Tree Wrapping for Role and Reference Grammar

  • Laura Kallmeyer
  • Rainer Osswald
  • Robert D. Van ValinJr.
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8036)


We present a tree rewriting system that aims at formalizing the composition of syntactic templates in Role and Reference Grammar, a linguistic grammar developed mainly for typological analysis. Building on ideas from Tree Adjoining Grammar, we devise two basic operations for syntactic composition: (wrapping) substitution and sister adjunction. The first operation models plain argument insertion as well as the construction of long distance dependencies. The second operation implements adjunction to non-binary trees. We complement the definition of this tree rewriting system, called Tree Wrapping Grammar, by giving a CYK parser for grammars of this type.


Anchor Node Derive Tree Elementary Tree Complement Clause Syntactic Tree 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Van Valin Jr., R.D., Foley, W.A.: Role and reference grammar. In: Moravcsik, E.A., Wirth, J.R. (eds.) Current Approaches to Syntax. Syntax and semantics, vol. 13, pp. 329–352. Academic Press, New York (1980)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Van Valin Jr., R.D., LaPolla, R.: Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge University Press (1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Van Valin Jr., R.D.: Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Cambridge University Press (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stabler, E.P.: Derivational Minimalism. In: Retoré, C. (ed.) LACL 1996. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1328, pp. 68–95. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Joshi, A.K., Levy, L.S., Takahashi, M.: Tree Adjunct Grammars. Journal of Computer and System Science 10, 136–163 (1975)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Joshi, A.K., Schabes, Y.: Tree-Adjoning Grammars. In: Rozenberg, G., Salomaa, A. (eds.) Handbook of Formal Languages, pp. 69–123. Springer, Berlin (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Abeillé, A., Rambow, O.: Tree Adjoining Grammar: An Overview. In: Abeillé, A., Rambow, O. (eds.) Tree Adjoining Grammars: Formalisms, Linguistic Analysis and Processing, pp. 1–68. CSLI (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Frank, R.: Phrase Structure Composition and Syntactic Dependencies. MIT Press, Cambridge (2002)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Crabbé, B., Duchier, D.: Metagrammar Redux. In: International Workshop on Constraint Solving and Language Processing, Copenhagen (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Joshi, A.K., Kallmeyer, L., Romero, M.: Flexible composition in LTAG: Quantifier scope and inverse linking. In: Bunt, H., van der Sluis, I., Morante, R. (eds.) Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Computational Semantics IWCS-5, Tilburg, pp. 179–194 (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chiang, D., Scheffler, T.: Flexible composition and delayed tree-locality. In: TAG+9 Proceedings of the Ninth International Workshop on Tree-Adjoining Grammar and Related Formalisms (TAG+9), Tübingen, pp. 17–24 (June 2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rambow, O.: Formal and Computational Aspects of Natural Language Syntax. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania (1994)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rambow, O., Vijay-Shanker, K., Weir, D.: D-Tree Substitution Grammars. Computational Linguistics (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chen-Main, J., Joshi, A.: A dependency perspective on the adequacy of tree local multi-component tree adjoining grammar. Journal of Logic and Computation Advance Access (June 2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rambow, O., Vijay-Shanker, K., Weir, D.: D-Tree Grammars. In: Proceedings of ACL (1995)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schabes, Y., Shieber, S.M.: An Alternative Conception of Tree-Adjoining Derivation. Computational Linguistics 20(1), 91–124 (1994)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bresnan, J., Kaplan, R.M., Peters, S., Zaenen, A.: Cross-serial dependencies in Dutch. Linguistic Inquiry 13(4), 613–635 (1982)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shieber, S.M.: Evidence against the context-freeness of natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 8, 333–343 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Guest, E.: Parsing for role and reference grammar. In: Van Valin Jr., R.D. (ed.) Investigations of the Syntax-Semantics-Pragmatics Interface, pp. 435–454. John Benjamins B. V., Amsterdam (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Guest, E.: Parsing using the role and reference grammar paradigm. In: The 13th World Multi-Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, WMSCI 2009 (July 2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vijay-Shanker, K., Joshi, A.K.: Some computational properties of Tree Adjoining Grammars. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 82–93 (1985)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kallmeyer, L., Satta, G.: A Polynomial-Time Parsing Algorithm for TT-MCTAG. In: Proceedings of the Joint Conference of the 47th Annual Meeting of the ACL and the 4th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing of the AFNLP, pp. 994–1002. Association for Computational Linguistics, Suntec, Singapore (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kallmeyer, L.: Parsing Beyond Context-Free Grammars. Cognitive Technologies. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shieber, S.M., Schabes, Y., Pereira, F.C.N.: Principles and implementation of deductive parsing. Journal of Logic Programming 24(1+2), 3–36 (1995)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura Kallmeyer
    • 1
  • Rainer Osswald
    • 1
  • Robert D. Van ValinJr.
    • 1
  1. 1.Sonderforschungsbereich 991Heinrich-Heine-Universität DüsseldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations