{ "paper_id": "J02-2002", "header": { "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", "date_generated": "2023-01-19T02:44:27.440564Z" }, "title": "The Combinatory Morphemic Lexicon", "authors": [ { "first": "Cem", "middle": [], "last": "Bozsahin", "suffix": "", "affiliation": { "laboratory": "", "institution": "Middle East Technical University", "location": {} }, "email": "bozsahin@metu.edu.tr." } ], "year": "", "venue": null, "identifiers": {}, "abstract": "with the transparent projection of syntactic and semantic scope relations of smaller units. We propose a morphosyntactic framework based on Combinatory Categorial Grammar that provides flexible constituency, flexible category consistency, and lexical projection of morphosyntactic properties and attachment to grammar in order to establish a morphemic grammar-lexicon. These mechanisms provide enough expressive power in the lexicon to formulate semantically transparent specifications without the necessity to confine structure forming to words and phrases. For instance, bound morphemes as lexical items can have phrasal scope or word scope, independent of their attachment characteristics but consistent with their semantics. The controls can be attuned in the lexicon to language-particular properties. The result is a transparent interface of inflectional morphology, syntax, and semantics. We present a computational system and show the application of the framework to English and Turkish.", "pdf_parse": { "paper_id": "J02-2002", "_pdf_hash": "", "abstract": [ { "text": "with the transparent projection of syntactic and semantic scope relations of smaller units. We propose a morphosyntactic framework based on Combinatory Categorial Grammar that provides flexible constituency, flexible category consistency, and lexical projection of morphosyntactic properties and attachment to grammar in order to establish a morphemic grammar-lexicon. These mechanisms provide enough expressive power in the lexicon to formulate semantically transparent specifications without the necessity to confine structure forming to words and phrases. For instance, bound morphemes as lexical items can have phrasal scope or word scope, independent of their attachment characteristics but consistent with their semantics. The controls can be attuned in the lexicon to language-particular properties. The result is a transparent interface of inflectional morphology, syntax, and semantics. We present a computational system and show the application of the framework to English and Turkish.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Abstract", "sec_num": null } ], "body_text": [ { "text": "The study presented in this article is concerned with the integrated representation and processing of inflectional morphology, syntax, and semantics in a unified grammar architecture. An important issue in such integration is mismatches in morphological, syntactic, and semantic bracketings. The problem was first noted in derivational morphology. Williams (1981) provided examples from English; the semantic bracketings in (1a-2a) are in conflict with the morphological bracketings in (1b-2b).", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 348, "end": 363, "text": "Williams (1981)", "ref_id": "BIBREF80" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Introduction", "sec_num": "1." }, { "text": "(1) a. If the problem were confined to derivational morphology, we could avoid it by making derivational morphology part of the lexicon that does not interact with grammar. But this is not the case. Mismatches in morphosyntactic and semantic bracketing also abound. This article addresses such problems and their resolution in a computational system. 1 M\u00fcller (1999, page 401) exemplifies the scope problem in German prefixes. (3a) is in conflict with the bracketing required for the semantics of the conjunct (3b).", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 351, "end": 352, "text": "1", "ref_id": null }, { "start": 360, "end": 376, "text": "(1999, page 401)", "ref_id": null } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Introduction", "sec_num": "1." }, { "text": "(3) a. Wenn [ Ihr Lust ] und [ noch nichts anderes vor-] habt, if you pleasure and yet nothing else intend k\u00f6nnen wir sie ja vom Flughafen abholen can we them PARTICLE from.the airport pick up 'If you feel like it and have nothing else planned, we can pick them up at the airport.'", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 12, "end": 24, "text": "[ Ihr Lust ]", "ref_id": null }, { "start": 29, "end": 56, "text": "[ noch nichts anderes vor-]", "ref_id": null } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Introduction", "sec_num": "1." }, { "text": "Similar problems can be observed in Turkish inflectional suffixes. In the coordination of tensed clauses, the tense attaches to the verb of the rightmost conjunct (4a) but applies to all conjuncts (4b). Delayed affixation appears to apply to all nominal inflections (4c-e). Phrasal scope of inflection can be seen in subordination and relativization as well. In (5a), the entire nominalized clause marked with the accusative case is the object of want. In (5b), the relative participle applies to the relative clause, which lacks an object. The object's case is governed by the subordinate verb, whose case requirements might differ from that of the matrix verb (5c). As we show later in this section, the coindexing mechanisms in word-based unification accounts of unbounded extraction face a conflict between the local and the nonlocal behavior of the relativized noun, mainly due to applying the relative participle -dig-i to the verbal stem ver rather than the entire relative clause. A lexical entry for -dig-i would resolve the conflict and capture the fact that it applies to nonsubjects uniformly. The morphological/phrasal scope conflict of affixes is not particular to morphologically rich languages. Semantic composition of affixes in morphologically simpler languages poses problems with word (narrow) scope of inflections. For instance, fake trucks needs the semantics (plu(fake truck)), which corresponds to the surface bracketing [ fake truck ]-s, because it denotes the nonempty nonsingleton sets of things that are not trucks but fake trucks (Carpenter 1997) . Four trucks, on the other hand, has the semantics (four(plu truck)), which corresponds to four [ truck ]-s, because it denotes the subset of nonempty nonsingleton sets of trucks with four members.", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 1559, "end": 1575, "text": "(Carpenter 1997)", "ref_id": "BIBREF12" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "b. Ihr Lust habt UND noch nichts anderes vorhabt", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "The status of inflectional morphology among theories of grammar is far from settled, but, starting with Chomsky (1970) , there seems to be an agreement that derivational morphology is internal to the lexicon. Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG) (Bresnan 1995) and earlier Government and Binding (GB) proposals e.g. (Anderson 1982) consider inflectional morphology to be part of syntax, but it has been delegated to the lexicon in Head-Driven Phase Structure Grammar (HPSG) (Pollard and Sag 1994, page 35) and in the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995, page 195) . The representational status of the morpheme is even less clear. Parallel developments in computational studies of HPSG propose lexical rules to model inflectional morphology (Carpenter and Penn 1994) . Computational models of LFG (Tomita 1988) and GB (Johnson 1988; Fong 1991) , on the other hand, have been noncommittal regarding inflectional morphology. Finally, morphosyntactic aspects have always been a concern in Categorial Grammar (CG) (e.g., Bach 1983; Carpenter 1992; Dowty 1979; Heylen 1997; Hoeksema 1985; Karttunen 1989; Moortgat 1988b; Whitelock 1988 ), but the issues of constraining the morphosyntactic derivations and resolving the apparent mismatches have been relatively untouched in computational studies.", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 104, "end": 118, "text": "Chomsky (1970)", "ref_id": "BIBREF14" }, { "start": 242, "end": 256, "text": "(Bresnan 1995)", "ref_id": "BIBREF9" }, { "start": 312, "end": 327, "text": "(Anderson 1982)", "ref_id": "BIBREF1" }, { "start": 470, "end": 501, "text": "(Pollard and Sag 1994, page 35)", "ref_id": null }, { "start": 532, "end": 556, "text": "(Chomsky 1995, page 195)", "ref_id": null }, { "start": 733, "end": 758, "text": "(Carpenter and Penn 1994)", "ref_id": null }, { "start": 789, "end": 802, "text": "(Tomita 1988)", "ref_id": "BIBREF76" }, { "start": 810, "end": 824, "text": "(Johnson 1988;", "ref_id": "BIBREF38" }, { "start": 825, "end": 835, "text": "Fong 1991)", "ref_id": "BIBREF23" }, { "start": 1009, "end": 1019, "text": "Bach 1983;", "ref_id": "BIBREF2" }, { "start": 1020, "end": 1035, "text": "Carpenter 1992;", "ref_id": "BIBREF11" }, { "start": 1036, "end": 1047, "text": "Dowty 1979;", "ref_id": "BIBREF19" }, { "start": 1048, "end": 1060, "text": "Heylen 1997;", "ref_id": "BIBREF29" }, { "start": 1061, "end": 1075, "text": "Hoeksema 1985;", "ref_id": "BIBREF32" }, { "start": 1076, "end": 1091, "text": "Karttunen 1989;", "ref_id": "BIBREF41" }, { "start": 1092, "end": 1107, "text": "Moortgat 1988b;", "ref_id": null }, { "start": 1108, "end": 1122, "text": "Whitelock 1988", "ref_id": "BIBREF79" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "b. Ihr Lust habt UND noch nichts anderes vorhabt", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "We briefly look at Phrase Structure Grammars (PSGs), HPSG, and Multimodal CGs (MCGs) to see how word-based alternatives for morphosyntax would deal with the issues raised so far. For convenience, we call a grammar that expects words from the lexicon a lexemic grammar and a grammar that expects morphemes a morphemic grammar. A lexemic PSG provides a lexical interface for inflected words (X 0 s) such that a regular grammar subcomponent handles lexical insertion at X 0 . 2 In (4d), the right conjunct\u00e7ocuk-lar-a is analyzed as N 0 \u2192\u00e7ocuk-PLU-DAT (or N 0 \u2192 N 0 -DAT, N 0 \u2192 N 0 -PLU, N 0 \u2192 Stem, as a regular grammar). Assuming a syncategorematic coordination schema, that is, X \u2192 X and X, the N 0 in the left and right conjuncts of this example would not be of the same type. Revising the coordination schema such that only the root features coordinate would not be a solution either. In (4e), the relation of possession that is marked on the right conjunct must be carried over to the left conjunct as well. What is required for these examples is that the syntactic constituent X in the schema be analyzed as X-PLU(-POSS)-DAT, after N 0 and N 0 coordination.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "b. Ihr Lust habt UND noch nichts anderes vorhabt", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "What we need then is not a lexemic but a morphemic organization in which bracketing of free and bound morphemes is regulated in syntax. The lexicon, of course, must now supply the ingredients of a morphosyntactic calculus. This leads to a theory in which semantic composition parallels morphosyntactic combination by virtue of bound morphemes' being able to pick their domains just like words (above X 0 , if needed). A comparison of English and Turkish in this regard is noteworthy. The English relative pronouns that/whom and the Turkish relative participle -dig-i would have exactly the same semantics when the latter is granted a representational status in the lexicon (see Section 6).", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "b. Ihr Lust habt UND noch nichts anderes vorhabt", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "Furthermore, rule-based PSGs project a rigid notion of surface constituency. Steedman (2000) argued, however, that syntactic processes such as identical element deletion under coordination call for flexible constituency, such as SO (subject-object) in the SVO & SO gapping pattern of English and SV (subject-verb) constituency in the OSV & SV pattern of Turkish. Nontraditional constituents are also needed in specifying semantically transparent constituency of words, affixes, clitics, and phrases.", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 77, "end": 92, "text": "Steedman (2000)", "ref_id": null } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "b. Ihr Lust habt UND noch nichts anderes vorhabt", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "Constraint-based PSGs such as HPSG appeal to coindexation and feature passing via unification, rather than movement, to deal with such processes. HPSG also makes the commitment that inflectional morphology is internal to the lexicon, handled either by lexical rules (Pollard and Sag 1994) or by lexical inheritance (Miller and Sag 1997) . We look at (5c) to highlight a problem with the stem-and-inflections view. As words enter syntax fully inflected, the sign of the verb ver-dig-i in the relative clause (5c) would be as in (6a), in which the SUBCAT list of the verb stem is, as specified in the lexical entry for ver, unsaturated. The participle adds coindexation in MOD|", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 266, "end": 288, "text": "(Pollard and Sag 1994)", "ref_id": "BIBREF61" }, { "start": 315, "end": 336, "text": "(Miller and Sag 1997)", "ref_id": "BIBREF49" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "b. Ihr Lust habt UND noch nichts anderes vorhabt", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "\u2022 \u2022 \u2022 |INDEX.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "b. Ihr Lust habt UND noch nichts anderes vorhabt", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "The HPSG analysis of this example would be as in Figure 1 . Although passing the agreement features of the head separately (Sehitoglu 1996) solves the case problem alluded to in (5c), however, structure sharing of the NP dat with the SLASH, INDEX, and CONTENT features of ver-dig-i is needed for semantics (GIVEE), but this conflicts with the head features of the topmost NP acc in the tree. The relative participle as a lexical entry (e.g., (6b)) would resolve the problem with subcategorization because its SUBCAT list is empty (like the relative pronoun that in English), hence there would be no indirect dependence of the nonlocal SLASH feature and the local SUBCAT feature via semantics (CONTENT). Such morphemic alternatives are not considered in HPSG, however, and require a significant revision in the theory. Furthermore, HPSG's lexical assignment for trace introduces phonologically null elements into the lexicon, which, as we show later, is not necessary.", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 123, "end": 139, "text": "(Sehitoglu 1996)", "ref_id": "BIBREF64" } ], "ref_spans": [ { "start": 49, "end": 57, "text": "Figure 1", "ref_id": "FIGREF3" } ], "eq_spans": [], "section": "b. Ihr Lust habt UND noch nichts anderes vorhabt", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "(6) a. ver-dig-i := \uf8ee \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8f0 LOCAL \uf8ee \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8f0 CAT \uf8ee \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8f0 HEAD AGR PERSON third NUMBER sing CASE dat SUBCAT < 3 NP[gen], 2 NP[acc], 1 NP[dat]> MOD | MODSYN | LOCAL | CONT | INDEX 1 \uf8f9 \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fb CONTENT \uf8ee \uf8ef \uf8f0 RELN give GIVER 3 GIVEE 1 GIFT 2 \uf8f9 \uf8fa \uf8fb \uf8f9 \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fb NONLOCAL | TO-BIND | SLASH 1 \uf8f9 \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fb b. -dig-i := \uf8ee \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8ef \uf8f0 LOCAL \uf8ee \uf8ef \uf8f0 CAT HEAD noun acc or dat SUBCAT <> CONTENT npro INDEX 1 \uf8f9 \uf8fa \uf8fb NONLOCAL | INHER | SLASH 1 \uf8f9 \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fa \uf8fb", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "b. Ihr Lust habt UND noch nichts anderes vorhabt", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "MCGs (Hepple 1990a; Morrill 1994; Moortgat and Oehrle 1994) allow different modes of combination in the grammar. In addition to binary modes such as wrapping and commutative operations, unary modalities provide finer control over the categories. Heylen (1997 Heylen ( , 1999 uses unary modalities as a way of regulating morphosyntactic features such as case, number, and person for economy in lexical assignments. For instance, Frau has the category \u2737 case \u2737 fem \u2737 sg \u2737 3p \u2737 decl N, which underspecifies it for case and declension. Underspecification is dealt with in the grammar using inclusion postulates (e.g., (7)). The interaction of different modalities is regulated by distribution postulates.", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 5, "end": 19, "text": "(Hepple 1990a;", "ref_id": "BIBREF26" }, { "start": 20, "end": 33, "text": "Morrill 1994;", "ref_id": "BIBREF52" }, { "start": 34, "end": 59, "text": "Moortgat and Oehrle 1994)", "ref_id": "BIBREF51" }, { "start": 246, "end": 258, "text": "Heylen (1997", "ref_id": "BIBREF29" }, { "start": 259, "end": 274, "text": "Heylen ( , 1999", "ref_id": "BIBREF30" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "b. Ihr Lust habt UND noch nichts anderes vorhabt", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "(7) \u2737 case \u0393 X \u2737 nom \u0393 X \u2737 case \u0393 X \u2737 acc \u0393 X", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "b. Ihr Lust habt UND noch nichts anderes vorhabt", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "Lexical assignments to inflected words carry unary modalities: boys has the type \u2737 pl N, in contrast to \u2737 sg N for boy. Although such regulation of inflectional features successfully mediates, for example, subject-verb agreement or NP-internal case agreement (as in German), it is essentially word-based, because type assignments are to inflected forms; morphemes do not carry types. This reliance on word types necessitates a lexical rule-based approach to some morphosyntactic processes that create indefinitely long words, such as ki-relativization in Turkish (see Section 6.5). But lexical rules for such processes risk nontermination (Sehitoglu and Bozsahin 1999) . Our main point of departure from MCG accounts is the morphemic versus lexemic nature of the lexicon: The morphosyntactic and attachment modalities originate from the lexicon; they are not properties of the grammar (we elaborate more on this later). This paves the way to the morphemic lexicon by licensing type assignments to units smaller than words.", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 639, "end": 668, "text": "(Sehitoglu and Bozsahin 1999)", "ref_id": "BIBREF65" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "b. Ihr Lust habt UND noch nichts anderes vorhabt", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "Besides problems with lexical rules, the automata-theoretic power of MCGs is problematic: Unrestricted use of structural modalities and postulates leads to Turing completeness (Carpenter 1999) . Indeed, one of the identifiable fragments of Mul- timodal languages that is computationally tractable is Combinatory Categorial languages (Kruijff and Baldridge 2000) , which we adopt as the basis for the framework presented here. We propose a morphosyntactic Combinatory Categorial Grammar (CCG) in which the grammar and the morphemic lexicon refer to morphosyntactic types rather than syntactic types. We first introduce the syntactic CCG in Section 2. Morphosyntactic CCG is described in Section 3. In Section 4, we look at the computational aspects of the framework. We then show its realization for some aspects of English (Section 5) and Turkish (Section 6).", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 176, "end": 192, "text": "(Carpenter 1999)", "ref_id": "BIBREF13" }, { "start": 333, "end": 361, "text": "(Kruijff and Baldridge 2000)", "ref_id": "BIBREF46" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "b. Ihr Lust habt UND noch nichts anderes vorhabt", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "CG is a theory of grammar in which the form-meaning relation is conceived as a transparent correspondence between the surface-syntactic and semantic combinatorics (Jacobson 1996) . A CCG sign can be represented as a triplet \u03c0 \u2212 \u03c3: \u00b5, where \u03c0 is the prosodic element, \u03c3 is its syntactic type, and \u00b5 its semantic type. For instance, the lexical assignment for read is (8). 3 (8) read := read \u2212 (S\\NP)/NP: \u03bbx.\u03bby.read xy", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 163, "end": 178, "text": "(Jacobson 1996)", "ref_id": "BIBREF36" }, { "start": 371, "end": 372, "text": "3", "ref_id": null } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Syntactic Types", "sec_num": "2." }, { "text": "\u2022 The set of basic syntactic categories:", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Definition (Syntactic Types)", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "A s = {N,NP,S,S \u2212t ,S +t } \u2022 The set of complex syntactic categories: B s -A s \u2286 B s -If X \u2208 B s and Y \u2208 B s , then X\\Y and X/Y \u2208 B s", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Definition (Syntactic Types)", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "The classical Ajdukiewicz/Bar-Hillel (AB) CG is weakly equivalent to Context-Free Grammars (Bar-Hillel, Gaifman, and Shamir 1960) . It has function application rules, defined originally in a nondirectional fashion. The directional variants and their associated semantics are as follows:", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 91, "end": 129, "text": "(Bar-Hillel, Gaifman, and Shamir 1960)", "ref_id": "BIBREF4" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Definition (Syntactic Types)", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "(9) Forward Application (>): 4 X/Y: f Y: a \u21d2 X: fa", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Definition (Syntactic Types)", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "Backward Application (<): Y: a X\\Y: f \u21d2 X: fa CCG (Steedman 1985 (Steedman , 1987 (Steedman , 1988 Szabolcsi 1983 Szabolcsi , 1987 is an extended version of AB that includes function composition (10), substitution, and type raising (11). These extensions make CCGs mildly context sensitive.", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 50, "end": 64, "text": "(Steedman 1985", "ref_id": "BIBREF66" }, { "start": 65, "end": 81, "text": "(Steedman , 1987", "ref_id": "BIBREF67" }, { "start": 82, "end": 98, "text": "(Steedman , 1988", "ref_id": "BIBREF68" }, { "start": 99, "end": 113, "text": "Szabolcsi 1983", "ref_id": null }, { "start": 114, "end": 130, "text": "Szabolcsi , 1987", "ref_id": "BIBREF75" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Definition (Syntactic Types)", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "(10) Forward Composition (>B): X/Y: f Y/Z: g \u21d2 X/Z: \u03bbx.f (gx) Backward Composition (T): 5 X: a \u21d2 T/(T\\X): \u03bbf .f [a] Backward Type Raising (XP) is rightward extraction of a left constituent, both of which are marked constructions.", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 279, "end": 304, "text": "(Pereira and Shieber 1987", "ref_id": "BIBREF61" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Definition (Syntactic Types)", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "Directionally insensitive types such as T|(T|X) cause the collapse of directionality in surface grammar (Moortgat 1988a ).", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 104, "end": 119, "text": "(Moortgat 1988a", "ref_id": "BIBREF50" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Definition (Syntactic Types)", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "(12) Leftward Contraposition (XP): X: a \u21d2 S \u2212t \\(S\\X): \u03bbf .f [a] S \u2212t \\(S \u2212t \\X): \u03bbf .f [a]", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Definition (Syntactic Types)", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "The semantics of contraposition depends on discourse properties as well. We leave this issue aside by (1) noting that it is related to type raising in changing the functionargument relation and (2) categorizing the sentence as S +t (topicalized) or S \u2212t (detopicalized), which are not discourse equivalent to S. Syntactic characterization as such also helps a discourse component do its work on syntactic derivations.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Definition (Syntactic Types)", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "CCG's notion of interpretation is represented in the Predicate-Argument Structure (PAS). Its organization is crucial for our purposes, since the bracketing in the PAS is the arbitrator for reconciling the bracketings in morphology and syntax via proper lexical type assignments. It is the sole level of representation in CCG (Steedman 1996, page 89 ). 7 It is the level at which the conditions on objects of interpretation, such as binding and control, are formulated. For instance, Steedman (1996) defines c-command and binding conditions A, B, and C over the PAS. The PAS also reflects the obliqueness order of the arguments:", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 325, "end": 348, "text": "(Steedman 1996, page 89", "ref_id": null }, { "start": 483, "end": 498, "text": "Steedman (1996)", "ref_id": "BIBREF71" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Definition (Syntactic Types)", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "Predicate . .", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Definition (Syntactic Types)", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "Assuming left associativity for juxtaposition, this representation yields the bracketing in (13) for the PAS. Having the primary argument as the outermost term is motivated by the observations on binding asymmetries between subjects and complements in many languages (e.g., *Himself saw John, *heself).", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": ". Tertiary-Term Secondary-Term Primary-Term", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "(13)", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": ". Tertiary-Term Secondary-Term Primary-Term", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "A syntactic type such as N does not discriminate morphosyntactically. A finer distinction can be made as singular nouns, plural nouns, case-marked nouns, etc. For", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Morphosyntactic Types", "sec_num": "3." }, { "text": "n-relbase n-root n-num s-caus s-reflex s-recip (x) (r) (n) n-poss n-comp (m) n-case (c) free (a) s-tense s-abil s-neg s-imp s-pass (s) (m) (t) (g) (i) (p) s-tense n-base s-base (b) (t) (v) (b) (n) s-person s-modal n-num (f) (a) (c) s-base (v) (l) n-base (b) (o) (u) free (f)", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Morphosyntactic Types", "sec_num": "3." }, { "text": "The lattice of diacritics for (a) Turkish and (b) English.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Figure 2", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "instance, the set of number-marked nouns can be represented as n \u2736 N, where \u2736 is a morphosyntactic modality (\"equals\") and n is a diacritic (for number). Books is of type Another modality, < (\"up to and equals\"), allows wider domains in morphosyntactic typing. For instance, n < N represents the set of nouns marked on number or any other diacritic that is lower than number in a partial order (e.g., Figure 2 ). The inflectional paradigm of a language can be represented as a partial ordering using the modalities. 8 For instance, if the paradigm is Base-Number-Case, we have", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [ { "start": 401, "end": 409, "text": "Figure 2", "ref_id": null } ], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Figure 2", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "\u03c5( b < N) \u2286 \u03c5( n < N) \u2286 \u03c5( c < N)", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Figure 2", "sec_num": null }, { "text": ", where \u03c5(\u03c4 ) is the valuation function from the morphosyntactic type \u03c4 to the set of strings that have the type \u03c4 . The \u2736 modality is more strict than < to provide finer control; although \u03c5(", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Figure 2", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "n < N) \u2286 \u03c5( c < N), \u03c5( n \u2736 N) \u2286 \u03c5( c \u2736 N)", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Figure 2", "sec_num": null }, { "text": ", because a noun can be number marked but not case marked or vice versa. Also,", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Figure 2", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "\u03c5( i \u2736 N) \u2286 \u03c5( i < N)", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Figure 2", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "for any diacritic i since, for instance, the set of nouns marked up to and including case includes case-marked, number-marked, and unmarked nouns.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Figure 2", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "The lattice consistency condition is imposed on the set of diacritics to ensure category unity. 9 In other words, the syntactic type X can be viewed as an abbreviation for the morphosyntactic type < X where is the universal upper bound. It is the most underspecified category of X which subsumes all morphosyntactically decorated versions of X. Figure 2 shows the lattice for English and Turkish.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [ { "start": 345, "end": 353, "text": "Figure 2", "ref_id": null } ], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Figure 2", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "\u2022 D = finite set of diacritics", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Definition (Morphosyntactic Types)", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "\u2022 Join semilattice L = (D, \u2264, =)", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Definition (Morphosyntactic Types)", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "\u2022 The set of basic morphosyntactic types:", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Definition (Morphosyntactic Types)", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "A ms . - i < X \u2208 A ms and i \u2736 X \u2208 A ms if i \u2208 D and X \u2208 A s (see definition of syntactic types for A s ) -(\u2736 corresponds to lattice condition =) -(< corresponds to lattice condition \u2264)", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Definition (Morphosyntactic Types)", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "\u2022 The set of complex morphosyntactic types:", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Definition (Morphosyntactic Types)", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "B ms -A ms \u2286 B ms -If X \u2208 B ms and Y \u2208 B ms , then X\\Y and X/Y \u2208 B ms", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Definition (Morphosyntactic Types)", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "For instance, the infinitive marker -ma in (14a) can be lexically specified to look for untensed VPs-functions onto a < S-to yield a complex noun base (14b), which, as a consequence of nominalization (result type N), receives case to become an argument of the matrix verb. The adjective in fake trucks can be restricted to modify unmarked Ns to get the bracketing [ fake truck ]-s (14c). Different attachment characteristics of words, affixes, and clitics must be factored into the prosodic domain as a counterpart of refining the morphosyntactic description. In Montague Grammar, every syntactic rule is associated with a certain mode of attachment, and this tradition is followed in MCG; attachment types are related with the slash (e.g., / w for wrapping), which is a grammatical modality. 10 In the present framework, however, attachment is projected from the lexicon to the grammar as a prosodic property of the lexical items. 11 The grammar is unimodal in the sense that / and \\ simply indicate the function-argument distinction in adjacent prosodic elements. The lexical projection of attachment further complements the notion of morphemic lexicon so that bound morphemes are no longer parasitic on words but have an independent 10 See Dowty (1996) and Steedman (1996) for a discussion of bringing nonconcatenative combination into grammar. 11 There is a precedent of associating attachment characteristics with the prosodic element rather than the slash in CG (Hoeksema and Janda 1988) . In Hoeksema and Janda's notation, arguments can be constrained on phonological properties and attachment. For instance, the English article a has its NP/N category spelled out as , indicating a consonantal first segment for the noun argument and concatenation to the left.", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 793, "end": 795, "text": "10", "ref_id": null }, { "start": 1243, "end": 1255, "text": "Dowty (1996)", "ref_id": "BIBREF21" }, { "start": 1260, "end": 1275, "text": "Steedman (1996)", "ref_id": "BIBREF71" }, { "start": 1468, "end": 1493, "text": "(Hoeksema and Janda 1988)", "ref_id": "BIBREF33" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Definition (Morphosyntactic Types)", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "Attachment properties of some Turkish morphemes. representational status of their own. We write i \u2022 s to denote the attachment modality i (affixation, syntactic concatenation, cliticization) of the prosodic element s. Table 1 shows some lexical assignments for Turkish (e.g., the sign a", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [ { "start": 218, "end": 225, "text": "Table 1", "ref_id": null } ], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Table 1", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "uzun (long) := s \u2022 uzun \u2212 b < N/ b < N uzun yol long road 'long road' oku (read) := s \u2022 oku \u2212 v < S\\ f < NPnom\\ f < NPacc", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Table 1", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "\u2022 s \u2212 X\\Y: \u00b5 characterizes a suffix). The morphosyntactic calculus of CCG is defined with the addition of morphosyntactic types and attachment modalities as follows (similarly, for other combinatory rules):", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Table 1", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "(15) Forward Application (>): i \u2022 s 1 \u2212 X/ \u03b1 1 \u2737 1 Y: f j \u2022 s 2 \u2212 \u03b1 2 \u2737 2 Y: a > k \u2022 (s 1 k \u2022 s 2 ) \u2212 X: fa if \u03b1 2 \u2737 1 \u03b1 1 in lattice L, for: \u2737 1 , \u2737 2 \u2208 {\u2736, < }, \u03b1 1 , \u03b1 2 \u2208 D in L, i, j, k \u2208 {a, s, c}, i \u2022 j \u2022 a k \u2022 Forward Composition (>B): i \u2022 s 1 \u2212 X/ \u03b1 1 \u2737 1 Y: f j \u2022 s 2 \u2212 \u03b1 2 \u2737 2 Y/Z: g >B k \u2022 (s 1 k \u2022 s 2 ) \u2212 X/Z: \u03bbx.f (gx) if \u03b1 2 \u2737 1 \u03b1 1 in lattice L, for: \u2737 1 , \u2737 2 \u2208 {\u2736, < }, \u03b1 1 , \u03b1 2 \u2208 D in L, i, j, k \u2208 {a, s, c}, i \u2022 j \u2022 a k \u2022", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Table 1", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "The main functor's argument specification (\u2737 1 of \u03b1 1 \u2737 1 Y in (15)) determines the lattice condition in derivations. 12 Hence the morphosyntactic decoration in lexical assignments propagates its lattice condition to grammar as in \u03b1 2 \u2737 1 \u03b1 1 (cf. Heylen [1997] , in which the grammar rule imposes a fixed partial order, e.g., X/Y combines with Z if Z \u2264 Y). This is another prerequisite that must be fulfilled for the morphemic lexicon to project the lexical specification of scope.", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 248, "end": 261, "text": "Heylen [1997]", "ref_id": "BIBREF29" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Table 1", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "The grammar is not fixed on the attachment modality either (unlike a lexemic grammar, which is fixed on combination of words). Hence another requirement is the propagation of attachment to grammar. This is facilitated by the lexical types", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Table 1", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "m \u2022 s\u2212\u03c3: \u00b5,", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Table 1", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "where m is an attachment type. The attachment calculus", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Table 1", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "i \u2022 j \u2022 a k", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Table 1", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "\u2022 in (15), which reads \"attachment types i and j yield type k,\" relates attachment to prosodic combination in the grammar. 13 It can be attuned to language-particular properties.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Table 1", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "We can specify some prosodic properties of the attachment calculus for Turkish as follows (x indicates stress on the prosodic element x):", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Table 1", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "syntactic concatenationx s \u2022\u00fd =x\u00fd affixationx a \u2022 y = x\u00fd cliticizationx c \u2022 y =x\u00fd", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Table 1", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "To contrast lexemic and morphemic processing, consider the Turkish example in (16a). We show some stages of the derivation to highlight prosodic combination (\u2022) as well. Every item in the top row is a lexical entry. Allomorphs, such as that of tense, have the same category in the lexicon (16b). Vowel harmony, voicing, and other phonological restrictions are handled as constraints on the prosodic element. Constraint checking can be switched off during parsing to obtain purely morphosyntactic derivations.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Morpheme-Based Parsing", "sec_num": "4." }, { "text": "(16) a. Can Ay\u015fe nin kitab \u0131 oku mas\u0131 n\u0131 iste di C.NOM -GEN(agr) book -ACC read -SUB1G -ACC want -TENSE b N b N c NPgen \\ o N b N c Nacc \\ o N v S\\ f NPnom o N\\ f NPgen c N\\ o N TV ( t S\\ f NP) \\ f NPacc \\( a S\\ f NPnom ) \\( a S\\ f NP) . . . iste a \u2022 di\u2212 t S\\ f NPnom kitab a \u2022 \u0131 s \u2022 oku\u2212 v S\\ f NPnom \\ f NPacc (kitab a \u2022 \u0131 s \u2022 oku) a \u2022 mas\u0131\u2212 o N\\ f NPgen . . . ((ay\u015fe a \u2022 nin) s \u2022 (kitab a \u2022 \u0131 s \u2022 oku) a \u2022 mas\u0131) a \u2022 n\u0131\u2212 ( t S\\ f NPnom )/( t S\\ f NPnom \\ f NPacc ) . . . can s \u2022 (ay\u015fe a \u2022 nin s \u2022 kitab a \u2022 \u0131 s \u2022 oku a \u2022 mas\u0131 a \u2022 n\u0131) s \u2022 (iste a \u2022 di)\u2212 t S", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Morpheme-Based Parsing", "sec_num": "4." }, { "text": ": want(read book ay\u015fe)can 'Can wanted Ay\u015fe to read the book.' b.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Morpheme-Based Parsing", "sec_num": "4." }, { "text": "-TENSE := a \u2022 d\u0131|di|du|d\u00fc|t\u0131|ti|tu|t\u00fc \u2212 ( t < S\\ f < NP)\\( a < S\\ f < NP): \u03bbf .f", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Morpheme-Based Parsing", "sec_num": "4." }, { "text": "13 Clearly, much more needs to be done to incorporate intonation into the system. The motive for attachment types is to provide the representational ingredients on behalf of the morphemic lexicon. As one reviewer noted, CCG formulation of the syntax-phonology interface moved from autonomous prosodic types (Steedman 1991a) to syntax-directed prosodic features (Steedman 2000b ). The present proposal for attachment modality is computationally compatible with both accounts: Combinatory prosody can match prosodic types with morphosyntactic types. Prosodic features are associated with the basic categories of a syntactic type in the latter formulation, hence they become part of the featural inference that goes along with the matching of categories in the application of combinatory rules.", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 307, "end": 323, "text": "(Steedman 1991a)", "ref_id": null }, { "start": 361, "end": 376, "text": "(Steedman 2000b", "ref_id": "BIBREF73" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Morpheme-Based Parsing", "sec_num": "4." }, { "text": "The lexicalization of attachment modality helps to determine the prosodic domain of postconditions. For instance, for Turkish, vowel harmony does not apply over word boundaries, which can be enforced by applying it when the modality is The basic categories N, NP, S, S +t , and S \u2212t carry agreement features of fixed arity (e.g., tense and person for S, S +t , and S \u2212t , and case, number, person, and gender for N and NP). Positional encoding of such information as in Pulman (1996) allows efficient term unification for the propagation of these features. 14 Term unification also handles the matching of complex categories in the CCG schema. For instance,", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 470, "end": 483, "text": "Pulman (1996)", "ref_id": "BIBREF62" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Morpheme-Based Parsing", "sec_num": "4." }, { "text": "\u03b1 1 \u2737 1 A/( \u03b1 2 \u2737 2 B\\ \u03b1 3 \u2737 3 C) combines with \u03b2 2 \u2737 4 B\\ \u03b2 3 \u2737 5 C via (>) for B, C \u2208 A s , if \u03b2 2 \u2737 2 \u03b1 2 , \u03b2 3 \u2737 3 \u03b1 3 (\u2737 i \u2208 {< , \u2736}).", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Morpheme-Based Parsing", "sec_num": "4." }, { "text": "Apart from the matching of syntactic types and agreement, unification does no linguistic work in this framework, in contrast to structure-sharing in HPSG and slash passing in Unification CG (Calder, Klein, and Zeevat 1988) .", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 190, "end": 222, "text": "(Calder, Klein, and Zeevat 1988)", "ref_id": "BIBREF10" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Morpheme-Based Parsing", "sec_num": "4." }, { "text": "CCG is worst-case polynomially parsable (Vijay-Shanker and Weir 1993). This result depends on the finite schematization of type raising and bounded composition. Assuming a maximum valence of four in the lexicon (Steedman 2000a) , composition (B n ) is bounded by n \u2264 3. The refinement of the type raising schema (11) for finite schematization is shown in (17). The finite schematization of type raising suggests that it can be delegated to the lexicon, for example, by a lexical rule that value-raises all functions onto NP to their type-raised variety, such as NP/N to (S/(S\\NP))/N. But this move presupposes the presence of such functions in the lexicon, that is, a language with determiners. To be transparent with respect to the lexicon, we make type raising and other unary schema (contraposition) available in the grammar. Since both are finite schemas in the revised formulation, the complexity result of Vijay-Shanker and Weir still holds. Checking the lattice condition as in (15) incurs a constant factor with a finite lattice.", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 211, "end": 227, "text": "(Steedman 2000a)", "ref_id": "BIBREF72" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Morpheme-Based Parsing", "sec_num": "4." }, { "text": "Type raising and composition cause the so-called spurious-ambiguity problem (Wittenburg 1987) : Multiple analyses of semantically equivalent derivations are possible in parsing. This is shown to be desirable from the perspective of prosody; for example, different bracketings are needed to match intonational phrasing with syntactic structure (Steedman 1991) . From the parsing perspective, the redundancy of analyses can be controlled by (1) grammar rewriting (Wittenburg 1987) , (2) checking the chart for PAS equivalence (Karttunen 1989; Komagata 1997) , (3) making the processor parsimonious on using long-distance compositions (Pareschi and Steedman 1987) , or (4) parsing into normal forms (Eisner 1996; Hepple 1990b; Hepple and Morrill 1989; K\u00f6nig 1989; Morrill 1999) . We adopt Eisner's method, which eliminates chains of compositions in O(1) time via tags in the grammar, before derivations are licensed. There is a switch that can be turned off during parsing to obtain all surface bracketings.", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 76, "end": 93, "text": "(Wittenburg 1987)", "ref_id": "BIBREF81" }, { "start": 343, "end": 358, "text": "(Steedman 1991)", "ref_id": null }, { "start": 461, "end": 478, "text": "(Wittenburg 1987)", "ref_id": "BIBREF81" }, { "start": 524, "end": 540, "text": "(Karttunen 1989;", "ref_id": "BIBREF41" }, { "start": 541, "end": 555, "text": "Komagata 1997)", "ref_id": "BIBREF43" }, { "start": 632, "end": 660, "text": "(Pareschi and Steedman 1987)", "ref_id": "BIBREF59" }, { "start": 696, "end": 709, "text": "(Eisner 1996;", "ref_id": "BIBREF22" }, { "start": 710, "end": 723, "text": "Hepple 1990b;", "ref_id": "BIBREF27" }, { "start": 724, "end": 748, "text": "Hepple and Morrill 1989;", "ref_id": "BIBREF28" }, { "start": 749, "end": 760, "text": "K\u00f6nig 1989;", "ref_id": "BIBREF44" }, { "start": 761, "end": 774, "text": "Morrill 1999)", "ref_id": "BIBREF53" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Morpheme-Based Parsing", "sec_num": "4." }, { "text": "There is also a switch for checking the PAS equivalence, with the warning that the equivalence of two lambda expressions is undecidable.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Morpheme-Based Parsing", "sec_num": "4." }, { "text": "The parser is an adaptation of the Cocke-Kasami-Younger (CKY) algorithm (Aho and Ullman 1972, page 315) , modified to handle unary rules as well: In the kth iteration of the CKY algorithm to build constituents of length k, the unary rules apply to the CKY table entries T[ \u03b1 i , \u03b1 i+k ], i = 0, 1, . . . , n \u2212 k; that is, k-length results of binary rules are input to potential unary constituents of length k. In practice, this allows, for instance, a nominalized clause to be type-raised after it is derived as a category of type N. The remaining combinatory schema is already in Chomsky Normal Form, as required by CKY. The finite schematization of CCG rules and constant costs incurred by the normal form and lattice checking provide a straightforward extension of CKY-style context-free parsing for CCG. Komagata (1997) claims that the average complexity of CCG parsing is O(n 3 ) even without the finite schematization of type raising (based on the parsing of 22 sentences consisting of around 20 words, with a lexicon of 200 entries and no derivation of semantics in the grammar; a morphological analyzer provided five analyses per second to the parser). Statistical techniques developed for lexicalized grammars (e.g., Collins 1997) , readily apply to CCG to improve the average parsing performance in large-scale practical applications (Hockenmaier, Bierner, and Baldridge 2000) . Both Collins and Hockenmeier, Bierner, and Baldridge used section 02-21 of the Wall Street Journal Corpus of Penn Treebank for training, which contains 40,886 words (70,151 lexical entries). A recent initiative (Oflazer, et al. 2001) aims to provide such a resource of around one million words for Turkish. It encodes in the Treebank surfacesyntactic relations and the morphological breakdown of words. The latter is invaluable for training morphemic grammars and lexicons.", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 72, "end": 103, "text": "(Aho and Ullman 1972, page 315)", "ref_id": null }, { "start": 808, "end": 823, "text": "Komagata (1997)", "ref_id": "BIBREF43" }, { "start": 1226, "end": 1239, "text": "Collins 1997)", "ref_id": "BIBREF16" }, { "start": 1344, "end": 1386, "text": "(Hockenmaier, Bierner, and Baldridge 2000)", "ref_id": "BIBREF31" }, { "start": 1600, "end": 1622, "text": "(Oflazer, et al. 2001)", "ref_id": "BIBREF58" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Morpheme-Based Parsing", "sec_num": "4." }, { "text": "In morpheme-based parsing, lattice conditions help eliminate the permutation problem in endotypic categories. Such categories are typical of inflectional morphemes. For instance, assume that three morphemes m 1 , m 2 , and m 3 have endotypic categories (say N\\N), that they can appear only in this order, and that they are all optional. The categorization of m i as \u03ba i < N\\ \u03ba i < N such that \u03ba i \u2264 \u03ba i for all i, and \u03ba j\u22121 \u2264 \u03ba j for j = 1, 2, 3 allows omissions (18a-b) but rules out the permutations (18c", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Morpheme-Based Parsing", "sec_num": "4." }, { "text": "-d). 15 (18) a. stem m 1 m 2 m 3 \u03ba 0 < N \u03ba 1 < N\\ \u03ba 1 < N \u03ba 2 < N\\ \u03ba 2 < N \u03ba 3 < N\\ \u03ba 3 < N < \u03ba 1 < N because \u03ba 0 \u2264 \u03ba 1 < \u03ba 2 < N because \u03ba 1 \u2264 \u03ba 2 < \u03ba 3 < N because \u03ba 2 \u2264 \u03ba 3 b. stem m 3 < \u03ba 3 < N because \u03ba 0 \u2264 \u03ba 3 c. *stem m 2 m 1 m 3 < \u03ba 2 < N because \u03ba 0 \u2264 \u03ba 2 *** < \u03ba 2 \u2264 \u03ba 1 because \u03ba 1 < \u03ba 1 \u2264 \u03ba 2 < \u03ba 2 d. *stem m 1 m 3 m 2 < \u03ba 1 < N because \u03ba 0 \u2264 \u03ba 1 < \u03ba 3 < N because \u03ba 1 \u2264 \u03ba 3 *** < \u03ba 3 \u2264 \u03ba 2 because \u03ba 2 < \u03ba 2 \u2264 \u03ba 3 < \u03ba 3", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Morpheme-Based Parsing", "sec_num": "4." }, { "text": "The lattice and its consistency condition on derivability offer varying degrees of flexibility. A lattice with only and the relation \u2264 would undo all the effects of parameterization; it would be equivalent to a syntactic grammar in which every basic category X stands for < X. To enforce a completely lexemic syntax, a lattice with and free would define all functional categories as functions over free forms.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Morpheme-Based Parsing", "sec_num": "4." }, { "text": "Morphological processing seems inevitable for languages like Turkish, and morphological and lexical ambiguity such as that shown in (19) must be passed on to syntax irrespective of how inflectional morphology is processed (isolated from or integrated with syntax). For the verbal paradigm, Jurafsky and Martin 2000reports Oflazer's estimation that inflectional suffixes alone create around 40,000 word forms per root. In the nominal paradigm, iterative processes such as ki-relativization (Section 6.5) can create millions of word forms per nominal root (Hankamer 1989 The questions that need to be answered related to processing are (1) What should a (super)linear fragment of processing for morphology deliver to (morpho)syntax? and (2) Is the syntax lexemic or morphemic? The problems with lexemic syntax, which stem from mismatches with semantics, were highlighted in the introduction. In other ", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 554, "end": 568, "text": "(Hankamer 1989", "ref_id": "BIBREF25" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Morpheme-Based Parsing", "sec_num": "4." }, { "text": "The processing of kazmalar\u0131 in three different architectures (see Example (19) for glosses).", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Figure 3", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "words, a lexemic grammar (e.g., Figure 3a) is computationally nontransparent when interpretation is a component of an NLP system. Regarding the first question, let us consider two architectures from the perspective of the lexicon for the purpose of morphology, morphemic syntax, and semantics interface. The architecture in Figure 3b incorporates the current proposal as an interpretive front end to a morphological analyzer such as Oflazer's (1994) , which delivers the analyses of words as a stream of morphemes out of which the bound morphemes have to be matched with their semantics from the affix lexicon to be interpretable in grammar. The advantage of this model is its efficiency; morphological parsing of words is-in principle-linear context free; hence, finite-state techniques and their computational advantages readily apply. But the uninterpretable surface forms of bound morphemes must match with those of the affix lexicon, and this is not necessarily a one-to-one mapping because of multiple lexical assignments for capturing syntactic-semantic distinctions (e.g., dative case as a direct object, indirect object, or adjunct marker or -i as a possessive and/or compound marker). Surface form-semantics pairing is not a trivial task, particularly in the case of lexically composite affixes, which require semantic composition as well as tokenization. The matching process needs to be aware of all the syntactic contexts in which certain affix sequences act as a unit, for example, relative participles and agreement markers (-dig-i relative participle as -OP-POSS or -OP-AGR), possessive and compound markers, etc., for Turkish. The factorization of syntactic issues into a morphological analyzer would also make the separate morphological component nonmodular or expand its number of states to factor in these concerns (e.g., treating the -OP-POSS sequence as a state different from -OP followed by -POSS, in which -POSS is not interpreted with the semantics of possession but that of agreement marking). Not knowing how many of the syntactic distinctions are handled by the morphological analyzer, a subsequent interpreter may need to reconsult the grammar if scoping problems arise. The architecture in Figure 3c describes the current implementation of the proposal. Bound morphemes are fed to the parser along with their interpretation. This model is preferred over that presented in Figure 3b for its simplicity in design and extendibility. 16 The price is lesser efficiency due to context-free processing of inflectional morphology. By one estimate (Oflazer, Gocmen, and Bozsahin 1994) , Turkish has 59 inflectional morphemes out of a total of 166 bound morphemes, and Oflazer (personal communication) notes that the average number of bound morphemes per word in unrestricted corpora is around 2.8, including derivational affixes. In a news corpus of 850,000 words, the average number of inflections per word is less than two (Oflazer et al. 2001) . This is tolerable for sentences of moderate length in terms of the extra burden it puts on the context-free parser. Table 2 shows the results of our tests with a Prolog implementation of the system on different kinds of constructions. The test cases included 10 lexical items on average, with an average parsing time of 0.32 seconds per sentence. A relatively long sentence (12 words, 21 morphemes) took 2.9 seconds to parse. The longest sentence (20 words, 37 morphemes) took 40 seconds. The lexicon for the experiment included 700 entries; 139 were free morphemes and 561 were bound morphemes compiled out of 105 allomorphic representations (including all the ambiguous interpretations of bound morphemes and the results of lexical rules). For a rough comparison with an existing NLP system with no disambiguation aids, G\u00fcng\u00f6rd\u00fc and Oflazer (1995) reported average parsing times of around 10 seconds per sentence for a lexicon of 24,000 free morphemes, and their morphological analyzer delivered around two analyses per second to a lexemic grammar. Oflazer's later (1996) morphological analyzer contained an abstract morphotactic component of around 50 states for inflections, which resulted in compilation to 30,000 states and 100,000 transitions when the morphophonemic rules were added to the system.", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 433, "end": 449, "text": "Oflazer's (1994)", "ref_id": "BIBREF55" }, { "start": 2461, "end": 2463, "text": "16", "ref_id": null }, { "start": 2570, "end": 2606, "text": "(Oflazer, Gocmen, and Bozsahin 1994)", "ref_id": null }, { "start": 2947, "end": 2968, "text": "(Oflazer et al. 2001)", "ref_id": "BIBREF58" }, { "start": 3793, "end": 3820, "text": "G\u00fcng\u00f6rd\u00fc and Oflazer (1995)", "ref_id": "BIBREF24" }, { "start": 4022, "end": 4044, "text": "Oflazer's later (1996)", "ref_id": null } ], "ref_spans": [ { "start": 32, "end": 42, "text": "Figure 3a)", "ref_id": null }, { "start": 324, "end": 333, "text": "Figure 3b", "ref_id": null }, { "start": 2221, "end": 2230, "text": "Figure 3c", "ref_id": null }, { "start": 2403, "end": 2412, "text": "Figure 3b", "ref_id": null }, { "start": 3087, "end": 3094, "text": "Table 2", "ref_id": "TABREF3" } ], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Figure 3", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "In conclusion, we note that the current proposal for a morphemic lexicon and grammar is compatible with both a separate morphological component (Figure 3b ) and syntax-integrated inflectional morphology (Figure 3c ). The architecture in Figure 3b may in fact be more suitable for inflecting languages (e.g., Russian) in which the surface forms of bound morphemes are difficult to isolate (e.g., m\u00e9ste, locative singular of m\u00e9sto) but can be delivered as a sequence of morpheme labels by a morphological analyzer (e.g. m\u00e9sto-SING-LOC) to be matched with the lexical type assignments to -SING and -LOC for grammatical interpretation.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [ { "start": 144, "end": 154, "text": "(Figure 3b", "ref_id": null }, { "start": 203, "end": 213, "text": "(Figure 3c", "ref_id": null }, { "start": 237, "end": 246, "text": "Figure 3b", "ref_id": null } ], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Figure 3", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "It might be argued that in computational models of the type in Figure 3b , the lattice is not necessary, because the morphological analyzer embodies the tactical component. But not only tactical problems (cf. Example (18) and its discussion) but also transparent scoping in syntax and semantics is regulated by the use of lattice in type assignments, and that is our main concern. We show examples of such cases in the remainder of the article. Thus the nonredundant role of the lattice decouples the morphemic grammarlexicon from the kind of morphological analysis performed in the back end.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [ { "start": 63, "end": 72, "text": "Figure 3b", "ref_id": null } ], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Figure 3", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "In this section, we present a morphosyntactic treatment of the English plural morpheme. The lattice for English is shown in Figure 2b . We follow Carpenter (1997) in categorizing numerical modifiers and intersective adjectives as plural noun modifiers: four boys is interpreted as four(plu boy) and green boxes as green(plu box). This bracketing reflects the \"set of sets\" interpretation of the plural noun; four(plu boy) denotes the set of nonempty nonsingleton sets of boys with four members. The type assignments in (20) correctly interpret the interaction of the plural and these modifiers (cf. 21a-b). The endotypic category of the plural also allows phrase-internal number agreement for languages that require it; the agreement can be regulated over the category N before the specifier is applied to the noun group to obtain NP. Carpenter (1997) points out that nonintersective adjectives (e.g, toy, fake, alleged) are unlike numerical modifiers and intersective adjectives in that their semantics requires phrasal (wide) scope for -PLU, corresponding to the \"set of things\" interpretation of the plural noun. Thus, toy guns is interpreted as plu(toy gun) because the plural outscopes the modification. It denotes a nonempty nonsingleton set of things that are not really guns but toy guns. *toy(plu gun) would interpret plu over guns. The situation is precisely the opposite of (21); we need the second derivational pattern to go through and the first one to fail. The following category for nonintersective adjectives derives the wide scope for -PLU but not the narrow scope:", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 146, "end": 162, "text": "Carpenter (1997)", "ref_id": "BIBREF12" } ], "ref_spans": [ { "start": 124, "end": 133, "text": "Figure 2b", "ref_id": null } ], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Case Study: The English Plural", "sec_num": "5." }, { "text": "(20) -PLU := a \u2022 s \u2212 n < N\\ b < N: \u03bbx.plu x four := s \u2022 four \u2212 n < N/ n \u2736 N: \u03bbx.four x green := s \u2022 green \u2212 n < N/ n < N: \u03bbx.green x (21) a. four boy -s n < N/ n \u2736 N b < N n < N\\ b < N < n < N: plu boy", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Case Study: The English Plural", "sec_num": "5." }, { "text": "(22) toy := s \u2022 toy \u2212 b < N/ b < N: \u03bbx.toy x (23) a. toy gun -s < b < N/ b < N n < N: plu gun *** n < N : *toy(plu gun) because n-num \u2264 n-base b. toy gun -s b < N/ b < N b < N n < N\\ b < N > b < N: toy gun < n < N : plu(toy gun)", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Case Study: The English Plural", "sec_num": "5." }, { "text": "Carpenter (1997) avoided rebracketing because of the plural through lexical type assignments to plural nouns and a phonologically null lexical entry to obtain different semantic effects of the plural. In our formulation, there is no lexical entry for inflected forms and no phonologically null type assignment to account for the distinction in different types of plural modification; there is only one (phonologically realized) category for -PLU. 17 The modifiers differ only in the kind and degree of morphosyntactic control. Strict control (\u2736) on four disallows four boy, and flexible control (< ) on green also handles green box. Four green boxes is interpreted as four(green(plu box)), not as *four(plu(green box)), and four toy guns is interpreted as four(plu(toy gun)), not as *plu(four(toy gun)). These derivations preserve the domain of the modifiers and the plural without rebracketing.", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 447, "end": 449, "text": "17", "ref_id": null } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Case Study: The English Plural", "sec_num": "5." }, { "text": "There have been several computational studies to model morphology-syntax interaction in Turkish. These unification-based approaches represent varying degrees of integration. G\u00fcng\u00f6rd\u00fc and Oflazer (1995) isolates morphology from syntax by having separate modules (a finite-state transducer for the former, and an LFG component for the latter), that is, the syntax is lexemic. The morphological component is expected to handle all aspects of morphology, including inflections and derivations. In Sehitoglu and Bozsahin (1999) , lexical rules implement inflectional morphology, and derivations are assumed to take place in the lexicon. Hoffman's (1995) categorial analysis of Turkish is also lexemic; all lexical entries are fully inflected. Interpretive components of these systems face the aforementioned difficulties because of their commitment to lexemic syntax. Inflectional morphology is incorporated into syntax in another categorial approach (Bozsahin and G\u00f6\u00e7men 1995) , but morphotactic constraints are modeled with nonmonotonic unification, such as nonexistence checks for features and overrides. The system cannot make finer distinctions in morphosyntactic types either. The result is an overgenerating and nontransparent integration of morphology and syntax because of the possibility of rebracketing and the unresolved representational basis of the lexicon.", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 174, "end": 201, "text": "G\u00fcng\u00f6rd\u00fc and Oflazer (1995)", "ref_id": "BIBREF24" }, { "start": 493, "end": 522, "text": "Sehitoglu and Bozsahin (1999)", "ref_id": "BIBREF65" }, { "start": 632, "end": 648, "text": "Hoffman's (1995)", "ref_id": "BIBREF34" }, { "start": 946, "end": 972, "text": "(Bozsahin and G\u00f6\u00e7men 1995)", "ref_id": "BIBREF8" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Case Study: Turkish Morphosyntax", "sec_num": "6." }, { "text": "In this section, we outline the application of the proposed framework to Turkish. We analyze a large fragment of the language, without any claims for a comprehensive grammar. The phenomena modeled here exhibit particular morphosyntactic problems described in the preceding sections. We assume the binding theory in Steedman (1996) , which is predicated over the PAS. In each section, we provide a brief empirical observation about the phenomenon, propose lexical type assignments, exemplify derivations of the parser, and briefly discuss the constraints imposed by morphosyntactic types. Because of space considerations, we sometimes use abbreviated forms in derivations such as the genitive affix's (N/(N\\N) ", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 315, "end": 330, "text": "Steedman (1996)", "ref_id": "BIBREF71" }, { "start": 700, "end": 708, "text": "(N/(N\\N)", "ref_id": null } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Case Study: Turkish Morphosyntax", "sec_num": "6." }, { "text": ")\\N category for ( o < N/( o \u2736 N pn \\ o \u2736 N pn ))\\ o < N pn ,", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Case Study: Turkish Morphosyntax", "sec_num": "6." }, { "text": "but the parser operates on full morphosyntactic representations.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Case Study: Turkish Morphosyntax", "sec_num": "6." }, { "text": "Turkish is regarded as a free constituent order language; all permutations of the predicate and its arguments are grammatical in main clauses, being subject to constraints on discourse and semantic properties such as definiteness and referentiality of the argument and topic-focus distinctions. The mapping of surface functions to grammatical relations is mediated by case marking. Word order variation has lesser functionality in embedded clauses because embedded arguments are less accessible to surface discourse functions like topic and focus. Embedded clauses are verb final.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Case Marking and Word Order", "sec_num": "6.1" }, { "text": "We start with the lexical type assignments for the verbs. We use the abbreviations in (24a) when no confusion arises about the arguments' case or morphosyntactic type. Verb-final orders are regarded as basic, which suggests the category S\\NP\\NP for transitive verbs. But Janeway (1990) (Bozsahin 2000b) . SOV and OSV base orders can be captured uniquely in the lexicon in set-CCG notation as S\\{NP acc ,NP nom }. Set-CCG is strongly equivalent to CCG (Baldridge 1999) . We distinguish SOV and OSV lexically, however, because OSV requires referential objects (25a-b). OSV is generated from SOV by a lexical rule (24d). This is genuine lexical ambiguity, because the two related entries differ in semantics (referentiality). Regarding the relationship between case and the specifiers, it is questionable whether Turkish has a discernible syntactic category for determiners. There is no lexical functor that takes an N and yields an NP. The only article, the indefinite bir ('a'), makes a distinction in discourse properties (26). Specifying case as a determiner (e.g., NP\\N) does not alleviate the problem, either. Ignoring the problem of case stacking for a moment, zero marking of the surface subject and the indefinite object takes us back to where we started.", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 271, "end": 285, "text": "Janeway (1990)", "ref_id": "BIBREF37" }, { "start": 286, "end": 302, "text": "(Bozsahin 2000b)", "ref_id": "BIBREF7" }, { "start": 451, "end": 467, "text": "(Baldridge 1999)", "ref_id": "BIBREF3" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Lexical Types.", "sec_num": "6.1.1" }, { "text": "a \u2022 i|\u0131|u|\u00fc|yi|y\u0131|yu|y\u00fc \u2212 c < N acc \\ o < N: \u03bbf .f f. -LOC := a \u2022 de|da|te|ta \u2212 ( \u03b1 < S/ \u03b1 < S)\\ o < N:", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Lexical Types.", "sec_num": "6.1.1" }, { "text": "(26)\u00c7ocuk ye\u015fil bir elma/elma/elma-y\u0131 ye-mi\u015f child.NOM green an apple/apple/apple-ACC eat-TENSE 'The child ate a green apple.' (indefinite but referential apple) 'The child ate green apple.' (indefinite and nonreferential apple) 'The child ate the green apple.' (definite and referential apple)", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Lexical Types.", "sec_num": "6.1.1" }, { "text": "Making the nouns lexically ambiguous (N or NP) would also require that all functions onto nouns be ambiguous (N\\N and NP\\NP for inflections, N/N and NP/NP for adjectives, etc.) . Redundancy of this kind in the lexicon is not desirable, since it is introduced purely for formal reasons with no distinction in meaning. We accommodate these concerns by positing a special case of type raising for Turkish (27) ", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 109, "end": 176, "text": "(N\\N and NP\\NP for inflections, N/N and NP/NP for adjectives, etc.)", "ref_id": null }, { "start": 402, "end": 406, "text": "(27)", "ref_id": null } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Lexical Types.", "sec_num": "6.1.1" }, { "text": "/(S\\NP\\NPacc) . . . >B >B S/(S\\NPnom\\NPacc) S /(S\\NPnom\\NPacc) & S/(S\\NPnom\\NPacc) > S", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Lexical Types.", "sec_num": "6.1.1" }, { "text": "'Mehmet read the little green book, and the child, the newly arrived magazine'.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Lexical Types.", "sec_num": "6.1.1" }, { "text": "Our lexical type assignment to case morphemes (24e-f) departs from other CCG analyses of case (e.g., Steedman 1985 , 1991a , Bozsahin 1998 . These studies correlate morphological case with type raising of arguments, in the case of Bozsahin (1998) , via a value-raised category assignment to case morphemes. Evidence from NP-internal case agreement and case stacking (Kracht 1999) challenges the type-raising approach. Agreement phenomena require that case (which can be marked on articles, adjectives, and nouns) be regulated as an agreement feature within the category N before the case-marked argument looks for the verb via type raising. Kracht observes that, in case stacking, there may be other morphemes between two case morphemes. Thus, treating the two cases as composite affixes for the purpose of type raising is not feasible. If the first case type-raises the noun to say, T/(T\\NP), the second case would require a category, (T/(T\\NP))\\(T/(T\\NP)); that is, it is endotypic. Hence, an endotypic category for case (like other inflections in the paradigm) subsumes the type-raising analysis of case provided that type raising is available in the grammar, not necessarily anchored to case.", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 101, "end": 114, "text": "Steedman 1985", "ref_id": "BIBREF66" }, { "start": 115, "end": 122, "text": ", 1991a", "ref_id": null }, { "start": 123, "end": 138, "text": ", Bozsahin 1998", "ref_id": "BIBREF5" }, { "start": 231, "end": 246, "text": "Bozsahin (1998)", "ref_id": "BIBREF5" }, { "start": 366, "end": 379, "text": "(Kracht 1999)", "ref_id": "BIBREF45" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Lexical Types.", "sec_num": "6.1.1" }, { "text": "We analyze case as an endotypic functor of type N\\N (24e)-hence allow for phrase-internal agreement for languages that require it and provide type raising in grammar as in (27). Abandoning the type-raising analysis of case does not necessitate taking liberties in the directionality of the categories, such as the use of nondirectional slash (|) in multiset-CCG (Hoffman 1995) . Contraposition and type raising in grammar can account for free word order and gapping facts with fully directional syntactic types (Bozsahin 2000a A word-based alternative for reconciling the semantic (wide) scope of inflections and their morphological (narrow) attachment to stems runs into difficulties even if we assume that morphemes carry type assignments-and hence have representational status-but that they always combine with stems first. We use syntactic types to show the problem. If -PLU and -ACC in (29a) combine with the stem first, only the narrowscope reading of the plural and case is possible (30a). Plu(toy car) is not derivable with word-based modification. The morphosyntactic categories, however, are transparent to the scope of nominal modification (cf. (29a) and (30b)). [", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 362, "end": 376, "text": "(Hoffman 1995)", "ref_id": "BIBREF34" }, { "start": 511, "end": 526, "text": "(Bozsahin 2000a", "ref_id": "BIBREF6" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Lexical Types.", "sec_num": "6.1.1" }, { "text": "b < Nnom b < N/ b < N b < N n < N\\ b < N c < Nacc\\ o < N t < S\\ f < NPnom : mehmet : \u03bbx.toy x : car : \u03bbx.plu x : \u03bbf .f \\ f < NPacc >T S/(S\\ f < NPnom) : \u03bbx.\u03bby.like xy : \u03bbf .f [mehmet]", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Lexical Types.", "sec_num": "6.1.1" }, { "text": "ye\u015fil [ araba ] -lar ] -\u0131 green car -PLU -ACC n < N/ n < N b < N n < N\\ b < N c < N acc \\ o < N : \u03bbx.green x : car : \u03bbx.plu x : \u03bbf .f < n < N: plu car > n < N: green(plu car) < c < N acc : green(plu car)", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Lexical Types.", "sec_num": "6.1.1" }, { "text": "Surface case annotations on categories enable the grammar to capture the correct PAS in all permutations of S, O, and V while maintaining the discourse-relevant distinctions (31). Verb-final subordinate clauses are enforced by the directionality of the subordination morphemes in the lexicon.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Lexical Types.", "sec_num": "6.1.1" }, { "text": "(31) a. S O V >T >T S/(S\\ f < NP nom ) (S\\NP)/(S\\NP\\ f < NP acc ) S\\NP nom \\NP acc > S\\NP nom > S b. O S V >T >T S/(S\\ f < NP acc ) (S\\NP)/(S\\NP\\ f < NP nom ) S\\NP acc \\NP nom > S\\NP acc > S c. O V S >T >XP (S\\NP)/(S\\NP\\ f < NP acc ) S\\NP nom \\NP acc S \u2212t \\(S\\NP nom ) > S\\NP nom < S \u2212t d. S V O >T >XP (S\\NP)/(S\\NP\\ f < NP nom ) S\\NP acc \\NP nom S \u2212t \\(S\\NP acc ) > S\\NP acc < S \u2212t e. V S O >XP >XP S\\NP nom \\NP acc S \u2212t \\(S\\NP nom ) S \u2212t \\(S \u2212t \\NP acc ) XP >XP S\\NP acc \\NP nom S \u2212t \\(S\\NP acc ) S \u2212t \\(S \u2212t \\NP nom ) v < S\\ f < NPnom\\ f < NP dat > v < S\\ f < NPnom < b < N < c < Nacc >T (S\\NP)/(S\\NP\\ f < NPacc) > t < S\\ f < NPnom > t", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Derivations. Example", "sec_num": "6.2.2" }, { "text": "NP agr IV (N \u2191 /N)\\S N IV < S < N \u2191 /N > N \u2191 =S/", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Derivations. Example", "sec_num": "6.2.2" }, { "text": "N N\\N\\N IV (N \u2191 /N)\\(N\\N)\\IV N IV < < N\\N ( N \u2191 /N)\\(N\\N) < N \u2191 /N > N \u2191 =S/IV > S:", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Derivations. Example", "sec_num": "6.2.2" }, { "text": "and(sleep(poss child man))(anger man) 'The man whose child slept got angry.'", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Derivations. Example", "sec_num": "6.2.2" }, { "text": "As these examples indicate, -SP and -OP do not range over the verb stem in semantic scope; they cover the entire relative clause. The wide scope of -SP and -OP resolves the inconsistency pointed out in the introduction (5b-c), which was mainly due to coindexation in unification accounts and the lexemic nature of the lexicon. Isolating the relative participle inflections in a morphological component undermines the transparency of derivations. Note also that -OP is categorially transparent to the arity of the verb; a DV must be reduced to an IV before -OP applies to the verb complex (42c). This is possible only when -OP has phrasal scope. -ki ranges over the case-marked noun, which, as (46a-b) indicate, can be lexical or phrasal. In a lexemic analysis, the entire ki-marked noun would have to be rebracketed before the adjective k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck can apply to its right scope (which is ev, not\u00e7ocuk). ", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Derivations. Example", "sec_num": "6.2.2" }, { "text": "(46) a. ev -de -ki house -LOC -PROki b < N c < N\\ o < N l \u2736 N\\ c \u2736 N loc < c < N loc < l \u2736 N", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Derivations. Example", "sec_num": "6.2.2" }, { "text": "< N/ b < N b < N c < N\\ o < N ( l \u2736 N/ n < N)\\ c \u2736 N loc b < N > b < N < c < N loc < l \u2736 N/ n < N > l", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Derivations. Example", "sec_num": "6.2.2" }, { "text": "\u2736 N: \u03bbf .and(at(little house)child)(f [child]) 'the child i , the one i at the little house'", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Derivations. Example", "sec_num": "6.2.2" }, { "text": "There is another ki in Turkish that forms nonrestrictive relative clauses as postmodifiers. It is a Persian borrowing and follows the Indo-European pattern of relative clause formation (47). It can be distinguished from the bound morpheme -ki lexically. Its attachment characteristic is also different than that of -ki (44e). ", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Derivations. Example", "sec_num": "6.2.2" }, { "text": ":= a \u2022 s \u2212 ( o < N/( o \u2736 N pn \\ o \u2736 N pn ))\\ o < N pn : \u03bbx.\u03bby.poss yx -POSS pn := a \u2022 s \u2212 ( o \u2736 N pn \\ o \u2736 N pn )\\ n < N pn : \u03bbf .f", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Derivations. Example", "sec_num": "6.2.2" }, { "text": "The possessive marker's result category is a functor because it enforces agreement with the type raised specifier. 18 (48d-e) indicate that the genitive marker is a type raiser; the possessor scopes over the possessee. For morphosyntactic modality, the genitive marker can be attached to nouns that are inflected up to and including a possessive marker ( o < N). Moreover, nesting in possessives implies that the specifier may be a genitive. Hence, the stem's category must be o < N. But there is a finer control over the possessee argument's category, because it must be inflected with the possessive marker to signify relation of possession (cf. (48a-b)). Semantically, the possessive must outscope nominal modification. For instance, (50a) has the PAS as indicated, hence both markers must range over a noun group, not just the stem. Binding relations require an organization of the type (poss possee possessor) (50b-c). In what follows, we use the function comp to signify that the arguments in the PAS form a compound but say nothing about the range of productivity of this function. The lexical semantics of the arguments and a qualia structure (Pustejovsky 1991) may indicate the function's range of applicability. Lexical type assignments for compound markers are as in (52). . 19 The overall compound may be inflected only for case (see, e.g., (53d) and (53e)). We claim that plural compounds are lexically composite functions in a similar vein. This claim has some empirical support from the lexicalization of -leri as a third person plural possessive marker; see (55b-c). It follows that -leri has the lexi-cal types of -COMP and -COMP2 with plural and possessive composition: \u03bbx.\u03bby.plu (comp xy). ", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 1151, "end": 1169, "text": "(Pustejovsky 1991)", "ref_id": "BIBREF63" }, { "start": 1286, "end": 1288, "text": "19", "ref_id": null } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Derivations. Example", "sec_num": "6.2.2" }, { "text": "< N/ b < N b < N o < N/( o \u2736 N\\ o \u2736 N)\\ o < N b < N/ b < N b < N o \u2736 N\\ o \u2736 N\\ n < N > > b < N b < N < < o < N/( o \u2736 N\\ o \u2736 N) o \u2736 N\\ o \u2736 N", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Derivations. Example", "sec_num": "6.2.2" }, { "text": "Theoretical and computational commitment to word-based grammar-and to regard inflectional morphology as a word-internal process-puts artificial limits on specifying the syntactic and semantic domains of all meaning-bearing elements and on the transparent projection of scope from the lexicon. Designating words as minimal units of the lexicon is too constraining for many languages. This traditional notion is also challenged in current linguistic theorizing (e.g., Jackendoff 1997 and Keenan and Stabler 1997) . Marslen-Wilson (1999) argues on psycholinguistic grounds that the lexicon must be morphemic even for morphologically simpler languages such as English.", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 466, "end": 485, "text": "Jackendoff 1997 and", "ref_id": "BIBREF35" }, { "start": 486, "end": 496, "text": "Keenan and", "ref_id": "BIBREF42" }, { "start": 497, "end": 510, "text": "Stabler 1997)", "ref_id": "BIBREF42" }, { "start": 513, "end": 534, "text": "Marslen-Wilson (1999)", "ref_id": "BIBREF48" } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Conclusion", "sec_num": "7." }, { "text": "We have argued in this article that the key to the integration of inflectional morphology and syntax is granting representational status to morphemes, which, in a computational system, requires certain precautions. What we propose is enriching the expressive power of the combinatory morphemic lexicon to factor in morphosyntactic types and attachment modalities. Coupled with flexible constituency in the grammar and directionality information coming from the lexicon, these extensions provide the grammar with the information it requires to compute the transparent semantics of morphosyntactic phenomena. This flexibility causes neither inefficiency in parsing nor uncontrolled expressivity. The extensions do not affect the polynomial worst-case complexity results, and category unity is preserved by lattice consistency. The result is a morphemic grammar-lexicon with computationally desirable features such as modularity and transparency. The system is available at ftp://ftp.lcsl.metu.edu.tr/pub/ tools/msccg.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Conclusion", "sec_num": "7." }, { "text": "But seeCreider, Hankamer, and Wood (1995), which argues that the morphotactics of human languages is not regular but linear context free.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "In fact, topicalization of nonperipheral arguments (This book, I would give to Mary) requires that (12) be finitely schematized over valencies, such as S, S/NP, S/PP(Steedman 1985). 7 We will not elaborate on the theoretical consequences of having this level of representation; see, for instance,Dowty (1991) andSteedman (1996).", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "See Heylen (1997) on use of unary modalities for a similar purpose in lexemic MCG. 9 In a lattice L, x \u2264 y (morphosyntactically, x < y) is equivalent to the consistency properties x \u2227 y = x and x \u2228 y = y. We use the join operator for this check, thus it suffices to have a join semilattice.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "This coincides withSteedman's (1991b) observation that directionality of the main functor's slash is also a property of the same argument. The main functor is the one whose result type determines the overall result type (i.e., X/Y in (15)).", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "Mediating agreement via unification, type subsumption, or set-valued indeterminacy has important consequences on underspecification, the domain of agreement, and the notion of \"like categories\" in coordination (seeJohnson and Bayer 1995;Dalrymple and Kaplan 2000;Wechsler and Zlati\u0107 2000). Rather than providing an elaborate agreement system, we note that Pulman's techniques provide the mechanism for implementing agreement as atomic unification, subsumption hierarchies represented as lattices, or set-valued features. The categorial ingredient of phrase-internal agreement can be provided by endotypic functors when necessary (see Sections 5 and 6).", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "Three asterisks in the line indicate that the derivation is not licensed.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "The morphological analyzer would be in no better position to handle morpheme-semantics pairing if the architecture inFigure 3bwere implemented with an integrated lexicon of roots and affixes. For instance, -POSS would still require distinct states because of the difference in the semantics of possession and agreement marking coming from the lexicon.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "This is not to say that there is only one model-theoretic interpretation of plu. \"Sets of sets\" and \"set of individuals\" valuations of plu can be carried over the PAS.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "An \"inert\" category such as N may be motivated by the prodrop phenomenon, in which the specifier may be dropped under pragmatically conditioned circumstances. But this analysis disregards the point that binding relations (hence semantics) still require the coindexation of the specifier with some overt referent, which can be inferred from the discourse. Such an interface phenomenon seems to be better suited for handling by interactions in the components of a multidimensional grammar, rather than as a purely syntactic phenomenon.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "I am grateful to the anonymous reviewer who proposed this alternative.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "", "sec_num": null } ], "back_matter": [ { "text": "The control verb's controlled argument is marked by the infinitive -ma, and the resulting nominalized embedded clause can undergo nominal inflections (36a-b). The infinitive -ma has the lexical type in (34) . A potential conflict between an object control verb's subcategorization and PAS is resolved by case decoration: zorla 'force' and tavsiye et 'recommend' differ in their case requirements and what is controlled (36b-c). tavsiye et's infinitive complement is accusative, whereas zorla's is dative. 6.3.1 Lexical Types. Subject control verbs (e.g.,\u00e7al\u0131\u015f 'try'; s\u00f6z ver 'promise') and object control verbs (e.g., zorla; tavsiye et) have the control property indicated in their PAS (37). The nonraising variety of these verbs is obtained via a lexical rule. ", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 202, "end": 206, "text": "(34)", "ref_id": null } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "The Morphosyntax of Control", "sec_num": "6.3" }, { "text": "There are two strategies for forming relative clauses: the subject participle strategy (SP) and the nonsubject participle strategy (OP). SP is realized by the affixes -(y)An, -(y)AcAk, and -mI\u015f, and OP by -dIk-and -(y)AcAk-. OP triggers agreement similar to that of possessive constructions between the subject and the predicate of the relative clause (39b). We present a formulation of relativization without any use of empty categories, traces, or movement. We follow the Montagovian treatment of relative clauses as noun restrictors of the semantic type \u03bbP. \u03bbQ.and(Q[x] ) (P[x] ), where P is the semantics of the relative clause and Q is the semantics of the predicate taking the relativized noun (x) as the argument. Montagovian analysis assumes a generalized quantifier (GQ) category for the determiner; that is, NP is the functor and VP is the argument. The determiner takes the relativized noun (and its semantically type-raised category) as an argument as well. In a language with determiners, the functor category of the overall NP can be made explicit by lexically value-raising the determiner with GQ semantics from, for example, NP/N to (S/(S\\NP))/N = (S/VP)/N. To achieve the same effect in a language that lacks determiners, we make NP the functor by lexically value-raising the relative participle from (N/N)\\(S\\NP) to (N \u2191 /N)\\(S\\NP), in which N \u2191 /N denotes a value-raised noun, since N \u2191 is a type-raised category. The category of the relative participle unfolds to ((S/(S\\NP) ", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 561, "end": 572, "text": "\u03bbQ.and(Q[x]", "ref_id": null }, { "start": 575, "end": 580, "text": "(P[x]", "ref_id": null }, { "start": 1484, "end": 1494, "text": "((S/(S\\NP)", "ref_id": null } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Relativization", "sec_num": "6.4" }, { "text": "Relativization is strictly head final in Turkish. This implies that all relative participles are backward-looking functors that differ only in case requirements (cf. English relatives, which require different directionality, e.g., (N\\N)/(S\\NP) for subjects and (N\\N)/(S/NP) for nonsubjects). For morphosyntactic modality, the head noun has 6.5 Ki-relativization Ki-relativization is a morphosyntactic process that can generate indefinitely long words of relative pronouns and relative adjectives. -ki can be attached to case-marked nouns whose case relation is one of possession, time, or place (i.e., the genitive and the locative). Its effect is to create a nominal stem on which all inflections can start again (43a-b). It produces relative pronouns (43c) and relative adjectives (43d) with the locative and relative pronouns with the genitive. c. \u03bbx.\u03bbQ.and(Q[x] gen is a shorthand for the N/(N\\N) category of a type-raised genitive. In (43c), pronominal one (PRO) cannot be bound to ev (44a). Adjectival interpretation (43d) associates the relative adjective with the relativized noun (44b). For morphosyntactic modality, ki-marked nouns behave like possessive-marked nouns in case marking, which requires strict control over the possessive ( o \u2736 N). This presents a dilemma: Morphologically, -ki creates a nominal stem that can undergo all nominal inflections again, but, as (45a) indicates, the stem does not take the CASE (ACC, DAT, etc.) that is common to nouns unmarked on the possessive. Thus CASE2 in (45c) must refer to another diacritic (n-relbase, or l \u2736 ) to eliminate (45b). This diacritic controls the result category of -ki. The value-raised varieties of (44a-c) are assigned a type similar to the type of relative participles. Inherently temporal nouns such as sabah ('morning') can take -ki", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 851, "end": 865, "text": "\u03bbx.\u03bbQ.and(Q[x]", "ref_id": null } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": ")/N)\\(S\\NP) and (((S\\NP)/(S\\NP\\NP))/N)\\(S\\NP).", "sec_num": null } ], "bib_entries": { "BIBREF0": { "ref_id": "b0", "title": "The Theory of Parsing, Translation, and Compiling", "authors": [ { "first": "Alfred", "middle": [ "V" ], "last": "Aho", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Jeffrey", "middle": [ "D" ], "last": "Ullman", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1972, "venue": "", "volume": "1", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Aho, Alfred V. and Jeffrey D. Ullman. 1972. The Theory of Parsing, Translation, and Compiling. Vol. 1. Prentice-Hall.", "links": null }, "BIBREF1": { "ref_id": "b1", "title": "Where's morphology? Linguistic Inquiry", "authors": [ { "first": "Stephen", "middle": [ "R" ], "last": "Anderson", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1982, "venue": "", "volume": "13", "issue": "", "pages": "571--612", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Anderson, Stephen R. 1982. Where's morphology? Linguistic Inquiry, 13(4):571-612.", "links": null }, "BIBREF2": { "ref_id": "b2", "title": "On the relationship between word-grammar and phrase-grammar", "authors": [ { "first": "Emmon", "middle": [], "last": "Bach", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1983, "venue": "Natural Language and Linguistic Theory", "volume": "1", "issue": "", "pages": "65--89", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Bach, Emmon. 1983. On the relationship between word-grammar and phrase-grammar. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 1:65-89.", "links": null }, "BIBREF3": { "ref_id": "b3", "title": "Strong equivalence of CCG and Set-CCG. Unpublished manuscript", "authors": [ { "first": "Jason", "middle": [], "last": "Baldridge", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1999, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Baldridge, Jason. 1999. Strong equivalence of CCG and Set-CCG. Unpublished manuscript, University of Edinburgh.", "links": null }, "BIBREF4": { "ref_id": "b4", "title": "On categorial and phrase structure grammars", "authors": [ { "first": "", "middle": [], "last": "Bar-Hillel", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Chaim", "middle": [], "last": "Yehoshua", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Eliyahu", "middle": [], "last": "Gaifman", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "", "middle": [], "last": "Shamir", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1960, "venue": "Bulletin of the Research Council of Israel", "volume": "9", "issue": "", "pages": "1--16", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua, Chaim Gaifman, and Eliyahu Shamir. 1960. On categorial and phrase structure grammars. Bulletin of the Research Council of Israel, 9F:1-16.", "links": null }, "BIBREF5": { "ref_id": "b5", "title": "Deriving the Predicate-Argument structure for a free word order language", "authors": [ { "first": "Cem", "middle": [], "last": "Bozsahin", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1998, "venue": "Proceedings of COLING-ACL 1998", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "167--173", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Bozsahin, Cem. 1998. Deriving the Predicate-Argument structure for a free word order language. In Proceedings of COLING-ACL 1998, Montreal, pages 167-173.", "links": null }, "BIBREF6": { "ref_id": "b6", "title": "Directionality and the lexicon: Evidence from gapping. Unpublished manuscript", "authors": [ { "first": "Cem", "middle": [], "last": "Bozsahin", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2000, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Bozsahin, Cem. 2000a. Directionality and the lexicon: Evidence from gapping. Unpublished manuscript, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.", "links": null }, "BIBREF7": { "ref_id": "b7", "title": "Gapping and word order in Turkish", "authors": [ { "first": "Cem", "middle": [], "last": "Bozsahin", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2000, "venue": "Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Bozsahin, Cem. 2000b. Gapping and word order in Turkish. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, Istanbul.", "links": null }, "BIBREF8": { "ref_id": "b8", "title": "A categorial framework for composition in multiple linguistic domains", "authors": [ { "first": "Cem", "middle": [], "last": "Bozsahin", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Elvan", "middle": [], "last": "G\u00f6\u00e7men", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1995, "venue": "Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Cognitive Science of NLP", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Bozsahin, Cem and Elvan G\u00f6\u00e7men. 1995. A categorial framework for composition in multiple linguistic domains. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Cognitive Science of NLP, Dublin.", "links": null }, "BIBREF9": { "ref_id": "b9", "title": "Lexical-Functional syntax. Course notes. Seventh European Summer School in Logic, Language, and Information", "authors": [ { "first": "Joan", "middle": [], "last": "Bresnan", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1995, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Bresnan, Joan. 1995. Lexical-Functional syntax. Course notes. Seventh European Summer School in Logic, Language, and Information, Barcelona.", "links": null }, "BIBREF10": { "ref_id": "b10", "title": "Unification categorial grammar", "authors": [ { "first": "Jonathan", "middle": [], "last": "Calder", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Ewan", "middle": [], "last": "Klein", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Henk", "middle": [], "last": "Zeevat", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1988, "venue": "Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computational Linguistics", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "83--86", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Calder, Jonathan, Ewan Klein, and Henk Zeevat. 1988. Unification categorial grammar. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Budapest, pages 83-86.", "links": null }, "BIBREF11": { "ref_id": "b11", "title": "Categorial Grammar, lexical rules, and the English predicative", "authors": [ { "first": "Bob", "middle": [], "last": "Carpenter", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1992, "venue": "Formal Grammar: Theory and Application", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "168--242", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Carpenter, Bob. 1992. Categorial Grammar, lexical rules, and the English predicative. In R. Levine, editor, Formal Grammar: Theory and Application. Oxford University Press, pages 168-242.", "links": null }, "BIBREF12": { "ref_id": "b12", "title": "Type-Logical Semantics", "authors": [ { "first": "Bob", "middle": [], "last": "Carpenter", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1997, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Carpenter, Bob. 1997. Type-Logical Semantics. MIT Press.", "links": null }, "BIBREF13": { "ref_id": "b13", "title": "The Turing-completeness of Multimodal Categorial Grammars. In Papers Presented to Johan van Benthem in Honor of his 50th Birthday. ESSLLI, Utrecht. Carpenter, Bob and Gerald Penn. 1994. The Attribute Logic Engine User's Guide, Version 2.0", "authors": [ { "first": "Bob", "middle": [], "last": "Carpenter", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1999, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Carpenter, Bob. 1999. The Turing-completeness of Multimodal Categorial Grammars. In Papers Presented to Johan van Benthem in Honor of his 50th Birthday. ESSLLI, Utrecht. Carpenter, Bob and Gerald Penn. 1994. The Attribute Logic Engine User's Guide, Version 2.0. Carnegie Mellon University.", "links": null }, "BIBREF14": { "ref_id": "b14", "title": "Remarks on nominalization", "authors": [ { "first": "Noam", "middle": [], "last": "Chomsky", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1970, "venue": "Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Ginn", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "184--221", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In R. Jacobs and P. Rosenbaum, editors, Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Ginn, Waltham, MA, pages 184-221.", "links": null }, "BIBREF15": { "ref_id": "b15", "title": "The Minimalist Program", "authors": [ { "first": "Noam", "middle": [], "last": "Chomsky", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1995, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. MIT Press.", "links": null }, "BIBREF16": { "ref_id": "b16", "title": "Three generative, lexicalised models for statistical parsing", "authors": [ { "first": "Michael", "middle": [], "last": "Collins", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1997, "venue": "Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the ACL", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Collins, Michael. 1997. Three generative, lexicalised models for statistical parsing. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the ACL.", "links": null }, "BIBREF17": { "ref_id": "b17", "title": "Preset two-head automata and natural language morphology", "authors": [ { "first": "Chet", "middle": [], "last": "Creider", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Jorge", "middle": [], "last": "Hankamer", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Derick", "middle": [], "last": "Wood", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1995, "venue": "International Journal of Computer Mathematics", "volume": "58", "issue": "", "pages": "1--18", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Creider, Chet, Jorge Hankamer, and Derick Wood. 1995. Preset two-head automata and natural language morphology. International Journal of Computer Mathematics, 58:1-18.", "links": null }, "BIBREF18": { "ref_id": "b18", "title": "Feature indeterminacy and feature resolution. Language", "authors": [ { "first": "Mary", "middle": [], "last": "Dalrymple", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Ronald", "middle": [ "M" ], "last": "Kaplan", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2000, "venue": "", "volume": "76", "issue": "", "pages": "759--798", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Dalrymple, Mary and Ronald M. Kaplan. 2000. Feature indeterminacy and feature resolution. Language, 76:759-798.", "links": null }, "BIBREF19": { "ref_id": "b19", "title": "Word Meaning and Montague Grammar", "authors": [ { "first": "David", "middle": [], "last": "Dowty", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1979, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Dowty, David. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Kluwer, Dordrecht.", "links": null }, "BIBREF20": { "ref_id": "b20", "title": "Toward a minimalist theory of syntactic structure", "authors": [ { "first": "David", "middle": [], "last": "Dowty", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1989, "venue": "Tilburg Conference on Discontinuous Constituency", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Dowty, David. 1991. Toward a minimalist theory of syntactic structure. In Tilburg Conference on Discontinuous Constituency, January 1989.", "links": null }, "BIBREF21": { "ref_id": "b21", "title": "Non-constituent coordination, wrapping, and Multimodal Categorial Grammars", "authors": [ { "first": "David", "middle": [], "last": "Dowty", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1996, "venue": "International Congress of Logic", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Dowty, David. 1996. Non-constituent coordination, wrapping, and Multimodal Categorial Grammars. In International Congress of Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy, Florence, August.", "links": null }, "BIBREF22": { "ref_id": "b22", "title": "Efficient normal-form parsing for Combinatory Categorial Grammar", "authors": [ { "first": "Jason", "middle": [], "last": "Eisner", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1996, "venue": "Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the ACL", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "79--86", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Eisner, Jason. 1996. Efficient normal-form parsing for Combinatory Categorial Grammar. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the ACL, pages 79-86.", "links": null }, "BIBREF23": { "ref_id": "b23", "title": "Computational Properties of Principle-Based Grammatical Theories", "authors": [ { "first": "Sandiway", "middle": [], "last": "Fong", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1991, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Fong, Sandiway. 1991. Computational Properties of Principle-Based Grammatical Theories. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.", "links": null }, "BIBREF24": { "ref_id": "b24", "title": "Parsing Turkish using the Lexical-Functional Grammar formalism", "authors": [ { "first": "Zelal", "middle": [], "last": "G\u00fcng\u00f6rd\u00fc", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Kemal", "middle": [], "last": "Oflazer", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1995, "venue": "Machine Translation", "volume": "10", "issue": "", "pages": "293--319", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "G\u00fcng\u00f6rd\u00fc, Zelal and Kemal Oflazer. 1995. Parsing Turkish using the Lexical-Functional Grammar formalism. Machine Translation, 10:293-319.", "links": null }, "BIBREF25": { "ref_id": "b25", "title": "Morphological parsing and the lexicon", "authors": [ { "first": "Jorge", "middle": [], "last": "Hankamer", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1989, "venue": "Lexical Representation and Process", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Hankamer, Jorge. 1989. Morphological parsing and the lexicon. In W. Marslen-Wilson, editor, Lexical Representation and Process. MIT Press.", "links": null }, "BIBREF26": { "ref_id": "b26", "title": "The Grammar and Processing of Order and Dependency: A Categorial Approach", "authors": [ { "first": "Mark", "middle": [], "last": "Hepple", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1990, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Hepple, Mark. 1990a. The Grammar and Processing of Order and Dependency: A Categorial Approach. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Edinburgh.", "links": null }, "BIBREF27": { "ref_id": "b27", "title": "Normal form theorem proving for the Lambek Calculus", "authors": [ { "first": "Mark", "middle": [], "last": "Hepple", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1990, "venue": "Proceedings of COLING", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Hepple, Mark. 1990b. Normal form theorem proving for the Lambek Calculus. In Proceedings of COLING 1990.", "links": null }, "BIBREF28": { "ref_id": "b28", "title": "Parsing and derivational equivalence", "authors": [ { "first": "Mark", "middle": [], "last": "Hepple", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Glyn", "middle": [], "last": "Morrill", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1989, "venue": "Proceedings of the 4th EACL", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Hepple, Mark and Glyn Morrill. 1989. Parsing and derivational equivalence. In Proceedings of the 4th EACL, Manchester.", "links": null }, "BIBREF29": { "ref_id": "b29", "title": "Underspecification in Type-Logical Grammars", "authors": [ { "first": "Dirk", "middle": [], "last": "Heylen", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1997, "venue": "Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics (LACL)", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Heylen, Dirk. 1997. Underspecification in Type-Logical Grammars. In Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics (LACL), Nancy.", "links": null }, "BIBREF30": { "ref_id": "b30", "title": "Types and Sorts: Resource Logic for Feature Checking", "authors": [ { "first": "Dirk", "middle": [], "last": "Heylen", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1999, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Heylen, Dirk. 1999. Types and Sorts: Resource Logic for Feature Checking. Ph.D. dissertation, Utrecht University.", "links": null }, "BIBREF31": { "ref_id": "b31", "title": "Providing robustness for a CCG system", "authors": [ { "first": "Julia", "middle": [], "last": "Hockenmaier", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Gann", "middle": [], "last": "Bierner", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Jason", "middle": [], "last": "Baldridge", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2000, "venue": "Unpublished manuscript", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Hockenmaier, Julia, Gann Bierner, and Jason Baldridge. 2000. Providing robustness for a CCG system. Unpublished manuscript, University of Edinburgh.", "links": null }, "BIBREF32": { "ref_id": "b32", "title": "Categorial Morphology. Garland", "authors": [ { "first": "Jack", "middle": [], "last": "Hoeksema", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1985, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Hoeksema, Jack. 1985. Categorial Morphology. Garland, New York.", "links": null }, "BIBREF33": { "ref_id": "b33", "title": "Implications of process-morphology for Categorial Grammar", "authors": [ { "first": "Jack", "middle": [], "last": "Hoeksema", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Richard", "middle": [ "D" ], "last": "Janda", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1988, "venue": "Categorial Grammars and Natural Language Structures. D. Reidel", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "199--247", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Hoeksema, Jack and Richard D. Janda. 1988. Implications of process-morphology for Categorial Grammar. In Richard T. Oehrle, Emmon Bach, and Deirdre Wheeler, editors, Categorial Grammars and Natural Language Structures. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pages 199-247.", "links": null }, "BIBREF34": { "ref_id": "b34", "title": "The Computational Analysis of the Syntax and Interpretation of \"Free\" Word Order in Turkish", "authors": [ { "first": "Beryl", "middle": [], "last": "Hoffman", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1995, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Hoffman, Beryl. 1995. The Computational Analysis of the Syntax and Interpretation of \"Free\" Word Order in Turkish. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.", "links": null }, "BIBREF35": { "ref_id": "b35", "title": "The Architecture of the Language Faculty", "authors": [ { "first": "Ray", "middle": [], "last": "Jackendoff", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1997, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. The Architecture of the Language Faculty. MIT Press.", "links": null }, "BIBREF36": { "ref_id": "b36", "title": "The syntax/ semantics interface in Categorial Grammar", "authors": [ { "first": "Pauline", "middle": [], "last": "Jacobson", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1996, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "89--116", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Jacobson, Pauline. 1996. The syntax/ semantics interface in Categorial Grammar. In Shalom Lappin, editor, The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. Blackwell, 89-116.", "links": null }, "BIBREF37": { "ref_id": "b37", "title": "Unacceptable ambiguity in Categorial Grammar", "authors": [ { "first": "Roger", "middle": [], "last": "Janeway", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1990, "venue": "Proceedings of the Ninth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "305--316", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Janeway, Roger. 1990. Unacceptable ambiguity in Categorial Grammar. In Proceedings of the Ninth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, pages 305-316.", "links": null }, "BIBREF38": { "ref_id": "b38", "title": "Deductive parsing with multiple levels of representation", "authors": [ { "first": "Mark", "middle": [], "last": "Johnson", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1988, "venue": "Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the ACL", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "241--248", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Johnson, Mark. 1988. Deductive parsing with multiple levels of representation. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the ACL, pages 241-248.", "links": null }, "BIBREF39": { "ref_id": "b39", "title": "Features and agreement in Lambek Categorial Grammar", "authors": [ { "first": "Mark", "middle": [], "last": "Johnson", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Sam", "middle": [], "last": "Bayer", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1995, "venue": "Proceedings of the 1995 ESSLLI Formal Grammar Workshop", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "123--137", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Johnson, Mark and Sam Bayer. 1995. Features and agreement in Lambek Categorial Grammar. In Proceedings of the 1995 ESSLLI Formal Grammar Workshop, pages 123-137.", "links": null }, "BIBREF40": { "ref_id": "b40", "title": "Speech and Language Processing", "authors": [ { "first": "Daniel", "middle": [], "last": "Jurafsky", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "James", "middle": [ "H" ], "last": "Martin", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2000, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Jurafsky, Daniel and James H. Martin. 2000. Speech and Language Processing. Prentice-Hall.", "links": null }, "BIBREF41": { "ref_id": "b41", "title": "Radical lexicalism", "authors": [ { "first": "Lauri", "middle": [], "last": "Karttunen", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1989, "venue": "Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "43--65", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Karttunen, Lauri. 1989. Radical lexicalism. In Mark Baltin and Anthony Kroch, editors, Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure. University of Chicago Press, pages 43-65.", "links": null }, "BIBREF42": { "ref_id": "b42", "title": "Bare grammar. Course notes, Ninth European Summer School on Logic, Language, and Information", "authors": [ { "first": "Edward", "middle": [ "L" ], "last": "Keenan", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Edward", "middle": [], "last": "Stabler", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1997, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Keenan, Edward L. and Edward Stabler. 1997. Bare grammar. Course notes, Ninth European Summer School on Logic, Language, and Information, Aix-en-Provence.", "links": null }, "BIBREF43": { "ref_id": "b43", "title": "Efficient parsing for CCGs with generalized type-raised categories", "authors": [ { "first": "Nobo", "middle": [], "last": "Komagata", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1997, "venue": "Proceedings of the Fifth Int. Workshop on Parsing Technologies", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "135--146", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Komagata, Nobo. 1997. Efficient parsing for CCGs with generalized type-raised categories. In Proceedings of the Fifth Int. Workshop on Parsing Technologies, pages 135-146.", "links": null }, "BIBREF44": { "ref_id": "b44", "title": "Parsing as natural deduction", "authors": [ { "first": "Esther", "middle": [], "last": "K\u00f6nig", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1989, "venue": "Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the ACL", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "272--279", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "K\u00f6nig, Esther. 1989. Parsing as natural deduction. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the ACL, pages 272-279.", "links": null }, "BIBREF45": { "ref_id": "b45", "title": "Referent systems, argument structure, and syntax. ESSLLI lecture notes", "authors": [ { "first": "Markus", "middle": [], "last": "Kracht", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1999, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Kracht, Markus. 1999. Referent systems, argument structure, and syntax. ESSLLI lecture notes, Utrecht.", "links": null }, "BIBREF46": { "ref_id": "b46", "title": "Relating categorial type logics and CCG through simulation. Unpublished manuscript", "authors": [ { "first": "", "middle": [], "last": "Kruijff", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "M", "middle": [], "last": "Geert-Jan", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Jason", "middle": [ "M" ], "last": "Baldridge", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2000, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Kruijff, Geert-Jan M. and Jason M. Baldridge. 2000. Relating categorial type logics and CCG through simulation. Unpublished manuscript, University of Edinburgh.", "links": null }, "BIBREF47": { "ref_id": "b47", "title": "The mathematics of sentence structure", "authors": [ { "first": "Joachim", "middle": [], "last": "Lambek", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1958, "venue": "American Mathematical Monthly", "volume": "65", "issue": "", "pages": "154--170", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Lambek, Joachim. 1958. The mathematics of sentence structure. American Mathematical Monthly, 65:154-170.", "links": null }, "BIBREF48": { "ref_id": "b48", "title": "Abstractness and combination: The morphemic lexicon", "authors": [ { "first": "William", "middle": [], "last": "Marslen-Wilson", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1999, "venue": "Language Processing", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "101--119", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Marslen-Wilson, William. 1999. Abstractness and combination: The morphemic lexicon. In Simon Garrod and Martin J. Pickering, editors, Language Processing. Psychology Press, East Sussex, UK, pages 101-119.", "links": null }, "BIBREF49": { "ref_id": "b49", "title": "French clitic movement without clitics or movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory", "authors": [ { "first": "Philip", "middle": [ "H" ], "last": "Miller", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "A", "middle": [], "last": "Ivan", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "", "middle": [], "last": "Sag", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1997, "venue": "", "volume": "15", "issue": "", "pages": "573--639", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Miller, Philip H. and Ivan A. Sag. 1997. French clitic movement without clitics or movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 15:573-639.", "links": null }, "BIBREF50": { "ref_id": "b50", "title": "Categorial Investigations: Logical and Linguistic Aspects of the Lambek Calculus. Foris, Dordrecht. Moortgat, Michael. 1988b. Mixed composition and discontinuous dependencies", "authors": [ { "first": "Michael", "middle": [], "last": "Moortgat", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1988, "venue": "Categorial Grammars and Natural Language Structures. D. Reidel", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "319--348", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Moortgat, Michael. 1988a. Categorial Investigations: Logical and Linguistic Aspects of the Lambek Calculus. Foris, Dordrecht. Moortgat, Michael. 1988b. Mixed composition and discontinuous dependencies. In Richard T. Oehrle, Emmon Bach, and Deirdre Wheeler, editors, Categorial Grammars and Natural Language Structures. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pages 319-348.", "links": null }, "BIBREF51": { "ref_id": "b51", "title": "Adjacency, dependency and order", "authors": [ { "first": "Michael", "middle": [], "last": "Moortgat", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Richard", "middle": [ "T" ], "last": "Oehrle", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1994, "venue": "Proceedings of the Ninth Amsterdam Colloquium", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Moortgat, Michael and Richard T. Oehrle. 1994. Adjacency, dependency and order. In Proceedings of the Ninth Amsterdam Colloquium.", "links": null }, "BIBREF52": { "ref_id": "b52", "title": "Type Logical Grammar: Categorial Logic of Signs", "authors": [ { "first": "Glyn", "middle": [ "V" ], "last": "Morrill", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1994, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Morrill, Glyn V. 1994. Type Logical Grammar: Categorial Logic of Signs. Kluwer.", "links": null }, "BIBREF53": { "ref_id": "b53", "title": "Geometry of lexico-syntactic interaction", "authors": [ { "first": "Glyn", "middle": [ "V" ], "last": "Morrill", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1999, "venue": "Proceedings of the Ninth EACL", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Morrill, Glyn V. 1999. Geometry of lexico-syntactic interaction. In Proceedings of the Ninth EACL, Bergen.", "links": null }, "BIBREF54": { "ref_id": "b54", "title": "Deutsche Syntax deklarativ. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar f\u00fcr das Deutsche. Linguistische Arbeiten 394", "authors": [ { "first": "Stefan", "middle": [], "last": "M\u00fcller", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1999, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "M\u00fcller, Stefan. 1999. Deutsche Syntax deklarativ. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar f\u00fcr das Deutsche. Linguistische Arbeiten 394. Max Niemeyer Verlag, T\u00fcbingen.", "links": null }, "BIBREF55": { "ref_id": "b55", "title": "Two-level description of Turkish morphology", "authors": [ { "first": "Kemal", "middle": [], "last": "Oflazer", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1994, "venue": "Literary and Linguistic Computing", "volume": "9", "issue": "2", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Oflazer, Kemal. 1994. Two-level description of Turkish morphology. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 9(2).", "links": null }, "BIBREF56": { "ref_id": "b56", "title": "Error-tolerant finite-state recognition with applications to morphological analysis and spelling correction", "authors": [ { "first": "Kemal", "middle": [], "last": "Oflazer", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1996, "venue": "Computational Linguistics", "volume": "22", "issue": "", "pages": "73--89", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Oflazer, Kemal. 1996. Error-tolerant finite-state recognition with applications to morphological analysis and spelling correction. Computational Linguistics, 22:73-89.", "links": null }, "BIBREF57": { "ref_id": "b57", "title": "An outline of Turkish morphology", "authors": [ { "first": "Kemal", "middle": [], "last": "Oflazer", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Elvan", "middle": [], "last": "G\u00f6\u00e7men", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Cem", "middle": [], "last": "Bozsahin", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1994, "venue": "Report to NATO Science Division SfS III (TU-LANGUAGE)", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Oflazer, Kemal, Elvan G\u00f6\u00e7men, and Cem Bozsahin. 1994. An outline of Turkish morphology. Report to NATO Science Division SfS III (TU-LANGUAGE), Brussels.", "links": null }, "BIBREF58": { "ref_id": "b58", "title": "Building a Turkish treebank", "authors": [ { "first": "Kemal", "middle": [], "last": "Oflazer", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Bilge", "middle": [], "last": "Say", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "G\u00f6khan", "middle": [], "last": "Dilek Zeynep Hakkani-T\u00fcr", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "", "middle": [], "last": "T\u00fcr", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2001, "venue": "Building and Exploiting Syntactically-Annotated Corpora", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Oflazer, Kemal, Bilge Say, Dilek Zeynep Hakkani-T\u00fcr, and G\u00f6khan T\u00fcr. 2001. Building a Turkish treebank. In Anne Abeille, editor, Building and Exploiting Syntactically-Annotated Corpora. Kluwer.", "links": null }, "BIBREF59": { "ref_id": "b59", "title": "A lazy way to chart-parse with Categorial Grammars", "authors": [ { "first": "Remo", "middle": [], "last": "Pareschi", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Mark", "middle": [], "last": "Steedman", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1987, "venue": "Proceedings of the 25th", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Pareschi, Remo and Mark Steedman. 1987. A lazy way to chart-parse with Categorial Grammars. In Proceedings of the 25th", "links": null }, "BIBREF60": { "ref_id": "b60", "title": "Annual Meeting of the ACL", "authors": [], "year": null, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "81--88", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Annual Meeting of the ACL, pages 81-88.", "links": null }, "BIBREF61": { "ref_id": "b61", "title": "Prolog and Natural-Language Analysis", "authors": [ { "first": "Fernando", "middle": [ "C N" ], "last": "Pereira", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "M", "middle": [], "last": "Stuart", "suffix": "" }, { "first": ";", "middle": [], "last": "Shieber", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "", "middle": [], "last": "Csli", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "C", "middle": [ "A" ], "last": "Stanford", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "", "middle": [], "last": "Pollard", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Ivan", "middle": [ "A" ], "last": "Carl", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "", "middle": [], "last": "Sag", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1987, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Pereira, Fernando C. N. and Stuart M. Shieber. 1987. Prolog and Natural-Language Analysis. CSLI, Stanford, CA. Pollard, Carl and Ivan A. Sag. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. University of Chicago Press.", "links": null }, "BIBREF62": { "ref_id": "b62", "title": "Unification encodings of grammatical notations", "authors": [ { "first": "Stephen", "middle": [ "G" ], "last": "Pulman", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1996, "venue": "Computational Linguistics", "volume": "22", "issue": "", "pages": "295--327", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Pulman, Stephen G. 1996. Unification encodings of grammatical notations. Computational Linguistics, 22:295-327.", "links": null }, "BIBREF63": { "ref_id": "b63", "title": "The generative lexicon", "authors": [ { "first": "James", "middle": [], "last": "Pustejovsky", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1991, "venue": "Computational Linguistics", "volume": "17", "issue": "4", "pages": "409--441", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Pustejovsky, James. 1991. The generative lexicon. Computational Linguistics, 17(4):409-441.", "links": null }, "BIBREF64": { "ref_id": "b64", "title": "A sign-based phrase structure grammar for Turkish", "authors": [ { "first": "Onur", "middle": [], "last": "Sehitoglu", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1996, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Sehitoglu, Onur. 1996. A sign-based phrase structure grammar for Turkish. Master's thesis, Middle East Technical University.", "links": null }, "BIBREF65": { "ref_id": "b65", "title": "Lexical rules and lexical organization: Productivity in the lexicon", "authors": [ { "first": "Onur", "middle": [], "last": "Sehitoglu", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Cem", "middle": [], "last": "Bozsahin", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1999, "venue": "Breadth and Depth of Semantic Lexicons. Kluwer", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "39--57", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Sehitoglu, Onur and Cem Bozsahin. 1999. Lexical rules and lexical organization: Productivity in the lexicon. In Evelyne Viegas, editor, Breadth and Depth of Semantic Lexicons. Kluwer, pages 39-57.", "links": null }, "BIBREF66": { "ref_id": "b66", "title": "Dependency and co\u00f6rdination in the grammar of", "authors": [ { "first": "Mark", "middle": [], "last": "Steedman", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1985, "venue": "Dutch and English. Language", "volume": "61", "issue": "3", "pages": "523--568", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Steedman, Mark. 1985. Dependency and co\u00f6rdination in the grammar of Dutch and English. Language, 61(3):523-568.", "links": null }, "BIBREF67": { "ref_id": "b67", "title": "Combinatory grammars and parasitic gaps", "authors": [ { "first": "Mark", "middle": [], "last": "Steedman", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1987, "venue": "Natural Language and Linguistic Theory", "volume": "5", "issue": "", "pages": "403--439", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Steedman, Mark. 1987. Combinatory grammars and parasitic gaps. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 5:403-439.", "links": null }, "BIBREF68": { "ref_id": "b68", "title": "Combinators and grammars", "authors": [ { "first": "Mark", "middle": [], "last": "Steedman", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1988, "venue": "Categorial Grammars and Natural Language Structures. D. Reidel", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "417--442", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Steedman, Mark. 1988. Combinators and grammars. In Richard T. Oehrle, Emmon Bach, and Deirdre Wheeler, editors, Categorial Grammars and Natural Language Structures. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pages 417-442.", "links": null }, "BIBREF70": { "ref_id": "b70", "title": "Type raising and directionality in Combinatory Grammar", "authors": [ { "first": "Mark", "middle": [], "last": "Steedman", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1991, "venue": "Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting of the ACL", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "71--78", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Steedman, Mark. 1991b. Type raising and directionality in Combinatory Grammar. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting of the ACL, pages 71-78.", "links": null }, "BIBREF71": { "ref_id": "b71", "title": "Surface Structure and Interpretation", "authors": [ { "first": "Mark", "middle": [], "last": "Steedman", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1996, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Steedman, Mark. 1996. Surface Structure and Interpretation. MIT Press.", "links": null }, "BIBREF72": { "ref_id": "b72", "title": "The Syntactic Process", "authors": [ { "first": "Mark", "middle": [], "last": "Steedman", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2000, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Steedman, Mark. 2000a. The Syntactic Process. MIT Press.", "links": null }, "BIBREF73": { "ref_id": "b73", "title": "Information structure and the syntax-phonology interface", "authors": [ { "first": "Mark", "middle": [], "last": "Steedman", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2000, "venue": "Linguistic Inquiry", "volume": "31", "issue": "4", "pages": "649--689", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Steedman, Mark. 2000b. Information structure and the syntax-phonology interface. Linguistic Inquiry, 31(4): 649-689.", "links": null }, "BIBREF75": { "ref_id": "b75", "title": "Bound variables in syntax: Are there any?", "authors": [ { "first": "Anna", "middle": [], "last": "Szabolcsi", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1987, "venue": "Proceedings of the 6th Amsterdam Colloquium", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "331--350", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Szabolcsi, Anna. 1987. Bound variables in syntax: Are there any? In Proceedings of the 6th Amsterdam Colloquium, pages 331-350.", "links": null }, "BIBREF76": { "ref_id": "b76", "title": "The Generalized LR Parser/Compiler", "authors": [ { "first": "Masaru", "middle": [], "last": "Tomita", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1988, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Tomita, Masaru. 1988. The Generalized LR Parser/Compiler. Technical report, Center for Machine Translation, Carnegie Mellon University.", "links": null }, "BIBREF77": { "ref_id": "b77", "title": "Parsing some constrained grammar formalisms", "authors": [ { "first": "K", "middle": [], "last": "Vijay-Shanker", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "J", "middle": [], "last": "David", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "", "middle": [], "last": "Weir", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1993, "venue": "Computational Linguistics", "volume": "19", "issue": "", "pages": "591--636", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Vijay-Shanker, K. and David J. Weir. 1993. Parsing some constrained grammar formalisms. Computational Linguistics, 19:591-636.", "links": null }, "BIBREF78": { "ref_id": "b78", "title": "A theory of agreement and its application to Serbo-Croatian. Language", "authors": [ { "first": "Stephen", "middle": [], "last": "Wechsler", "suffix": "" }, { "first": "Larisa", "middle": [], "last": "Zlati\u0107", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 2000, "venue": "", "volume": "76", "issue": "", "pages": "799--832", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Wechsler, Stephen and Larisa Zlati\u0107. 2000. A theory of agreement and its application to Serbo-Croatian. Language, 76:799-832.", "links": null }, "BIBREF79": { "ref_id": "b79", "title": "A feature-based categorial morpho-syntax for Japanese", "authors": [ { "first": "Pete", "middle": [ "J" ], "last": "Whitelock", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1988, "venue": "Natural Language Parsing and Linguistic Theories. D. Reidel", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "230--261", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Whitelock, Pete J. 1988. A feature-based categorial morpho-syntax for Japanese. In Uwe Reyle and C. Rohrer, editors, Natural Language Parsing and Linguistic Theories. D. Reidel, pages 230-261.", "links": null }, "BIBREF80": { "ref_id": "b80", "title": "On the notions \"lexically related\" and \"head of a word", "authors": [ { "first": "Edwin", "middle": [], "last": "Williams", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1981, "venue": "Linguistic Inquiry", "volume": "12", "issue": "2", "pages": "245--274", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Williams, Edwin. 1981. On the notions \"lexically related\" and \"head of a word.\" Linguistic Inquiry, 12(2):245-274.", "links": null }, "BIBREF81": { "ref_id": "b81", "title": "Predictive combinators", "authors": [ { "first": "Kent", "middle": [], "last": "Wittenburg", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1987, "venue": "Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the ACL", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "73--79", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Wittenburg, Kent. 1987. Predictive combinators. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the ACL, pages 73-79.", "links": null } }, "ref_entries": { "FIGREF1": { "type_str": "figure", "num": null, "uris": null, "text": "tam anlam\u0131yla uygulanamam\u0131\u015f ]-t\u0131 exactly apply-NEG-ASP-TENSE 'Mandatory earthquake insurance had gone into effect, but it had not been enforced properly.' b. y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fcge girmi\u015f-ti ama tam anlam\u0131yla uygulanamam\u0131\u015f-t\u0131 c. Adam-\u0131n [ araba ve ev ]-i man-GEN car and house-POSS" }, "FIGREF2": { "type_str": "figure", "num": null, "uris": null, "text": "(5) a. Can [ Ay\u015fe'nin kitab-\u0131 oku-ma-s\u0131 ]-n\u0131 iste-di C.NOM A.-GEN book-ACC read-INF-AGR-ACC want-TENSE 'Can wanted Ay\u015fe to read the book.' lit. 'Can wanted Ay\u015fe's-reading-the-book.' b. Ben [ Mehmet'in\u00e7ocug-a/*-u ver ]-dig-i kitab-\u0131 oku-du-m I.NOM M-GEN child-DAT/*ACC give-REL.OP book-ACC read-TENSE-PERS1 'I read the book that Mehmet gave to the child.' c. Ben [ Mehmet'in kitab-\u0131 ver ]-dig-i\u00e7ocug-u/*-a g\u00f6r-d\u00fc-m I.NOM M-GEN book-ACC give-REL.OP child-ACC/*DAT see-TENSE-PERS1 'I saw the child to whom Mehmet gave the book.'" }, "FIGREF3": { "type_str": "figure", "num": null, "uris": null, "text": "HPSG analysis of (5c)." }, "FIGREF4": { "type_str": "figure", "num": null, "uris": null, "text": "N, but book is not. The type for books can be obtained morphosyntactically by assigning -s (-PLU) the functor type n \u2736 N\\ b \u2736 N, where b stands for base. A syntactic type such as N\\N overgenerates." }, "FIGREF5": { "type_str": "figure", "num": null, "uris": null, "text": "14) a. Mehmet [ [ kitab-\u0131 oku ]-ma ]-y\u0131 istiyor M.NOM book-ACC read-INF-ACC wants 'Mehmet wants to read the book.' b. -INF := ma \u2212 b NP nom ): \u03bbf .f c. fake := fake \u2212 b < N/ b < N: \u03bbx.fake x" }, "FIGREF7": { "type_str": "figure", "num": null, "uris": null, "text": "(17) a. Revised Forward Type Raising (>T): NP : a \u21d2 T/(T\\NP ): \u03bbf .f [a] b. Revised Backward Type Raising ( S: like(plu(toy car))mehmet 'Mehmet likes toy cars.' b. Adam-\u0131n [ k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck k\u0131rm\u0131z\u0131 araba ]-s\u0131 Man-GEN little red car-POSS 'the man's little red car' = poss(little(red car))man" }, "FIGREF12": { "type_str": "figure", "num": null, "uris": null, "text": "30) a. oyuncak [ [ araba ] -lar ] \\N : \u03bbx.toy x : car : \u03bbx.plu x : \u03bbf .f < N: plu car < N acc : plu car > N: * toy(plu car) b." }, "FIGREF13": { "type_str": "figure", "num": null, "uris": null, "text": "32) a. Mehmet [\u00e7ocuk ev-e git-ti ] san-d\u0131 M.NOM child.NOM house-DAT go-TENSE assume-TENSE 'Mehmet assumed that the child went home.' b.\u00c7ocuk" }, "FIGREF14": { "type_str": "figure", "num": null, "uris": null, "text": "without the locative. They can be lexicalized without overgeneration with the help" }, "FIGREF15": { "type_str": "figure", "num": null, "uris": null, "text": "Adam ki hep uyurman that always sleep-TENSE 'the man, who always sleeps'6.6 Possessive Constructions and Syntactic CompoundsThe grammatical marking of possession is realized through the genitive case on the possessor (N gen ) and the possessive marker on the possessee (N poss ). N gen and N poss must agree in person and number (48a), and the resulting noun group is configurational. Possessives can be nested (48c).(48) a. ev-in kap\u0131-s\u0131 house-GEN3 door-POSS3s 'the door of the house' b. * ev-in kap\u0131 / *ev-in kap\u0131-lar (door-PLU) c. ben-im arkada\u015f-\u0131m-\u0131n ev-i-nin kap\u0131-lar-\u0131 I-GEN1 friend-POSS1s-GEN3 house-POSS3s door-PLU-POSS3s 'my friend's house's doors' d. ben-im arkada\u015f-\u0131m-\u0131n i dost-u-nun j kendisi * i/j I-GEN1 friend-POSS1s-GEN3 buddy-POSS3s-GEN3 self 'my friend's buddy himself' e. Her\u00e7al\u0131\u015fan-\u0131n baz\u0131 hak-lar-\u0131 vard\u0131r every worker-GEN3 some right-PLU-POSS3s exists \u2200x\u2203y((worker(x) \u2227 right(y)) \u2192 has(x, y)) but not \u2203y\u2200x(right(y) \u2227 (worker(x) \u2192 has(x, y))) 6.6.1 Lexical Types for Possessives. Type assignments for the genitive and the possessive can be schematized over person (p) and number (n) features, as in (49). (49) -GEN pn" }, "FIGREF16": { "type_str": "figure", "num": null, "uris": null, "text": "50) a. ya\u015fl\u0131 adam-\u0131n k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck k\u0131z-\u0131 old man-GEN3 little daughter-POSS3s 'old man's little daughter' = poss(little daughter)(old man) b. adam i -\u0131n kendi i -si man-GEN self-POSS 'the man himself' c. *kendi i adam i -\u0131 6.6.2 Derivation of Possessive Constructions. Example(51)shows the wide scope of the genitive (51a) and nested genitives (51b)." }, "FIGREF17": { "type_str": "figure", "num": null, "uris": null, "text": "poss house(poss friend i) 'my friend's house' 6.6.3 Lexical Types for Compounds. Syntactic compounds exhibit syntactic patterns similar to possessive constructions, but they signify semantic relations of a different kind." }, "FIGREF18": { "type_str": "figure", "num": null, "uris": null, "text": "\u03bbx.\u03bby.\u03bbz.comp(comp xy)z (nested comp) Syntactic compounds are formed by means of compound markers that are attached to the head of the compound. For morphosyntactic modality, nonreferentiality of the head implies no inflection ( b \u2736 N) or modification (53a-b). The left component can be a noun group (53c) in which there is ambiguity in the scope of modification. This is regulated by typing, for example, the intersective adjectives ambiguous as noun modifiers (" }, "FIGREF19": { "type_str": "figure", "num": null, "uris": null, "text": "otob\u00fcs ye\u015fil bilet-i green c.ye\u015fil otob\u00fcs bilet-i green bus ticket-COMP green(comp ticket bus) or comp(ticket(green bus)) d.otob\u00fcs bilet-i-ni ticket-COMP-ACC2 e.*otob\u00fcs bilet-i-si ticket-COMP-POSS Compound markers serve the dual function of compounding and agreement in possessive constructions; double marking of the possessive is suppressed (cf. 54a-b). The -COMP2 type assignment in (52) handles nested compounds. (54) a.banka-n\u0131n faiz oran-\u0131 bank-GEN interest rate-COMP.POSS 'interest rate of the bank' b.*banka-n\u0131n faiz oran-\u0131-s\u0131 rate-COMP-POSS" }, "FIGREF20": { "type_str": "figure", "num": null, "uris": null, "text": "of Compounds. (56) exemplifies derivations with the type assignments in (52). (56a-b) show that both the narrow and the wide scope of the modifier can be accounted for. (56c-d) show that the compound marker interacts with the possessive. Hence, it must carry both poss and comp in possessive constructions involving compounds. (56e-f) are examples of nested compounds. (56f-g) show the effect of strict control ( b \u2736 N) over the compound's head." }, "TABREF3": { "content": "
Average number
", "type_str": "table", "html": null, "num": null, "text": "Parsing performance." }, "TABREF4": { "content": "
(24) a. IV =S\\NP
TV = S\\NP\\NP
DV = S\\NP\\NP\\NP
b. sev (like) :=s \u2022 sev \u2212v < S\\f < NP nom \\
c. ver (give) :=s \u2022 ver \u2212v < S\\f < NP nom \\f < NP dat \\
v < S\\f < NP nom \\
v < S\\f < NP+ref acc \\f < NP nom : \u03bby.\u03bbx.like xy
e. -ACC :=
", "type_str": "table", "html": null, "num": null, "text": "argued that such underspecification for verb-peripheral languages causes undesirable ambiguity. Grammatical relations of the arguments are determined not by directionality but by case in such languages. The category S\\NP nom \\NP acc resolves the ambiguity (24b-c). NP acc : \u03bbx.\u03bby.like xy NP acc : \u03bbx.\u03bby.\u03bbz.give yxz d. NP acc : \u03bbx.\u03bby.like xy \u21d2" }, "TABREF5": { "content": "", "type_str": "table", "html": null, "num": null, "text": "\u03bbx.\u03bbf .at fx Gapping behavior seems to indicate that Turkish is verb final, not just SOV. SO and OS syntactic types must be distinguished to account for SO & SOV, OS & OSV, *SO & OSV and *OS & SOV. The OS & OSV pattern requires the lexical category S\\NP acc \\NP nom for the verb" }, "TABREF6": { "content": "
(27) Type Raising for Turkish: N agr : a \u21d2 T/(T\\f < NP agr ): \u03bbf .f [a]
\u21d2 T\\(T/f < NP agr ): \u03bbf .f [a]
T \u2208 {S,S\\NP,S\\NP\\NP, S\\NP\\NP\\NP}
(28)Mehmetk\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck ye\u015fil kitab-\u0131,\u00e7ocuk dayeni gelen dergi-yioku-du
M.NOMlittle green book-ACC child-COORD new come mag.-ACC read-TENSE
NnomNaccNnomNaccS\\NPnom\\NPacc
>T>T
S/(S\\NPnom)( S \\NP)
", "type_str": "table", "html": null, "num": null, "text": ". Similarly, contraposition turns Ns into functors looking for NPs.The noun that is type raised can be a syntactically derived noun (28). SO (and OS) constituency required for gapping is provided by >T and >B." }, "TABREF11": { "content": "
c.\u00e7ocug-unkitab-\u0131ver-digiadamuyu-du
child-<>T<B
NP agrTV/DV DV (N \u2191 /N)\\IV agr NI V
>
TV
<
IV agr
<
N \u2191 /N
>
N \u2191 =S\\IV
>
S: and(sleep man)(give man book child)
'The man to whom the child gave the book slept.'
d.\u00e7ocug-un uyu-dugu araba bozul-du
child-GEN sleep -OP.AGR car break-TENSE
<<B
(42) a.kitab-\u0131oku-yanadamuyu-du
book-ACCread-SPman sleep-TENSE
>T<B
IV/TVTV(N \u2191 /N)\\IVNIV
: \u03bbf .f >
IV: \u03bby.read book y
<
N \u2191 /N: \u03bbx.\u03bbQ.and(Q[x])(read book x)
>
N \u2191 =S/(S\\NP): \u03bbQ.and(Q[man])(read book man)
>
S: and(sleep man)(read book man)
'The man who read the book slept.'
b. adam-\u0131n g\u00f6r-d\u00fcg\u00fc\u00e7ocukuyu-du
man-GEN read -OP.AGR child sleep-TENSE
<<B
NP agrTV (N \u2191 /N)\\IV agr NI V
<
IV agr
<
N \u2191 /N
<
N \u2191 =S/IV
>
S: and(sleep child)(see child man)
'The child whom the man saw slept.'
", "type_str": "table", "html": null, "num": null, "text": "[book] : \u03bbx.\u03bby.read xy : \u03bbP.\u03bbx.\u03bbQ.and(Q[x])(P[x]) : man : \u03bbx.sleep x GEN book-ACC give -OP.AGR man sleep-TENSE" } } } }