Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T17:27:22.277Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Expressing Lexical Generalizations in HPSG

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2008

W. Detmar Meurers
W. Detmar Meurers
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, The Ohio State University, 222 Oxley Hall, 1712 Neil Avenue, Columbus OH 43210-1298. USA. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

This paper investigates the status of the lexicon and the possibilities for expressing lexical generalizations in the paradigm of Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG). We illustrate that the architecture readily supports the use of implicational principles to express generalizations over a class of word objects. A second kind of lexical generalizations expressing relations between classes of words is often expressed in terms of lexical rules. We show how lexical rules can be integrated into the formal setup for HPSG developed by King (1989, 1994), investigate a lexical rule specification language allowing the linguist to only specify those properties which are supposed to differ between the related classes, and define how this lexical rule specification language is interpreted. We thereby provide a formalization of lexical rules as used in HPSG.

Type
Articles
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , December 2001 , pp. 161 - 217
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aït-Kaci, H. 1984. A Lattice Theoretic Approach to Computation Based on a Calculus of Partially Ordered Type Structures. Ph.D. thesis. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
Bouma, G., Malouf, R. & Sag, I. A. 2001. Satisfying Constraints on Extraction and Adjunction. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19(1). 1–65. ftp://csli-ftp.Stanford.edu/linguistics/sag/bms-nllt.ps.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J. 1982. Passive in Lexical Theory. In Bresnan, J. (ed.). The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press, pp. 3–86.Google Scholar
Briscoe, T. & Copestake, A. 1999. Lexical Rules in Constraint-based Grammars. Computational Linguistics 25(4), 487–526. http://www-csli.stanford.edu/~aac/papers/lr2-0.ps.gz.Google Scholar
Calcagno, M. 1995. Interpreting Lexical Rules. In Proceedings of the First Conference on Formal Grammar. Barcelona, http://ling.osu.edu/~dm/papers/calcagno-fg95.html.Google Scholar
Calcagno, M. & Pollard, C. 1995. Lexical Rules in HPSG: What are they? Ms., dated 17 07 1995. Linguistics Department, Ohio State University, Columbus. OH.http://ling.osu.edu/~dm/papers/calcagno-pollard.html.Google Scholar
Carpenter, B. 1991. The Generative Power of Categorial Grammars and Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammars with Lexical Rules. Computational Linguistics 17(3). 301–314.Google Scholar
Carpenter, B. 1992. The Logic of Typed Feature Structures – With Applications to Unification Grammars, Logic Programs and Constraint Resolution. vol. 32 of Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
De Kuthy, K. & Meurers, W. D., 2001. On Partial Constituent Fronting in German. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 3(3). 143–205. http://www.ling.osu.edu/~dm/papers/dekuthy-meurers-jcg101.html.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dörre, J. 1994. Feature-Logik und Semiunifikation. No. 48 in Arbeitspapiere des SFB 340. Stuttgart: Universität Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Flickinger, D. 1987. Lexical Rules in the Hierarchical Lexicon. Ph.D. thesis. Stanford University. Stanford. CA.Google Scholar
Gazdar, G., Klein, E., Pullum, G. K. & Sag, I. A. 1985. Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Geach, P. T. 1970. A Program for Syntax. Synthese 22, 483–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerdemann, D. 1995. Open and Closed World Types in NLP Systems. In Proceedings of the DGfS Fachtagung Computerlinguistik. Düsseldorf. http://www.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/~dg/open_world.ps.Google Scholar
Gerdemann, D. & King, P. 1994. The Correct and Efficient Implementation of Appropriateness Specifications for Typed Feature Structures. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING-94). Kyoto, pp. 956–960. http://www.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/~dg/correct.ps.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsberg, M. L. (ed.). 1987. Readings in Nonmonotonic Reasoning. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar
Götz, T. 1994. A Normal Form for Typed Feature Structures. No. 40 in Arbeitspapiere des SFB 340, Tübingen: Universität Tübingen. Published version of Master's thesis, Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft, Universiät Tübingen, http://www.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/~tg/thesis.ps.gz.Google Scholar
Götz, T. 2000. Feature Constraint Grammars. Ph.D. thesis, Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Tübingen, Tubingen, http://w210.ub.uni-tuebingen.de/dbt/volltexte/2000/133.Google Scholar
Götz, T. & Meurers, W. D. 1995. Compiling HPSG Type Constraints into Definite Clause Programs. In Proceedings of the 33nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 95). Cambridge, MA: MIT, pp. 85–91. http://ling.osu.edu/~dm/papers/ac195.html.Google Scholar
Götz, T. & Meurers, W. D. 1997a. The ConTroll System as Large Grammar Development Platform. In Proceedings of the Workshop “Computational Environments for Grammar Development and Linguistic Engineering (ENVGRAM)” held in conjunction with the 35th Annual Meeting of the ACL and 8th Conference of the EACL. Madrid: Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia. pp. 38–45. http://ling.osu.edu/~dm/papers/envgram.html.Google Scholar
Götz, T. & Meurers, W. D. 1997b. Interleaving Universal Principles and Relational Constraints over Typed Feature Logic. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the ACL and 8th Conference of the EACL. Madrid: Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, pp. 1–8. http://ling.osu.edu/~dm/papers/ac197.html.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, E. W., Meurers, W. D. & Nakazawa, T. (eds.). 1994, Partial-VP and Split-NP Topicalization in German – An HPSG Analysis and its Implementation. No. 58 in Arbeitspapiere des SFB 340. Tübingen: Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, E. W. & Nakazawa, T. 1989. Flipped Out: Aux in German. In Papers from the 25th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago, IL. pp. 193–202.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, E. W. & Nakazawa, T. 1994. Partial-VP and Split-NP Topicalization in German – An HPSG Analysis. In Hinrichs et al. (1994), pp. 1–46.Google Scholar
Höhfeld, M. & Smolka, G. 1988. Definite Relations over Constraint Languages. LILOG technical report 53, IBM Deutschland. http://www.ps.uni-sb.de/Papers/abstracts/LR-53.html.Google Scholar
Höhle, T. N. 1978. Lexikalistische Sxntax. Die Aktiv-Passiv-Relation und andere Infinitkonstruktionen im Deutschen. No. 67 in Linguistische Arbeiten. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höhle, T. N. 1983. Topologische Felder. Ms., Universität Köln, Köln.Google Scholar
Höhle, T. N. 1995. The Complement Extraction Lexical Rule and Variable Argument Raising. Handout for a talk given at the Int. HPSG Workshop 95, 21–23. 06 1995, Universität Tübingen, Tübingen.Google Scholar
Höhle, T. N. 1996a. Einf. HPSG: Die Grammatik, Generalisierungen übers Lexikon. Handout dated 18/19. 04 1996, Deutsches Seminar, Universität Tübingen. Tübingen.Google Scholar
Höhle, T. N. 1996b. Remarks on the Word Principle. Handout dated 25 June 1996, Deutsches Seminar. Universität Tübingen, Tübingen.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. 1988. Attribute-value Logic and the Theory of Grammar, vol. 16 of CSLI Lecture Notes. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kepser, S. 1994. A Satisfiability Algorithm for a Logic for Typed Feature Structures. No. 60 in Arbeitspapiere des SFB 340. Tübingen: Universität Tübingen. Published version of Master's thesis, Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Tübingen, http://www.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/sfb/reports/berichte/60/60abs.html.Google Scholar
King, P. J. 1989. A Logical Formalism for Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Ph.D. thesis, University of Manchester, Manchester.Google Scholar
King, P. J. 1992. Unification Grammars and Descriptive Formalisms. Lecture notes. Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
King, P. J. 1994. An Expanded Logical Formalism for Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. No. 59 in Arbeitspapiere des SFB 340. Tübingen: Universität Tübingen. http://www.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/sfb/reports/berichte/59/59abs.html.Google Scholar
Lascarides, A., Briscoe, T., Asher, N. & Copestake, A. 1996. Order Independent and Persistent Typed Default Unification. Linguistics and Philosophy 19(1), 1–89. http://www-csli.stanford.edu/~aac/papers/landp.ps.gz and http://www.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/~alex/papers/pdu.ps.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lascarides, A. & Copestake, A. 1999. Default Representation in Constraint-Based Frameworks. Computational Linguistics 25(1). 55–106. http://www-csli.stanford.edu/~aac/papers/yadu5-0.pdf and http://www.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/~alex/papers/yadu.ps.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. & Hayes, P. 1969. Some Philosophical Problems from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence. In Meltzer, B. & Michie, D. (eds.), Machine Intelligence 4. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Reprinted in Ginsberg (1987).Google Scholar
McDermott, D. 1981. Artificial Intelligence Meets Natural Stupidity. In Haugeland, J. (ed.). Mind Design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 143–160. First appeared 1976 in SIGART Newsletter 57.Google Scholar
Meurers, W. D. 1994. On Implementing an HPSG Theory – Aspects of the Logical Architecture, the Formalization, and the Implementation of Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammars. In Hinrichs et al. (1994), pp. 47–155. http://ling.osu.edu/~dm/on-implementing.html.Google Scholar
Meurers, W. D. 1995. Towards a Semantics for Lexical Rules as used in HPSG. In Proceedings of the ACQUILEX II Workshop on the Formalisation and Use of Lexical Rules. Cambridge, UK, pp. 1–20. Also presented at the First Conference on Formal Grammar, Barcelona. 1995. http://ling.osu.edu/~dm/papers/dlrs.html.Google Scholar
Meurers, W. D. 1997. Using Lexical Principles in HPSG to Generalize over Valence Properties. In Kruijff, G.-J. M., Morrill, G. V. & Oehrle, R. T. (eds.), Proceedings of the Third Conference on Formal Grammar. Aix-en-Provence: Université de Provence, pp. 137–146. http://ling.osu.edu/~dm/papers/using-lexical-principles.html.Google Scholar
Meurers, W. D. 2000. Lexical Generalizations in the Syntax of German Non-Finite Constructions. No. 145 in Arbeitspapiere des SFB 340. Tübingen: Universität Tübingen. Ph.D. thesis, Universiät Tübingen, http://ling.osu.edu/~dm/papers/diss.html and http://w210.ub.uni-tuebingen.de/dbt/volltexte/2000/118.Google Scholar
Meurers, W. D. & Minnen, G. 1997. A Computational Treatment of Lexical Rules in HPSG as Covariation in Lexical Entries. Computational Linguistics 23(4), 543–568. http://ling.osu.edu/~dm/papers/meurers-minnen-97.html.Google Scholar
Miller, P. H. & Sag, I. A. 1993. French Clitic Climbing Without Clitics or Climbing. Ms., University of Lille and Stanford University. A substantially revised version appeared as Miller and Sag (1997).Google Scholar
Miller, P. H. & Sag, I. A. 1997. French Clitic Movement Without Clitics or Movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15(3), 573–639. ftp://csli-ftp.stanford.edu/linguistics/sag/french-clitic.ps.gz.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monachesi, P. 1999. A Lexical Approach to Italian Cliticization. No. 84 in Lecture Notes series. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Published version of 1995 Ph.D. thesis. University of Utrecht, Utrecht.Google Scholar
Moshier, M. A. & Rounds, W. C. 1987. A Logic for Partially Specified Data Structures. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages. München. pp. 156–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, K. S. 1995. Learning as Knowledge Integration. Ph.D. thesis. University of Texas. Austin, TX. Published as CS-TR-95–41. ftp://ftp.cs.utexas.edu/pub/techreports/tr95-41.ps.Z.Google Scholar
Pollard, C. & Sag, I. A. 1987. Information-based Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 1: Fundamentals. No. 13 in CSLI Lecture Notes. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Pollard, C. & Sag, I. A. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago. IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Richter, F. 1997. Die Satzstruktur des Deutschen und die Behandlung langer Abhängigkeiten in einer Linearisierungsgrammatik. Formale Grundlagen und Implementierung in einem HPSG-Fragment. In Hinrichs, E. W., Meurers, W. D., Richter, F., Sailer, M. & Winhart, H. (eds.), Ein HPSG-Fragment des Deutschen. Teil 1: Theorie. Tübingen: Universität Tübingen, no. 95 in Arbeitspapiere des SFB 340. pp. 13–187. http://ling.osu.edu/~dm/papers/sfb-report-nr-95/kapitel2-richter.html.Google Scholar
Richter, F. 1999. RSRL for HPSG. In Kordoni, V. (ed.), Tübingen Studies in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Tübingen: Universität Tübingen, Arbeitspapiere des SFB 340 Nr. 132, pp. 74–115. http://www.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/~fr/cards/rsr14hpsg.html.Google Scholar
Richter, F. 2000. A Mathematical Formalism for Linguistic Theories with an Application in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Ph.D. thesis, Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft. Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, http://www.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/~fr/cards/dissertation.html.Google Scholar
Richter, F., Sailer, M. & Penn, G. 1999. A Formal Interpretation of Relations and Quantification in HPSG. In Bouma, G., Hinrichs, E. W., Kruijff, G.-J. M. & Oehrle, R. T. (eds.). Constraints and Resources in Natural Language Syntax and Semantics. Stanford. CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Riehemann, S. 1993. Word Formation in Lexical Type Hierarchies: A Case Study of bar-Adjectives in German. Master's thesis. Universität Tübingen, Tübingen. Published as SfS-Report 02–93. http://doors.stanford.edu/~sr/sfsreport.ps.Google Scholar
Rounds, W. C. & Kasper, R. T. 1986. A Complete Logical Calculus for Record Structures Representing Linguistic Information. In Proceedings of the 15th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, Cambridge, MA, USA. pp. 38–43.Google Scholar
Sag, I. A. 1997. English Relative Clause Constructions. Journal of Linguistics 33(2), 431–484. ftp://csli-ftp.stanford.edu/linguistics/sag/rel-pap.ps.gz.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smolka, G. 1988. A feature logic with subsorts. LILOG-Report 33, IBM Deutschland, Stuttgart. http://www.ps.uni-sb.de/Papers/abstracts/LR-33.html.Google Scholar
Van Noord, G. & Bouma, G. 1994. The Scope of Adjuncts and the Processing of Lexical Rules. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING-94). Kyoto, pp. 250–256. http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/cmp-lg/9404011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar