|
|
HPSG 2006 The 13th International Conference
on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar
Tutorials and Workshop
24-27 July, 2006, Varna, Bulgaria
Tutorial 1 Abstract
Semantics within and beyond HPSG: LRS and LTAG
(Constraint-based Computational Semantics: LTAG and LRS)
Frank Richter and Laura Kallmeyer
Semantics has for the longest time been treated as a stepchild of
constraint-based linguistic grammar frameworks. While it has always
been acknowledged that some kind of semantic framework must ultimately
be integrated into realistic grammars, constraint-based linguistics
has often remained silent when it comes to making specific
assumptions, or has resorted to superficial sketches of semantic
structures. It has been suggested that either a 'proper' semantics
needs to be worked out later, or the preliminary semantic
representations should be thought of as an intermediate structure
serving to hide the 'real' (and non-extant) semantics. According to
this view, the current semantic representations are merely a feasible
solution for practical tasks.
We regard this situation as very unfortunate and believe that
constraint-based linguistics, far from being a mere recipient of
'alien' developments, has much to contribute to core areas of semantic
theorizing. To give substance to this claim, this tutorial will
discuss two theories of natural language semantics which have been
worked out in considerable detail in Lexicalized Tree Adjoining
Grammar (LTAG) and in HPSG, respectively. We will refer to them as
LTAG semantics (Kallmeyer & Romero) and Lexical Resource Semantics
(LRS, Richter & Sailer). The comparison of these two approaches to
constraint-based semantics will sharpen our understanding of the range
of possibilities of semantic theories in this setting and will help to
distinguish their essential from their accidental properties. Among
the interesting topics which arise in LTAG semantics and LRS when
compared to more traditional Montague-type semantics are: (1)
alternative techniques of semantic composition, (2) context effects in
semantic composition, (3) new approaches to compositionality in
semantics, (4) semantic underspecification, and (5) computational
properties of semantic composition, in particular interleaved
syntactic and semantic processing in parsing.
At first glance, one notices striking differences between LTAG
semantics and LRS, which are mostly due to the differences in their
underlying frameworks: LTAG is a lexicalized approach characterized by
an extended domain of locality, while HPSG provides a very expressive
logical description language which supports the flexible formulation
of general grammar principles. Furthermore, while the LTAG approach to
semantics assumes a separate level of underspecified semantic
representations, LRS uses the HPSG description logic for semantic
specifications. However, in spite of these differences, there are also
fundamental similarities between LTAG semantics and LRS, in particular
with respect to the basic concepts underlying specific analyses and with
respect to the use of higher order type-theoretic languages as a means
of specifying truth conditions. This is also one of the main reasons
why a comparison of the two leads to a better mutual understanding and
to new insight concerning the nature of these respective theories.
After an initial introduction to the two frameworks, the tutorial will
focus on a comparative study of concrete analyses of particular
linguistic phenomena, while demonstrating the advantages of doing
semantics in a constraint-based linguistic theory. The comparison will
reveal a very close relationship between the two approaches concerning
the way basic assumptions about semantic mechanisms are implemented
within the two frameworks. At the same time, we will identify
fundamental differences in the semantic architecture due to more
general formal differences between the two host frameworks, HPSG and
LTAG. In this way, we will establish relations between the characteristic
mathematical properties of the formalisms and the consequences for the
possible semantic analyses.
|