A Projection Architecture for Dependency Grammar and How it Compares to LFG

This paper explores commonalities and differences between Dachs, a variant of Dependency Grammar, and Lexical-Functional Grammar. Dachs is based on traditional linguistic insights, but on modern mathematical tools, aiming to integrate different knowledge systems (from syntax and semantics) via their coupling to an abstract syntactic primitive, the dependency relation. These knowledge systems correspond rather closely to projections in LFG. We will investigate commonalities arising from the usage of the projection approach in both theories, and point out differences due to the incompatible linguistic premises. The main difference to LFG lies in the motivation and status of the dimensions, and the information coded there. We will argue that LFG confounds different information in one projection, preventing it to achieve a good separation of alternatives and calling the motivation of the projection into question.

[1]  Melvin Fitting,et al.  Basic modal logic , 1993 .

[2]  Lucien Tesnière.  Éléments de syntaxe structurale , 1959 .

[3]  Vladimír PETKEVlČ,et al.  A NEW FORMAL SPECIFICATION OF UNDERLYING STRUCTURES , 1995 .

[4]  Patrick Blackburn.  Structures, Languages and Translations: the Structural Approach to Feature Logic , 1994 .

[5]  Petr Sgall,et al.  The Meaning Of The Sentence In Its Semantic And Pragmatic Aspects , 1986 .

[6]  Igor Mel’čuk,et al.  Dependency Syntax: Theory and Practice , 1987 .

[7]  Peter Neuhaus,et al.  The Complexity of Recognition of Linguistically Adequate Dependency Grammars , 1997, ACL.

[8]  Bob Carpenter,et al.  The logic of typed feature structures , 1992 .

[9]  Udo Hahn,et al.  Concurrent, object-oriented natural language parsing: the ParseTalk model , 1994, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[10]  Claire Gardent,et al.  Talking About Trees , 1993, EACL.

[11]  Norbert Bröker,et al.  Separating Surface Order and Syntactic Relations in a Dependency Grammar , 1998, COLING-ACL.

[12]  Aravind K. Joshi,et al.  Long-Distance Scrambling and Tree Adjoining Grammars , 1991, EACL.

[13]  Christa Bhatt,et al.  Die syntaktische Struktur der Nominalphrase im Deutschen , 1990 .

[14]  Marcus Kracht,et al.  Is there a genuine modal perspective on feature structures? , 1995 .

[15]  Ivan A. Sag,et al.  Book Reviews: Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar and German in Head-driven Phrase-structure Grammar , 1996, CL.

[16]  Haim Gaifman,et al.  Dependency Systems and Phrase-Structure Systems , 1965, Inf. Control..

[17]  James Rogers,et al.  A Model-Theoretic Framework for Theories of Syntax , 1996, ACL.

[18]  Aravind K. Joshi,et al.  Some linguistic, computational and statistical implications of lexical grammars , 1997 .

[19]  Aravind K. Joshi,et al.  Parsing Strategies with ‘Lexicalized’ Grammars: Application to Tree Adjoining Grammars , 1988, COLING.

[20]  Michael C. McCord,et al.  Slot Grammar: A System for Simpler Construction of Practical Natural Language Grammars , 1989, Natural Language and Logic.

[21]  William C. Rounds,et al.  The logic of unification in grammar , 1990 .

[22]  Ronald M. Kaplan,et al.  Projections and Semantic Description in Lexical-Functional Grammar , 1988, FGCS.

[23]  Mark Hepple.  Discontinuity And The Lambek Calculus , 1994, COLING.

[24]  Ronald M. Kaplan,et al.  The Formal Architecture of Lexical-Functional Grammar , 1989, J. Inf. Sci. Eng..

[25]  Frédérique Segond,et al.  Multilingual Processing of Auxiliaries within LFG , 1996, KONVENS.

[26]  Vincenzo Lombardo,et al.  An Earley-type recognizer for dependency grammar , 1996, COLING.

[27]  Richard Hudson,et al.  English word grammar , 1995 .

[28]  Stanley Starosta,et al.  The case for lexicase , 1988 .