Refine
Year of publication
Has Fulltext
- yes (33)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (33)
Keywords
- Multicomponent Tree Adjoining Grammar (9)
- Syntaktische Analyse (8)
- Deutsch (7)
- Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammar (6)
- Range Concatenation Grammar (5)
- Semantik (4)
- Tree Adjoining Grammar (3)
- Frage (2)
- German (2)
- Grammaires d’Arbres Adjoints (2)
Institute
- Extern (29)
Relative quantifier scope in German depends, in contrast to English, very much on word order. The scope possibilities of a quantifier are determined by its surface position, its base position and the type of the quantifier. In this paper we propose a multicomponent analysis for German quantifiers computing the scope of the quantifier, in particular its minimal nuclear scope, depending on the syntactic configuration it occurs in.
This paper investigates the relation between TT-MCTAG, a formalism used in computational linguistics, and RCG. RCGs are known to describe exactly the class PTIME; simple RCG even have been shown to be equivalent to linear context-free rewriting systems, i.e., to be mildly context-sensitive. TT-MCTAG has been proposed to model free word order languages. In general, it is NP-complete. In this paper, we will put an additional limitation on the derivations licensed in TT-MCTAG. We show that TT-MCTAG with this additional limitation can be transformed into equivalent simple RCGs. This result is interesting for theoretical reasons (since it shows that TT-MCTAG in this limited form is mildly context-sensitive) and, furthermore, even for practical reasons: We use the proposed transformation from TT-MCTAG to RCG in an actual parser that we have implemented.
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.
A lot of interest has recently been paid to constraint-based definitions and extensions of Tree Adjoining Grammars (TAG). Examples are the so-called quasi-trees, D-Tree Grammars and Tree Description Grammars. The latter are grammars consisting of a set of formulars denoting trees. TDGs are derivation based where in each derivation step a conjunction is built of the old formular, a formular of the grammar and additional equivalences between node names of the two formulars. This formalism is more powerfull than TAGs. TDGs offer the advantages of MC-TAG and D-Tree Grammars for natural languages and they allow underspecification. However the problem is that TDGs might be unnecessarily powerfull for natural languages. To solve this problem, in this paper, I will propose a local TDGs, a restricted version of TDGs. Local TDGs still have the advantages of TDGs but they are semilinear and therefore more appropriate for natural languages. First, the notion of the semilinearity is defined. Then local TDGs are introduced, and, finally, semilinearity of local Tree Description Languages is proven.
Our paper aims at capturing the distribution of negative polarity items (NPIs) within lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammar (LTAG). The condition under which an NPI can occur in a sentence is for it to be in the scope of a negation with no quantifiers scopally intervening. We model this restriction within a recent framework for LTAG semantics based on semantic unification. The proposed analysis provides features that signal the presence of a negation in the semantics and that specify its scope. We extend our analysis to modelling the interaction of NPI licensing and neg raising constructions.
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).