Syntax-driven semantic frame composition in Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammars

The grammar framework presented in this paper combines Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammar (LTAG) with a (de)compositional frame semantics. We introduce elementary constructions as pairs of elementary LTAG trees and decompositional frames. The linking between syntax and semantics can largely be captured by such constructions since in LTAG, elementary trees represent full argument projections. Substitution and adjunction in the syntax then trigger the unification of the associated semantic frames, which are formally defined as base-labelled feature structures. Moreover, the system of elementary constructions is specified in a metagrammar by means of tree and frame descriptions. This metagrammatical factorization gives rise to a fine-grained decomposition of the semantic contributions of syntactic building blocks, and it allows us to separate lexical from constructional contributions and to carve out generalizations across constructions. In the second half of the paper, we apply the framework to the analysis of directed motion expressions and of the dative alternation in English, two well-known examples of the interaction between lexical and constructional meaning.

[1]  John Beavers,et al.  An Aspectual Analysis of Ditransitive Verbs of Caused Possession in English , 2011, J. Semant..

[2]  P. Blackburn.  Modal Logic and Attribute Value Structures , 1993 .

[3]  Beth Levin,et al.  Argument Realization , 2005 .

[4]  Ingrid Kaufmann.  Konzeptuelle Grundlagen semantischer Dekompositionsstrukturen , 1995 .

[5]  L. Talmy.  Toward a Cognitive Semantics: Typology and Process in Concept Structuring , 2000 .

[6]  Timm Lichte,et al.  Coupling Trees and Frames through XMG , 2013 .

[7]  A. Goldberg.  Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure , 1995 .

[8]  Anne Abeillé,et al.  A Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammar for English , 1990 .

[9]  Marie Candito.  Organisation modulaire et parametrable de grammaires electroniques lexicalisees application du francais et a l'italien , 1999 .

[10]  Aravind K. Joshi,et al.  Feature Structures Based Tree Adjoining Grammars , 1988, COLING.

[11]  Srinivas Bangalore,et al.  Supertagging: Using Complex Lexical Descriptions in Natural Language Processing , 2010 .

[12]  James Pustejovsky,et al.  Interpreting Motion - Grounded Representations for Spatial Language , 2012, Explorations in language and space.

[13]  David R. Dowty,et al.  Word Meaning and Montague Grammar , 1979 .

[14]  D. Adger,et al.  Syntax , 2014, Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science.

[15]  Laura Kallmeyer,et al.  Scope and Situation Binding in LTAG Using Semantic Unification , 2008 .

[16]  Robert D. Van Valin,et al.  Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar , 1984 .

[17]  A. Goldberg,et al.  The English Resultative as a Family of Constructions , 2004 .

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

[19]  Charles J. Fillmore,et al.  Pragmatically Controlled Zero Anaphora , 1986 .

[20]  Benjamin K. Bergen,et al.  Embodied Construction Grammar in Simulation-Based Language Understanding , 2003 .

[21]  Karsten Konrad,et al.  Model Generation for Natural Language Interpretation and Analysis , 2004, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[22]  Michiel van Lambalgen,et al.  There is no opposition between Formal and Cognitive Semantics , 2006 .

[23]  Leonard Talmy,et al.  Typology and Process in Concept Structuring , 2000 .

[24]  Wilfried Brauer,et al.  Spatial Cognition II , 2000, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[25]  Stuart M. Shieber,et al.  Simpler TAG semantics through synchronization , 2006 .

[26]  Anthony S. Kroch,et al.  Asymmetries in Long-Distance Extraction in a Tree-Adjoining Grammar , 2001 .

[27]  Mike Reape,et al.  A Feature Value Logic with Intensionality, Nonwellfoundedness and Functional and Relational Dependencies , 1994 .

[28]  Joseph Le Roux,et al.  XMG: eXtensible MetaGrammar , 2013, Computational Linguistics.

[29]  Stefan Müller,et al.  Discussion Note: Phrasal or Lexical Constructions? , 2007 .

[30]  L. Talmy.  Toward a Cognitive Semantics , 2003 .

[31]  K. Vijay-Shankar,et al.  SOME COMPUTATIONAL PROPERTIES OF TREE ADJOINING GRAMMERS , 1985, ACL 1985.

[32]  R. Jackendoff.  Parts and boundaries , 1991, Cognition.

[33]  Jordan Zlatev,et al.  Translocation, language and the categorization of experience , 2010 .

[34]  Van Valin,et al.  Exploring the Syntax–Semantics Interface: List of abbreviations , 2005 .

[35]  Jean-Pierre Koenig,et al.  Sublexical Modality And The Structure Of Lexical Semantic Representations , 2001 .

[36]  Denys Duchier,et al.  Metagrammar Redux , 2004, CSLP.

[37]  Aravind K. Joshi,et al.  Some Computational Properties of Tree Adjoining Grammars , 1985, Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics.

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

[39]  Robert D. Van Valin,et al.  FrameNet, frame structure and the syntax-semantics interface , 2014 .

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

[41]  Terence Parsons,et al.  Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics , 1990 .

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

[43]  J. Bresnan,et al.  Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English , 2010 .

[44]  Joost Zwarts,et al.  Prepositional Aspect and the Algebra of Paths , 2005 .

[45]  Martin Hackl,et al.  The syntax–semantics interface , 2013 .

[46]  Veronika Ehrich.  Verbbedeutung und Verbgrammatik: Transportverben im Deutschen , 1996 .

[47]  H. Verkuyl,et al.  Time and space in conceptual and logical semantics: the notion of Path , 1992 .

[48]  Rainer Osswald,et al.  Semantics for Attribute-Value Theories , 1999 .

[49]  Malka Rappaport Hovav,et al.  The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity1 , 2008, Journal of Linguistics.

[50]  Stephen J. Hegner.  Properties of Horn Clauses in Feature-Structure Logic , 1994 .

[51]  David R. Dowty.  The Dual Analysis of Adjuncts/Complements in Categorial Grammar , 2000 .

[52]  Benoit Crabbé.  Grammatical Development with Xmg , 2005, LACL.

[53]  Stefan Müller.  Phrasal or Lexical Constructions ? , 2006 .

[54]  Fei Xia,et al.  Developing Tree-Adjoining Grammars with Lexical Descriptions , 2007 .

[55]  J. Bresnan,et al.  The Gradience of the Dative Alternation , 2008 .

[56]  A. Joshi,et al.  Factoring Predicate Argument and Scope Semantics: Underspecified Semantics with LTAG , 2003 .

[57]  Christopher R. Johnson,et al.  Background to Framenet , 2003 .

[58]  Katrin Götz-Votteler,et al.  Valency issues in FrameNet , 2007 .

[59]  Dan Flickinger,et al.  Minimal Recursion Semantics: An Introduction , 2005 .

[60]  Laura Kallmeyer,et al.  Progression and Iteration in Event Semantics — An LTAG Analysis Using Hybrid Logic and Frame Semantics , 2015 .

[61]  Berit Gehrke,et al.  Ps in Motion : On the semantics and syntax of P elements and motion events , 2008 .

[62]  Laura Kallmeyer,et al.  Semantic construction in F-TAG , 2003, EACL.

[63]  Sebastian Löbner,et al.  Evidence for Frames from Human Language , 2014 .

[64]  Lars Kulik,et al.  Lexical Specifications of Paths , 2000, Spatial Cognition.

[65]  I. Sag.  Sign-Based Construction Grammar: An Informal Synopsis , 2012 .

[66]  Manfred Krifka,et al.  Semantic and Pragmatic Conditions for the Dative Alternation , 2004 .

[67]  Bob Carpenter.  Logic of Typed Feature Structures, The (Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science) , 2005 .