Research on Language and Computation

, Volume 3, Issue 2–3, pp 281–332 | Cite as

Minimal Recursion Semantics: An Introduction

  • Ann Copestake
  • Dan Flickinger
  • Carl Pollard
  • Ivan A. Sag
Article

Abstract

Minimal recursion semantics (MRS) is a framework for computational semantics that is suitable for parsing and generation and that can be implemented in typed feature structure formalisms. We discuss why, in general, a semantic representation with minimal structure is desirable and illustrate how a descriptively adequate representation with a nonrecursive structure may be achieved. MRS enables a simple formulation of the grammatical constraints on lexical and phrasal semantics, including the principles of semantic composition. We have integrated MRS with a broad-coverage HPSG grammar.

Keywords

computational semantics flat semantics semantic composition grammar implementation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abb B., Buschbeck-Wolf B., Tschernitschek C. (1996) Abstraction and Underspecification in Semantic Transfer. In: Proceedings of the Second Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas (AMTA-96). Montreal, pp. 56–65.Google Scholar
  2. Alshawi, H. and Crouch, R. (1992) Monotonic Semantic Interpretation. In: Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-92). Newark, NJ, pp. 32–39.Google Scholar
  3. Baldridge, J. and Kruijff, G.-J. M. (2002) Coupling CCG and Hybrid Logic Dependency Semantics. In: Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  4. Beermann, D. and Hellan, L. (2004) Semantic Decomposition in a Computational HPSG Grammar: A Treatment of Aspect and Context-dependent Directionals. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Semantics at the 11th International Conference on HPSG Leuven, Belgium.Google Scholar
  5. Bender, E. M., Flickinger, D. and Oepen, S. (2002) The Grammar Matrix: An open-source starter-kit for the rapid development of cross-linguistically consistent broad-coverage precision grammars. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Grammar Engineering and Evaluation at the 19th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Taipei, Taiwan, pp. 8–14.Google Scholar
  6. Bender, E. M. and Flickinger, D. (2003) Compositional Semantics in a Multilingual Grammar Resource. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Ideas and Stratgies for Multilingual Grammar Development, ESSLLI 2003. Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
  7. Bos, J. (1995). Predicate Logic Unplugged. In: Proceedings of the 10th Amsterdam Colloquium. Amsterdam, pp. 133–142.Google Scholar
  8. Bouma, G., Malouf, R. and Sag, I. A. (1998) Adjunct Scope and Complex Predicates, Paper presented at the 20th Annual Meeting of the DGfS. Section 8: The Syntax of Adverbials – Theoretical and Cross-linguistic Aspects. Halle, Germany.Google Scholar
  9. Carlson, G.N.Pelletier, F.J. eds. 1995The Generic BookUniversity of Chicago PressChicagoGoogle Scholar
  10. Carroll, J., Copestake, A. Flickinger, D. and Poznanski, V. (1999) An Efficient Chart Generator for (Semi-)lexicalist Grammars. In: Proceedings of the 7th European Workshop on Natural Language Generation (EWNLG’99). Toulouse, pp. 86–95.Google Scholar
  11. Cooper, R. 1983Quantification and Syntactic TheoryReidelDordrechtGoogle Scholar
  12. Copestake, A. (1995) Semantic Transfer for Verbmobil. ACQUILEX II working paper 62 and Verbmobil report 93.Google Scholar
  13. Copestake, A., Flickinger, D. Malouf, R. Riehemann, S. and Sag, I. A. (1995) Translation using Minimal Recursion Semantics. In: Proceedings of the The Sixth International Conference on Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Machine Translation (TMI-95). Leuven, Belgium.Google Scholar
  14. Copestake, A., Lascarides, A. and Flickinger, D. (2001) An Algebra for Semantic Construction in Constraint-Based Grammars. In: Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2001). Toulouse, France.Google Scholar
  15. Dahllöf, M. 2002Token Dependency Semantics and the Paratactic Analysis of Intensional constructionsJournal of Semantics19333368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Davis, A. 2001Linking by Types in the Hierarchical LexiconCSLI PublicationsStanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  17. Deemter, K.Peters, S. eds. 1996Semantic Ambiguity and UnderspecificationCSLI PublicationsStanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  18. Egg, M. 1998Wh-questions in Underspecified Minimal Recursion SemanticsJournal of Semantics153782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Egg, M. and Lebeth, K. (1995) Semantic Underspecification and Modifier Attachment. Intergrative Ansätze in der Computerlinguistik. Beiträge zur 5. Fachtagung für Computerlinguistik der DGfS.Google Scholar
  20. Egg, M., Lebeth, K. (1996) Semantic Interpretation in HPSG. Presented at the Third International Conference on HPSG. Marseilles, France.Google Scholar
  21. Egg, M., Koller, A., Niehren, J. 2001The Constraint Language for Lambda StructuresJournal of Logic, Language, and Information10457485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fillmore, C.J., Kay, P., O’Connor, M.C. 1988Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of Let AloneLanguage.64501538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Flickinger, D., Copestake, A., Sag, I.A. 2000

    HPSG Analysis of English

    Wahl-ster, W.Karger, R. eds. Verbmobil: Foundations of Speech-to-Speech TranslationSpringer VerlagBerlin, Heidelberg and New York254263
    Google Scholar
  24. Frank, A. and Reyle, U. (1994) Principle-Based Semantics for HPSG. Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340. University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  25. Fuchss, R., Koller, A., Niehren, J. and Thater, S. (2004) Minimal Recursion Semantics as Dominance Constraints: Translation, Evaluation, and Analysis. In: Proceedings of the 42nd Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-04). Barcelona, Spain, pp. 247–254.Google Scholar
  26. Gardent, C. and Kallmeyer, L. (2003) Semantic Construction in Feature-Based TAG. In: Proceedings of the 10th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL-03). Budapest, pp. 123–130.Google Scholar
  27. Ginzburg, J., Sag, I.A. 2000Interrogative Investigations: The Form, Meaning and Use of English InterrogativesCSLIStanfordGoogle Scholar
  28. Hobbs, J. (1983) An Improper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-83). MIT, Cambridge, MA, pp. 57–63.Google Scholar
  29. Hobbs, J. (1985) Ontological Promiscuity. In: Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-85). Chicago, IL, pp. 61–69.Google Scholar
  30. Hobbs, J., Shieber, S.M. 1987An Algorithm for Generating Quantifier ScopingsComputational Linguistics134763Google Scholar
  31. Kallmeyer, L. and Joshi, A. (1999) Factoring Predicate Argument and Scope Semantics: Underspecified Semantics with LTAG. In: Proceedings of the 12th Amsterdam Colloquium. Dekker, P. (ed.) Amsterdam, ILLC, pp. 169–174.Google Scholar
  32. Kamp, H., Reyle, U. 1993From Discourse to Logic: An Introduction to Modeltheoretic Semantics, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation TheoryKluwer Academic PublishersDordrecht, The NeterlandsGoogle Scholar
  33. Kasper, R. (1996) Semantics of Recursive Modification, unpublished MS. Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  34. Kay, M. 1970

    From Semantics to Syntax

    Bierwisch, M.Heidorn, K.E. eds. Progress in LinguisticsMoutonThe Hague114126
    Google Scholar
  35. Kay, M. (1996) Chart Generation. In: Proceeding of the 34th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-96). Santa Cruz, CA, pp. 200–204.Google Scholar
  36. Kiss, T. 2005Semantic Constraints on Relative Clause ExtrapositionNatural Language and Linguistic Theory23281334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Koenig, J.-P., Muansuwan, N. 2005The Syntax of Aspect in ThaiNatural Language and Linguistic Theory23335380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Koller, A, Niehren, J. and Thater, S. (2003) Bridging the Gap between Underspecification Formalisms: Hole Semantics as dominance constraints. In: Proceedings of the 10th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL-03). Budapest, pp. 195–202.Google Scholar
  39. Landsbergen, J. (1987) Isomorphic Grammars and Their Use in the ROSETTA Translation system. In: King, M. (ed.), Machine Translation Today: The State of the Art. Edinburgh University Press, pp. 351–372.Google Scholar
  40. Nerbonne, J. (1993) A Feature-Based Syntax/Semantics Interface. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence (Special Issue on Mathematics of Language, Manaster-Ramer, A. and Zadrozsny, W. eds.), 8, pp. 107–132.Google Scholar
  41. Niehren, J. and Thater, S. (2003) Bridging the Gap Between Underspecification Formalisms: Minimal Recursion Semantics as Dominance Constraints. In: Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-03). Sapporo, Japan.Google Scholar
  42. Partee, B., ter Meulen, A., Wall, R.E. 1993Mathematical Methods in LinguisticsKluwer Academic PublishersDordrechtGoogle Scholar
  43. Phillips, J.D. 1993Generation of Text from Logical FormulaeMachine Translation.8209235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pinkal, M. (1996) Radical Underspecification, In: Dekker, P. and Stokhof, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the 10th Amsterdam Colloquium. Amsterdam, ILLC, pp. 587–606.Google Scholar
  45. Pollard, C., Sag, I.A. 1994Head-driven Phrase Structure GrammarUniversity of Chicago PressChicagoGoogle Scholar
  46. Pollard, C., Yoo, E.J. 1998A Unified Theory of Scope for Quantifiers and Wh-phrasesJournal of Linguistics34415445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Poznanski, V., Beaven, J. L. and Whitelock, P. (1995) An Efficient Generation Algorithm for Lexicalist MT. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-95). Cambridge, MA, pp. 261–267.Google Scholar
  48. Przepiórkowski, A. (1999) Case Assignment and the Complement-Adjunct Dichotomy – A non-configurational, constraint-based approach. Doctoral dissertation, Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
  49. Reyle, U. 1993Dealing with Ambiguities by UnderspecificationJournal of Semantics.10123179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Richter F., Sailer, M. Polish Negation and Lexical Resource Semantics. In: Kruijff, G.-J. M., Moss, L. S. and Oehrle, R. T. (eds.), Proceedings of FGMOL 2001. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 53. Elsevier.Google Scholar
  51. Riehemann, S. (2001) A Constructional Approach to Idioms and Word Formation. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  52. Sag, I.A., Pollard, C. 1991An Integrated Theory of Complement ControlLanguage6763113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Shieber, S.M. 1993The Problem of Logical form EquivalenceComputational Linguistics19179190Google Scholar
  54. Siegel, M. and Bender, E. M. (2002) Efficient Deep Processing of Japanese. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Asian Language Resources and International Standardization. COLING 2002 Post-Conference Workshop. Taipei, Taiwan.Google Scholar
  55. Trujillo, I. A. (1995) Lexicalist Machine Translation of Spatial Prepositions. PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
  56. Villavicencio, A. (2002) The Acquisition of a Unification-Based Generalised Categorial Grammar. PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge, available as Computer Laboratory Technical Report 533.Google Scholar
  57. Warner, A. 2000

    English Auxiliaries without Lexical Rules

    Borsley, R. eds. Syntax and Semantics. The Nature and Function of Syntactic CategoriesAcademic PressSan Diego and London167220Vol. 32
    CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Whitelock, P. (1992) Shake-and-Bake Translation. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING-92). Nantes, France.Google Scholar
  59. Woods, W., Kaplan, R. M. and Nash-Webber, B. (1972) The LUNAR Sciences Natural Language Information System: Final Report (BBN Technical Report 2378). Bolt, Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ann Copestake
    • 1
  • Dan Flickinger
    • 2
    • 3
  • Carl Pollard
    • 4
  • Ivan A. Sag
    • 5
  1. 1.Computer LaboratoryUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  2. 2.CSLIStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  3. 3.Linguistics InstituteUniversity of OsloNorway
  4. 4.Linguistics DepartmentOhio State UniversityColumbusUSA
  5. 5.Department of LinguisticsStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations