binding theory in ltag
DESCRIPTION
Binding Theory in LTAG. Lucas Champollion University of Pennsylvania [email protected]. Overview. Binding Theory (BT) and its local domains Previous work: Condition A This proposal: Conditions A, B, C Discussion. Binding theory: A reminder. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Binding Theory in LTAG](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815f85550346895dce8a19/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
June 7th, 2008 TAG+9 1
Binding Theory in LTAG
Lucas ChampollionUniversity of Pennsylvania
![Page 2: Binding Theory in LTAG](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815f85550346895dce8a19/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
June 7th, 2008 TAG+9 2
Overview
Binding Theory (BT) and its local domains Previous work: Condition A This proposal: Conditions A, B, C Discussion
![Page 3: Binding Theory in LTAG](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815f85550346895dce8a19/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
June 7th, 2008 TAG+9 3
Binding theory: A reminder Condition A: reflexives must be locally bound
Johnj thinks [ Billb likes himself*j / b / *[other] ] Condition B: pronouns must be locally free
Johnj thinks [ Billb likes himj / *b / [other] ] Condition C: full noun phrases must be free
*[ Johnj likes Johnj ] *Johnj thinks [ Mary likes Johnj ]
![Page 4: Binding Theory in LTAG](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815f85550346895dce8a19/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
June 7th, 2008 TAG+9 4
Binding theory in LTAG
LTAG’s local domain = the verbal elementary tree and its arguments (but not its adjuncts)
Insight from previous work: LTAG and BT have similar local domains
This presentation’s central point: Too many mismatches between local domains We can’t reuse LTAG’s local domain for binding!
![Page 5: Binding Theory in LTAG](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815f85550346895dce8a19/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
June 7th, 2008 TAG+9 5
Previous work reused LTAG’s local domain
NP
loves
V NP
VP
S
himself
John
NP
V S*
VP
S
thinks
he
Condition A
![Page 6: Binding Theory in LTAG](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815f85550346895dce8a19/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
June 7th, 2008 TAG+9 6
Previous work reused LTAG’s local domain
NP
loves
V NP
VP
S
himself
John
NP
V S*
VP
S
thinks
he
Condition A
![Page 7: Binding Theory in LTAG](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815f85550346895dce8a19/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
June 7th, 2008 TAG+9 7
Previous work reused LTAG’s local domain
NP
loves
V NP
VP
S
himself
John
NP
V S*
VP
S
thinks
he
Condition A
![Page 8: Binding Theory in LTAG](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815f85550346895dce8a19/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
June 7th, 2008 TAG+9 8
Previous work reused LTAG’s local domain
NP
loves
V NP
VP
S
him
John
NP
V S*
VP
S
thinks
he
Condition B
![Page 9: Binding Theory in LTAG](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815f85550346895dce8a19/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
June 7th, 2008 TAG+9 9
Ryant and Scheffler (2006) Only Condition A MCTAG set with a
degenerate NP tree Tree-local MCTAG with
flexible composition makes sure that antecedent and reflexive substitute into the same tree
NP
loves
V NP
VP
S
himself
NPi
John
NP
NP*i{ }
![Page 10: Binding Theory in LTAG](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815f85550346895dce8a19/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
June 7th, 2008 TAG+9 10
Kallmeyer and Romero (2007) Only Condition A MCTAG set with a
degenerate VP tree Tree-local MCTAG with
flexible composition makes sure that antecedent and reflexive substitute into the same tree
NP
loves
V NP
VP
S
himself
NPi
John
NP
VP*i{ }(some features omitted)
![Page 11: Binding Theory in LTAG](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815f85550346895dce8a19/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
June 7th, 2008 TAG+9 11
Kallmeyer and Romero’s claim
“Tree-local MCTAG display exactly the extended domain
of locality needed to account for the locality of anaphora binding in a natural way.”-- Kallmeyer and Romero (2007)
![Page 12: Binding Theory in LTAG](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815f85550346895dce8a19/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
June 7th, 2008 TAG+9 12
A counterexample
VP*
opposite
P NP
PP
VP
himself
John
NP
V NP
VP
S
imagined
Cannot be handled by Kallmeyer and Romero (2007) except by flexible composition (which they try to avoid)
Bill
![Page 13: Binding Theory in LTAG](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815f85550346895dce8a19/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
June 7th, 2008 TAG+9 13
ECM: another mismatch of localities
NP
to love
V NP
VP
S
Bill
John
NP
V S*
VP
S
expects
him
Can be handled with an extra feature No lexical ambiguity needed (unlike R&S 2006)
![Page 14: Binding Theory in LTAG](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815f85550346895dce8a19/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
June 7th, 2008 TAG+9 14
Mismatches within Binding Theory
Bill
NP
NP
himself
NP
V NP
VP
S
found
John
NP
NP*
’s
Det NP
N’
NP
picture
N
P NP*
PP
NP
of
Bill
NP
NP
him
NP
V NP
VP
S
found
John
NP
NP*
’s
Det NP
N’
NP
picture
N
P NP*
PP
NP
of
Judgments tested experimentally (Keller and Asudeh ‘01; Runner ‘03)
A B
![Page 15: Binding Theory in LTAG](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815f85550346895dce8a19/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
June 7th, 2008 TAG+9 15
Mismatches within Binding Theory
VP*
near
P
PP
VP
himselfJohn
NP
V NP
VP
S
saw a snake
NP
VP*
near
P
PP
VP
himJohn
NP
V NP
VP
S
saw a snake
NP
A
B
![Page 16: Binding Theory in LTAG](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815f85550346895dce8a19/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
June 7th, 2008 TAG+9 16
How to encode the other conditions? Condition A roughly corresponds to tree-
locality Condition B = “enforced non-locality”? Condition C = ???
Need to propagate an unbounded number of potential antecedents
![Page 17: Binding Theory in LTAG](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815f85550346895dce8a19/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
June 7th, 2008 TAG+9 17
This account in a nutshell Every NP receives three items from its
environment: a list “A” of local potential antecedents a list “B” of local potential antecedents a list “C” of nonlocal potential antecedents
Every NP supplies its own individual variable to its environment
The rest of the grammar is responsible for providing the correct lists to the NP substitution slots
![Page 18: Binding Theory in LTAG](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815f85550346895dce8a19/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
June 7th, 2008 TAG+9 18
Technical innovation: List-valued features
![Page 19: Binding Theory in LTAG](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815f85550346895dce8a19/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
June 7th, 2008 TAG+9 19
Elementary tree for “himself”(Condition A, simplified)
“A reflexive must be locally bound.”
![Page 20: Binding Theory in LTAG](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815f85550346895dce8a19/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
June 7th, 2008 TAG+9 20
Elementary tree for “he”(Condition B)
“A pronoun must be locally free.”
![Page 21: Binding Theory in LTAG](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815f85550346895dce8a19/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
June 7th, 2008 TAG+9 21
Elementary tree for “John” (Condition C)
“A full noun phrase must be free.”
![Page 22: Binding Theory in LTAG](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815f85550346895dce8a19/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
June 7th, 2008 TAG+9 22
Sample derivation
![Page 23: Binding Theory in LTAG](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815f85550346895dce8a19/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
June 7th, 2008 TAG+9 23
Sample derivation
![Page 24: Binding Theory in LTAG](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815f85550346895dce8a19/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
June 7th, 2008 TAG+9 24
Sample derivation
![Page 25: Binding Theory in LTAG](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815f85550346895dce8a19/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
June 7th, 2008 TAG+9 25
Sample derivation
![Page 26: Binding Theory in LTAG](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815f85550346895dce8a19/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
June 7th, 2008 TAG+9 26
Condition C: the default case
Before...
![Page 27: Binding Theory in LTAG](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815f85550346895dce8a19/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
June 7th, 2008 TAG+9 27
Condition C: the default case
...and after unification of top/bottom features
![Page 28: Binding Theory in LTAG](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815f85550346895dce8a19/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
June 7th, 2008 TAG+9 28
Condition C across clauses
Before putting the trees together...
![Page 29: Binding Theory in LTAG](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815f85550346895dce8a19/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
June 7th, 2008 TAG+9 29
Condition C across clauses
The higher tree passesits subject down, then...
![Page 30: Binding Theory in LTAG](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815f85550346895dce8a19/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
June 7th, 2008 TAG+9 30
Condition C across clauses
...unification at the root node propagates the empty list
![Page 31: Binding Theory in LTAG](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815f85550346895dce8a19/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
June 7th, 2008 TAG+9 31
Improvements over previous accounts...
![Page 32: Binding Theory in LTAG](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815f85550346895dce8a19/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
June 7th, 2008 TAG+9 32
Binding into adjuncts
Just propagate everything!
![Page 33: Binding Theory in LTAG](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815f85550346895dce8a19/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
June 7th, 2008 TAG+9 33
Mismatches between domains easily encoded Non-complementary binding conditions easily
handled with separate A and B list features No ad hoc trees needed for picture NPs (unlike
K&R ‘07)
![Page 34: Binding Theory in LTAG](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815f85550346895dce8a19/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
June 7th, 2008 TAG+9 34
C-command violations easily encoded
No need for separate lexical entry Just extrapose subject NP along with its feature structure
(he)
(Himself)
e.g. extraposition: “Himselfi, hei likes.”
![Page 35: Binding Theory in LTAG](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815f85550346895dce8a19/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
June 7th, 2008 TAG+9 35
Improvements at a glance
All conditions are implemented Higher empirical accuracy No lexical ambiguity No flexible composition (K&R 2007) No syntactically unmotivated degenerate
trees (Kallmeyer and Romero, 2008) Better integration with anaphora resolution
(Branco, 2002) No explicit representation of c-command
![Page 36: Binding Theory in LTAG](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815f85550346895dce8a19/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
June 7th, 2008 TAG+9 36
Issues / Future work
Unknown complexity of list-valued features Just a decoration on the trees though -- they do
not rule out any sentences Lack of predictive power
How do we constrain possible feature values? Metagrammar?
Does TAG offer any insights into BT at all?
![Page 38: Binding Theory in LTAG](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815f85550346895dce8a19/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
June 7th, 2008 TAG+9 38
Previous accounts do not interface well with anaphora resolution modules Previous accounts: parser delivers a forest of
indexed trees Johni introduced Billk to himselfi vs.
Johni introduced Billk to himselfk
Problem: Anaphora resolution modules are not prepared to compare entire trees (Branco, 2002)
Our solution outputs a compact set of constraints Following Branco (2002)
![Page 39: Binding Theory in LTAG](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815f85550346895dce8a19/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
June 7th, 2008 TAG+9 39
The grammar of picture NPs
NP*
’s
Det NP
N’
NP
Bill
NP
NP
himself
NP
V NP
VP
S
found
picture
N
P NP*
PP
NP
of
John
NP
![Page 40: Binding Theory in LTAG](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56815f85550346895dce8a19/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
June 7th, 2008 TAG+9 40
Missing link problem
NP*
’s
Det NP
N’
NP
Bill
NP
NP
himself
NP
V NP
VP
S
found
picture
N
P NP*
PP
NP
of
John
NP