Advertisement

The Non-associativity of Polarized Tree-Based Grammars

  • Yael Cohen-Sygal
  • Shuly Wintner
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4394)

Abstract

Polarities are used to sanction grammar fragment combination in high level tree-based formalisms such as eXtenssible Meta-Grammar (XMG) and polarized unification grammars (PUG). We show that attaching polarities to tree nodes renders the combination operation non-associative, and in practice leads to overgeneration. We first provide some examples of non-associative combination operators in existing polarity-based formalisms. We then prove that there is no other non-trivial polarity system for which grammar combination is associative. This property of polarities casts doubt on the usability of polarity-based grammars for grammar engineering.

Keywords

Polarity System Tree Node Computational Linguistics White Node Tree Description 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Joshi, A.K., Levy, L.S., Takahashi, M.: Tree Adjunct Grammars. Journal of Computer and System Sciences (1975)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schabes, Y., Abeillé, A., Joshi, A.K.: Parsing strategies with ‘lexicalized’ grammars: application to tree adjoining grammars. In: Proceedings of the 12th conference on Computational linguistics, Budapest, Hungry, pp. 578–583. Association for Computational Linguistics (1988)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vijay-Shanker, K., Joshi, A.K.: Feature structure based tree adjoining grammar. In: Proceedings of the 12th conference on Computational linguistics, Budapest, Hungry, pp. 714–719. Association for Computational Linguistics (1988)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    XTAG Research Group: A lexicalized tree adjoining grammar for English. Technical Report IRCS-01-03, IRCS, University of Pennsylvania (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Abeillé, A., Candito, M.-H., Kinyon, A.: FTAG: developing and maintaining a wide-coverage grammar for French. In: Hinrichs, E., Meurers, D., Wintner, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the ESSLLI-2000 Workshop on Linguistic Theory and Grammar Implementation, pp. 21–32 (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Candito, M.-H.: A principle-based hierarchical representation of LTAGs. In: Proceedings of the 16th conference on Computational linguistics, Copenhagen, Denemark, pp. 194–199. Association for Computational Linguistics (1996)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Duchier, D., Gardent, C.: A constraint-based treatment of descriptions. In: Third International Workshop on Computational Semantics (IWCS-3), Tilburg, Netherlands (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kallmeyer, L.: Local tree description grammars. Grammars 4(2), 85–137 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Crabbé, B., Duchier, D.: Metagrammar redux. In: CSLP, Copenhagen, Denemark (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Perrier, G.: Interaction grammars. In: Proceedings of the 18th conference on Computational linguistics, Morristown, NJ, USA, pp. 600–606. Association for Computational Linguistics (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kahane, S.: Polarized unification grammars. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 44th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Sydney, Australia, July 2006, pp. 137–144 (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Crabbé, B.: Grammatical development with XMG. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics (LACL), Bordeaux, France, April 2005 (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Duchier, D., Le Roux, J., Parmentier, Y.: The metagrammar compiler: An NLP application with a multi-paradigm architecture. In: Van Roy, P. (ed.) MOZ 2004. LNCS, vol. 3389, Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kahane, S., Lareau, F.: Meaning-text unification grammar: modularity and polarization. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Meaning-Text Theory, Moscow, pp. 197–206 (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cohen-Sygal, Y., Wintner, S.: 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, Sydney, Australia, July 2006, pp. 145–152 (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yael Cohen-Sygal
    • 1
  • Shuly Wintner
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science, University of HaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations