2005 MinimalRecursionSemantics

From GM-RKB
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Subject Headings: Natural Language Semantic Theory, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Minimal Recursion Semantics

Notes

Cited By

Quotes

Abstract

Minimal recursion semantics (MRS) is a framework for computational semantics that is suitable for parsing and generation and that can be implemented in typed feature structure formalisms. We discuss why, in general, a semantic representation with minimal structure is desirable and illustrate how a descriptively adequate representation with a nonrecursive structure may be achieved. MRS enables a simple formulation of the grammatical constraints on lexical and phrasal semantics, including the principles of semantic composition. We have integrated MRS with a broad-coverage HPSG grammar.


References

  • Abb, B., Buschbeck-Wolf, B. and Tschernitschek, C. (1996) Abstraction and Underspecification in Semantic Transfer. In: Proceedings of the Second Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas (AMTA-96). Montreal, pp. 56–65.
  • Alshawi, H. and Crouch, R. (1992) Monotonic Semantic Interpretation. In: Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-92). Newark, NJ, pp. 32–39.
  • Baldridge, J. and Kruijff, G.-J. M. (2002). Coupling CCG and Hybrid Logic Dependency Semantics. In: Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), Philadelphia.
  • Beermann, D. and Hellan, L. (2004). Semantic Decomposition in a Computational HPSG Grammar: A Treatment of Aspect and Context-dependent Directionals. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Semantics at the 11th International Conference on HPSG Leuven, Belgium.
  • Bender, E. M., Flickinger, D. and Oepen, S. (2002). The Grammar Matrix: An open-source starter-kit for the rapid development of cross-linguistically consistent broad-coverage precision grammars. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Grammar Engineering and Evaluation at the 19th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Taipei, Taiwan, pp. 8–14.
  • Bender, E. M. and Flickinger, D. (2003). Compositional Semantics in a Multilingual Grammar Resource. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Ideas and Stratgies for Multilingual
  • Grammar Development, ESSLLI (2003). Vienna, Austria.
  • Bos, J. (1995). Predicate Logic Unplugged. In: Proceedings of the 10th Amsterdam Colloquium. Amsterdam, pp. 133–142.
  • Bouma, G., Malouf, R. and Sag, I. A. (1998) Adjunct Scope and Complex Predicates, Paper presented at the 20th Annual Meeting of the DGfS. Section 8: The Syntax of Adverbials – Theoretical and Cross-linguistic Aspects. Halle, Germany.
  • Carlson, G. N. and Pelletier, F. J. (eds.) (1995) The Generic Book. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
  • Carroll, J., Copestake, A. Flickinger, D. and Poznanski, V. (1999) An Efficient Chart Generator for (Semi-)lexicalist Grammars. In: Proceedings of the 7th European Workshop on Natural Language Generation (EWNLG’99). Toulouse, pp. 86–95.
  • Cooper, R. (1983) Quantification and Syntactic Theory. Reidel, Dordrecht.
  • Copestake, A. (1995) Semantic Transfer for Verbmobil. ACQUILEX II working paper 62 and Verbmobil report 93.
  • Copestake, A., Flickinger, D. Malouf, R. Riehemann, S. and Sag, I. A. (1995) Translation using Minimal Recursion Semantics. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Machine Translation (TMI-95). Leuven, Belgium.
  • Copestake, A., Lascarides, A. and Flickinger, D. (2001) An Algebra for Semantic Construction in Constraint-based Grammars. In: Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2001). Toulouse, France.
  • Dahll¨of, M. (2002). Token Dependency Semantics and the Paratactic Analysis of Intensional constructions. Journal of Semantics 19, pp. 333–368.
  • Davis, A. (2001) Linking by Types in the Hierarchical Lexicon. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.
  • van Deemter, K. and Peters, S. (eds.) (1996) Semantic Ambiguity and Underspecification. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.
  • Egg, M. (1998) Wh-questions in Underspecified Minimal Recursion Semantics. Journal of Semantics 15(1), pp. 37–82.
  • Egg, M. and Lebeth, K. (1995) Semantic Underspecification and Modifier Attachment.
  • Intergrative Ans¨atze in der Computerlinguistik. Beitr¨age zur 5. Fachtagung f ür Computerlinguistik der DGfS.
  • Egg, M. and Lebeth, K. (1996) Semantic Interpretation in HPSG. Presented at the Third International Conference on HPSG. Marseilles, France.
  • Egg, M., Koller, A. and Niehren, J. (2001) The Constraint Language for Lambda Structures. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 10, pp. 457–485.
  • Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P. and O’Connor, M. C. (1988) Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of Let Alone. Language 64(3), pp. 501–538.
  • Flickinger, D., Copestake, A. and Sag, I. A. (2000) HPSG Analysis of English. In: W. Wahl-ster and Karger, R. (ed.), Verbmobil: Foundations of Speech-to-Speech Translation. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg and New York, pp. 254–263.
  • Frank, A. and Reyle, U. (1994) Principle-based Semantics for HPSG. Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340. University of Stuttgart.
  • Fuchss, R., Koller, A., Niehren, J. and Thater, S. (2004). Minimal Recursion Semantics as
  • Dominance Constraints: Translation, Evaluation, and Analysis. In: Proceedings of the 42nd Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-04). Barcelona, Spain, pp. 247–254.
  • Gardent, C. and Kallmeyer, L. (2003). Semantic Construction in Feature-based TAG. In:
  • Proceedings of the 10th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL-03). Budapest, pp. 123–130.
  • Ginzburg, J. and Sag, I. A. (2000) Interrogative Investigations: The Form, Meaning and Use of English Interrogatives CSLI. Stanford.
  • Hobbs, J. (1983) An Improper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-83). MIT, Cambridge, MA, pp. 57–63.
  • Hobbs, J. (1985) Ontological Promiscuity. In: Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-85). Chicago, IL, pp. 61–69.
  • Hobbs, J. and Shieber, S.M. (1987) An Algorithm for Generating Quantifier Scopings. Computational Linguistics 13, pp. 47–63.
  • Kallmeyer, L. and Joshi, A. (1999) Factoring Predicate Argument and Scope Semantics: Underspecified Semantics with LTAG. In: Proceedings of the 12th Amsterdam Colloquium.
  • Dekker, P. (ed.) Amsterdam, ILLC, pp. 169–174.
  • Kamp, H. and Reyle, U. (1993) From Discourse to Logic: An Introduction to Modeltheoretic Semantics, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Neterlands.
  • Kasper, R. (1996) Semantics ofRecursive Modification, unpublishedMS. Ohio State University.
  • Kay, M. (1970) From Semantics to Syntax. In: Bierwisch, M. and Heidorn, K. E. (eds.), Progress in Linguistics, The Hague, Mouton, pp. 114–126.
  • Kay, M. (1996) Chart Generation. In: Proceeding of the 34th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-96). Santa Cruz, CA, pp. 200–204.
  • Kiss, T. (2005). Semantic Constraints on Relative Clause Extraposition. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23(2), pp. 281–334.
  • Koenig, J.-P. and Muansuwan, N. (2005). The Syntax of Aspect in Thai. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23(2), pp. 335–380.
  • Koller, A, Niehren, J. and Thater, S. (2003). Bridging the Gap between Underspecification
  • Formalisms: Hole Semantics as dominance constraints. In: Proceedings of the 10th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL- 03). Budapest, pp. 195–202.
  • Landsbergen, J. (1987) Isomorphic Grammars and Their Use in the ROSETTA Translation System. In: King, M. (ed.), Machine Translation Today: The State of the Art. Edinburgh University Press, pp. 351–372.
  • Nerbonne, J. (1993) A Feature-based Syntax/Semantics Interface. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence (Special Issue on Mathematics of Language, Manaster-Ramer, A. and Zadrozsny, W. eds.), 8, pp. 107–132.
  • Niehren, J. and Thater, S. (2003). Bridging the Gap Between Underspecification Formalisms: Minimal Recursion Semantics as Dominance Constraints. In: Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-03). Sapporo, Japan.
  • Partee, B., ter Meulen, A. and Wall, R. E. (1993) Mathematical Methods in Linguistics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
  • Phillips, J. D. (1993) Generation of Text from Logical Formulae. Machine Translation 8(4), pp. 209–235.
  • Pinkal, M. (1996) Radical Underspecification, In: Dekker, P. and Stokhof, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the 10th Amsterdam Colloquium. Amsterdam, ILLC, pp. 587–606. Pollard, C. and Sag, I. A. (1994) Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
  • Pollard, C. and Yoo, E. J. (1998) A Unified Theory of Scope for Quantifiers and Wh-phrases. Journal of Linguistics 34(2), pp. 415–445.
  • Poznanski, V., Beaven, J. L. and Whitelock, P. (1995) An Efficient Generation Algorithm for Lexicalist MT. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-95). Cambridge, MA, pp. 261–267.
  • Przepi´orkowski, A. (1999) Case Assignment and the Complement-Adjunct Dichotomy – A noncon figurational, constraint-based approach. Doctoral dissertation, Universit¨at Tübingen.
  • Reyle, U. (1993) Dealing with Ambiguities by Underspecification. Journal of Semantics 10, pp. 123–179.
  • Richter, F. and Sailer, M. Polish Negation and Lexical Resource Semantics. In: Kruijff, G.-J. M., Moss, L. S. and Oehrle, R. T. (eds.), Proceedings of FGMOL (2001). Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 53. Elsevier.
  • Riehemann, S. (2001) A Constructional Approach to Idioms and Word Formation. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.
  • Sag, I. A. and Pollard, C. (1991) An Integrated Theory of Complement Control. Language 67(1), pp. 63–113.
  • Shieber, S. M. (1993) The Problem of Logical form Equivalence. Computational Linguistics 19(1), pp. 179–190.
  • Siegel, M. and Bender, E. M. (2002). Efficient Deep Processing of Japanese. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Asian Language Resources and International Standardization.
  • COLING 2002 Post-Conference Workshop. Taipei, Taiwan.
  • Trujillo, I. A. (1995) Lexicalist Machine Translation of Spatial Prepositions. PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge.
  • Villavicencio, A. (2002). The Acquisition of a Unification-based Generalised Categorial Grammar. PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge, available as Computer Laboratory Technical Report 533.
  • Warner, A. (2000) English Auxiliaries without Lexical Rules. In: Borsley, R. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 32: The Nature and Function of Syntactic Categories, Academic Press, San Diego and London, pp. 167–220.
  • Whitelock, P. (1992) Shake-and-Bake Translation. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING-92). Nantes, France.
  • Woods, W., Kaplan, R. M. and Nash-Webber, B. (1972) The LUNAR Sciences Natural Language Information System: Final Report (BBN Technical Report 2378). Bolt, Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge, MA.

BibTeX

@article{2005_MinimalRecursionSemantics, 

    author = "Ann Copestake, Dan Flickinger, Carl Pollard, and Ivan A. Sag",
    title = "Minimal Recursion Semantics: an Introduction",
    journal = "Research on Language and Computation",
    pages = "281-332",
    volume = "3.4",
    year = "2005"  }

,

 AuthorvolumeDate ValuetitletypejournaltitleUrldoinoteyear
2005 MinimalRecursionSemanticsIvan A. Sag
Ann Copestake
Dan Flickinger
Carl Pollard		Minimal Recursion Semantics: an IntroductionResearch on Language and Computationhttp://lingo.stanford.edu/sag/papers/copestake.pdf2005
Retrieved from "http://www.gabormelli.com/RKB/index.php?title=2005_MinimalRecursionSemantics&oldid=902634"