Conjunction reduction and gapping in clause‐level coordination: an inheritance‐based approach

Kempen, Gerard

doi:10.1111/j.1467-8640.1991.tb00406.x

Cited by 7 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 3 publications

(1 reference statement)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…49a To the right is a green, uh a blue node 49b To the right is a green node and a blue node Kempen (1991) builds further on this by developing an analysis for forward conjunction reduction and gapping based on the idea that the second conjunct inherits elements from the first conjunct. Kempen (2004) postulates a relationship between forward conjunction reduction, backward conjunction reduction and gapping, stating that they are all grammaticalized forms of self-repair.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Kempen (2004) postulates a relationship between forward conjunction reduction, backward conjunction reduction and gapping, stating that they are all grammaticalized forms of self-repair. Apparently insertion of a new construction, related to the preceding part of the utterance, gives the correct predictions for human language behaviour in both self-repair and conjunction reduction.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Parenthetical Approach to Backward Conjunction Reduction

Schelfhout¹,

Coppen²,

Oostdijk³

2006

Leuvense Bijdragen - Leuven Contributions in Linguistics and Ph

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A b s tra c t This paper identifies backward conjunction reductions in Dutch as a special instance of coordinated comment clauses. This approach is argued to be superior to the standard approaches within the traditional and generative framework, in that it not only refrains from theoretically suspect mechanisms as needed in the other analyses, but also gives a better explanation for the constituent behaviour and the intonation pattern o f the resulting surface structure. Moreover, it generalizes over backward conjunction reduction, gapping and ambi-ellipsis, which have been analyzed as unrelated constructions until now.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Parenthetical Approach to Backward Conjunction Reduction

Schelfhout¹,

Coppen²,

Oostdijk³

2006

Leuvense Bijdragen - Leuven Contributions in Linguistics and Ph

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such structures are frequently encountered in the Wolof data. A typical syntactic feature of these coordinate structures is that they may exhibit forward conjunction reduction (Kempen 1991) involving a subject gap: The subject of the left conjunct is omitted from the second clause and understood to be identical to the first clause's subject. In LFG terms, the fact that the second conjunct seems to be missing a subject raises a particular issue with regard to Completeness (Kaplan and Bresnan 1982): All the governable grammatical functions required by the PRED of the f-structure should have a value in the f-structure.…”

Section: Handling Coordination Ambiguitymentioning

confidence: 99%

LFG parse disambiguation for Wolof

Dione

2014

JLM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…In Dalianis (1995a) a technique called compacting is used to avoid generating redundancies (see also Section 5.1.). Kempen (1991) calls aggregation forward and backward conjunction reduction. Moreover Reinhart (1991) provides linguistic arguments to show that lexical aggregation (she calls it exception ellipsis) must take place at the logical form (i.e., semantic) level.…”

Section: Previous Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aggregation in Natural Language Generation

Dalianis

1999

Computational Intelligence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The content of real-world databases, knowledge bases, database models, and formal specifications is often highly redundant and needs to be aggregated before these representations can be successfully paraphrased into natural language. To generate natural language from these representations, a number of processes must be carried out, one of which is sentence planning where the task of aggregation is carried out. Aggregation, which has been called ellipsis or coordination in Linguistics, is the process that removes redundancies during generation of a natural language discourse, without losing any information.The article describes a set of corpus studies that focus on aggregation, provides a set of aggregation rules, and finally, shows how these rules are implemented in a couple of prototype systems. We develop further the concept of aggregation and discuss it in connection with the growing literature on the subject. This work offers a new tool for the sentence planning phase of natural language generation systems.

show abstract

Conjunction reduction and gapping in clause‐level coordination: an inheritance‐based approach

Cited by 7 publications

References 3 publications

A Parenthetical Approach to Backward Conjunction Reduction

A Parenthetical Approach to Backward Conjunction Reduction

LFG parse disambiguation for Wolof

Aggregation in Natural Language Generation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About