A Projection Architecture for Dependency Grammar and How it Compares to LFG
| dc.creator | Broeker, Norbert | |
| dc.date | 1998-07-20 | |
| dc.date | 1998-07-24 | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2026-07-07T02:36:19Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2026-07-07T02:36:19Z | |
| dc.description | This paper explores commonalities and differences between \dachs, a variant of Dependency Grammar, and Lexical-Functional Grammar. \dachs\ is based on traditional linguistic insights, but on modern mathematical tools, aiming to integrate different knowledge systems (from syntax and semantics) via their coupling to an abstract syntactic primitive, the dependency relation. These knowledge systems correspond rather closely to projections in LFG. We will investigate commonalities arising from the usage of the projection approach in both theories, and point out differences due to the incompatible linguistic premises. The main difference to LFG lies in the motivation and status of the dimensions, and the information coded there. We will argue that LFG confounds different information in one projection, preventing it to achieve a good separation of alternatives and calling the motivation of the projection into question. | |
| dc.description | Proc. LFG'98 (Brisbane/AUS); LaTeX2e with html package | |
| dc.identifier | https://arxiv.org/abs/cmp-lg/9807009 | |
| dc.identifier | http://arxiv.org/abs/cmp-lg/9807009 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://salesiana.dossiersoluciones.com/handle/123456789/15873 | |
| dc.subject | Computation and Language | |
| dc.title | A Projection Architecture for Dependency Grammar and How it Compares to LFG | |
| dc.type | text |