Axiomatizing Dependen y Parsing

Description

Axiomatizing Dependen y Parsing Using Set Constraints Denys Du hier Programming Systems Lab University of the Saarland, Saarbru ken du hierps.uni-sb.de Abstra t We propose a new formulation of dependen y grammar and develop a orresponding axiom- atization of synta ti well-formedness with a natural reading as a on urrent onstraint pro- gram. We demonstrate the expressivity and ee tiveness of set onstraints, and des ribe a treatment of ambiguity with wide appli abil- ity. Further, we provide a onstraint program- ming a ount of dependent disjun tions that is both simple and eÆ ient and additionally pro- vides the benets of onstru tive disjun tions. Our approa h was implemented in Oz and yields parsers with very good performan e for our ur- rently middle s ale grammars. Constraint prop- agation an be observed to be remarkably ee - tive in pruning the sear h spa e. 1 Introdu tion Modern linguisti theories su h as hpsg (Pol- lard and Sag, 1987) and lfg (Kaplan and Bresnan, 1982) are primarily on erned with the formulation of general stru tural prin iples that determine synta ti ally well-formed enti- ties, typi ally represented as hierar hi al, pos- sibly typed, feature stru tures.

• tion


• pro


• grammati al


• programming


• frameworks based


• constraint programming


• tive tool


• onstraint propagation


• synta ti

Sujets

• Computer programming
• Constraint programming

Informations

• Publié par: pefav
• Nombre de lectures: 19
• Langue: English

Extrait

Axiomatizing
Dep
endency
adv
sho
hniques.
P
are
arsing
general
Using
axiomatize
Set

Constrain
e
ts
sp
Den
1991;
ys
w


hier
in
Programming
far
Systems
applications
Lab

Univ
ho
ersit
so
y
dep
of
infor-
the
y
Saarland,
mo
Saarbr
t

of
uc
v
k
than
en




and
W
er
e
e
prop
tree
ose
pap
a
t
new
e-
form
treatmen
ulation
pro
of
Kaplan,
dep

endency

grammar
w
and
the
dev

elop
endency
a
framew


onding

axiom-
feature
atization
t
of
rather
syn
(CL)

and
w

ell-formedness
vides
with
and
a
particular,
natural
esp
reading
e
as
an
a
Garden

w
t
solv

minimal
t
prop
pro-
to
gram.
are
W
help
e
t
demonstrate

the

expressivit
e
y
biguit
and
In
eectiv
t-based
eness

of
and
set
that


ts,
h
and
extan
describ
the
e
build
a
smaller
treatmen

t
a
of
to
am

biguit
our
y
of
with
based
wide
ed
applicabil-
on
it
tation
y
pro
.
junctiv
F

urther,
in
w
hnology
e

pro
atten
vide

a
unit

deserv
t
rel-
program-
gone
ming
ren

programming
t
da
of
expressivit
dep
than
enden
assumed.
t


as
that
elegan
is
eec-
b
ol
oth
CL.
simple
pa-
and
hier

1999),
t
ed
and

additionally

pro-
dom-
vides
and
the
dels
b
W
enets
here
of
their

In
e
w

to
Our
with

state-of-the-art
h
an
w

as
of
implemen
ell-formedness
ted
naturally
in
program.
Oz
ing,
and
elop
yields
of
parsers
with
with
y
v
w
ery
a
go
t
o
den
d
ell
p
D

1990;
for
th,
our
supp


ren
of
tly
Our
middle
in
scale
to
grammars.
parsing
Constrain
e
t
e
prop-
no
agation
parses

bination
b
as
e
in
observ
parsing.
ed
giv
to
w
b
pro
e
umerate
remark
W
ably
ose
eec-
(DG)
tiv
ork
e
notion
in

pruning
orks
the
on

yp
h
feature
space.
and
1
the
In
represen
tro
and

t
Mo

dern
dis-
linguistic
e
theories


t
h

as

hpsg

(P
ha
ol-
e
lard
ed
and
less
Sag,
tion
1987)
the
and
linguistics
lf

g
y
(Kaplan
they
and
e,
Bresnan,
their
1982)
ev
are
has
primarily
largely

Concur-
with
t
the
t
form
pro
ulation
to
of
y
general
greater

y


that
is
determine
monly
syn
In

set
w
ts
ell-formed
emerging
en
an
ti-
ecially
ties,
t
t

ypically
tiv
represen
to
ted
for
as
in

In

earlier
p
p
os-
(Duc
sibly
and
t
t,
yp
w
ed,
describ
feature
ho

they
While
serv
feature
to

tly
are
e
app

ealing
ts
for
nd
their
mo
p
of
erspicuit
descriptions.
y
e
and
ose
are
to
easily
w
supp
application
orted
parsing.
b
this
y
er,
languages
e
with
going
uni-
demonstrate
cation,
w,
they
the
ha
of
v

e
programming,
the
elegan
disadv
and
an

tage

that
syn
the
w
resulting
b


formalisms
an
are
t
hard
In
to
do-
parse
w
for
dev
b
a
oth
t

am
and
y

fairly
rea-
applicabilit
sons,
.
ev
particular,
en
e
b
vide
ecoming



in
of
the
en-
w
t
orst
(Maxw

and
(Kaplan
1989;
and
orre
Bresnan,
Eisele,
1982).
Gerdemann,
These
Grif-
dif-
1990)
culties
naturally
are
orts
magnied
e
in
seman
languages
(lifting
lik

e
mation).
Ger-

man
stands
where
sharp
free
trast
w
most
ord
t
order

and
W
discon
abandon
tin
generativ
uous
view;

e
ts
longer

partial
the
b
formal


of
t
ones,
and
is
handicap

parsing
e.g.

hart
hniques
Rather,
relying
e
on
e
surface
global
order.
ell-formedness
While
and
m

uc
en
h
its

dels.
h
e
w
ho
as
dep
dev
grammar
oted
as
to
framew
the
and

the
pilation
ofa
syn

w
builtin
hen
in
ell-formed
but
dep
us
endency
ery
tree
an
in
sort
a
feren
manner

that
alternativ
is
ming
particularly
ere
w
1
ell-suited
mir
to
t

e
t-based

pro
the

wn
w

e
w
prop

ose
etter
to
Oz
re-
and
gard
tence
dep
sen
endency
ear:
parsing
auf
as
ting,
a
h
nite
me

h"
tion

problem
e
that
the

merated
b
represen
e
the
form
1:
ulated
tree.
as
b
a
required


strain
ts
t

satisfaction

problem
ted
(CSP).
Sev
This
Oz
view
t
tak
optimization.
es
w
adv
suggests
an
exhibits
tage
vincing
of
he
the
v

zu
that
e
for
extrap
a
sen
sen
eter
tence
b
of
omise
length
b
n

,
e
there
y
are
the
nitely
\lesen."
man
readings.
y

p
readings
ossible
190ms
trees
t.
in
preferred
v
er
olving
is
just
er
n
In
no

des.
only
Out
b
of
propagation.
this
that
large
merate
n
failure
um

b
ork;
er,
el
w
as
e
e
m
e.g.
ust
en

is
those
h
that
a,
are
parsers

ted
W
describ
e
vide
do

not
sort
attempt
the
this
b
through
h
explorativ
him
e
follo
generation,
whic
but
same
rather
more
via
the
mo
diese
del
ein
elimination.
Kommissionn
What


Auk-
t
trates
programming
non-pro
af-
with
fords
bling
us
that
is
of
eectiv
das
e
mir
mo
erspro
del
lesen
elimination
ok
through
Peter

to
t
(1)
propagation.
\das
Maruy
\P
ama
e
(1990)
assigned
w

as
one
the
e