<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="J92-2005">
  <Title>Incremental Processing and the Hierarchical Lexicon</Title>
  <Section position="5" start_page="233" end_page="233" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
6. Implementation
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> The parser described here has been implemented with the use of a slightly modified version of the categorial calculi interpreter described in Moortgat (1988). This interpreter takes the rules of a calculus as data and applies these recursively to the sequent associated with the input in order to prove that it is a theorem of the calculus. The system is written in Quintus Prolog. No empirical studies of the efficiency of the system have been undertaken so far.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="6" start_page="233" end_page="234" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
7. Concluding Remarks
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> The hierarchical structure of the lexicon can make a contribution to the speed and the efficiency of the resolution of ambiguity during the process of understanding natural language. With the use of other connectives, or other properties of lexical items like frequency, it is not possible to model this. The hierarchical lexicon should thus not only be considered as vital for the reduction of redundancy in the computational lexicon, or as an aid for developing large lexicons, but also as a source for rendering the parsing process faster and more efficient.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1">  Erik-Jan van der Linden Incremental Processing and the Hierarchical Lexicon The lexicalism and representational nonautonomy of categorial grammar enable a principled and formal way to model the proceedings of a 'lexicon-sensitive' parser. Categorial rules not only model how categories are combined to form other categories, but also represent parsing in the case of lexical ambiguities. The order in which the inference rules are used implements the preferences of the parser.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> Proper inclusion precedence seems to apply in generation too, except that semantic instead of syntactic hierarchies should be used. During the generation of a sentence containing a collocation, John commits a murder, the appropriate verb has to be generated on the basis of the noun. Since commit is more specific than, for instance, do or make in that it subcategorizes for criminal acts and the like, commit is selected. Application to generation is possible for Categorial Grammar: the Lambek-calculus can be used bidirectionally, and the theorem proving framework is a natural candidate for a uniform processing architecture (van der Linden and Minnen 1990).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> Although representational nonautonomy is not a principle that applies to other frameworks, there seems to be no objection to extend some of these frameworks. For instance, besides the substitution and the adjunction operation of TAG, other, 'lexicon-sensitive' tree-forming operations could be added. Therefore, the approach taken here might carry over to other frameworks.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>