Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-wxk4p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T16:30:23.613Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Using regular tree grammars to enhance sentence realisation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2011

CLAIRE GARDENT ,
BENJAMIN GOTTESMAN  and
LAURA PEREZ-BELTRACHINI
CLAIRE GARDENT
Affiliation:
CNRS/LORIA, 615 Rue du jardin botanique, 54600 Villers-lès-Nancy, France email: claire.gardent@loria.fr
BENJAMIN GOTTESMAN
Affiliation:
acrolinx GmbH, Rosenstraße 2, 10178 Berlin, Germany
LAURA PEREZ-BELTRACHINI
Affiliation:
Nancy 1/LORIA, 615 Rue du jardin botanique, 54600 Villers-lès-Nancy, France
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Feature-based regular tree grammars (FRTG) can be used to generate the derivation trees of a feature-based tree adjoining grammar (FTAG). We make use of this fact to specify and implement both an FTAG-based sentence realiser and a benchmark generator for this realiser. We argue furthermore that the FRTG encoding enables us to improve on other proposals based on a grammar of TAG derivation trees in several ways. It preserves the compositional semantics that can be encoded in feature-based TAGs; it increases efficiency and restricts overgeneration; and it provides a uniform resource for generation, benchmark construction and parsing.

Information

Type
Papers
Information
Natural Language Engineering , Volume 17 , Special Issue 2: Finite-State Methods and Models in Natural Language Processing , April 2011 , pp. 185 - 201
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Comon, H., Dauchet, M., Gilleron, R., Löding, C., Jacquemard, F., Lugiez, D., Tison, S., and Tommasi, M. 2007. Tree automata techniques and applications. Available on: http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/tata. release October, 12th 2007.Google Scholar
De Groote, P. 2002, May. Tree adjoining grammars as abstract categorial grammars. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Tree Adjoining Grammar and Related Frameworks (TAG+6), Venice, Italy, pp. 145–50.Google Scholar
Frank, A. and Genabith, J. 2001, June. GlueTag. Linear Logic based Semantics for LTAG. In Butt, M., and King, T. H. (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG01 Conference, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, pp. 104–26. Stanford, California, USA: CSLI Publications. ISSN .Google Scholar
Gardent, C., Gottesman, B. and Perez-Beltrachini, L. 2010, August. Comparing the performance of two TAG-based surface realisers using controlled grammar traversal. In Proceedings of Coling 2010 (Poster session), Beijing, China, pp. 338–46. Coling 2010 Organizing Committee.Google Scholar
Gardent, C. and Kallmeyer, L. 2003, April. Semantic construction in feature-based TAG. In Proceedings of the 10th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL 2003), Budapest, Hungary, pp. 123–30. Association for Computational Linguistics, Morristown, NJ, USA.Google Scholar
Gardent, C. and Kow, E. 2007, June. Spotting overgeneration suspects. In Busemann, S. (ed.), Proceedings of the 11th European Workshop on Natural Language Generation (ENLG 2007), Number D-07-01 in DFKI Document, Schloss Dagstuhl, Germany, pp. 41–8. DFKI GmbH, Saarbruecken, Germany. ISSN .Google Scholar
Gardent, C. and Perez-Beltrachini, L. 2010, August. RTG-based surface realisation for TAG. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Coling 2010), Beijing, China, pp. 367–75. Coling 2010 Organizing Committee.Google Scholar
Gécseg, F. and Steinby, M. 1997. Tree languages. In Rosenberg, G., and Salomaa, A. (eds.), Handbook of Formal Languages, Volume 3: beyond words, pp. 1–68. New York, NY, USA: Springer-Verlag New York, Inc.Google Scholar
Gottesman, B. 2009. Controlled Generation of Input to a Surface Realiser. Master's thesis, European Masters Program in Language and Communication Technologies, Saarland University/Université Nancy 2.Google Scholar
Joshi, A. and Schabes, Y. 1997. Tree-adjoining grammars. In Rosenberg, G., and Salomaa, A. (eds.), Handbook of Formal Languages, Volume 3: beyond words, pp. 69–123. New York, NY, USA: Springer-Verlag New York, Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanazawa, M. 2007, June. Parsing and generation as datalog queries. In Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics, Prague, Czech Republic, pp. 176–183. Association for Computational Linguistics, Morristown, NJ, USA.Google Scholar
Koller, A. and Hoffmann, J. 2010, May. Waking up a sleeping rabbit: on natural language generation with FF. In Brafman, R., Geffner, H., Hoffmann, J., and Kautz, H. (eds.), Proceedings of the 20th ICAPS (Short Papers), Toronto, Canada, pp. 238–41. The AAAI Press, Menlo Park, California, USA.Google Scholar
Koller, A. and Stone, M. 2007, June. Sentence generation as a planning problem. In Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics, Prague, Czech Republic, pp. 336–43. Association for Computational Linguistics, Morristown, NJ, USA.Google Scholar
Koller, A. and Striegnitz, K. 2002. Generation as dependency parsing. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, pp. 17–24. Association for Computational Linguistics, Morristown, NJ, USA.Google Scholar
Kuhlmann, M. 2010. Dependency Structures and Lexicalized Grammars: An Algebraic Approach, Volume 6270 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Germany: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, J. and Kaplan, R. 1993, December. The interface between phrasal and functional constraints. Computational Linguistics 19 (4): 571–90.Google Scholar
Nederhof, M. 1996. Efficient generation of random sentences. Journal of Natural Language Engineering 2 (1): 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perez-Beltrachini, L. 2009. Using Regular Tree Grammars to Optimise Surface Realisation. Master's thesis, European Masters Program in Language and Communication Technologies, Université Nancy 2/Free University of Bozen-Bolzano.Google Scholar
Pogodalla, S. 2004, May. Computing semantic representations: towards ACG abstract terms as derivation trees. In Proceedings of Seventh International Workshop on Tree Adjoining Grammar and Related Formalisms (TAG+7), Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, pp. 64–71.Google Scholar
Purdom, P. 1972. A sentence generator for testing parsers. BIT Numerical Mathematics 12 (3): 366–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitz, S. and LeRoux, J. Roux, J. 2008, June. Feature unification in TAG derivation trees. In Gardent, C., and Sarkar, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Tree Adjoining Grammars and Related Formalisms (TAG+9), Tübingen, Germany, pp. 141–8.Google Scholar
Shieber, S. 2006, April. Unifying synchronous tree adjoining grammars and tree transducers via bimorphisms. In Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL-06), Trento, Italy, pp. 377–84. Association for Computational Linguistics, Morristown, NJ, USA.Google Scholar
The XTAG Research Group 2001. A lexicalised tree adjoining grammar for english. Technical report, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.Google Scholar
Vijay-Shanker, K. and Joshi, A. 1988, August. Feature structures based tree adjoining grammars. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computational Linguistics - Volume 2, Budapest, Hungary, pp. 714–19. Association for Computational Linguistics, Morristown, NJ, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vijay-Shanker, K., Weir, D. and Joshi, A. 1987, July. Characterizing structural descriptions produced by various grammatical formalisms. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Stanford, California, USA, pp. 104–11. Association for Computational Linguistics, Morristown, NJ, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar