Implementing semantic frames as typed feature structures with XMG

• Autorzy: Lichte T. , Petitjean S.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.15398/jlm.v3i1.96

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

This work¹ presents results on the integration of frame-based representations into the framework of eXtensible MetaGrammar (XMG). Originally XMG allowed for the description of tree-based syntactic structures and underspecified representations of predicate-logical formulae, but the representation of frames as a sort of typed feature structure, particularly type unification, was not supported. Therefore, we introduce an extension that is capable of handling frame representations directly by means of a novel novel -dimension. The aim is not only to make possible a straightforward specification of frame descriptions, but also to offer various ways to specify constraints on types, be it as a connected type hierarchy or a loose set of feature structure constraints. The presented extensions to XMG are fully operational in a new prototype.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

metagrammar; typed feature structures; models of type constraints; type hierarchy; unification

• Wydawca: Instytut Podstaw Informatyki PAN
• Czasopismo: Journal of Language Modelling
• Rocznik: 2015
• Tom: Vol. 3, No. 1
• Strony: 185--228
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 48 poz., rys.

Twórcy

autor

Lichte T.

• University of Düsseldorf, Germany

autor

Petitjean S.

• Université d’Orléans, LIFO, France

Bibliografia

• [1] Anne Abeillé and Owen Rambow (2000a), Tree Adjoining Grammar: An overview, in Abeillé and Rambow (2000b), pp. 1-68.
• [2] Anne Abeillé and Owen Rambow, editors (2000b), Tree Adjoining Grammars: Formalisms, linguistic analyses and processing, number 107 in CSLI Lecture Notes, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.
• [3] Hassan Aït-Kaci, Robert Boyer, Patrick Lincoln, and Roger Nasr (1989), Efficient implementation of lattice operations, ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS), 11 (1): 115-146.
• [4] Lawrence Barsalou (1992), Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields, in Adrienne Lehrer and Eva Feder Kittey, editors, Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization, pp. 21-74, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
• [5] Tilman Becker (1994), HyTAG: A new type of Tree Adjoining Grammars for hybrid syntactic representations of free word order languages, Ph.D. thesis, Universität des Saarlandes, http://www.dfki.de/~becker/becker.diss.ps.gz.
• [6] Tilman Becker (2000), Patterns in metarules for TAG, in Abeillé and Rambow (2000b), pp. 331-342.
• [7] Johan Bos (1996), Predicate logic unplugged, in Paul Dekker and Martin Stokhof, editors, Proceedings of the tenth Amsterdam Colloquium, pp. 133-143, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
• [8] Marie-Hélène Candito (1996), A principle-based hierarchical representation of LTAGs, in Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 96), Copenhagen, Denmark, http://aclweb.org/anthology-new/C/C96/C96-1034.pdf.
• [9] Bob Carpenter (1992), The logic of typed feature structures with applications to unification grammars, logic programs and constraint resolution, number 32 in Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
• [10] Bob Carpenter, Gerald Penn, and Mohammad Haji-Abdolhosseini (2003), The Attribute Logic Engine user’s guide with TRALE extensions, version 4.0 beta edition.
• [11] Bob Carpenter and Carl Pollard (1991), Inclusion, disjointness and choice: The logic of linguistic classification, in Proceedings of the 29th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 9-16, Berkeley, CA, http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/P/P91/P91-1002.pdf.
• [12] Ann Copestake (2002), Implementing typed feature structure grammars, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.
• [13] Ann A. Copestake and Dan Flickinger (2000), An open source grammar development environment and broad-coverage English grammar using HPSG, in Proceedings of the second Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2000), Athens, Greece.
• [14] Benoit Crabbé and Denys Duchier (2005), Metagrammar redux, in Henning Christiansen, Peter Rossen Skadhauge, and Jørgen Villadsen, editors, Constraint solving and language processing, number 3438 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 32-47, Springer, Berlin, Germany.
• [15] Benoit Crabbé, Denys Duchier, Claire Gardent, Joseph Le Roux, and Yannick Parmentier (2013), XMG: eXtensible MetaGrammar, Computational Linguistics, 39 (3): 1-66, http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00768224/en/.
• [16] Denys Duchier, Brunelle Magnana Ekoukou, Yannick Parmentier, Simon Petitjean, and Emmanuel Schang (2012), Describing morphologically rich languages using metagrammars: A look at verbs in Ikota, in Workshop on Language Technology for Normalisation of Less-Resourced Languages (SALTMIL 8 - AfLaT 2012), pp. 55-59, Istanbul, Turkey, http://www.tshwanedje.com/publications/SaLTMiL8-AfLaT2012.pdf#page=67.
• [17] Charles J. Fillmore (1982), Frame Semantics, in The Linguistic Society of Korea, editor, Linguistics in the morning calm, pp. 111-137, Hanshin Publishing, Seoul, South Korea.
• [18] Charles J. Fillmore (2007), Valency issues in FrameNet, in Thomas Herbst and Katrin Götz-Votteler, editors, Valency: Theoretical, descriptive and cognitive issues, pp. 129-162, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, Germany.
• [19] Dan Flickinger (2000), On building a more effcient grammar by exploiting types, Natural Language Engineering, 6 (1): 15-28.
• [20] Anette Frank and Josef van Genabith (2001), GlueTag. Linear Logic based Semantics for LTAG – and what it teaches us about LFG and LTAG, in Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King, editors, Proceedings of the LFG01 conference, CSLI Publications, Hong Kong.
• [21] Claire Gardent and Laura Kallmeyer (2003), Semantic construction in Feature-Based TAG, in Proceedings of the 10th meeting of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 123-130.
• [22] Adele Goldberg (2006), Constructions at work. The nature of generalizations in language, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
• [23] Thilo Götz, Detmar Meurers, and Dale Gerdemann (1997), The ConTroll manual, Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany, http://www.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/controll/controll-manual.ps.gz, draft of 17. September 1997 for ConTroll v.1.0b and XTroll v.5.0b.
• [24] Aravind K. Joshi and Yves Schabes (1997), Tree-Adjoining Grammars, in Grzegorz Rozenberg and Arto Salomaa, editors, Handbook of Formal Languages, volume 3, pp. 69-124, Springer, Berlin, Germany.
• [25] Aravind K. Joshi, K.Vijay Shanker, and David Weir (1990), The convergence of mildly context-sensitive grammar formalisms, Technical Report MS-CIS-90-01, Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, http://repository.upenn.edu/cis_reports/539/.
• [26] Laura Kallmeyer, Timm Lichte, Wolfgang Maier, Yannick Parmentier, Johannes Dellert, and Kilian Evang (2008), TuLiPA: Towards a multi-formalism parsing environment for grammar engineering, in Proceedings of the workshop on Grammar Engineering Across Frameworks (GEAF’08), pp. 1-8, Manchester, UK.
• [27] Laura Kallmeyer and Rainer Osswald (2012a), An analysis of directed motion expressions with Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammars and frame semantics, in Luke Ong and Ruy de Queiroz, editors, Proceedings of WoLLIC, number 7456 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS), pp. 34-55, Springer, Berlin, Germany.
• [28] Laura Kallmeyer and Rainer Osswald (2012b), A frame-based semantics of the dative alternation in Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammars, in Christopher Piñón, editor, Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 9, pp. 167-184, Paris, France.
• [29] Laura Kallmeyer and Rainer Osswald (2013), Syntax-driven semantic frame composition in Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammar, Journal of Language Modelling, 1: 267-330.
• [30] Paul Kay (2002), An informal sketch of a formal architecture for Construction Grammar, Grammars, 5: 1-19.
• [31] James Kilbury, Wiebke Petersen, and Christof Rumpf (2006), Inheritance-based models of the lexicon, in Dieter Wunderlich, editor, Advances in the theory of the lexicon, number 13 in Interface Explorations, pp. 429-478, De Gruyter, Berlin, Germany.
• [32] Timm Lichte, Alexander Diez, and Simon Petitjean (2013), Coupling trees, words and frames through XMG, in Proceedings of the ESSLLI 2013 workshop on high-level methodologies for grammar engineering, Düsseldorf, Germany.
• [33] Robert Malouf, John Carroll, and Ann Copestake. (2000), Efficient feature structure operations without compilation, Natural Language Engineering, 6 (1): 29-46.
• [34] Stephen McConnel (1995), PC-PATR reference manual, http://www.sil.org/pcpatr/manual/pcpatr.html, version 0.97a9.
• [35] Rainer Osswald (2003), A logic of classification with applications to linguistic theory, Dissertation, FernUniversität Hagen.
• [36] Rainer Osswald and Robert D. Van Valin, Jr. (2014), FrameNet, frame structure, and the syntax-semantics interface, in Thomas Gamerschlag, Doris Gerland, Rainer Osswald, and Wiebke Petersen, editors, Frames and concept types, number 94 in Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, pp. 125-156, Springer, Cham, Switzerland.
• [37] Gerald Penn (1999), An optimized Prolog encoding of typed feature structures, Arbeitspapiere des SFB 340 138, University of Tübingen.
• [38] Guy Perrier (2000), Interaction Grammars, in Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 2000), pp. 600-606, Saarbrücken, Germany.
• [39] Wiebke Petersen (2007), Representation of concepts as frames, The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, 2: 151-170.
• [40] Wiebke Petersen and Tanja Osswald (2014), Concept composition in frames: Focusing on genitive constructions, in Thomas Gamerschlag, Doris Gerland, Rainer Osswald, and Wiebke Petersen, editors, Frames and concept types, number 94 in Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, pp. 243-266, Springer, Cham, Switzerland.
• [41] Carlos A. Prolo (2002), Generating the XTAG English grammar using metarules, in Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 2002), pp. 814-820, Taipei. Taiwan.
• [42] Stuart M. Shieber (1984), The design of a computer language for linguistic information, in Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 22nd annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 362-366, Stanford, CA, http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P84-1075.
• [43] Stuart M. Shieber and Yves Schabes (1990), Synchronous Tree-Adjoining Grammars, in Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 1990), pp. 253-258, Helsinki, Finland.
• [44] Matthew Skala, Victoria Krakovna, János Kramár, and Gerald Penn (2010), A generalized-zero-preserving method for compact encoding of concept lattices, in Proceedings of the 48th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 1512-1521, Uppsala, Sweden.
• [45] Matthew Skala and Gerald Penn (2011), Approximate bit vectors for fast unification, in Makoto Kanazawa, András Kornai, Marcus Kracht, and Hiroyuki Seki, editors, The mathematics of language, number 6878 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 158-173, Springer, Berlin, Germany.
• [46] Matthew Stone and Christine Doran (1997), Sentence planning as description using Tree Adjoining Grammar, in Proceedings of the eighth conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL’97), pp. 198-205.
• [47] Fei Xia, Martha Palmer, and K. Vijay-Shanker (2010), Developing Tree-Adjoining Grammars with lexical descriptions, in Srinivas Bangalore and Aravind K. Joshi, editors, Using complex lexical descriptions in natural language processing, pp. 73-110, MIT Press, Cambridge, UK.
• [48] Yulia Zinova and Laura Kallmeyer (2012), A frame-based semantics of locative alternation in LTAG, in Proceedings of the 11th international workshop on Tree Adjoining Grammars and Related Formalisms (TAG+11), pp. 28-36, Paris, France, http://www.aclweb.org/anthology-new/W/W12/W12-4604.

Uwagi

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