Advertisement

Journal of Logic, Language and Information

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 293–316 | Cite as

Associative Grammar Combination Operators for Tree-Based Grammars

  • Yael Sygal
  • Shuly Wintner
Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Polarized unification grammar (PUG) is a linguistic formalism which uses polarities to better control the way grammar fragments interact. The grammar combination operation of PUG was conjectured to be associative. We show that PUG grammar combination is not associative, and even attaching polarities to objects does not make it order-independent. Moreover, we prove that no non-trivial polarity system exists for which grammar combination is associative. We then redefine the grammar combination operator, moving to the powerset domain, in a way that guarantees associativity. The method we propose is general and is applicable to a variety of tree-based grammar formalisms.

Keywords

Polarized unification grammar Grammatical formalisms Modularity Grammar combination 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abeillé A., Candito M.-H., Kinyon A. (2000) FTAG: Developing and maintaining a wide-coverage grammar for French. In: Erhard H., Meurers D., Wintner S.(eds) Proceedings of the ESSLLI-2000 Workshop on Linguistic Theory and Grammar Implementation. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Germany, pp 21–32Google Scholar
  2. Bonfante, G., Guillaume, B., Perrier, G. (2004). Polarization and abstraction of grammatical formalisms as methods for lexical disambiguation. In Proceedings of the 20th international conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 04), Association for Computational Linguistics, Morristown, NJ, pp. 303–309.Google Scholar
  3. Candito, M.-H. (1996). A principle-based hierarchical representation of LTAGs. In Proceedings of the 16th conference on Computational linguistics (COLING 1996), pp. 194–199, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
  4. Cohen-Sygal, Y., & Wintner, S. (2006, July). Partially specified signatures: A vehicle for grammar modularity. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 44th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (COLING-ACL 2006), Sydney, Australia, pp. 145–152.Google Scholar
  5. Crabbé, B. (2005, April). Grammatical development with XMG. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics (LACL), Bordeaux, France.Google Scholar
  6. Crabbé, B., & Duchier, D. (2004). Metagrammar redux. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Constraint Solving and Language Processing (CSLP), Copenhagen, Denemark.Google Scholar
  7. Duchier, D., & Gardent, C. (1999). A constraint-based treatment of descriptions. In Third International Workshop on Computational Semantics (IWCS-3).Google Scholar
  8. Duchier, D., & Gardent, C. (2001). Tree descriptions, constraints and incrementality. In H. Bunt, R. Muskens & E. Thijsse (Eds.), Computing meaning, Vol. 2, Volume 77 of studies in linguistics and philosophy (pp. 205–227). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Duchier, D., Le Roux, J., & Parmentier, Y. (2004). The metagrammar compiler: An NLP application with a multi-paradigm architecture. In Proceedings of the Second International Mozart/Oz Conference (MOZ 2004), Charleroi, Belgium, October.Google Scholar
  10. Joshi A., Leon K., Levy S., Masako T. (1975) Tree adjunct grammars. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 10: 136–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kahane, S. (2006, July). Polarized unification grammars. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 44th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (COLING-ACL 2006), Sydney, Australia, pp. 137–144.Google Scholar
  12. Kahane, S., & Lareau, F. (2005). Meaning-text unification grammar: Modularity and polarization. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Meaning-Text Theory, pp. 197–206, Moscow.Google Scholar
  13. Kallmeyer L. (2001) Local tree description grammars. Grammars 4(2): 85–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Parmentier, Y., Kallmeyer, L., Lichte, T., & Maier, W. (2007, June). Xmg: Extending metagrammars to mctag. In Actes de l’atelier sur les formalismes syntaxiques de haut niveau, Conference sur le Traitement Automatique des Langues Naturelles, TALN 2007, Toulouse, France.Google Scholar
  15. Perrier, G. (2000). Interaction grammars. In Proceedings of the 18th conference on Computational linguistics (COLING 2000), pp. 600–606.Google Scholar
  16. Rambow, O., Vijay-Shanker, K., & Weir, D. (1995). D-tree grammars. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Sarrebrucken, pp. 151–158.Google Scholar
  17. Vijay-Shanker K. (1992) Using descriptions of trees in a tree adjoining grammar. Computational Linguistics 18(4): 481–517Google Scholar
  18. XTAG Research Group. (2001). A lexicalized tree adjoining grammar for English. Technical Report IRCS-01-03 IRCS, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of HaifaHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options