RTG based surface realisation for TAG

Coling 2010 - 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Proceedings of the Conference

Volumn 2, Issue , 2010, Pages 367-375

  Gardent, Claire ^a   Perez Beltrachini, Laura ^a  

^a LORIA   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EXTENSIVE TESTING; FEATURE-BASED; NP COMPLETE; REGULAR TREE; TREE ADJOINING GRAMMARS;

ALGORITHMS; COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS; PLANT EXTRACTS; SEMANTICS; TREES (MATHEMATICS);

SURFACE TESTING;

EID: 79960380746     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (16)

1. Bangalore, S. and O. Rambow. 2000. Using TAGs, a tree model and a language model for generation. In Proceedings of TAG+5, Paris, France.
2. Brew, Chris. 1992. Letting the cat out of the bag: generation for shake-and-bake mt. In Proceedings of the 14th conference on Computational linguistics, pages 610-616, Morristown, NJ, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics.
3. Carroll, J. and S. Oepen. 2005. High efficiency realization for a wide-coverage unification grammar. 2nd IJCNLP.
4. Carroll, J., A. Copestake, D. Flickinger, and V. Paznański. 1999. An efficient chart generator for (semi-)lexicalist grammars. In Proceedings of EWNLG'99.
5. Gardent, C. and L. Kallmeyer. 2003. Semantic construction in FTAG. In 10th EACL, Budapest, Hungary.
6. Gardent, C. and E. Kow. 2007. Spotting overgeneration suspect. In 11th European Workshop on Natural Language Generation (ENLG).
7. Gottesman, B. 2009. Generating examples. Master's thesis, Erasmus Mundus Master Language and Communication Technology, Saarbrucken/Nancy.
8. Kay, Martin. 1996. Chart generation. In Proceedings of the 34th annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 200-204, Morristown, NJ, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics.
9. Koller, A. and K. Striegnitz. 2002. Generation as dependency parsing. In Proceedings of the 40th ACL, Philadelphia.
10. Maxwell, J. and R. Kaplan. 1994. The interface between phrasal and functional constraints. Computational Linguistics, 19(4).
11. Perez-Beltrachini, L. 2009. Using regular tree grammars to reduce the search space in surface realisation. Master's thesis, Erasmus Mundus Master Language and Communication Technology, Nancy/Bolzano.
12. Schmitz, S. and J. Le Roux. 2008. Feature unification in TAG derivation trees. In Gardent, C. and A. Sarkar, editors, Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Tree Adjoining Grammars and Related Formalisms (TAG+'08), pages 141-148, Tübingen, Germany.
13. Stefan, Oepen and Carroll John. 2000. Parser engineering and performance profiling. Journal of Natural Language Engineering, 6(1):81-98.
14. The XTAG Research Group. 2001. A lexicalised tree adjoining grammar for english. Technical report, Institute for Research in Cognitive Science, University of Pennsylvannia.
15. Vijay-Shanker, K. and AK Joshi. 1988. Feature Structures Based Tree Adjoining Grammars. Proceedings of the 12th conference on Computational linguistics, 55:v2.
16. White, M. 2004. Reining in CCG chart realization. In INLG, pages 182-191.