Semantic Interpretation in a Systemic Functional Grammar

  • Tim F. O’Donoghue
Part of the The Springer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science book series (SECS, volume 255)

Abstract

This chapter describes a method for obtaining the semantic representation for a syntax tree in a Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG). A prototype implementation of this method — the REVELATION]. semantic interpreter has been developed. This interpreter is derived from a SFG generator for a subset of English — GENESYS — and is thus, in contrast with most reversible grammars, an interpreter based on a generator. Since REVELATION] assumes that some parser is available to produce a syntax tree for interpretation, this chapter also briefly discusses how such a parser can be automatically derived from a SFG generator.

Keywords

Suffix Proteus IMBER 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    M. A. K. Halliday. Categories of the theory of grammar.Word17:241–292, 1961.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    M. A. K. Halliday, A. McIntosh, and P. Strevens.The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching.Longman, 1964.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Christopher S. Butler.Systemic Linguistics: Theory and Applications.Batsford, London, 1985.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Terry Winograd.Understanding Natural Language.Edinburgh University Press, 1972.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Anthony Davey.Discourse Production: A Computer Model of Some Aspects of a Speaker.Edinburgh University Press, 1978.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    William C. Mann and Christian Matthiessen. NIGEL: A systemic grammar for text generation. Research Report RR-83–105, USC/Information Sciences Institute, 1983.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Christian Matthiessen and John A. Bateman.Text Generation and Systemic-Functional Linguistics: experiences from English and Japanese.Pinter, London, 1991.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Terry Patten.Systemic Text Generation as Problem Solving.Cambridge University Press, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Robin P. Fawcett and Gordon H. Tucker. Demonstration of GENESYS: a very large semantically based systemic functional grammar. InProceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics1990.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Robert T. Kasper. An experimental parser for systemic grammars. InProceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computational Linguistics 1988.Also available as USC/Information Sciences Institute Reprint RS-88–212. Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Robert T. Kasper. Unification and classification: An experiment in information-based parsing. InProceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Parsing Technologies 1989. Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    John A. Bateman and Stefan Momma. The nondirectional representation of systemic functional grammars and semantics as typed feature structures. Technical Report (draft), GMD/Institut für Integriete Publications-und Informationssysteme, Darmstadt and Institut für Maschinelle Sprachverarbeitung, Stuttgart University, Germany, February1991. Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Christian Matthiessen, Michael O’Donnell, and Licheng Zeng. Discourse analysis and the need for functionally complex grammars in parsing. Unpublished research paper. Department of Lingusitics, University of Sydney, August1991. Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Chris Mellish. Implementing systemic classification by unification.Computational Linguistics 14(1):40–511988.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Chris Brew. Partial descriptions and systemic grammar. InProceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics1990.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Chris Brew. Systemic classification and its efficiency. Research Paper HCRC/RP-18, Human Communication Research Center, University of Edinburgh, March 1991.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Robin P. Fawcett.Cognitive Linguistics and Social Interaction: towards an integrated model of a Systemic Functional Grammar and other components of an interacting mindvolume5ofExeter Linguistic Studies.Julius Groos Verlag, Heidlberg, 1980.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Robin P. Fawcett. The English personal pronouns: An exercise in linguistic theory. In Benson et al. [33], pages185–220. Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Robin P. Fawcett. Language generation as choice in social interaction.In Zock and Sabah [34], chapter 2, pages 27–49.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    John T. Maxwell and Ronald M. Kaplan. The interface between phrasal and functional constraints. Unpublished research paper (submitted toComputational Linguistics).Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, October 1991.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Tim F. O’Donoghue. The vertical strip parser: a lazy approach to parsing. Report 91.15, School of Computer Studies, University of Leeds, May 1991. (Submitted toComputational Linguistics). Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Tim F. O’Donoghue.Reversing the Process of Generation in Systemic Grammar.PhD thesis, University of Leeds, 1993. To appear.Google Scholar
  23. [24]
    Robert T. Kasper. A unification method for disjunctive feature descriptions. InProceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics1987. Previously available as USC/Information Sciences Institute Report RR-87–187.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    Stephen C. Kleene.Introduction to Metamathematics.North-Holland, 1952.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    Mark Stefik, Janice Atkins, Robert Balzer, John Benoit, Lawrence Birnbaum, Frederick Hayes-Roth, and Earl Sacerdoti. The architecture of expert systems. In Hayes-Roth et al. [35], chapter 4, pages 89–126.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    M. A. K. Halliday.Explorations in the Functions of Language.Edward Arnold, 1973.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    Richard A. Hudson. Systemic generative grammar.Linguistics139:5–42, 1974. Reprinted in [36, 190–217].Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    Christian Matthiessen. Representational issues in systemic functional grammar. InProceedings of the 12th International Systemic WorkshopAugust 1985. Also available in USC/Information Sciences Institute Reprint RS-87–179.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    Terry Winograd.Language as a Cognitive Process Volume 1: Syntax.Addison Wesley, 1983.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    Joan M. Wright. The further development of a toolkit forGENESYS. COMMUNAL Report 9, Computational Linguistics Unit, University of Wales College of Cardiff, December 1988.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    Robin P. Fawcett. Fifteen theoretical questions for systemic linguists in the 90s.Network 141991.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    Michael J. Cummings. Simulating grammatical preselection with list processing. In Berry et al. [37].Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    James D. Benson, Michael J. Cummings, and William S. Greaves, editors.Linguistics in a Systemic Perspective.John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1988.Google Scholar
  34. [35]
    Michael Zock and Gérard Sabah, editors.Advances in Natural Language Generation: An Interdisciplinary Perspectivevolume 2. Pinter, 1988.Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    Frederick Hayes-Roth, Donald A. Waterman, and Douglas B. Lenat, editors.Building Expert Systems.Addison Wesley, 1983.Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    M. A. K. Halliday and J. R. Martin, editors.Readings in Systemic Linguistics.Batsford Academic, London, 1981.Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    Margaret M. Berry, Christopher S. Butler, and Robin P. Fawcett, editors.Grammatical Structure: A Systemic Functional Perspectivevolume 2 ofMeaning and Choice in Language: Studies for Michael Halliday.Ablex, Newark NJ, 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tim F. O’Donoghue
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Artificial Intelligence School of Computer StudiesThe University of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations