Mary Dalrymple

Ellipsis and higher-order unification

We present a new method for characterizing the interpretive possibilities generated by elliptical constructions in natural language. Unlike previous analyses, which postulate ambiguity of interpretation or derivation in the full clause source of the ellipsis, our analysis requires no such hidden ambiguity. Further, the analysis follows relatively directly from an abstract statement of the ellipsis interpretation problem. It predicts correctly a wide range of interactions between ellipsis and other semantic phenomena such as quantifier scope and bound anaphora. Finally, although the analysis itself is stated nonprocedurally, it admits of a direct computational method for generating interpretations.

Synergistic use of direct manipulation and natural language

This paper shows how the integration of natural language with direct manipulation produces a multimodal interface that overcomes limitations of these techniques when used separately. Natural language helps direct manipulation in being able to specify objects and actions by description, while direct manipulation enables users to learn which objects and actions are available in the system. Furthermore, graphical rendering and manipulation of context provides a partial solution to difficult problems of natural language anaphora.

Formal issues in lexical-functional grammar

Preface Part I. Formal Architecture: 1. The formal architecture of Lexical Functional Grammar Ronald M. Kaplan 2. Lexical Functional Grammar: a formal system for grammatical representation Ronald M. Kaplan and Joan Bresnan Part II. Nonlocal Dependencies: 3. Long-distance dependencies, constituent structure, and functional uncertainty Ronald M. Kaplan and Annie Zaenen 4. Modeling syntactic constrants on anaphoric binding Mary Dalrymple, John T. Maxwell III, and Annie Zaenen 5. An algorithm for functional uncertainty Ronald M. Kaplan and John T. Maxwell III 6. Constituent coordination in lexical functional grammar Ronald M. Kaplan and John T. Maxwell III Part III. Word Order: 7. Formal devices for linguisic generalizations: West Germanic world order in lexical functional grammar Annie Zaenen and Ronald M. Kaplan 8. Linear order, syntactic rank, and empty categories: on weak crossover Joan Bresnan Part IV. Semantics and Translation: 9. Projections and semantic description in lexical-functional grammar Per-Kristian Halvorsen and Ronald M. Kaplan 10. Situation semantics and semantic interpretation in constraint-based grammars Per-Kristian Halvorsen 11. Translation by structural correspondences Ronald M. Kaplan, Klaus Netter, Jurgen Wedekind and Annie Zaenen Part V. Mathematical and Computational Issues: 12. Three seductions of computational psycholinguistics Ronald M. Kaplan 13. Logic and feature structures Mark Johnson 14. A method for disjunctive constraint satisfaction John T. Maxwell III and Ronald M. Kaplan 15. The interface between phrasal and functional constraints John T. Maxwell III and Ronald M. Kaplan.

SRI's experience with the ATIS evaluation

SRI International participated in the June 1990 Air Travel Information System (ATIS) natural-language evaluation. This report briefly describes the system that SRI used in the evaluation, analyzes SRIs results, and makes some recommendations for changes in the database structure and data collection system to be used for future ATIS evaluations.

Feature Indeterminacy and Feature Resolution.

Syntactic features like CASE, PERSON, and GENDER are often assumed to have simple atomic values that are checked for consistency by the standard predicate of equality. The CASE feature has values such as NOM or ACC, and values like MASC and FEM are assumed for the feature GENDER. But such a view does not square with some of the complex behavior these features exhibit. It allows no obvious account of FEATURE INDETERMINACY (how a particular form can satisfy conflicting requirements on a feature like CASE), nor does it give an obvious account of FEATURE RESOLUTION (how PERSON and GENDER features of a coordinate noun phrase are determined on the basis of the conjuncts). We present a theory of feature representation and feature checking that solves these two problems, providing a straightforward characterization of feature indeterminacy and feature resolution while sticking to structures and standard interpretations that have independent motivation. Our theory of features is formulated within the LFG framework, but we believe that similar solutions can be developed within other syntactic approaches.

Determiner agreement and noun conjunction

Determiner-noun agreement in English and many other languages appears to be straightforwardly describable; singular determiners go with singular nouns, and plural determiners go with plural nouns. The situation is more complicated with coordinated nouns, however, since unexpected agreement patterns often result. Our theory makes the correct predictions for English and other languages by combining two crucial insights: the dual nature of agreement features inside the noun phrase (Kathol 1999; Sadler 1999, 2003; Wechsler & Zlatic 2000, 2003) and the distinction between distributive and nondistributive features in coordination (Dalrymple & Kaplan 2000).

Interactions of scope and ellipsis

Systematic semantic ambiguities result from the interaction of the two operations that are involved in resolving ellipsis in the presence of scoping elements such as quantifiers and intensional operators: scope determination for the scoping elements and resolution of the elided relation. A variety of problematic examples previously noted - by Sag, Hirschbüihler, Gawron and Peters, Harper, and others - all have to do with such interactions. In previous work, we showed how ellipsis resolution can be stated and solved in equational terms. Furthermore, this equational analysis of ellipsis provides a uniform framework in which interactions between ellipsis resolution and scope determination can be captured. As a consequence, an account of the problematic examples follows directly from the equational method. The goal of this paper is merely to point out this pleasant aspect of the equational analysis, through its application to these cases. No new analytical methods or associated formalism are presented, with the exception of a straightforward extension of the equational method to intensional logic.

Quantifiers, Anaphora, and Intensionality

The relationship between Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG) functional structures (f-structures) for sentences and their semanticinterpretations can be formalized in linear logic in a way thatcorrectly explains the observed interactions between quantifier scopeambiguity, bound anaphora and intensionality.Our linear-logic formalization of the compositional properties ofquantifying expressions in natural language obviates the need forspecial mechanisms, such as Cooper storage, in representing thescoping possibilities of quantifying expressions. Instead, thesemantic contribution of a quantifier is recorded as a linear-logicformula whose use in a proof will establish the scope of thequantifier. Different proofs can lead to different scopes. In eachcomplete proof, the properties of linear logic ensure thatquantifiers are properly scoped.The interactions between quantified NPs and intensional verbs such as’’seek‘‘ are also accounted for in this deductive setting. A singlespecification in linear logic of the argument requirements ofintensional verbs is sufficient to derive the correct readingpredictions for intensional-verb clauses both with nonquantified andwith quantified direct objects. In particular, both de dictoand de re readings are derived for quantified objects. Theeffects of type-raising or quantifying-in rules in other frameworksjust follow here as linear-logic theorems.While our approach resembles current categorial approaches inimportant ways (Moortgat, 1988, 1992a; Carpenter, 1993; Morrill, 1994)it differs from them in allowing the greater compositional flexibility ofcategorial semantics (van Benthem, 1991)while maintaining a precise connection to syntax. As a result, we areable to provide derivations for certain readings of sentences withintensional verbs and complex direct objects whose derivation inpurely categorial accounts of the syntax-semantics interface appearsto require otherwise unnecessary semantic decompositions of lexicalentries.

Constructions with Lexical Integrity

Construction Grammar holds that unpredictable form-meaning combinations are not restricted in size. In particular, there may be phrases that have particular meanings that are not predictable from the words that they contain, but which are nonetheless not purely idiosyncratic. In addressing this observation, some construction grammarians have not only weakened the word/phrase distinction, but also denied the lexicon/grammar distinction. In this paper, we consider the word/phrase and lexicon/grammar distinction in light of Lexical-Functional Grammar and its Lexical Integrity Principle. We show that it is not necessary to remove the word/phrase distinction or the lexicon/grammar distinction to capture constructional effects, although we agree that there are important generalizations involving constructions of all sizes that must be captured at both syntactic and semantic levels. We use LFG’s templates , bundles of grammatical descriptions, to factor out grammatical information in such a way that it can be invoked either by words or by construction-specific phrase structure rules. Phrase structure rules that invoke specific templates are thus the equivalent of phrasal constructions in our approach, but Lexical Integrity and the separation of word and phrase are preserved. Constructional effects are captured by systematically allowing words and phrases to contribute comparable information to LFG’s level of functional structure; this is just a generalization of LFG’s usual assumption that “morphology competes with syntax” (Bresnan, 2001).

Indeterminacy by underspecification

We examine the formal encoding of feature indeterminacy, focussing on case indeterminacy as an exemplar of the phenomenon. Forms that are indeterminately specified for the value of a feature can simultaneously satisfy conflicting requirements on that feature and thus are a challenge to constraint-based formalisms which model the compatibility of information carried by linguistic items by combining or integrating that information. Much previous work in constraint-based formalisms has sought to provide an analysis of feature indeterminacy by departing in some way from vanilla assumptions either about feature representations or about how compatibility is checked by integrating information from various sources. In the present contribution we argue instead that a solution to the range of issues posed by feature indeterminacy can be provided in a vanilla feature-based approach which is formally simple, does not postulate special structures or objects in the representation of case or other indeterminate features, and requires no special provision for the analysis of coordination. We view the value of an indeterminate feature such as case as a complex and possibly underspecified feature structure. Our approach correctly allows for incremental and monotonic refinement of case requirements in particular contexts. It uses only atomic boolean-valued features and requires no special mechanisms or additional assumptions in the treatment of coordination or other phenomena to handle indeterminacy. Our account covers the behaviour of both indeterminate arguments and indeterminate predicates, that is, predicates placing indeterminate requirements on their arguments.