Topics in Lexical-Functional Grammar. Ronald M. Kaplan and Mary Dalrymple. Xerox PARC. August 1995

Similar documents
The Formal Architecture of. Lexical-Functional Grammar. Ronald M. Kaplan and Mary Dalrymple

1 Predicates and Arguments

A DOP Model for LFG. Rens Bod and Ronald Kaplan. Kathrin Spreyer Data-Oriented Parsing, 14 June 2005

STRUCTURAL NON-CORRESPONDENCE IN TRANSLATION

Bringing machine learning & compositional semantics together: central concepts

Feature Constraint Logics. for Unication Grammars. Gert Smolka. German Research Center for Articial Intelligence and. Universitat des Saarlandes

a. ~p : if p is T, then ~p is F, and vice versa

Monads as a Solution for Generalized Opacity

Semantics and Generative Grammar. Expanding Our Formalism, Part 1 1

Composing intensions. Thomas Ede Zimmermann (Frankfurt) University of Hyderabad March 2012

Flexible Semantic Composition with DUDES

Computational Linguistics

Focus in complex noun phrases

Propositional Logic. Testing, Quality Assurance, and Maintenance Winter Prof. Arie Gurfinkel

Computational Linguistics. Acknowledgements. Phrase-Structure Trees. Dependency-based Parsing

Overview. I Review of natural deduction. I Soundness and completeness. I Semantics of propositional formulas. I Soundness proof. I Completeness proof.

NPy [wh] NP# VP V NP e Figure 1: An elementary tree only the substitution operation, since, by using descriptions of trees as the elementary objects o

A General Reasoning Scheme for Underspecied Representations Esther Konig, Uwe Reyle University of Stuttgart, Institute for Computational Linguistics A

A Multi-Modal Combinatory Categorial Grammar. A MMCCG Analysis of Japanese Nonconstituent Clefting

1 The standard quantifiers in FOL

Introduction to Intensional Logic. Ling 406/802 Read Meaning and Grammar, Ch

Learning Goals of CS245 Logic and Computation

Intensionality. 1. Intensional Propositional Logic (IntPL).

Introduction to Semantics. Common Nouns and Adjectives in Predicate Position 1

Semantics and Generative Grammar. An Introduction to Intensional Semantics 1

C SC 620 Advanced Topics in Natural Language Processing. Lecture 21 4/13

Spring 2018 Ling 620 The Basics of Intensional Semantics, Part 1: The Motivation for Intensions and How to Formalize Them 1

Ling 130 Notes: Syntax and Semantics of Propositional Logic

Propositional Logic: Review

GlueTag Linear Logic based Semantics for LTAG

A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO TYPED PREDICATE LOGIC

Logical Translations Jean Mark Gawron San Diego State University. 1 Introduction 2

INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC. Propositional Logic. Examples of syntactic claims

cis32-ai lecture # 18 mon-3-apr-2006

Proseminar on Semantic Theory Fall 2010 Ling 720. Remko Scha (1981/1984): Distributive, Collective and Cumulative Quantification

5. And. 5.1 The conjunction

Spring 2017 Ling 620. An Introduction to the Semantics of Tense 1

Semantics and Generative Grammar. A Little Bit on Adverbs and Events

Computational Semantics Day 4: Extensionality and intensionality

Two sets of alternatives for numerals

The Semantics of Definite DPs 1. b. Argument Position: (i) [ A politician ] arrived from Washington. (ii) Joe likes [ the politician ].

Proseminar on Semantic Theory Fall 2013 Ling 720 The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English, Part 1: The Fragment of English

Formal (Natural) Deduction for Predicate Calculus

3. The Logic of Quantified Statements Summary. Aaron Tan August 2017

Grundlagenmodul Semantik All Exercises

THE LOGIC OF COMPOUND STATEMENTS

Lecture 7. Logic. Section1: Statement Logic.

Deduction by Daniel Bonevac. Chapter 3 Truth Trees

Quantification: Quantifiers and the Rest of the Sentence

Controlling Functional Uncertainty

Introduction to Semantics. The Formalization of Meaning 1

AI Principles, Semester 2, Week 2, Lecture 5 Propositional Logic and Predicate Logic

Logic for Computer Science - Week 4 Natural Deduction

Consequence Relations and Natural Deduction

Symbolic Logic 3. For an inference to be deductively valid it is impossible for the conclusion to be false if the premises are true.

A Study of Entanglement in a Categorical Framework of Natural Language

15414/614 Optional Lecture 1: Propositional Logic

Modular Grammar Design with Typed Parametric Principles

1. The Semantic Enterprise. 2. Semantic Values Intensions and Extensions. 3. Situations

Grammar and Feature Unification

Proseminar on Semantic Theory Fall 2013 Ling 720 Propositional Logic: Syntax and Natural Deduction 1

Propositional Logic: Logical Agents (Part I)

Reading Percentile 61

Introduction to Metalogic

Warm-Up Problem. Write a Resolution Proof for. Res 1/32

Natural Deduction for Propositional Logic

Knowledge representation DATA INFORMATION KNOWLEDGE WISDOM. Figure Relation ship between data, information knowledge and wisdom.

Overview of Today s Lecture

Continuation. Lecture 24: Continuations, continued. Computations. What is a continuation?

Non-Axiomatic Logic (NAL) Specification. Pei Wang

Semantics and Pragmatics of NLP Pronouns

Ch. 2: Phrase Structure Syntactic Structure (basic concepts) A tree diagram marks constituents hierarchically

Introduction to Metalogic 1

Logic. Propositional Logic: Syntax

(7) a. [ PP to John], Mary gave the book t [PP]. b. [ VP fix the car], I wonder whether she will t [VP].

6. Conditional derivations

Hardegree, Formal Semantics, Handout of 8

X-bar theory. X-bar :

Handout 3: PTQ Revisited (Muskens 1995, Ch. 4)

Parasitic Scope (Barker 2007) Semantics Seminar 11/10/08

Computational Logic. Recall of First-Order Logic. Damiano Zanardini

Alessandro Mazzei MASTER DI SCIENZE COGNITIVE GENOVA 2005

Linguistics 819: Seminar on TAG and CCG. Introduction to Combinatory Categorial Grammar

Towards Abstract Categorial Grammars

Design and Evaluation of the Linguistic Basis of an Automatic F-Structure Annotation Algorithm for the Penn-II Treebank

Robert Givan. David McAllester. Sameer Shalaby. Abstract

Generalized Quantifiers Logical and Linguistic Aspects

A Polynomial Time Algorithm for Parsing with the Bounded Order Lambek Calculus

Predicates, Quantifiers and Nested Quantifiers

Models of Adjunction in Minimalist Grammars

Computational Coverage of TLG: The Montague Test

Chapter 2. Logical Notation. Bahar Aameri. Department of Computer Science University of Toronto. Jan 16, Mathematical Expression and Reasoning 1

Propositional Logic Arguments (5A) Young W. Lim 11/8/16

Sharpening the empirical claims of generative syntax through formalization

Advanced Topics in LP and FP

Logical Agents. Knowledge based agents. Knowledge based agents. Knowledge based agents. The Wumpus World. Knowledge Bases 10/20/14

Finite Presentations of Pregroups and the Identity Problem

First Order Logic (1A) Young W. Lim 11/18/13

Computationele grammatica

Logic for Computer Science Handout Week 8 DERIVED RULE MODUS TOLLENS DERIVED RULE RAA DERIVED RULE TND

Transcription:

Projections and Semantic Interpretation Topics in Lexical-Functional Grammar Ronald M. Kaplan and Mary Dalrymple Xerox PARC August 199 Kaplan and Dalrymple, ESSLLI 9, Barcelona 1

Constituent structure (c-structure): NP S VP V Bill left Functional structure (f-structure): PRED SUBJ `leave< SUBJ >' h i PRED `Bill' Semantic structure: leave (bill) Kaplan and Dalrymple, ESSLLI 9, Barcelona

Halvorsen (198): \F-structures provide a universal format for representing the meaningful grammatical relations in a sentence." Kaplan and Dalrymple, ESSLLI 9, Barcelona

Problem: Find a way of determining the meaning of a sentence based on the meanings of the words in the sentence; and the f-structure for the sentence. Kaplan and Dalrymple, ESSLLI 9, Barcelona

Halvorsen (198): obtain translation by applying principles for generating semantic structures based on f-structure congurations (II) Pred-Arg Conguration: if f k is an f-structure of the form s 1 v 1. s n v n containing some v i with an argument list, then M k is a semantic structure such that (M k PREDICATE) = M si... Kaplan and Dalrymple, ESSLLI 9, Barcelona

Halvorsen (1988), Halvorsen and Kaplan (1988): extension of rule language of LFG to permit simultaneous characterization of multiple levels NP S VP PRED SUBJ `leave' h PRED `Bill' i V Bill left leave(bill) Kaplan and Dalrymple, ESSLLI 9, Barcelona

Guiding principles: Each word contributes to the meaning of the sentence. { It can't be ignored. { Multiplicities matter. The f-structure is a scaolding that guides the assembly of meaning. { It doesn't necessarily specify each step. Kaplan and Dalrymple, ESSLLI 9, Barcelona

Bill appointed Hillary. PRED SUBJ OBJ `appoint' h i PRED `Bill' h PRED `Hillary' i \Appoint" contributes: SUBJ appoints OBJ or 8X:8Y: if my SUBJ means X and my OBJ means Y then my f-structure means \X appointed Y ". 8X; Y:(" SUBJ) ; X (" OBJ) ; Y " ; appoint(x; Y ) Kaplan and Dalrymple, ESSLLI 9, Barcelona 8

Solution: Obtain the meaning of the sentence via deduction in linear logic, starting with the meanings of the words as premises and making use of f-structural syntactic information. Kaplan and Dalrymple, ESSLLI 9, Barcelona 9

Bill appointed Hillary. Lexical entries: Bill NP (" PRED) = `Bill' " ; bill Hillary NP (" PRED) = `Hillary' " ; hillary appointed V (" PRED)= `appoint' 8X; Y:(" SUBJ) ; X (" OBJ) ; Y " ; appoint(x; Y ) PRED SUBJ OBJ `appoint' h i PRED `Bill' h PRED `Hillary' i Kaplan and Dalrymple, ESSLLI 9, Barcelona 10

f: PRED `appoint' SUBJ g: h PRED `Bill' i OBJ h: h PRED `Hillary' i bill: hillary: g ; bill h ; hillary appointed: 8X; Y: g ; X h ; Y f ; appoint(x; Y ) bill hillary appointed (Premises.) ` ` ` bill hillary 8X: g ; X (8Y: h ; Y f ; appoint(x; Y )) hillary 8Y: h ; Y f ; appoint(bill; Y )) f ; appoint(bill; hillary) Kaplan and Dalrymple, ESSLLI 9, Barcelona 11

Composing meanings via deduction: Logic of meanings (semantic level): the level of meanings of utterances and phrases Logic for composing meanings (`glue' level): the level responsible for assembling the meanings of parts to get the meaning of the whole Kaplan and Dalrymple, ESSLLI 9, Barcelona 1

Completeness: an f-structure must contain all the governable grammatical functions that its predicates govern *Bill devoured. Coherence: all the governable grammatical functions that an f-structure contains must be governed by its predicates *Bill congratulated Hillary the sink. Kaplan and Dalrymple, ESSLLI 9, Barcelona 1

Linear logic: A resource-oriented logic Girard 198 Technically: Removal of rules of weakening and contraction: ` B ; A ` Weakening B ; A; A ` B ; A ` B Contraction Kaplan and Dalrymple, ESSLLI 9, Barcelona 1

Linear logic: Accounting for premises multiplicative conjunction: linear implication: INCORRECT: A ` (A A) INCORRECT: (A B) ` A CORRECT: (A (A B)) ` B INCORRECT: (A (A B)) ` (A B) INCORRECT: (A (A B)) ` (A B) B Kaplan and Dalrymple, ESSLLI 9, Barcelona 1

Completeness and Coherence: T h ` f ; t (for some term t) Kaplan and Dalrymple, ESSLLI 9, Barcelona 1

Our approach: exploits the ability of the logic to name things, to capture the f-structural syntactic constraints on semantic composition exploits the resource-conscious properties of linear logic to allow modication exploits the resource-conscious properties of linear logic to ensure that each word contributes exactly once to the meaning Kaplan and Dalrymple, ESSLLI 9, Barcelona 1

Bill convinced every voter. PRED `convince' TENSE PAST SUBJ h PRED i `Bill' OBJ SPEC PRED `every' `voter' every(z; voter(z); convince(bill; z)) Kaplan and Dalrymple, ESSLLI 9, Barcelona 18

f: PRED `convince' TENSE PAST SUBJ g: h PRED `Bill' i OBJ h: SPEC `every' PRED `voter' bill: g ; Bill every-voter: 8F; S:(8x:h ; x F ; t Sx) F ; every(z; voter(z); Sz) convince: 8X; Y: (g ; X h ; Y ) f ; t convince(x; Y ) Kaplan and Dalrymple, ESSLLI 9, Barcelona 19

bill every-voter convince (Premises.) ` bill convince 8F; S: (8x: h ; x F ; t Sx) F ; t every(z; voter(z); Sz) ` 8Y: (h ; Y f ; t convince(bill; Y )) 8F; S: (8x: h ; x F ; t Sx) F ; t every(z; voter(z); Sz) ` f ; t every(z; voter(z); convince(bill; z)) Kaplan and Dalrymple, ESSLLI 9, Barcelona 0

f: PRED `convince' TENSE PAST SUBJ g: h PRED `Bill' i OBJ h: SPEC `every' PRED `voter' every: 8F; R; S:( (8x:(h VAR);x (h RESTR);Rx) (8x:h ; x F ; t Sx)) F ; every(z; Rz; Sz) voter: 8X: (h VAR);X (h RESTR);voter(X) every-voter: 8F; S:(8x:h ; x F ; t Sx) F ; every(z; voter(z); Sz) Kaplan and Dalrymple, ESSLLI 9, Barcelona 1

The use of linear logic in a deduction framework enables a simple and formally well-dened treatment of: completeness and coherence modication complex predicates (Dalrymple, Hinrichs, Lamping, and Saraswat 199) quantication (Dalrymple, Lamping, Pereira, and Saraswat 199, 199) intensional verbs (Dalrymple, Lamping, Pereira, and Saraswat 199) Kaplan and Dalrymple, ESSLLI 9, Barcelona