%
% GENERATED FROM https://www.coli.uni-saarland.de
%    by   : anonymous
%    IP   : coli2006.lst.uni-saarland.de
%    at   : Mon, 05 Feb 2024 15:43:09 +0100 GMT
%    
% Selection : Author: Tracy_Holloway-King
%




@InProceedings{Crysmann:1997_1,
      AUTHOR = {Crysmann, Berthold},
      TITLE = {Cliticization in European Portuguese Using Parallel Morpho-Syntactic Constraints},
      YEAR = {1997},
      BOOKTITLE = {Lexical Functional Grammar Conference (LFG'97), June 19-21},
      EDITOR = {Butt, Miriam and Holloway King, Tracy},
      ADDRESS = {University of California, San Diego, USA},
      PUBLISHER = {CSLI Publications},
      URL = {http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/LFG/2/crysmann-lfg97.pdf http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/LFG/2/crysmann-lfg97.ps},
      ANNOTE = {COLIURL : Crysmann:1997:CEP.pdf Crysmann:1997:CEP.ps}
}

@InProceedings{Frank_van Genabith:2001,
      AUTHOR = {Frank, Anette and van Genabith, Josef},
      TITLE = {LL-based Semantics for LTAG - and what it teaches us about LFG and LTAG},
      YEAR = {2001},
      BOOKTITLE = {Proceedings of the 6th International Lexical Functional Grammar Conference (LFG'01), June 25-27},
      EDITOR = {Butt, Miriam and Holloway King, Tracy},
      ADDRESS = {Hong Kong},
      PUBLISHER = {CSLI Online Publications},
      URL = {http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/LFG/6/lfg01frankgenabith.pdf},
      ABSTRACT = {We review existing appoaches to semantics construction in LTAG (Lexicalised Tree Adjoining Grammar) based on the notion of derivation (tree)s. We argue that derivation structures in LTAG are not appropriate to guide semantic composition, due to a non-isomorphism, in LTAG between the syntactic operation of adjunction on the one hand, and the semantic operations of complementation and modifcation, on the other. Linear Logic based glue semantics, as developed within the LFG framework (cf. Dalrymple (1999)), allows for flexible coupling of syntactic and semantic structure. We investigate application of glue semantics to LTAG syntax, using as underlying structure the derived tree, which is more appropriate for principle-based semantics construction. We show how Linear Logic based semantics construction helps to bridge the non-isomorphism between syntactic and semantic operations in LTAG. The glue approach captures non-tree local dependencies in control and modifcation structures, and extends to the treatment of scope ambiguity with quantified NPs and VP modifers. Finally, glue semantics applies successfully to the adjunction-based analysis of long-distance dependencies in LTAG, which differs signifcantly from the f-structure based analysis in LFG.},
      ANNOTE = {COLIURL : Frank:2001:LBS.pdf}
}

@InProceedings{Holloway King_et_al:2000,
      AUTHOR = {Holloway King, Tracy and Dipper, Stefanie and Frank, Anette and Kuhn, Jonas and Maxwell, John},
      TITLE = {Ambiguity Management in Grammar Writing},
      YEAR = {2000},
      BOOKTITLE = {Proceedings of the Workshop on Linguistic Theory and Grammar Implementation (ESSLLI-2000)},
      PAGES = {5-19},
      EDITOR = {Hinrichs, Erhard and Meurers, Detmar and Wintner, Shuly},
      ADDRESS = {Birmingham, UK},
      URL = {http://www.dfki.de/~frank/papers/ESSLLI00-Dipperetal.ps.gz},
      ABSTRACT = {When lingusitically motivated grammars are implemented on a larger scale, and applied toreal-life corpora, keeping track of ambiguity sources becomes a difficult task. Yet it is of great importance, since unintended ambiguities arising from underrestricted rules or interactions haveto be distinguished from linguistically warranted ambiguities. In this paper we report on various tools in the XLE grammar development platform which can be used for ambiguity managementin grammar writing. In particular, we look at packed representations of ambiguities that allow the grammar writer to view sorted descriptions of ambiguity sources. Also discussed are tools forspecifying desired tree structures and for cutting down the solution space prior to parsing.},
      NOTE = {Revised and extended version to appear 2002 in: Special issue of the Journal of Language and Computation},
      ANNOTE = {COLIURL : King:2000:AMG.pdf King:2000:AMG.ps}
}

@InProceedings{Kordoni:2001_1,
      AUTHOR = {Kordoni, Valia},
      TITLE = {Optimal Linking for Modern Greek Psych Verb Constructions},
      YEAR = {2001},
      BOOKTITLE = {Proceedings of the 6th International Lexical Functional Grammar Conference (LFG'01), June 25-27},
      PAGES = {184-200},
      EDITOR = {Butt, Miriam and Holloway King, Tracy},
      ADDRESS = {Hong Kong},
      PUBLISHER = {CSLI Publications},
      URL = {http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/LFG/6/lfg01kordoni.pdf},
      ABSTRACT = {This paper focuses on the semantic properties and the syntactic behaviour of MG ESPVCs like the following: I Maria fovate tis kategides. the Maria.N fear.3S the storms.A Mary is afraid of the storms. I Maria fovate me tis kategides. the Maria.N fear.3S with the storms Mary is afraid of the storms. I Maria.N fovate ton Giani. the Maria.N fear.3S the John.A Mary is afraid of John. I Maria.N fovate me ton Giani. the Maria.N fear.3S with the John.A Mary is afraid of John. We account for the semantic and syntactic properties of the constructions in (1)-(4) by relying on the linking architecture that Butt, Dalrymple, and Frank (1997) have proposed as an alternative to the fully deterministic principles of standard LMT. We show that the optimal linking theory makes the correct predictions for the linking of the EXPR (experiencer) and the EXPD (experienced) semantic arguments of Modern Greek (MG) Experiencer-Subject Psych Verb Constructions (ESPVCs) and predicts that the variant of MG ESPVCs which realizes syntactically the EXPD (experienced) semantic argument as an accusative NP (examples (1) and (3)) ranks higher (is more optimal) than the variant which realizes syntactically the EXPD (experienced) semantic argument as the complement of a PP phrase (examples (2) and (4)). This ranking reflects in a way the fact that in order to express the meaning Mary is afraid of the storms native speakers prefer the construction in (1), rather than the one in (2), which is also mirrored in the rate of the marked variant of MG ESPVCs ((2) and (4)) in the Greek ECI corpus (5,568%).},
      ANNOTE = {COLIURL : Kordoni:2001:OLM.pdf}
}

@InProceedings{van Genabith_et_al:2001,
      AUTHOR = {van Genabith, Josef and Frank, Anette and Way, Andy},
      TITLE = {Treebank vs. X-bar based Automatic F-Structure Annotation},
      YEAR = {2001},
      BOOKTITLE = {Proceedings of the 6th International Lexical Functional Grammar Conference (LFG'01), June 25-27},
      EDITOR = {Butt, Miriam and Holloway King, Tracy},
      ADDRESS = {Hong Kong},
      PUBLISHER = {CSLI Online Publications},
      URL = {http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/LFG/6/lfg01genabithfrankway.pdf},
      ABSTRACT = {Manual, large scale (computational) grammar development is time consuming, expensive and requires lots of linguistic expertise. More recently, a number of alternatives based on treebank resources (such as Penn-II, Susanne, AP treebank) have been explored. The idea is to automatically “induce” or rather read off (P)CFG grammars from the parse annotated treebank resources and to use the treebank grammars thusobtained in (probabilistic) parsing or as a starting point for further grammar development. The approach is cheap, fast, automatic, large scale, “data driven” and based on real language resources. Treebankgrammars typically involve large sets of lexical tags and non-lexical categories as syntactic informationtends to be encoded in monadic category symbols. They feature flat rules (trees) that can “underspecify” attachment possibilities. Treebank grammars do not in general follow Xbar architectural design principles (this is not to say that treebank grammars do not have design principles). As a consequence, treebank grammars tend to have very large CFG rule bases (e.g. Penn-II > 17,000 CFG rules for about 1 million words of text) with often only minimally differing rules. Even though treebank grammars are large, they are still incomplete, exhibiting unabated rule accession rates. From a grammar engineering point of view, the size of the rule base poses problems for maintainability, extendability and, if a treebank grammar is to be used as a CF-base in a LFG grammar, for functional (feature-structure) annotations. From the point of view of theoretical linguistics, flat treebank trees and treebank grammars extracted from such trees do not express linguistic generalisations. From the perspective of empirical and corpus linguistics, flat trees are well-motivated as they allow underspecification of subtle and often time consuming attachment decisions. Indeed, it is sometimes doubted whether highly general Xbar schemata usefully scale to “real” language. In previous work we developed methodologies for automatic feature-structure annotation of grammars extracted from treebanks. Automatic annotation of “raw” treebank grammars is difficult as annotation rules often need to identify subsequences in the RHSs of flat treebank rules as they explicitly encode head, complement and modifier relations. Xbar-based CFG rules should substantially facilitate automatic feature-structure annotation of grammar rules. In the present paper we conduct a number of experiments to explore a space of possible grammars based on a small fragment of the AP treebank resource. Starting with the original treebank fragment we automatically extract a CFG G. We then apply an automatic structure preserving grammar compaction step which generalises categories in the original treebank fragment and reduces the number of rules extracted, resulting in a generalised treebank fragment and in a compacted grammar Gc. The generalised fragment is then manually corrected to catch missed constituents (and the like) resulting in an automatically extracted, compacted and (effectively manually) corrected grammar Gc;m. Manual correction proceeds in the “spirit” of treebank grammars (we do not introduce Xbar analyses). We then explore how many of the manual correction steps on treebank trees can be achieved automatically. We develop, implement and test an automatic treebank “grooming” methodology which is applied to the generalised treebank fragment to yield a compacted and automatically corrected grammar Gc;a. Grammars Gc;m and Gc;a are very similar to compiled out “flat” LFG-82 style grammars. We explore regular expression based compaction (both manual and automatic) to relate Gc;m to a LFG-82 style grammar design. Finally, we manually recode a subsection of the generalised and manually corrected treebank fragment into “vanilla-flavour” Xbar based trees. From these we extract a compacted, manually corrected, Xbar-based grammar Gc;m;x. We evaluate our grammars and methods using standard labelled bracketing measures and according to how well they perform under automatic feature-structure annotation tasks.},
      ANNOTE = {COLIURL : Genabith:19xx:TVX.pdf}
}