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
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.