Wyniki wyszukiwania - BazTech

1

Mapping theory without argument structure

Findlay J. Y.

Journal of Language Modelling

|

2016

|

Vol. 4, No. 2

293--338

EN

Asudeh and Giorgolo (2012) offer an analysis of optional and derived arguments that does away with argument structure as a separate level of representation within the architecture of Lexical Functional Grammar in favour of encoding much of this information in a connected semantic structure. This simplifies the architecture in many ways, but leaves open the question of the mapping between thematic roles, arguments, and grammatical functions (traditionally explored under the umbrella of Lexical Mapping Theory; LMT: Bresnan and Kanerva 1989). In this paper, I offer a formalisation of these mapping relations, drawing on a modern reanalysis of traditional LMT (Kibort 2007), while also continuing Asudeh and Giorgolo’s (2012) quest to evacuate as much information as possible out of individual lexical entries and into cross-categorising templates (Dalrymple et al. 2004; Crouch et al. 2012).

2

LFG parse disambiguation for Wolof

Dione C. M. B.

Journal of Language Modelling

|

2014

|

Vol. 2, No. 1

105--165

EN

This paper presents several techniques for managing ambiguity in LFG parsing of Wolof, a less-resourced Niger-Congo language. Ambiguity is pervasive in Wolof and This raises a number of theoretical and practical issues for managing ambiguity associated with different objectives. From a theoretical perspective, the main aim is to design a large-scale grammar for Wolof that is able to make linguistically motivated disambiguation decisions, and to find appropriate ways of controlling ambiguity at important interface representations. The practical aim is to develop disambiguation strategies to improve the performance of the grammar in terms of efficiency, robustness and coverage. To achieve these goals, different avenues are explored to manage ambiguity in the Wolof grammar, including the formal encoding of noun class indeterminacy, lexical specifications, the use of Constraint Grammar models (Karlsson 1990) for morphological disambiguation, the application of the c-structure pruning mechanism (Cahill et al. 2007, 2008; Crouch et al. 2013), and the use of optimality marks for preferences (Frank et al. 1998, 2001). The parsing system is further controlled by packing ambiguities. In addition, discriminant-based techniques for parse disambiguation (Rosén et al. 2007) are applied for treebanking purposes.

3

Constructions with Lexical Integrity

Asudeh A., Dalrymple M., Toivonen I.

Journal of Language Modelling

|

2013

|

Vol. 1, No. 1

1--54

EN

Construction Grammar holds that unpredictable form-meaning combinations are not restricted in size. In particular, there may be phrases that have particular meanings that are not predictable from the words that they contain, but which are nonetheless not purely idiosyncratic. In addressing this observation, some construction grammarians have not only weakened the word/phrase distinction, but also denied the lexicon/grammar distinction. In this paper, we consider the word/phrase and lexicon/grammar distinction in light of Lexical-Functional Grammar and its Lexical Integrity Principle. We show that it is not necessary to remove the word/phrase distinction or the lexicon/grammar distinction to capture constructional effects, although we agree that there are important generalizations involving constructions of all sizes that must be captured at both syntactic and semantic levels. We use LFG’s templates, bundles of grammatical descriptions, to factor out grammatical information in such a way that it can be invoked either by words or by construction-specific phrase structure rules. Phrase structure rules that invoke specific templates are thus the equivalent of phrasal constructions in our approach, but Lexical Integrity and the separation of word and phrase are preserved. Constructional effects are captured by systematically allowing words and phrases to contribute comparable information to LFG’s level of functional structure; this is just a generalization of LFG’s usual assumption that “morphology competes with syntax” (Bresnan, 2001).