1 GPSG 2 LFG - German Grammar Group FU Berlin - Freie ...

3 Categorial Grammar
The basic operations for combining linguistic objects are rather simple and well-understood,
so that it is no surprise that there are many systems for the development
and processing of Categorial Grammars (Yampol and Karttunen, 1990; Carpenter,
1994; Bouma and van Noord, 1994; Lloré, 1995; König, 1999; Moot, 2002; White
and Baldridge, 2003; Baldridge et al., 2007; Morrill, 2012). An important role plays
Mark Steedman’s group (see fro instance Clark et al., 2002; Clark and Curran, 2007).
Implemented fragments exist for the following languages:
• German (Uszkoreit, 1986; König, 1999; Vierhuff, Hildebrandt and Eikmeyer,
2003; Vancoppenolle, Tabbert, Bouma and Stede, 2011)
• English (Villavicencio, 2002; Baldridge, 2002; Beavers, 2003, 2004)
• Finnish (Karttunen, 1989)
• French (Baschung, Bes, Corluy and Guillotin, 1987)
• Dutch (Bouma and van Noord, 1994; Baldridge, 2002)
• Tagalog (Baldridge, 2002)
• Turkish (Hoffman, 1995; Baldridge, 2002)
In addition, Baldridge et al. (2007, p. 15) mention an implementation for Classical
Arabic.
Some of the systems for the processing of Categorial Grammars were augmented
by statistics components, so that lexical items can be extracted from corpora and the
processing is robust (Osborne and Briscoe, 1997; Clark, Hockenmaier and Steedman,
2002). Briscoe (2000) and Villavicencio (2002) use statistical information in their UGbased
language acquisition models.
4 HPSG
The formal properties of the description language for HPSG grammars is well-understood
and there are many systems for processing them (Dörre and Seiffert, 1991; Dörre
and Dorna, 1993; Popowich and Vogel, 1991; Uszkoreit et al., 1994; Erbach, 1995;
Schütz, 1996; Schmidt et al., 1996b,a; Uszkoreit et al., 1996; Müller, 1996, 2004a;
Carpenter and Penn, 1996; Penn and Carpenter, 1999; Götz et al., 1997; Copestake,
2002; Callmeier, 2000; Dahllöf, 2003; Meurers et al., 2002; Penn, 2004; Müller, 2007a;
Sato, 2008; Kaufmann, 2009). 2 Currently, the LKB system by Ann Copestake and the
TRALE system, that was developed by Gerald Penn, have the most users. The DELPH-
IN-Konsortium and various TRALE users developed many small and some large fragments
of various languages. The following is a list of implementations in different
systems:
2 Uszkoreit et al. (1996); Bolc et al. (1996) compare systems that were available or were developed at the
beginnings of the 90ies. Melnik (2007) compares LKB and TRALE.
3