.
This paper addresses the problem ofconstraints for relative quantifier sope, in partiular in inverse linking readings wherecertain scope orders are exluded. We show how to account for such restrictions in the Tree Adjoining Grammar (TAG) framework by adopting a notion offlexible composition. In the semantics we use for TAG we introduce quantifier sets that group quantifiers that are "glued" together in the sense that no other quantifieran scopally intervene between them. Theflexible composition approach allows us to obtain the desired quantifier sets and thereby the desiredconstraints for quantifier sope.
In this paper we will explore the similarities and differences between two feature logic-based approaches to the composition of semantic representations. The first approach is formulated for Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammar (LTAG, Joshi and Schabes 1997), the second is Lexical Ressource Semantics (LRS, Richter and Sailer 2004) and was first defined in Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. The two frameworks have several common characteristics that make them easy to compare: 1 They use languages of two sorted type theory for semantic representations. 2. They allow underspecification. LTAG uses scope constraints while LRS provides component-of contraints. 3 They use feature logics for computing semantic representations. 4. they are designed for computational applications. By comparing the two frameworks we will also point outsome characteristics and advantages of feature logic-based semantic computation in genereal.
TT-MCTAG lets one abstract away from the relative order of co-complements in the final derived tree, which is more appropriate than classic TAG when dealing with flexible word order in German. In this paper, we present the analyses for sentential complements, i.e., wh-extraction, thatcomplementation and bridging, and we work out the crucial differences between these and respective accounts in XTAG (for English) and V-TAG (for German).
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.
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.
Developing linguistic resources, in particular grammars, is known to be a complex task in itself, because of (amongst others) redundancy and consistency issues. Furthermore some languages can reveal themselves hard to describe because of specific characteristics, e.g. the free word order in German. In this context, we present (i) a framework allowing to describe tree-based grammars, and (ii) an actual fragment of a core multicomponent tree-adjoining grammar with tree tuples (TT-MCTAG) for German developed using this framework. This framework combines a metagrammar compiler and a parser based on range concatenation grammar (RCG) to respectively check the consistency and the correction of the grammar. The German grammar being developed within this framework already deals with a wide range of scrambling and extraction phenomena.
Der TUSNELDA-Standard : ein Korpusannotierungsstandard zur Unterstützung linguistischer Forschung
(2001)
Die Verwendung von Standards für die Annotierung größerer Sammlungen elektronischer Texte (Korpora) ist eine Voraussetzung für eine mögliche Wiederverwendung dieser Korpora. Dieser Artikel stellt einen Korpusannotierungsstandard vor, der die Anforderungen der Untersuchung unterschiedlichster linguistischer Phänomene berücksichtigt. Der Standard wurde im SFB 441 an der Universität Tübingen entwickelt. Er geht von bestehenden Standards, insbesondere CES und TEI, aus, die sich als teilweise zu ausführlich und zu wenig restriktiv,teilweise auch als nicht ausdrucksstark genug erweisen, um den Bedürfnissen korpusbasierter linguistischer Forschung gerecht zu werden.