Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Factoring Predicate Argument and Scope Semantics: Underspecified Semantics with LTAG

  • Published:
Research on Language and Computation

Abstract

In this paper we propose a compositional semantics for lexicalizedtree-adjoining grammar (LTAG). Tree-local multicomponent derivationsallow separation of the semantic contribution of a lexical item into onecomponent contributing to the predicate argument structure and a secondcomponent contributing to scope semantics. Based on this idea asyntax-semantics interface is presented where the compositionalsemantics depends only on the derivation structure. It is shown that thederivation structure (and indirectly the locality of derivations) allowsan appropriate amount of underspecification. This is illustrated byinvestigating underspecified representations for quantifier scopeambiguities and related phenomena such as adjunct scope and islandconstraints.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bos J. (1995) Predicate logic Unplugged. In Dekker P., Stokhof M. (eds.), Proceedings of the 10th Amsterdam Colloquium, pp. 133–142.

  • Bouma G., Malouf R., Sag, I. (1998) Adjunct Scope. Presented at the Workshop Models of Underspecification and the Representation of Meaning, 18–22 May, Bad Teinach.

  • Candito M.-H., Kahane S. (1998a) Can the TAG Derivation Tree Represent a Semantic Graph? an Answer in the Light of Meaning-Text Theory. In Fourth International Workshop on Tree Adjoining Grammars and Related Frameworks, IRCS Report 98-12, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pp. 25–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Candito M.-H., Kahane S. (1998b) Defining DTG Derivations to Get Semantic Graphs. In Fourth International Workshop on Tree Adjoining Grammars and Related Frameworks, IRCS Report 98-12, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pp. 25–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Copestake A., Flickinger D., Sag I. A. (1999) Minimal Recursion Semantics. An Introduction. Manuscript, Stanford University.

  • Engdahl, E. (1997) Relative Clause Extractions in Context. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 60, December.

  • Fauconnier G. (1976) Etude de certains aspects logiques et grammaticaux de la quantification et de l'anaphore en français et en anglais. PhD thesis, Université de Paris.

  • Hobbs J. R., Shieber S. M. (1987) An Algorithm for Generating Quantifier Scopings. Computational Linguistics, 13, pp. 47–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joshi A. K. (1985) Tree Adjoining Grammars: How Much Context Sensitivity is Required ro Provide Reasonable Structural Descriptions? In Dowty D., Karttunen L., Zwicky A. (eds.), Natural Language Parsing, Cambridge University Press, pp. 206–250.

  • Joshi A. K. (1987) An Introduction to Tree Adjoining Grammars. In Manaster-Ramer A. (ed.), Mathematics of Language, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 87–114.

  • Joshi A. K. (1990) Processing Crossed and Nested Dependencies: An Automaton Perspective on the Psycholinguistic Results. Language and Cognitive Processes, 5, pp. 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joshi A. K., Levy L. S., Takahashi M. (1975) Tree Adjunct Grammars. Journal of Computer and System Science, 10, pp. 136–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joshi A. K., Schabes Y. (1997) Tree-Adjoning Grammars. In Rozenberg G., Salomaa A. (eds.), Handbook of Formal Languages, Springer, Berlin, pp. 69–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joshi A. K., Vijay-Shanker K. (1999) Compositional Semantics with Lexicalized Tree-Adjoining Grammar (LTAG): How Much Underspecification is Necessary? In Blunt H. C., Thijsse E. G. C. (eds.), Proceedings ot the Third International Workshop on Computational Semantics (IWCS-3), Tilburg, pp. 131–145.

  • Kallmeyer L. (1999a) Synchronous Local TDGs and Scope Ambiguities. In Bouma G., Hinrichs E. W., Kruijff G-J., Oehrle R. T. (eds.), Constraints and Resources in Natural Language Syntax and Semantics, CSLI, pp. 245–262.

  • Kallmeyer L. (1999b) Tree Description Grammars and Underspecified Representations. PhD thesis, Universität Tübingen, 1999. Technical Report IRCS-99-08 at the Institute for Research in Cognitive Science, Philadelphia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kallmeyer L., Joshi A. K. (1999) Factoring Predicate Argument and Scope Semantics: Underspecified Semantics with LTAG. In Dekker P. (ed.), 12th Amsterdam Colloquium. Proceedings, Amsterdam, December, pp. 169–174.

  • Kasper R. T. (1998) The Semantics of Recursive Modification. To appear in Journal of Linguistics, June.

  • Montague R. (1974) The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English. In Thomason R. H. (ed.), Formal Philosophy: Selected Papers of Richard Montague, Yale University Press, New Haven, pp. 247–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muskens R. (1995) Order-Independence and Underspecification. In Groenendijk J. (ed.), Ellipsis, Underspecification, Events and More in Dynamic Semantics. DYANA Report R2.2.C.

  • Muskens, R. (1998) Underspecified Semantics. Presented at the Workshop Models of Underspecification and the Representation of Meaning, 18–22 May, Bad Teinach.

  • Muskens R., Krahmer, E. (1998) Description Theory, LTAGs and Underspecified Semantics. In Fourth International Workshop on Tree Adjoining Grammars and Related Frameworks, IRCS Report 98-12, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reyle U. (1993) Dealing with Ambiguities by Underspecification: Construction, Representation and Eduction. Journal of Semantics, 10, pp. 123–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodman R. (1976) Scope Phenomena, “Movement Transformations”, and Relative Clauses. In Partee B. H. (ed.), Montague Grammar, Academic Press, pp. 165–176.

  • Schabes Y., Shieber S. M. (1994) An Alternative Conception of Tree-Adjoining Derivation. Computational Linguistics, 20(1), pp. 91–124, March.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shieber S. M., Schabes Y. (1990) Synchronous Tree-Adjoining Grammars. In Proceedings of COLING, pp. 253–258.

  • The XTAG Research Group (1998) A Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammar for English. Technical Report 98-18, Institute for Research in Cognitive Science, Philadelphia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vijay-Shanker K. (1987) A Study of Tree Adjoining Grammars. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.

  • Vijay-Shanker K., Joshi A. K. (1985) Some Computational Properties of Tree Adjoining Grammars. In Proceedings of ACL.

  • Vijay-Shanker K., Joshi A. K. (1988) Feature Structures Based Tree Adjoining Grammar. In Proceedings of COLING, Budapest.

  • Weir D. J. (1988) Characterizing Mildly Context-Sensitive Grammar Formalisms. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. UFRL, University Paris 7, 2 place Jussieu, 75251, Paris Cedex 05, France (E-mail

    Laura Kallmeyer

  2. IRCS, University of Pennsylvania, 3401 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104-6228, USA (E-mail

    Aravind Joshi

Authors
  1. Laura Kallmeyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aravind Joshi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

About this article

Cite this article

Kallmeyer, L., Joshi, A. Factoring Predicate Argument and Scope Semantics: Underspecified Semantics with LTAG. Research on Language and Computation 1, 3–58 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024564228892

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024564228892

Search

Navigation