BUILDING A WIDE COVERAGE DYNAMIC GRAMMAR

Incrementality is relevant for language modeling, speech recognition, and language generation, but requires a shift of the mainstream perspective to be addressed in most current models of syntactic processing, which underlies all NLP tasks. In this paper we devise a dynamic version of Tree Adjoining Grammar (DVTAG) that encodes a strong notion of incrementality directly into the operations of the formal system. After discussing the basic features of DVTAG, we address the issue of building of a wide coverage grammar and present novel data for English and Italian.

[1]  G. Altmann,et al.  The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye-movements , 2003 .

[2]  Mark Steedman,et al.  The syntactic process , 2004, Language, speech, and communication.

[3]  Martin Kay,et al.  Syntactic Process , 1979, ACL.

[4]  Vincenzo Lombardo,et al.  A Comparative Analysis of Extracted Grammars , 2004, ECAI.

[5]  Vincenzo Lombardo,et al.  Competence and performance grammar in incremental parsing , 2004, ACL 2004.

[6]  Robert Frank,et al.  Phrase Structure Composition and Syntactic Dependencies , 2002, Computational Linguistics.

[7]  Vincenzo Lombardo,et al.  Processing Coordinated Structures: Incrementality and Connectedness , 2005, Cogn. Sci..

[8]  Cristina Bosco,et al.  Building a Treebank for Italian: a Data-driven Annotation Schema , 2000, LREC.

[9]  Beatrice Santorini,et al.  Building a Large Annotated Corpus of English: The Penn Treebank , 1993, CL.

[10]  Vincenzo Lombardo,et al.  Building a Large Grammar for Italian , 2004, LREC.

[11]  Mark Johnson,et al.  Memory requirements and local ambiguities of parsing strategies , 1991 .

[12]  Fei Xia,et al.  Some Experiments on Indicators of Parsing Complexity for Lexicalized Grammars , 2000, ELSPS.

[13]  C. Phillips.  Linear Order and Constituency , 2003, Linguistic Inquiry.

[14]  Brian Roark,et al.  Probabilistic Top-Down Parsing and Language Modeling , 2001, CL.

[15]  Vijay K. Shanker,et al.  Towards efficient statistical parsing using lexicalized grammatical information , 2002 .

[16]  Fei Xia,et al.  Automatic grammar generation from two different perspectives , 2001 .

[17]  Vincenzo Lombardo,et al.  Dynamic TAG and Lexical Dependencies , 2007 .

[18]  WILLIAM MARSLEN-WILSON,et al.  Linguistic Structure and Speech Shadowing at Very Short Latencies , 1973, Nature.

[19]  Vincenzo Lombardo,et al.  Incrementality and Lexicalism: A Treebank Study , 2002 .

[20]  Alessandro Mazzei,et al.  Proceedings of Foundations of Natural-Language Grammar, workshop at ESSLLI05, Edinburgh. , 2005 .

[21]  Aravind K. Joshi,et al.  Tree-Adjoining Grammars , 1997, Handbook of Formal Languages.

[22]  Vincenzo Lombardo,et al.  Towards a Dynamic Version of TAG , 2002, TAG+.

[23]  R. Rosenfeld,et al.  Two decades of statistical language modeling: where do we go from here? , 2000, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[24]  Vincenzo Lombardo,et al.  Strong connectivity hypothesis and generative power in tag. , 2005 .

[25]  Beth Ann Hockey,et al.  Evolution of the XTAG System , 2000 .

[26]  David Andrew Schneider,et al.  Parsing and incrementality , 1999 .

[27]  Cristina Bosco,et al.  Comparing linguistic information in treebank annotations , 2006, LREC.

[28]  Vincenzo Lombardo,et al.  Competence and Performance Grammar in Incremental Processing , 2004 .

[29]  Michael Collins,et al.  Three Generative, Lexicalised Models for Statistical Parsing , 1997, ACL.

[30]  Eugene Charniak,et al.  Statistical Parsing with a Context-Free Grammar and Word Statistics , 1997, AAAI/IAAI.

[31]  David Milward,et al.  Dynamic dependency grammar , 1994 .