Graph Interpolation Grammars are a declarative formalism with an operational semantics. Their goal is to emulate salient features of the human parser, and notably incrementality. The parsing process defined by GIGs incrementally builds a syntactic representation of a sentence as each successive lexeme is read. A GIG rule specifies a set of parse configurations that trigger its application and an operation to perform on a matching configuration. Rules are partly context-sensitive; furthermore, they are reversible, meaning that their operations can be undone, which allows the parsing process to be nondeterministic. These two factors confer enough expressive power to the formalism for parsing natural languages.
In Lexical Functional Grammars @cite_4 , grammatical functions are loosely coupled with phrase structure, which seems to be just the opposite of what is done in a GIG, in which functional edges are part of the phrase structure. Nonetheless, these two approaches share the concern of bringing out a functional structure, even if much of what enters into an f-structure (i.e. a functional structure) in LFG is to be addressed by the semantic component ---a topic for further research--- in GIG.
@cite_4
2085116379 2302963717 2032527312 2054890041
Abstract Theories of lexical representation in production provide sophisticated accounts of the way in which information is activated during lexical access (e.g., Levelt, Roelofs, & Meyer, 1999 ), but there has been little attempt to account for the way in which the structure of the lexical entry affects the formulation processes that underlie the production of complex expressions. This paper first outlines such an account, and then reports three experiments that investigated the priming of noun-phrase structure in dialogue. Experiment 1 showed that speakers used a complex noun phrase containing a relative clause (e.g., “the square that’s red”) more often after hearing a syntactically similar noun phrase than after hearing a simple noun phrase, and that this effect was enhanced when the head noun (“square”) was repeated. Experiment 2 showed an enhanced priming effect when prime and target contained semantically related nouns (e.g., “goat” and “sheep”). Experiment 3 showed no enhanced effect when prime and target bore a close phonological relationship (e.g., “ship” and “sheep”). These results provide support for our account, and suggest that syntactic encoding may be unaffected by phonological feedback. The strongly typed syntax of grammar formalisms such as CCG, TAG, LFG and HPSG offers a synchronous framework for deriving syntactic structures and semantic logical forms. In contrast---partly due to the lack of a strong type system---dependency structures are easy to annotate and have become a widely used form of syntactic analysis for many languages. However, the lack of a type system makes a formal mechanism for deriving logical forms from dependency structures challenging. We address this by introducing a robust system based on the lambda calculus for deriving neo-Davidsonian logical forms from dependency trees. These logical forms are then used for semantic parsing of natural language to Freebase. Experiments on the Free917 and WebQuestions datasets show that our representation is superior to the original dependency trees and that it outperforms a CCG-based representation on this task. Compared to prior work, we obtain the strongest result to date on Free917 and competitive results on WebQuestions. The editor of this volume, who is also author or coauthor of five of the contributions, has provided an introduction that not only affords an overview of the separate articles but also interrelates the basic issues in linguistics, psycholinguistics and cognitive studies that are addressed in this volume. The twelve articles are grouped into three sections, as follows: "I. Lexical Representation: " The Passive in Lexical Theory (J. Bresnan); On the Lexical Representation of Romance Reflexive Clitics (J. Grimshaw); and Polyadicity (J. Bresnan)."II. Syntactic Representation: " Lexical-Functional Grammar: A Formal Theory for Grammatical Representation (R. Kaplan and J. Bresnan); Control and Complementation (J. Bresnan); Case Agreement in Russian (C. Neidle); The Representation of Case in Icelandic (A. Andrews); Grammatical Relations and Clause Structure in Malayalam (K. P. Monahan); and Sluicing: A Lexical Interpretation Procedure (L. Levin)."III. Cognitive Processing of Grammatical Representations: " A Theory of the Acquisition of Lexical Interpretive Grammars (S. Pinker); Toward a Theory of Lexico-Syntactic Interactions in Sentence Perception (M. Ford, J. Bresnan, and R. Kaplan); and Sentence Planning Units: Implications for the Speaker's Representation of Meaningful Relations Underlying Sentences (M. Ford). The automatic compilation of bilingual lists of terms from specialized comparable corpora using lexical alignment has been successful for single-word terms (SWTs), but remains disappointing for multi-word terms (MWTs). The low frequency and the variability of the syntactic structures of MWTs in the source and the target languages are the main reported problems. This paper defines a general framework dedicated to the lexical alignment of MWTs from comparable corpora that includes a compositional translation process and the standard lexical context analysis. The compositional method which is based on the translation of lexical items being restrictive, we introduce an extended compositional method that bridges the gap between MWTs of different syntactic structures through morphological links. We experimented with the two compositional methods for the French–Japanese alignment task. The results show a significant improvement for the translation of MWTs and advocate further morphological analysis in lexical alignment.