A CCG Fragment of Korean

A CCG FRAGMENT OF KOREAN* Kihwang Lee ICCS, Division of Informatics University of Edinburgh 2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW United Kingdom Email: leekh@cogsci.ed.ac.uk ABSTRACT Combinatory Categorial Grammar is a lexicalised formalism which is mildly context-sensitive. Recently Set Combinatory Categorial Grammar, a direct descendent of Combinatory Categorial Grammar was proposed to treat local scrambling adequately. In this paper, we briefly sketch Set Combinatory Categorial Grammar analyses of various Korean syntactic phenomena including coordination, extraction and multiple nominative construction. 1. INTRODUCTION We briefly introduce CCG (Combinatory Categorial Grammar) and Set-CCG (Set Combinatory Categorial Grammar), a direct descendent of the former. 1.1 Combinatory Categorial Grammar CCG, introduced by [1] as a generalisation of the Categorial Grammars (CG) of [2] and [6] is a lexicalised formalism which is mildly context-sensitive [21]. The mildly context-sensitive generative power of CCG enables it to provide adequate description of syntactic phenomena including crossing dependencies in some languages that are known to be beyond the coverage of context-free grammars [16]. For syntactic derivation, CCG utilises a system of rules which is based on the combinators of [9]. These combinators are composition (B), type-raising (T), and substitution (S). CCG's view of surface structure is quite different from that of conventional grammar formalisms. Surface structures in CCG do not exhibit traditional notions of constituency or dominance and command. All the fragments that arise under coordination and related constructions are considered as surface constituents. This flexible view of surface structure provides lucid descriptions not only for bounded dependencies but also for various sorts of unbounded dependencies that occur when the complements are displaced under coordination, relativisation, etc. Thus, it is as a theory of multiple unbounded dependency and coordinate structure that CCG has most to offer as a theory of grammar [20]. Extensive introductions and discussions of the linguistic properties and motivations of the CCG formalism together with analyses of many constructions in English, German and Dutch are presented in [18, 19, 20]. *I would like to express many thanks to Jason Baldridge for helpful suggestions and discussions. All remaining mistakes and errors are mine. 1.2 Local Scrambling and Set-CCG CG and CCG were originally developed for configurational languages in which the order of constituents is mostly fixed and functions of constituents are realised according to their position in sentences. Non- configurational languages including Korean exhibit local scrambling as shown in (1).1 (1) a. Hwanho-ka� wuyu-lul masi-nta. Hwanho-NOM milk-ACC drink-DECL Ilwanho drinks milk.' b. wuyu-lul Hwanho-ka� masi-nta. milk-ACC Hwanho-NOM drink-DECL Ilwanho drinks milk.' Typical solutions for local scrambling in CCG are extensive use of type-raising and crossing composition rules, and assignment of additional lexical categories for predicates which allow scrambling. The defects of these two approaches were presented in [3]. [10] proposed Multiset-CCG which is an extension of CCG. Sets are incorporated into the rules and cate- gories of CCG in order to allow flexibility for handling scrambled word orders directly with single lexical categories. However Multiset-CCG achieves higher power than CCG and other mildly context-sensitive formalisms. [5] proposed Set-CCG, a …

Content truncated to 500 words