Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
NL-KR Digest Volume 01 No. 17
NL-KR Digest (10/23/86 10:24:41) Volume 1 Number 17
Today's Topics:
Re: Tiny ATN's
Tiny ATNs
From the CSLI Calendar, October 16, No. 3
Mark Steedman Colloquium, Oct. 23, 1986
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 86 15:22 EDT
From: Michael Friendly <FRIENDLY%YORKVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Tiny ATN's
> II wonder if anyone has a small ATN parser in C,....
An article in the Natural Language Processing issue of Byte last spring
described Higgins, an ATN parser in C. The source is in Byte Listings
available on many local BBS systems or from BYTE, Peterborough NH
The source includes a btree-based dictionary program for defining
attributes of lexical entries.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 86 11:01:45 cdt
From: mlw@ncsc.ARPA (Williams)
Subject: Tiny ATNs
Peter Benson asked about ATNs in C, etc. The Decemeber 1985 BYTE included
an article by Roy E. Kimbrell that presented an ATN parser for natural
language. The source C program is (was) available from BYTEnet.
Mark L. Williams
(mlw@ncsc.arpa)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 86 19:59 EDT
From: Emma Pease <Emma@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: From the CSLI Calendar, October 16, No. 3
[Extracted from CSLI Calendar]
THIS WEEK'S TINLUNCH
Reading: "Possible Worlds and Situations" by Robert Stalnaker
Discussion led by John Perry
October 16, 1986
Stalnaker (and also Barbara Partee, in a paper I shall mention at
TINLunch), maintains that possible worlds semantics is an extremely
flexible and metaphysically benign (if not completely neutral)
framework. I will argue that this is not so, that possible worlds
semantics, in the form in which Stalnaker (and Partee) embraces it, is
metaphysically loaded in one of two quite different ways, either of
which incorporate assumptions that linguists and AI-researchers
shouldn't thoughtlessly adopt, and which philosophers should
thoughtfully avoid. --John Perry
--------------
NEXT WEEK'S SEMINAR
HPSG Theory and HPSG Research
Ivan Sag
October 23, 1986
This seminar presents an overview of the central ideas under
development by members of the CSLI HPSG project. Head-Driven Phrase
Structure Grammar is an information-based theory of the relation
between syntactic and semantic structure. The syntactic concepts of
HPSG evolved from Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar (GPSG) in the
course of the last few years through extensive interaction with
members of the CSLI FOG project. HPSG integrates key ideas of GPSG
with concepts drawn from Kay's Functional Unification Grammar and
Categorial Grammar and incorporates certain analytic techniques of
Lexical-Functional Grammar. The semantic concepts of HPSG are a hybrid
of Situation Semantics and the theory of thematic roles. Current HPSG
theory embodies a number of important design properties: monotonicity,
declarativeness and reversibility, yet current HPSG analyses require
extensions of such standard frameworks as PATR-II. Current research
ideas will be surveyed, as well as ongoing work on the hierarchical
structure of the HPSG lexicon.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 86 17:09 EDT
From: Tim Finin <Tim@cis.upenn.edu>
Subject: Mark Steedman Colloquium, Oct. 23, 1986
ENGLISH AS A FUNCTIONAL PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE
Mark Steedman
CIS, University of Pennsylvania, and
Depts of AI and Cognitive Science, Edinburgh.
All natural languages include constructions which are reminiscent
of abstractions in a system like the lambda calculus, but which are striking
for the absence of any explicit linguistic expression of abstraction
operators or variables. Their detailed behaviour suggests that natural
language grammars include rules of syntax and semantics which
correspond very directly to the most primitive combinators of Curry and
Feys. This fact in turn suggests that natural language syntax is an
extremely transparent reflection of a semantics embodying an applicative
system which minimises the use of bound variables. Results familiar
from implementations of functional programming languages suggest that a
reason for Universal Grammar taking this form is to be found in the
computational advantages of avoiding bound variables.
The particular applicative systems implicit in the Combinatory Grammars
for real natural languages are interestingly restricted. Some implications
for processing natural language syntax using such grammars are considered.
Thursday, October 23, 1986, 3 - 4:30
Room 216 Moore School
University of Pennsylvania
------------------------------
End of NL-KR Digest
*******************
