Syntax-driven semantic frame composition in Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammars

• Autorzy: Kallmeyer L. , Osswald R.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.15398/jlm.v1i2.61

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The grammar framework presented in this paper combines Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammar (LTAG) with a (de)compositional frame semantics. We introduce elementary constructions as pairs of elementary LTAG trees and decompositional frames. The linking between syntax and semantics can largely be captured by such construction since in LTAG, elementary trees represent full argument projections. Substitution and adjunction in the syntax then trigger the unification of the associated semantic frames, which are formally defined as base-labelled feature structures. Moreover, the system of elementary constructions is specified in a metagrammar by means of tree and frame descriptions. This metagrammatical factorization gives rise to a fine-grained decomposition of the semantic contributions of syntactic building blocks, and it allows us to separate lexical from constructional contributions and to carve out generalizations across constructions. In the second half of the paper, we apply the framework to the analysis of directed motion expressions and of the dative alternation in English, two well known examples of the interaction between lexical and constructional meaning.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

lexicalized tree adjoining grammars; syntax-semantics interface; decompositional frame semantics; elementary constructions; metagrammar; feature structures; dative alternation; directed motion expressions

• Wydawca: Instytut Podstaw Informatyki PAN
• Czasopismo: Journal of Language Modelling
• Rocznik: 2013
• Tom: Vol. 1, No. 2
• Strony: 267--330
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 68 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Kallmeyer L.

• Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany

autor

Osswald R.

• Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany

Bibliografia

• [1] Anne Abeillé (2002), Une Grammaire Électronique du Français, CNRS Editions, Paris.
• [2] Anne Abeillé and Owen Rambow (2000), Tree Adjoining Grammar: An Overview, in Anne Abeillé and Owen Rambow, editors, Tree Adjoining Grammars: Formalisms, Linguistic Analyses and Processing, pp. 1-68, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.
• [3] Srinivas Bangalore and Aravind K. Joshi (2010), Introduction, in S. Bangalore and A. K. Joshi, editors, Supertagging: Using Complex Lexical Descriptions in Natural Language Processing, pp. 1-31, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
• [4] John Beavers (2011), An Aspectual Analysis of Ditransitive Verbs of Caused Possession in English, Journal of Semantics, 28: 1-54.
• [5] Benjamin K. Bergen and Nancy Chang (2005), Embodied Construction Grammar in simulation-based language understanding, in Jan-Ola Östman and Mirjam Fried, editors, Construction Grammars. Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions, pp. 147-190, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
• [6] Patrick Blackburn (1993), Modal Logic and Attribute Value Structures, in Maarten de Rijke, editor, Diamonds and Defaults, pp. 19-65, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
• [7] Patrick Blackburn and Johan Bos (2003), Computational Semantics, Theoria, 18 (1): 27-45.
• [8] Joan Bresnan and Marilyn Ford (2010), Predicting Syntax: Processing Dative Constructions in American and Australian Varieties of English., Language, 86 (1): 186-213.
• [9] Joan Bresnan and Tatiana Nikitina (2010), The Gradience of the Dative Alternation, in Linda Uyechi and Lian Hee Wee, editors, Reality Exploration and Discovery: Pattern Interaction in Language and Life, pp. 161-184, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.
• [10] Marie-Hélène Candito (1999), Organisation modulaire et paramétrable de grammaires électroniques lexicalisées. Application au français et à l’italien, Ph.D. thesis, Université Paris 7, Paris.
• [11] Bob Carpenter (1992), The Logic of Typed Feature Structures, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• [12] Ann Copestake, Dan Flickinger, Carl Pollard, and Ivan A. Sag (2005), Minimal Recursion Semantics: An Introduction, Research on Language and Computation, 3: 281-332.
• [13] Benoit Crabbé (2005), Grammatical Development with XMG, in Philippe Blache, Edward Stabler, Joan Busquets, and Richard Moot, editors, Proceedings of LACL 2005, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 3492, pp. 84-100, Springer, Berlin.
• [14] Benoit Crabbé and Denys Duchier (2005), Metagrammar Redux, in Henning Christiansen, Peter Rossen Skadhauge, and Jørgen Villadsen, editors, Constraint Solving and Language Processing, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3438, pp. 32-47, Springer, Berlin.
• [15] Benoit Crabbé, Denys Duchier, Claire Gardent, Joseph Le Roux, and Yannick Parmentier (2013), XMG: eXtensible MetaGrammar, Computational Linguistics, 39 (3): 591-629.
• [16] David Dowty (1979), Word Meaning and Montague Grammar, D. Reidel, Dordrecht.
• [17] David Dowty (2003), The dual analysis of adjuncts/complements in Categorial Grammar, in Ewald Lang, Claudia Maienborn, and Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen, editors, Modifying Adjuncts, Interface Explorations 4, pp. 33-66, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
• [18] Veronika Ehrich (1996), Verbbedeutung und Verbgrammatik: Transportverben im Deutschen, in Ewald Lang and Gisela Zifonun, editors, Deutsch - typologisch, pp. 229-260, de Gruyter, Berlin.
• [19] Carola Eschenbach, Ladina Tschander, Christopher Habel, and Lars Kulik (2000), Lexical Specifications of Paths, in Christian Freksa, Wilfried Brauer, Christopher Habel, and Karl Friedrich Wender, editors, Spatial Cognition II, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1849, pp. 127-144, Springer, Berlin.
• [20] Charles J. Fillmore (1982), Frame Semantics, in Linguistics in the Morning Calm, pp. 111-137, Hanshin Publishing Co., Seoul.
• [21] Charles J. Fillmore (1986), Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora, in Berkeley Linguistics Society 12, pp. 95-107.
• [22] Charles J. Fillmore (2007), Valency Issues in FrameNet, in Thomas Herbst and Katrin Götz-Votteler, editors, Valency: Theoretical, Descriptive and Cognitive Issues, pp. 129-160, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
• [23] Charles J. Fillmore, Christopher R. Johnson, and Miriam R. L. Petruck (2003), Background to FrameNet, International Journal of Lexicography, 16 (3): 235-250.
• [24] William A. Foley and Robert D. Van Valin (1984), Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• [25] Robert Frank (2002), Phrase Structure Composition and Syntactic Dependencies, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
• [26] Claire Gardent and Laura Kallmeyer (2003), Semantic Construction in FTAG, in Proceedings of EACL 2003, pp. 123-130.
• [27] Berit Gehrke (2008), Ps in Motion. On the semantics and syntax of P elements and motion events, LOT, Utrecht.
• [28] Adele E. Goldberg (1995), Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach toArgument Structure, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
• [29] Adele E. Goldberg and Ray Jackendoff (2004), The English resultative as a family of constructions, Language, 80: 532-568.
• [30] Fritz Hamm, Hans Kamp, and Michiel van Lambalgen (2006), There is no opposition between Formal and Cognitive Semantics, Theoretical Linguistics, 32 (1): 1-40.
• [31] Stephen J. Hegner (1994), Properties of Horn Clauses in Feature-Structure Logic, in C. J. Rupp, Michael A. Rosner, and Rod L. Johnson, editors, Constraints, Language and Computation, pp. 111-147, Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
• [32] Ray Jackendoff (1991), Parts and Boundaries, Cognition, 41: 9-45.
• [33] Aravind K. Joshi and Yves Schabes (1997), Tree-Adjoining Grammars, in Grzegorz Rozenberg and Arto Salomaa, editors, Handbook of Formal Languages. Vol. 3: Beyond Words, pp. 69-123, Springer, Berlin.
• [34] Laura Kallmeyer and Aravind K. Joshi (2003), Factoring Predicate Argument and Scope Semantics: Underspecified Semantics with LTAG, Research on Language and Computation, 1 (1/2): 3-58.
• [35] Laura Kallmeyer and Maribel Romero (2008), Scope and Situation Binding in LTAG using Semantic Unification, Research on Language and Computation, 6 (1): 3-52.
• [36] Ingrid Kaufmann (1995), Konzeptuelle Grundlagen semantischer Dekompositionsstrukturen. Die Kombinatorik lokaler Verben und prädikativer Argumente, Niemeyer, Tübingen.
• [37] Jean-Pierre Koenig and Anthony R. Davis (2001), Sublexical Modality and the Structure of Lexical Semantic Representations, Linguistics and Philosophy, 24: 71-124.
• [38] Karsten Konrad (2004), Model Generation for Natural Language Interpretation and Analysis, Springer, Berlin.
• [39] Manfred Krifka (2004), Semantic and pragmatic conditions for the Dative Alternation, Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 4: 1-32.
• [40] Anthony S. Kroch (1989), Asymmetries in long-distance extraction in a Tree Adjoining Grammar, in Mark R. Baltin and Anthony S. Kroch, editors, Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure, pp. 66-98, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
• [41] Beth Levin and Malka Rappaport Hovav (2005), Argument Realization, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• [42] Timm Lichte, Alexander Diez, and Simon Petitjean (2013), Coupling Trees and Frames through XMG, in Denys Duchier and Yannick Parmentier, editors, ESSLLI 2013 Workshop on High-level Methodologies for Grammar Engineering, pp. 37-48.
• [43] Sebastian Löbner (2014), Evidence for Frames from Human Language, in Thomas Gamerschlag, Doris Gerland, Rainer Osswald, and Wiebke Petersen, editors, Frames and Concept Types, pp. 23-67, Springer, Dordrecht.
• [44] Claudia Maienborn (2011), Event Semantics, in Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger, and Paul Portner, editors, Semantics. An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning. Volume 1, pp. 802-829, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
• [45] Inderjeet Mani and James Pustejovsky (2012), Interpreting Motion. Grounded Representations for Spatial Language, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• [46] Stefan Müller (2006), Phrasal or Lexical Constructions, Language, 82 (4): 850-883.
• [47] Rebecca Nesson and Stuart M. Shieber (2006), Simpler TAG Semantics Through Synchronization, in Shuly Wintner, editor, Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Formal Grammar, pp. 129-142.
• [48] Rainer Osswald (1999), Semantics for Attribute-Value Theories, in Paul Dekker, editor, Proceedings of the Twelfth Amsterdam Colloquium, pp. 199-204, University of Amsterdam, ILLC, Amsterdam.
• [49] Rainer Osswald and Robert D. Van Valin (2014), FrameNet, Frame Structure, and the Syntax-Semantics Interface, in Thomas Gamerschlag, Doris Gerland, Rainer Osswald, and Wiebke Petersen, editors, Frames and Concept Types, pp. 125-156, Springer, Dordrecht.
• [50] Terence Parsons (1990), Events in the Semantics of English, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
• [51] Malka Rappaport Hovav and Beth Levin (1998), Building Verb Meanings, in Miriam Butt and Wilhelm Geuder, editors, The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors, pp. 97-134, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.
• [52] Malka Rappaport Hovav and Beth Levin (2008), The English dative alternation: A case for verb sensitivity, Journal of Linguistics, 44: 129-167.
• [53] Mike Reape (1994), A Feature Value Logic with Intensionality, Nonwellfoundedness and Functional and Relational Dependencies, in C. J. Rupp, Michael A. Rosner, and Rod L. Johnson, editors, Constraints, Language and Computation, pp. 77-110, Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
• [54] William C. Rounds (1997), Feature Logics, in Johan van Benthem and Alice ter Meulen, editors, Handbook of Logic and Language, pp. 475-533, North-Holland, Amsterdam.
• [55] Ivan Sag (2012), Sign-Based Construction Grammar: An informal synopsis, in Hans Boas and Ivan Sag, editors, Sign-Based Construction Grammar, pp. 61-188, CSLI Publications, Stanford.
• [56] Klaas Sikkel (1997), Parsing Schemata, Springer, Berlin.
• [57] Leonard Talmy (2000a), Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Volume I: Concept Structuring Systems, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
• [58] Leonard Talmy (2000b), Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Volume II: Typology and Process in Concept Structuring, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
• [59] Robert D. Van Valin and Randy J. LaPolla (1997), Syntax, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• [60] Robert D. Van Valin, Jr. (2005), Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• [61] Henk Verkuyl and Joost Zwarts (1992), Time and Space in Conceptual and Logical Semantics: The Notion of Path, Linguistics, 30: 483-511.
• [62] K. Vijay-Shanker and Aravind K. Joshi (1985), Some computational properties of Tree Adjoining Grammars, in Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 82-93.
• [63] K. Vijay-Shanker and Aravind K. Joshi (1988), Feature Structures Based Tree Adjoining Grammar, in Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING-88), pp. 714-719.
• [64] Fei Xia (2001), Automatic grammar generation from two different perspectives, Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
• [65] Fei Xia, Martha Palmer, and Vijay-Shanker (2010), Developing Tree-Adjoining Grammars with Lexical Descriptions, in S. Bangalore and A. K. Joshi, editors, Supertagging: Using Complex Lexical Descriptions in Natural Language Processing, pp. 73-110, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
• [66] XTAG Research Group (2001), A Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammar for English, Technical report, Institute for Research in Cognitive Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
• [67] Jordan Zlatev, Johan Blomberg, and Caroline David (2010), Translocation, language and the categorization of experience, in Vyvyan Evans and Paul Chilton, editors, Language, Cognition and Space, pp. 389-418, Equinox, London.
• [68] Joost Zwarts (2005), Prepositional Aspect and the Algebra of Paths, Linguistics and Philosophy, 28 (6): 739-779.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MNiSW, umowa Nr 461252 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2020).