Grammars

, Volume 3, Issue 2–3, pp 217–241 | Cite as

Relaxing Underspecified Semantic Representations for Reinterpretation

  • Alexander Koller
  • Joachim Niehren
  • Kristina Striegnitz
Article

Abstract

Type and sort conflicts in semantics are usually resolved by a process of reinterpretation, which introduces an operator into the semantic representation. We elaborate on the foundations of a recent approach to reinterpretation within a framework for semantic underspecification. In this approach, relaxed underspecified semantic representations are inferred from the syntactic structure, leaving space for subsequent addition of reinterpretation operators. Unfortunately, a structural danger of overgeneration is inherent to the relaxation of underspecified semantic representations. We identify the problem and distinguish structural properties that avoid it. We furthermore develop techniques for proving these properties and apply them to prove the safety of relaxation in a prototypical syntax/semantics interface. In doing so, we present some novel properties of tree descriptions in the constraint language over lambda structures (CLLS).

constraints natural language semantics reinterpretation tree descriptions underspecification 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alshawi, H. and R. Crouch. Monotonic Semantic Interpretation. In Proceedings of the 30th ACL, Kyoto, 32–39, 1992.Google Scholar
  2. Backofen, R., J. Rogers and K. Vijay-Shanker. A First-Order Axiomatization of the Theory of Finite Trees. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, 4: 5–39, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bierwisch, M. Semantische und konzeptionelle Repräsentation lexikalischer Einheiten. In R. Ruzicka and W. Motsch, editors, Untersuchungen zur Semantik, Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 61–99, 1983.Google Scholar
  4. Bos, J. Predicate Logic Unplugged. In Proceedings of the 10th Amsterdam Colloquium, 133–143, 1996.Google Scholar
  5. Dölling, J. Sortale Selektionsbeschränkungen und systematische Bedeutungsvariation. In M. Schwarz, editor, Kognitive Semantik/Cognitive Semantics, Tübingen: Narr, 41–59, 1994.Google Scholar
  6. Duchier, D. and J. Niehren. Dominance Constraints with Set Operators. In First International Conference on Computational Logic, 2000.Google Scholar
  7. Egg, M. Reinterpretation by Underspecification. Habilitation thesis, Universität des Saarlandes. In preparation, 2000.Google Scholar
  8. Egg, M., A. Koller and J. Niehren. The Constraint Language for Lambda Structures. Submitted, 2000.Google Scholar
  9. Egg, M., J. Niehren, P. Ruhrberg and F. Xu. Constraints over Lambda-Structures in Semantic Underspecification. In Joint COLING/ACL, 353–359, 1998.Google Scholar
  10. Gardent, C. and B. Webber. Describing Discourse Semantics. In Proceedings of the 4th TAG+ Workshop, Philadelphia, 1998.Google Scholar
  11. Koller, A., K. Mehlhorn and J. Niehren. A Polynomial-Time Fragment of Dominance Constraints. In Proceedings of the 38th ACL, 368–375, 2000.Google Scholar
  12. Koller, A., J. Niehren and R. Treinen. Dominance Constraints: Algorithms and Complexity. In Proceedings of the Third Conference on Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics, Grenoble, 1998. To appear in LNCS.Google Scholar
  13. Lascarides, A. and A. Copestake. Pragmatics and Word Meaning. Journal of Linguistics, 34: 387–414, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Marcus, M.P., D. Hindle and M.M. Fleck. D-Theory: Talking about Talking about Trees. In Proceedings of the 21st ACL, 129–136, 1983.Google Scholar
  15. Muskens, R. Order-Independence and Underspecification. In J. Groenendijk, editor, Ellipsis, Underspecification, Events and More in Dynamic Semantics. DYANA Deliverable R.2.2.C, 1995.Google Scholar
  16. Nunberg, G. Transfers of Meaning. Journal of Semantics, 12: 109–132, 1995.Google Scholar
  17. Pinkal, M. Radical Underspecification. In Proceedings of the 10th Amsterdam Colloquium, 587–606, 1996.Google Scholar
  18. Pustejovsky, J. The Generative Lexicon, Cambridge: MIT Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  19. Rambow, O., K. Vijay-Shanker and D. Weir. D-Tree Grammars. In 33rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 151–158, 1995.Google Scholar
  20. Reyle, U. Dealing with Ambiguities by Underspecification: Construction, Representation, and Deduction. Journal of Semantics, 10: 123–179, 1993.Google Scholar
  21. van Deemter, K. and S. Peters. Semantic Ambiguity and Underspecification, Stanford: CSLI, 1996.Google Scholar
  22. Vijay-Shanker, K. Using Descriptions of Trees in a Tree Adjoining Grammar. Computational Linguistics, 18: 481–518, 1992.Google Scholar
  23. Vijay-Shanker, K., D. Weir and O. Rambow. Parsing D-Tree Grammars. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Parsing Technologies, 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Koller
    • 1
  • Joachim Niehren
    • 2
  • Kristina Striegnitz
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Computational LinguisticsUniversity of the SaarlandSaarbrückenGermany
  2. 2.Programming Systems LabUniversity of the SaarlandSaarbrückenGermany
  3. 3.Department of Computational LinguisticsUniversity of the SaarlandSaarbrückenGermany

Personalised recommendations