introduction to hpsg class 1 clause structure
play

Introduction to HPSG Class 1: Clause Structure, Hierarchical - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Sep 20, 2023 •260 likes •1.6k views

Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Introduction to HPSG Class 1: Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Stefan M uller Ivan A. Sag Theoretical

  1. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities General Overview of the Framework General Overview of the Framework • lexicalized (head-driven) • sign-based (Saussure, 1916) � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 8/55

  2. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities General Overview of the Framework General Overview of the Framework • lexicalized (head-driven) • sign-based (Saussure, 1916) • typed feature structures (lexical entries, phrases, principles) � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 8/55

  3. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities General Overview of the Framework General Overview of the Framework • lexicalized (head-driven) • sign-based (Saussure, 1916) • typed feature structures (lexical entries, phrases, principles) • multiple inheritance � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 8/55

  4. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities General Overview of the Framework General Overview of the Framework • lexicalized (head-driven) • sign-based (Saussure, 1916) • typed feature structures (lexical entries, phrases, principles) • multiple inheritance • phonology, syntax, and semantics are represented in one description:  phon � Grammatik �  • Phonology    � case �   1  head    noun            • Syntax  cat             � DET[case 1 ] �   subcat          synsem | loc   cat     • Semantics        � inst X �     cont . . .      grammatik          loc    word � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 8/55

  5. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities General Overview of the Framework General Overview of the Framework • lexicalized (head-driven) • sign-based (Saussure, 1916) • typed feature structures (lexical entries, phrases, principles) • multiple inheritance • phonology, syntax, and semantics are represented in one description:  phon � Grammatik �  • Phonology    � case �   1  head    noun            • Syntax  cat             � DET[case 1 ] �   subcat          synsem | loc   cat     • Semantics        � inst X �     cont . . .      grammatik          loc    word � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 8/55

  6. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities General Overview of the Framework General Overview of the Framework • lexicalized (head-driven) • sign-based (Saussure, 1916) • typed feature structures (lexical entries, phrases, principles) • multiple inheritance • phonology, syntax, and semantics are represented in one description:  phon � Grammatik �  • Phonology    � case �   1  head    noun            • Syntax  cat             � DET[case 1 ] �   subcat          synsem | loc   cat     • Semantics        � inst X �     cont . . .      grammatik          loc    word � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 8/55

  7. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities General Overview of the Framework General Overview of the Framework • lexicalized (head-driven) • sign-based (Saussure, 1916) • typed feature structures (lexical entries, phrases, principles) • multiple inheritance • phonology, syntax, and semantics are represented in one description:  phon � Grammatik �  • Phonology    � case �   1  head    noun            • Syntax  cat             � DET[case 1 ] �   subcat          synsem | loc   cat     • Semantics        � inst X �     cont . . .      grammatik          loc    word � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 8/55

  8. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Valency Valency and Grammar Rules: PSG • huge number of rules: S → NP, V X schl¨ aft (‘sleeps’) S → NP, NP, V X Y liebt (‘loves’) S → NP, PP[ ¨ uber ], V X ¨ uber y spricht (‘talks about’) S → NP, NP, NP, V X Y Z gibt (‘gives’) S → NP, NP, PP[ mit ], V X Y mit Z dient (‘serves’) � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 9/55

  9. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Valency Valency and Grammar Rules: PSG • huge number of rules: S → NP, V X schl¨ aft (‘sleeps’) S → NP, NP, V X Y liebt (‘loves’) S → NP, PP[ ¨ uber ], V X ¨ uber y spricht (‘talks about’) S → NP, NP, NP, V X Y Z gibt (‘gives’) S → NP, NP, PP[ mit ], V X Y mit Z dient (‘serves’) • verbs have to be used with the right rule � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 9/55

  10. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Valency Valency and Grammar Rules: HPSG • arguments represented as complex categories in the lexical entry of the head (similar to categorial grammar) � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 10/55

  11. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Valency Valency and Grammar Rules: HPSG • arguments represented as complex categories in the lexical entry of the head (similar to categorial grammar) • Verb subcat schlafen � NP � lieben � NP, NP � sprechen � NP, PP[ ¨ uber ] � geben � NP, NP, NP � dienen � NP, NP, PP[ mit ] � � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 10/55

  12. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Valency Example Tree with Valency Information (I) V[ subcat �� ] V[ subcat � 1 � ] 1 NP Peter schl¨ aft V[ subcat � � ] corresponds to a fully saturated phrase (VP or S) � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 11/55

  13. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Valency Example Tree with Valency Information (II) V[ subcat �� ] 1 NP V[ subcat � 1 � ] 2 NP V[ subcat � 1 , 2 � ] Peter Maria erwartet � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 12/55

  14. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Valency Valency and Grammar Rules: HPSG • specific rules for head argument combination: V[SUBCAT A ⊕ � 1 � ] V[SUBCAT A ] → 1 � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 13/55

  15. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Valency Valency and Grammar Rules: HPSG • specific rules for head argument combination: V[SUBCAT A ⊕ � 1 � ] V[SUBCAT A ] → 1 • ⊕ is a relation that concatenates two lists: � a, b � = � a � ⊕ � b � or �� ⊕ � a, b � or � a, b � ⊕ �� � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 13/55

  16. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Valency Valency and Grammar Rules: HPSG • specific rules for head argument combination: V[SUBCAT A ⊕ � 1 � ] V[SUBCAT A ] → 1 • ⊕ is a relation that concatenates two lists: � a, b � = � a � ⊕ � b � or �� ⊕ � a, b � or � a, b � ⊕ �� • In the rule above a list is split in a list that contains exactly one element ( 1 ) and a rest ( A ). � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 13/55

  17. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Valency Valency and Grammar Rules: HPSG • specific rules for head argument combination: V[SUBCAT A ⊕ � 1 � ] V[SUBCAT A ] → 1 • ⊕ is a relation that concatenates two lists: � a, b � = � a � ⊕ � b � or �� ⊕ � a, b � or � a, b � ⊕ �� • In the rule above a list is split in a list that contains exactly one element ( 1 ) and a rest ( A ). • Depending on the valency of the head the rest may contain zero or more elements. � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 13/55

  18. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Valency Generalization over Rules • specific rules for head argument combinations: V[SUBCAT A ⊕ � 1 � ] V[SUBCAT A ] → 1 A[SUBCAT A ⊕ � 1 � ] A[SUBCAT A ] → 1 N[SUBCAT A ] N[SUBCAT A ⊕ � 1 � ] → 1 P[SUBCAT A ] P[SUBCAT A ⊕ � 1 � ] → 1 � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 14/55

  19. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Valency Generalization over Rules • specific rules for head argument combinations: V[SUBCAT A ⊕ � 1 � ] V[SUBCAT A ] → 1 A[SUBCAT A ⊕ � 1 � ] A[SUBCAT A ] → 1 N[SUBCAT A ] N[SUBCAT A ⊕ � 1 � ] → 1 P[SUBCAT A ] P[SUBCAT A ⊕ � 1 � ] → 1 • abstraction with respect to the order: V[SUBCAT A ⊕ � 1 � ] V[SUBCAT A ] → 1 A[SUBCAT A ] → A[SUBCAT A ⊕ � 1 � ] 1 N[SUBCAT A ] N[SUBCAT A ⊕ � 1 � ] → 1 P[SUBCAT A ] → P[SUBCAT A ⊕ � 1 � ] 1 � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 14/55

  20. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Valency Generalization over Rules • specific rules for head argument combinations: V[SUBCAT A ⊕ � 1 � ] V[SUBCAT A ] → 1 A[SUBCAT A ⊕ � 1 � ] A[SUBCAT A ] → 1 N[SUBCAT A ] N[SUBCAT A ⊕ � 1 � ] → 1 P[SUBCAT A ] P[SUBCAT A ⊕ � 1 � ] → 1 • abstraction with respect to the order: V[SUBCAT A ⊕ � 1 � ] V[SUBCAT A ] → 1 A[SUBCAT A ] → A[SUBCAT A ⊕ � 1 � ] 1 N[SUBCAT A ] N[SUBCAT A ⊕ � 1 � ] → 1 P[SUBCAT A ] → P[SUBCAT A ⊕ � 1 � ] 1 • generalized, abstract schema (H = head): H[SUBCAT A ] → H[SUBCAT A ⊕ � 1 � ] 1 � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 14/55

  21. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Valency Application of the Rules • generalized, abstract shema (H = head): H[SUBCAT A ] H[SUBCAT A ⊕ � 1 � ] → 1 � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 15/55

  22. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Valency Application of the Rules • generalized, abstract shema (H = head): H[SUBCAT A ] H[SUBCAT A ⊕ � 1 � ] → 1 • possible instantiations of the schema: V[SUBCAT A �� ⊕ � 1 NP � ] 1 NP V[SUBCAT A ] → Maria erwartet (Maria waits for) Peter schl¨ aft (sleeps) Peter � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 15/55

  23. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Valency Application of the Rules • generalized, abstract shema (H = head): H[SUBCAT A ] H[SUBCAT A ⊕ � 1 � ] → 1 • possible instantiations of the schema: V[SUBCAT A �� ⊕ � 1 NP � ] 1 NP V[SUBCAT A ] → Maria erwartet (Maria waits for) Peter schl¨ aft (sleeps) Peter V[SUBCAT A � NP � ⊕ � 1 NP � ] 1 NP V[SUBCAT A ] → erwartet (wait for) Maria � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 15/55

  24. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Valency Application of the Rules • generalized, abstract shema (H = head): H[SUBCAT A ] H[SUBCAT A ⊕ � 1 � ] → 1 • possible instantiations of the schema: V[SUBCAT A �� ⊕ � 1 NP � ] 1 NP V[SUBCAT A ] → Maria erwartet (Maria waits for) Peter schl¨ aft (sleeps) Peter V[SUBCAT A � NP � ⊕ � 1 NP � ] 1 NP V[SUBCAT A ] → erwartet (wait for) Maria N[SUBCAT A ] N[SUBCAT A �� ⊕ � 1 Det � ] 1 Det → Mann (man) der (the) � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 15/55

  25. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Valency Representation of Valency in Feature Descriptions gibt (‘gives’, finite form):   phon � gibt � part-of-speech verb     � � subcat NP[ nom ], NP[ acc ], NP[ dat ] NP[ nom ], NP[ acc ] and NP[ dat ] are abbreviations of complex feature descriptions. � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 16/55

  26. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Valency Demo: Grammar 3 (1) a. der Mann schl¨ aft the man sleeps ‘The man sleeps’ b. der Mann die Frau kennt the man the woman knows ‘The man knows the woman.’ � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 17/55

  27. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Head Argument Structures Outline • Motivation & Psychological Reality • General Overview of the Framework • Valency • Head Argument Structures • Semantics • Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge

  28. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Head Argument Structures Modelling Constituent Structure with Feature Structures Representation of Grammar Rules (I) • Feature Descriptions as uniform means for describing linguistic objects • morphological rules • lexical entries • syntactic rules � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 18/55

  29. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Head Argument Structures Modelling Constituent Structure with Feature Structures Representation of Grammar Rules (I) • Feature Descriptions as uniform means for describing linguistic objects • morphological rules • lexical entries • syntactic rules • separation of immediate dominance (ID) and linearer precedence (LP) � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 18/55

  30. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Head Argument Structures Modelling Constituent Structure with Feature Structures Representation of Grammar Rules (I) • Feature Descriptions as uniform means for describing linguistic objects • morphological rules • lexical entries • syntactic rules • separation of immediate dominance (ID) and linearer precedence (LP) • dominance in dtr features (head daughters and non-head daughters) � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 18/55

  31. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Head Argument Structures Modelling Constituent Structure with Feature Structures Representation of Grammar Rules (I) • Feature Descriptions as uniform means for describing linguistic objects • morphological rules • lexical entries • syntactic rules • separation of immediate dominance (ID) and linearer precedence (LP) • dominance in dtr features (head daughters and non-head daughters) • precedence is implicit in phon � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 18/55

  32. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Head Argument Structures Modelling Constituent Structure with Feature Structures Part of the Structure in AVM Representation – phon values (I) NP  phon � the man �  � � head-dtr phon � man �   Det N     �� ��   phon � the � non-head-dtrs the man • There is exactly one head daughter ( head-dtr ). The head daughter contains the head. a structure with the daughters the and picture of Mary → picture of Mary is the head daughter, since picture is the head. � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 19/55

  33. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Head Argument Structures Modelling Constituent Structure with Feature Structures Part of the Structure in AVM Representation – phon values (I) NP  phon � the man �  � � head-dtr phon � man �   Det N     �� ��   phon � the � non-head-dtrs the man • There is exactly one head daughter ( head-dtr ). The head daughter contains the head. a structure with the daughters the and picture of Mary → picture of Mary is the head daughter, since picture is the head. • There may be several non-head daughters (if we assume flat structures or in headless binary branching structures). � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 19/55

  34. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Head Argument Structures Modelling Constituent Structure with Feature Structures Representation of Grammar Rules • Dominance Rule: head-argument-phrase ⇒  subcat A  head-dtr | subcat A ⊕ � 1 �   non-head-dtrs � 1 � The arrow stands for implication • alternative spelling, inspired by the X Schema: H[SUBCAT A ] → H[SUBCAT A ⊕ � 1 � ] 1 The arrow stands for replacement (rewriting) � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 20/55

  35. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Head Argument Structures Modelling Constituent Structure with Feature Structures Representation of Grammar Rules • Dominance Rule: head-argument-phrase ⇒  subcat A  head-dtr | subcat A ⊕ � 1 �   non-head-dtrs � 1 � The arrow stands for implication • alternative spelling, inspired by the X Schema: H[SUBCAT A ] → H[SUBCAT A ⊕ � 1 � ] 1 The arrow stands for replacement (rewriting) • possible instantiations: N[SUBCAT A ] → N[SUBCAT A �� ⊕ � Det � ] Det V[SUBCAT A ] → V[SUBCAT A �� ⊕ � NP � ] NP V[SUBCAT A ] → V[SUBCAT A � NP � ⊕ � NP � ] NP � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 20/55

  36. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Head Argument Structures Modelling Constituent Structure with Feature Structures An Example V[ subcat �� ] C H 1 NP[ nom ] V[ subcat � 1 � ] C H 2 NP[ acc ] V[ subcat � 1 , 2 � ] C H 3 NP[ dat ] V[ subcat � 1 , 2 , 3 � ] er das Buch dem Mann gibt he the book the man gives � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 21/55

  37. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Head Argument Structures Modelling Constituent Structure with Feature Structures Part of the Structure in AVM Representation – phon values (I) V NP V NP V D N NP V D N er das Buch dem Mann gibt  phon � dem Mann gibt �  � � head-dtr phon � gibt �        phon � dem Mann �      � �  � �  head-dtr phon � Mann �     non-head-dtrs        �� ��    phon � dem �  non-head-dtrs  � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 22/55

  38. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Head Argument Structures Modelling Constituent Structure with Feature Structures Partial Structure in Feature Structure Representation   phon � dem Mann gibt � subcat A � � NP[ nom ], NP[ acc ]     � phon � gibt � �   head-dtr   subcat A ⊕ � 1 �         phon � dem Mann �     p-o-s noun         � �  subcat ��      non-head-dtrs 1     head-dtr . . .          non-head-dtrs . . .        head-argument-phrase     head-argument-phrase � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 24/55

  39. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Head Argument Structures Projection of Head Properties Projection of Head Properties V[ fin , subcat � � ] C H 1 NP[ nom ] V[ fin , subcat � 1 � ] C H 2 NP[ acc ] V[ fin , subcat � 1 , 2 � ] C H 3 NP[ dat ] V[ fin , subcat � 1 , 2 , 3 � ] er das Buch dem Mann gibt The finite verb is the head. � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 26/55

  40. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Head Argument Structures Projection of Head Properties Feature Structure Representation: the head Value • possible feature geometry:   phon list of phoneme strings p-o-s p-o-s      vform vform    subcat list � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 27/55

  41. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Head Argument Structures Projection of Head Properties Feature Structure Representation: the head Value • possible feature geometry:   phon list of phoneme strings p-o-s p-o-s      vform vform    subcat list • more structure, bundling of information that has to be projected:   phon list of phoneme strings � �  p-o-s p-o-s   head    vform vform     subcat list � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 27/55

  42. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Head Argument Structures Projection of Head Properties Different Heads Project Different Features • The feature vform makes sense for verbs only. � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 28/55

  43. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Head Argument Structures Projection of Head Properties Different Heads Project Different Features • The feature vform makes sense for verbs only. • German prenominal adjectives and nouns project case. � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 28/55

  44. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Head Argument Structures Projection of Head Properties Different Heads Project Different Features • The feature vform makes sense for verbs only. • German prenominal adjectives and nouns project case. • Possible structure: a structure that contains all features:   p-o-s p-o-s vform vform     case case case has no value for verbs, vform has no value for nouns � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 28/55

  45. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Head Argument Structures Projection of Head Properties Different Heads Project Different Features • The feature vform makes sense for verbs only. • German prenominal adjectives and nouns project case. • Possible structure: a structure that contains all features:   p-o-s p-o-s vform vform     case case case has no value for verbs, vform has no value for nouns • Better solution: different types of feature structures • for verbs: � vform vform � verb • for nouns: � case case � noun � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 28/55

  46. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Head Argument Structures A Lexical Entry with Head Features A Lexical Entry with Head Features • A lexical entry contains the following: gibt : (‘gives’)             � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 29/55

  47. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Head Argument Structures A Lexical Entry with Head Features A Lexical Entry with Head Features • A lexical entry contains the following: gibt : (‘gives’)   phon � gibt �           • phonological information � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 29/55

  48. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Head Argument Structures A Lexical Entry with Head Features A Lexical Entry with Head Features • A lexical entry contains the following: gibt : (‘gives’)   phon � gibt � � � vform fin   head   verb       • phonological information • head information (part of speech, verb form, . . . ) � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 29/55

  49. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Head Argument Structures A Lexical Entry with Head Features A Lexical Entry with Head Features • A lexical entry contains the following: gibt : (‘gives’)   phon � gibt � � � vform fin   head   verb       � � subcat NP[ nom ], NP[ acc ], NP[ dat ] • phonological information • head information (part of speech, verb form, . . . ) • valency information: a list of descriptions of arguments � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 29/55

  50. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Head Argument Structures The Head Feature Principle The Head Feature Principle • In a headed structure the head features of the mother are identical to the head features of the head daughter. � � head 1 headed-phrase ⇒ head-dtr | head 1 � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 30/55

  51. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Head Argument Structures The Head Feature Principle The Head Feature Principle • In a headed structure the head features of the mother are identical to the head features of the head daughter. � � head 1 headed-phrase ⇒ head-dtr | head 1 • head-argument-phrase is a subtype of headed-phrase → All constraints apply to structures of this type as well. � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 30/55

  52. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Head Argument Structures The Head Feature Principle The Head Feature Principle • In a headed structure the head features of the mother are identical to the head features of the head daughter. � � head 1 headed-phrase ⇒ head-dtr | head 1 • head-argument-phrase is a subtype of headed-phrase → All constraints apply to structures of this type as well. • head-argument-phrase inherits properties of/constraints on headed-phrase . � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 30/55

  53. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Head Argument Structures Demo: Grammar 4 Demo: Grammar 4 (2) a. der Mann schl¨ aft the man sleeps ‘The man sleeps’ b. der Mann die Frau kennt the man the woman knows ‘The man knows the woman.’ � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 31/55

  54. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Semantics Outline • Motivation & Psychological Reality • General Overview of the Framework • Valency • Head Argument Structures • Semantics • Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge

  55. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Semantics Semantics • Pollard and Sag (1987) and Ginzburg and Sag (2001) assume Situation Semantics (Barwise and Perry, 1983; Cooper, Mukai and Perry, 1990; Devlin, 1992). � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 32/55

  56. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Semantics Semantics • Pollard and Sag (1987) and Ginzburg and Sag (2001) assume Situation Semantics (Barwise and Perry, 1983; Cooper, Mukai and Perry, 1990; Devlin, 1992). • More recent work (in particular work in relation to computational implementations) uses Minimal Recursion Semantics (Copestake, Flickinger, Pollard and Sag, 2005). � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 32/55

  57. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Semantics Minimal Recursion Semantics • MRS allows for underspecified representation of quantifier scope. Lets consider the example in (3): (3) Every dog chased some cat. � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 33/55

  58. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Semantics Minimal Recursion Semantics • MRS allows for underspecified representation of quantifier scope. Lets consider the example in (3): (3) Every dog chased some cat. • MRS representation: top h0 h1: every(x, h3, h2), h3: dog(x), h4: chase(e, x, y), h5: some(y, h7, h6), h7: cat(y) � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 33/55

  59. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Semantics Dominance Graph for Every dog chased some cat. – Reading I h0 h1:every(x, h3, h2) h5:some(y, h7, h6) h3:dog(x) h7:cat(y) h4:chase(e, x, y) � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 35/55

  60. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Semantics Dominance Graph for Every dog chased some cat. – Reading I h0 h1:every(x, h3, h2) h5:some(y, h7, h6) h3:dog(x) h7:cat(y) h4:chase(e, x, y) ∀ x ( dog ( x ) → � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 35/55

  61. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Semantics Dominance Graph for Every dog chased some cat. – Reading I h0 h1:every(x, h3, h2) h5:some(y, h7, h6) h3:dog(x) h7:cat(y) h4:chase(e, x, y) ∀ x ( dog ( x ) → ∃ y ( cat ( y ) ∧ � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 35/55

  62. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Semantics Dominance Graph for Every dog chased some cat. – Reading I h0 h1:every(x, h3, h2) h5:some(y, h7, h6) h3:dog(x) h7:cat(y) h4:chase(e, x, y) ∀ x ( dog ( x ) → ∃ y ( cat ( y ) ∧ chase ( x , y ))) � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 35/55

  63. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Semantics Dominance Graph for Every dog chased some cat. – Reading II h0 h1:every(x, h3, h2) h5:some(y, h7, h6) h3:dog(x) h7:cat(y) h4:chase(e, x, y) � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 36/55

  64. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Semantics Dominance Graph for Every dog chased some cat. – Reading II h0 h1:every(x, h3, h2) h5:some(y, h7, h6) h3:dog(x) h7:cat(y) h4:chase(e, x, y) ∃ y ( cat ( y ) ∧ � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 36/55

  65. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Semantics Dominance Graph for Every dog chased some cat. – Reading II h0 h1:every(x, h3, h2) h5:some(y, h7, h6) h3:dog(x) h7:cat(y) h4:chase(e, x, y) ∃ y ( cat ( y ) ∧ ∀ x ( dog ( x ) → � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 36/55

  66. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Semantics Dominance Graph for Every dog chased some cat. – Reading II h0 h1:every(x, h3, h2) h5:some(y, h7, h6) h3:dog(x) h7:cat(y) h4:chase(e, x, y) ∃ y ( cat ( y ) ∧ ∀ x ( dog ( x ) → chase ( x , y ))) � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 36/55

  67. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Semantics Parts of an MRS Representation • Every elementary predication (EP) has a label of type handle . These are abbreviate as h s. � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 37/55

  68. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Semantics Parts of an MRS Representation • Every elementary predication (EP) has a label of type handle . These are abbreviate as h s. • Quantifiers take arguments of type handle . These arguments have to be identified with a label. � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 37/55

  69. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Semantics Handle-Constraints More Complicated Cases • The cat dog example is too simple, since quantifiers are identified with the label of the noun. This is not appropriate for (4a), since has the readings (4b–c). (4) a. Every nephew of some famous politician runs. b. every(x, some(y, famous(y) ∧ politician(y), nephew(x, y)), run(x)) c. some(y, famous(y) ∧ politician(y), every(x, nephew(x, y), run(x))) � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 38/55

  70. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Semantics Handle-Constraints More Complicated Cases • The cat dog example is too simple, since quantifiers are identified with the label of the noun. This is not appropriate for (4a), since has the readings (4b–c). (4) a. Every nephew of some famous politician runs. b. every(x, some(y, famous(y) ∧ politician(y), nephew(x, y)), run(x)) c. some(y, famous(y) ∧ politician(y), every(x, nephew(x, y), run(x))) • It is not correct to leave the plugging absolutely underspecified, since this would licence (5b–c). (5) a. h1, { h2:every(x, h3, h4), h5:nephew(x, y), h6:some(y, h7, h8), h7:politician(y), h7:famous(y), h10:run(x) } b. every(x, run(x), some(y, famous(y) ∧ politician(y), nephew(x, y))) c. some(y, famous(y) ∧ politician(y), every(x, run(x), nephew(x, y))) � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 38/55

  71. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Semantics Handle-Constraints Handle Constraints • In addition so-called handle constraints are used ( qeq oder = q ). A qeq constraint relates an argument handle and a label: h = q l means that the handle is filled by the label directly, or one or more quantifiers are inserted between h and l . � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 39/55

  72. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Semantics Handle-Constraints Handle Constraints • In addition so-called handle constraints are used ( qeq oder = q ). A qeq constraint relates an argument handle and a label: h = q l means that the handle is filled by the label directly, or one or more quantifiers are inserted between h and l . • This is pretty complicated. We recommend Blackburn and Bos, 2005 as a general introduction to underspecified semantic representations. After this the dense MRS paper can be understood. � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 39/55

  73. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Semantics Handle-Constraints Handle Constraints • In addition so-called handle constraints are used ( qeq oder = q ). A qeq constraint relates an argument handle and a label: h = q l means that the handle is filled by the label directly, or one or more quantifiers are inserted between h and l . • This is pretty complicated. We recommend Blackburn and Bos, 2005 as a general introduction to underspecified semantic representations. After this the dense MRS paper can be understood. • We now look at the representation of MRS with feature description. A demo will follow and make things clearer. � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 39/55

  74. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Semantics The Representation of Relations with Feature Descriptions The Representation of Relations with Feature Descriptions love(e,x,y)   arg0 event arg1 index     arg2 index     love � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 40/55

  75. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Semantics The Representation of Relations with Feature Descriptions The Representation of Relations with Feature Descriptions love(e,x,y) book(x)   arg0 event � � arg1 index arg0 index     arg2 index book     love � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 40/55

  76. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Semantics Representation of the CONT Value Representation of the cont Value • possible data structure ( cont = content ):   phon list of phoneme strings head head     subcat list     cont mrs � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 41/55

  77. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Semantics Representation of the CONT Value Representation of the cont Value • possible data structure ( cont = content ):   phon list of phoneme strings head head     subcat list     cont mrs • more structure: partition into syntactic and semantic information ( cat = category )   phon list of phoneme strings   head head      cat subcat list          cat     cont mrs • → it is now possible to share syntactic information only � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 41/55

  78. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Semantics Representation of the CONT Value Sharing of Syntactic Information in Coordinations • symmetric coordination: the cat value is identical   phon list of phoneme strings   head head      cat  subcat list         cat     cont mrs • Examples: (6) a. [the man and the woman] b. He [knows and likes] this record. c. He is [stupid and arrogant]. � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 42/55

  79. Clause Structure, Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge, Lexical Regularities Semantics Nominal Objects The Semantic Contribution of Nominal Objects • semantic index + restrictions  phon � Buch �  � head noun �   cat   � � subcat det       per 3         num sg       ind 1       gen neu           index    cont       �� ��    arg0 1     rels     buch         mrs � Stefan M¨ c uller & Ivan A. Sag 2007, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & Linguistics & CSLI, Stanford University 43/55

Recommend

Day 4: HPSG approaches to information structure The signature of an HPSG grammar The signature

Day 4: HPSG approaches to information structure The signature of an HPSG grammar The signature

Day 4: HPSG approaches to information structure The signature of an HPSG grammar The signature HPSG in a nutshell defines the ontology (declaration of what exists): Approaches to information structure: which kind of objects

641 views • 18 slides
Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) Introduction Grammatikformalismen Lecture

Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) Introduction Grammatikformalismen Lecture

Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) Introduction Grammatikformalismen Lecture 12.06.12 1 The building blocks of HPSG grammars Grammatikformalismen Lecture 12.06.12 2 HPSG grammars from a linguistic perspective

1.1k views • 56 slides
HPSG approaches to information structure A basic HPSG approach (Engdahl & Vallduv

HPSG approaches to information structure A basic HPSG approach (Engdahl & Vallduv

HPSG approaches to information structure A basic HPSG approach (Engdahl & Vallduv 1996; Engdahl 1999) The Interface of Syntax and Information Structure Using information structure to explain away syntactic stipulations: from an

271 views • 12 slides
Grammar Formalisms Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) Laura Kallmeyer, Timm Lichte,

Grammar Formalisms Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) Laura Kallmeyer, Timm Lichte,

Grammar Formalisms Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) Laura Kallmeyer, Timm Lichte, Wolfgang Maier Universit at T ubingen 27.06.2007 HPSG 1 Outline Feature Structure Basics The building blocks of HPSG Analyzing raising and

596 views • 36 slides
X Schedule 4 Transactional Charges Clause 9 Clause 10 2 RWE npower

X Schedule 4 Transactional Charges Clause 9 Clause 10 2 RWE npower

RWE npower DUoSA Consolidation Group Payment Terms Sub-group 28 th July 2005 General Framework Existing Proposed Clause 6 Charges Clause 6 Clause 7 Billing & Payments Clause 7 Clause 8 Site

389 views • 4 slides
HPSG Analysis and Computational Implementation of Indonesian Passives Division of Linguistics and

HPSG Analysis and Computational Implementation of Indonesian Passives Division of Linguistics and

HPSG Analysis and Computational Implementation of Indonesian Passives Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore The 25th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG

570 views • 23 slides
Agreement in HPSG Introduction to HPSG, WS 2007/2008 Monica L. L au Universitt Tbingen

Agreement in HPSG Introduction to HPSG, WS 2007/2008 Monica L. L au Universitt Tbingen

Two Views of Agreement Derivation-Based Agreement Agreement Mismatches Agreement in English Agreement in HPSG Introduction to HPSG, WS 2007/2008 Monica L. L au Universitt Tbingen (mlau@sfs.uni-tuebingen.de) December 2007 Two Views

1.42k views • 100 slides
HPSG Binding Theory David Lahm Deutsches Seminar - Eberhard Karls Universit at T ubingen

HPSG Binding Theory David Lahm Deutsches Seminar - Eberhard Karls Universit at T ubingen

Introduction GB and HPSG: Initial Comparison GB Binding Theory HPSG Binding Theory HPSG Binding Theory David Lahm Deutsches Seminar - Eberhard Karls Universit at T ubingen d.lahm@gmx.net January 17, 2008 Introduction GB and HPSG:

1.02k views • 82 slides
Introduction to HPSG Class 2: Constituent Order Variation & Complex Predicates Stefan M

Introduction to HPSG Class 2: Constituent Order Variation & Complex Predicates Stefan M

Constituent Order Variation & Complex Predicates Introduction to HPSG Class 2: Constituent Order Variation & Complex Predicates Stefan M uller Ivan A. Sag Theoretical Linguistics/Computational Linguistics Linguistics & CSLI

1.98k views • 186 slides
Introduction Clause exchange in parallel solvers Lazy clause exchange Experiments

Introduction Clause exchange in parallel solvers Lazy clause exchange Experiments

Introduction Clause exchange in parallel solvers Lazy clause exchange Experiments Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lazy clause exchange policy for parallel SAT solvers Gilles Audemard CRIL, Lens, France Laurent

980 views • 24 slides
CHAMBERS OF TAX CONSULTANTS Clause by Clause Analysis and Reporting Requirements in Tax Audit

CHAMBERS OF TAX CONSULTANTS Clause by Clause Analysis and Reporting Requirements in Tax Audit

CHAMBERS OF TAX CONSULTANTS Clause by Clause Analysis and Reporting Requirements in Tax Audit Report Presentation by August 18, 2018 Yogesh Thar 1 CONTENTS Clause Number Particulars of the Clause 30A* Impact of Primay adjustments 30B*

1.31k views • 115 slides
Complement Structures: Outline Complement Structures and Non-Finite Constructions in HPSG

Complement Structures: Outline Complement Structures and Non-Finite Constructions in HPSG

Complement Structures: Outline Complement Structures and Non-Finite Constructions in HPSG Category selection Nonfinite constructions: Raising and control Passive construction Introduction to HPSG 19. Mai 2009 Kordula De Kuthy 1 2

316 views • 10 slides
Resolution rule for propositional clauses 3ai Recall the structure of a Clause AUTOMATED

Resolution rule for propositional clauses 3ai Recall the structure of a Clause AUTOMATED

Resolution rule for propositional clauses 3ai Recall the structure of a Clause AUTOMATED REASONING A clause has the form A1 A2 ... An, where each Ai is a literal A literal is either an atom or a negated atom (from a language L)

210 views • 7 slides
General Linguistics HPSG Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Alexandr Rosen stav

General Linguistics HPSG Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Alexandr Rosen stav

General Linguistics HPSG Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Alexandr Rosen stav teoretick a komputa cn lingvistiky Filozofick fakulta Univerzity Karlovy 27 March 2013 Rosen (FF UK) LTGF 27 March 2013 1 / 60 Reading 1

781 views • 60 slides
Clause Size Reduction with all-UIP Learning Nick Feng and Fahiem Bacchus University of Toronto

Clause Size Reduction with all-UIP Learning Nick Feng and Fahiem Bacchus University of Toronto

Clause Size Reduction with all-UIP Learning Nick Feng and Fahiem Bacchus University of Toronto Introduction Clause Learning Clause Learning is an essential technique in SAT solvers (1996) u Clause Learning Clause Learning is an essential

664 views • 51 slides
Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar I Grammatikformalismen (SS 2013) Yi Zhang Department of

Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar I Grammatikformalismen (SS 2013) Yi Zhang Department of

Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar I Grammatikformalismen (SS 2013) Yi Zhang Department of Computational Linguistics Saarland University June 18th, 2013 Zhang (Saarland University) HPSG-I 18.06.2013 1 / 40 History of HPSG and its

689 views • 41 slides
The components of a Trale grammar Implementing HPSG grammars Signature The TRALE system

The components of a Trale grammar Implementing HPSG grammars Signature The TRALE system

The components of a Trale grammar Implementing HPSG grammars Signature The TRALE system Descriptions Kordula De Kuthy Phrase Structure Constraint-based grammar implementation, SoSe 2010 Implicational Constraints A second look

306 views • 4 slides
Optimization of HPSG Grammar Implementations in Trale Georgiana Dinu Optimization of HPSG

Optimization of HPSG Grammar Implementations in Trale Georgiana Dinu Optimization of HPSG

Optimization of HPSG Grammar Implementations in Trale Georgiana Dinu Optimization of HPSG Grammar Implementations in Trale p. 1/2 Summary The optimization problem Background Examples Optimization of HPSG Grammar Implementations

754 views • 26 slides
Hybrid NLP Hybrid NLP Multilingual HPSG Grammar Engineering Multilingual HPSG Grammar

Hybrid NLP Hybrid NLP Multilingual HPSG Grammar Engineering Multilingual HPSG Grammar

Hybrid NLP Hybrid NLP Multilingual HPSG Grammar Engineering Multilingual HPSG Grammar Engineering Available HPSG grammars : German (50.000 lexical entries) English (12.300 lexical entries) Japanese (35.000 lexical entries)

379 views • 16 slides
A) We would not have missed the train if we had got up earlier. 1. MAIN CLAUSE: 2. DEPENDENT

A) We would not have missed the train if we had got up earlier. 1. MAIN CLAUSE: 2. DEPENDENT

Identifique a MAIN CLAUSE, a DEPENDENT CLAUSE, a combinao verbal e a condio estabelecida pelas IF CLAUSES a seguir: A) We would not have missed the train if we had got up earlier. 1. MAIN CLAUSE: 2. DEPENDENT CLAUSE: 3. COMBINAO

289 views • 8 slides
Verb Morphology and Clause Structure in Basque: Allocutive Yulia Adaskina Pavel Grashchenkov

Verb Morphology and Clause Structure in Basque: Allocutive Yulia Adaskina Pavel Grashchenkov

Morphology of the World's Languages, June 11-13 2009, University of Leipzig Verb Morphology and Clause Structure in Basque: Allocutive Yulia Adaskina Pavel Grashchenkov Moscow State University Institute for Oriental Studies adaskina@gmail.com

197 views • 6 slides
Introduction to Tactical Generation with HPSG Woodley Packard University of Washington March 5,

Introduction to Tactical Generation with HPSG Woodley Packard University of Washington March 5,

Introduction to Tactical Generation with HPSG Woodley Packard University of Washington March 5, 2013 Introduction Natural Language Generation: the task of automatically producing natural language utterances Tactical NLG: deciding how to

547 views • 18 slides
Grammatical markers and grammatical relations in the simple clause in Old French Nicolas

Grammatical markers and grammatical relations in the simple clause in Old French Nicolas

Introduction Theoretical grounds Major relations in the clause in OF Conclusion Grammatical markers and grammatical relations in the simple clause in Old French Nicolas Mazziotta Universitt Stuttgart/Universit de Lige 29th August 2013,

1.01k views • 72 slides
C O N F I D E N T C O M M U N I C AT O R 2 0 1 8 A C C E N T R E D U C T I O N J E F F R

C O N F I D E N T C O M M U N I C AT O R 2 0 1 8 A C C E N T R E D U C T I O N J E F F R

C O N F I D E N T C O M M U N I C AT O R 2 0 1 8 A C C E N T R E D U C T I O N J E F F R E Y D AV I S A G E N D A Housekeeping Introduction Class Structure Review Class Syllabus How is speech formed? Articulators H

363 views • 32 slides

More recommend