Scope and Situation Binding in LTAG Using Semantic Unification

Kallmeyer, Laura; Romero, Maribel

doi:10.1007/s11168-008-9046-6

Cited by 28 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 38 publications

(53 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since our focus is on the semantic modelling of quantification in frame semantics and its compositional account, we provide a Montague grammar based syntactic modelling that is sufficient for our purpose. Integration of the modelling of scope ambiguity in a TAG encoding (de Groote 2002) for instance would require an embedding into an underspecified representation language (Bos 1995;Pogodalla 2004;Kallmeyer and Romero 2008) that plays no role in the final interpretation of the logical formula to be interpreted.…”

Section: Frame Semantics With Quantificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantification in frame semantics with binders and nominals of hybrid logic

Kallmeyer

Osswald

Pogodalla

2017

JLM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper aims to integrate logical operators into frame-based semantics. Frames are semantic graphs that allow lexical meaning to be captured in a fine-grained way but that do not come with a natural way to integrate logical operators such as quantifiers. The approach we propose stems from the observation that modal logic is a powerful tool for describing relational structures, including frames. We use its hybrid logic extension in order to incorporate quantification and thereby allow for inference and reasoning. We integrate our approach into a type theoretic compositional semantics, formulated within Abstract Categorial Grammars. We also show how the key ingredients of hybrid logic, nominals and binders, can be used to model semantic coercion, such as the one induced by the begin predicate. In order to illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed syntax-semantics interface, all the examples can be run and tested with the Abstract Categorial Grammar development toolkit. frames and lexical semanticsFrames emerged as a representation format of conceptual and lexical knowledge (Fillmore 1977;Barsalou 1992;Löbner 2014a). They * This work was supported by the INRIA sabbatical program and by the CRC 991 "The Structure of Representations in Language, Cognition, and Science" funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG). Journal of Language Modelling Vol 5, No 2 (2017), pp. 357-383Laura Kallmeyer et al. are commonly presented as semantic graphs with labelled nodes and edges, such as the one in Figure 1, where nodes correspond to entities (individuals, events, …) and edges correspond to (functional or nonfunctional) relations between these entities. In Figure 1 all relations except part-of are meant to be functional. Structuring the knowledge as frames offers a fine-grained and systematic decomposition of meaning. This conception of frames is however not to be confused with the somewhat simpler FrameNet frames, although the former can help to capture the structural relations of the latter (see Osswald and Van Valin 2014).Frames can be formalized as extended typed feature structures (Petersen 2007; Kallmeyer and Osswald 2013) and specified as models of a suitable logical language, the labelled attribute-value description (LAVD) language. Such a language allows for the composition of lexical frames on the sentential level by means of an explicit syntax-semantics interface (Kallmeyer and Osswald 2013). 1.1 Logical representation of feature structuresThe syntax-semantics interface of (Kallmeyer and Osswald 2013) relies on a formal representation of semantic frames as base-labelled feature structure with types and relations. This definition extends the standard definition of feature structures in two respects. First, in addition to features, proper relations between nodes can be expressed. Moreover, it is not required that every node be accessible from a single root node via a feature path; instead, it is required that every node be accessible from one of the base-labelled nodes. Semantic frames defined in this way can...

show abstract

Section: Frame Semantics With Quantificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantification in frame semantics with binders and nominals of hybrid logic

Kallmeyer

Osswald

Pogodalla

2017

JLM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other approaches showed that the derivation trees still could be used without additional modifications. Such approaches rely on unification (Kallmeyer and Romero, 2004;Kallmeyer and Romero, 2007) or a functional approach to TAG (Pogodalla, 2004; * This work has been supported by the French agency Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-12-CORD-0004).…”

Section: Motivationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other approaches showed that the derivation trees still could be used without additional modifications. Such approaches rely on unification (Kallmeyer and Romero, 2004;Kallmeyer and Romero, 2007) or a functional approach to TAG (Pogodalla, 2004;Pogodalla, 2009) 1 based on Abstract Categorial Grammars (ACG) (de Groote, 2001). The latter is intrinsically reversible: the grammars and the algorithms are the same for parsing and for generation.…”

Section: Motivationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An ACG Analysis of the G-TAG Generation Process

Danlos¹,

Maskharashvili²,

Pogodalla³

2014

Proceedings of the 8th International Natural Language Generation Conference (INLG)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents an encoding of Generation-TAG (G-TAG) within Abstract Categorial Grammars (ACG). We show how the key notions of G-TAG have a natural interpretation in ACG, allowing us to use its reversibility property for text generation. It also offers solutions to several limitations of G-TAG. MotivationsG-TAG (Danlos, 1998;Danlos, 2000) is a formalism based on the Tree Adjoining Grammar (TAG) formalism (Joshi et al., 1975;Joshi and Schabes, 1997) dedicated to text generation. It focuses on providing several notions to support useful data structures, such as g-derivation trees or lexical databases, to effectively relate a surface form (a derived tree or a string) to a conceptual representation. An actual implementation in ADA was first provided for French (Meunier, 1997), and it has recently been implemented in the .NET framework as the EasyText NLG system and is operational at Kantar Media, a French subsidiary company of TNS-Sofres .The G-TAG proposal can be seen as a result of the observation of the mismatch between the derivation tree notion of TAG and the expected semantic dependencies (Schabes and Shieber, 1994) from a generation perspective. Several approaches that extend the derivation tree notion of TAG have been proposed to overcome this difficulty. Other approaches showed that the derivation trees still could be used without additional modifications. Such approaches rely on unification (Kallmeyer and Romero, 2004;Kallmeyer and Romero, 2007) or a functional approach to TAG (Pogodalla, 2004; * This work has been supported by the French agency Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-12-CORD-0004).Pogodalla, 2009) 1 based on Abstract Categorial Grammars (ACG) (de Groote, 2001). The latter is intrinsically reversible: the grammars and the algorithms are the same for parsing and for generation.We propose then to study G-TAG under the ACG perspective. We show that the key notion of g-derivation tree naturally express itself in this framework. The surface form construction from a conceptual representation can then use the general algorithms of ACG, the very same ones that can be used in parsing to analyze mildly context sensitive languages (TAG generated language, LCFRS) (de Groote and Pogodalla, 2004), following (Kanazawa, 2007)'s proposal here applied to give an ACG account of G-TAG. We do not consider here the G-TAG treatment of preferences between the different realizations of the same input. Similarly, we do not consider the generation of pronouns used in G-TAG and we will work on integrating a theory of generation of referring expressions.2 Sketching G-TAG G-TAG deals with the How to say it? task of generation. The input is a conceptual representation. A G-TAG grammar includes elementary trees, as any TAG grammar. But it also makes g-derivation trees primary objects, relating them to the elementary trees and considering them as pivot to the conceptual representation level.Conceptual Representation G-TAG conceptual representation makes use of notions as second order relation, first order relat...

show abstract

“…We use the LTAG semantics framework from (Kallmeyer and Romero, 2004;Kallmeyer and Romero, 2005). Semantic computation is done on the derivation tree.…”

Section: English Quantifier Scope In Ltagmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(Kallmeyer and Romero, 2005) model this by defining a scope window delimited by some maximal scope (global feature MAXS and some minimal scope (global feature MINS) for a quantifier. In Fig.…”

Section: English Quantifier Scope In Ltagmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifier scope in German

Kallmeyer

Romero

2006

Proceedings of the Eighth International Workshop on Tree Adjoining Grammar and Related Formalisms - TAGRF '06

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Relative quantifier scope in German depends, in contrast to English, very much on word order. The scope possibilities of a quantifier are determined by its surface position, its base position and the type of the quantifier. In this paper we propose a multicomponent analysis for German quantifiers computing the scope of the quantifier, in particular its minimal nuclear scope, depending on the syntactic configuration it occurs in.

show abstract

Scope and Situation Binding in LTAG Using Semantic Unification

Cited by 28 publications

References 38 publications

Quantification in frame semantics with binders and nominals of hybrid logic

Quantification in frame semantics with binders and nominals of hybrid logic

An ACG Analysis of the G-TAG Generation Process

Quantifier scope in German

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About