| lr,6-1-E99-1029,ak | One of the claimed benefits of <term> Tree Adjoining Grammars </term> is that they have an <term> extended domain of locality ( EDOL ) </term> . | #30347 One of the claimed benefits ofTree Adjoining Grammars is that they have an extended domain of locality (EDOL). | |
| other,14-1-E99-1029,ak | One of the claimed benefits of <term> Tree Adjoining Grammars </term> is that they have an <term> extended domain of locality ( EDOL ) </term> . | #30355 One of the claimed benefits of Tree Adjoining Grammars is that they have anextended domain of locality ( EDOL ). | |
| tech,12-2-E99-1029,ak | We consider how this can be exploited to limit the need for <term> feature structure unification </term> during <term> parsing </term> . | #30375 We consider how this can be exploited to limit the need forfeature structure unification during parsing. | |
| tech,16-2-E99-1029,ak | We consider how this can be exploited to limit the need for <term> feature structure unification </term> during <term> parsing </term> . | #30379 We consider how this can be exploited to limit the need for feature structure unification duringparsing. | |
| lr,3-3-E99-1029,ak | We compare two <term> wide-coverage lexicalized grammars of English </term> , <term> LEXSYS </term> and <term> XTAG </term> , finding that the two <term> grammars </term> exploit <term> EDOL </term> in different ways . | #30384 We compare twowide-coverage lexicalized grammars of English, LEXSYS and XTAG, finding that the two grammars exploit EDOL in different ways. | |
| lr-prod,9-3-E99-1029,ak | We compare two <term> wide-coverage lexicalized grammars of English </term> , <term> LEXSYS </term> and <term> XTAG </term> , finding that the two <term> grammars </term> exploit <term> EDOL </term> in different ways . | #30390 We compare two wide-coverage lexicalized grammars of English,LEXSYS and XTAG, finding that the two grammars exploit EDOL in different ways. | |
| lr-prod,11-3-E99-1029,ak | We compare two <term> wide-coverage lexicalized grammars of English </term> , <term> LEXSYS </term> and <term> XTAG </term> , finding that the two <term> grammars </term> exploit <term> EDOL </term> in different ways . | #30392 We compare two wide-coverage lexicalized grammars of English, LEXSYS andXTAG, finding that the two grammars exploit EDOL in different ways. | |
| lr,17-3-E99-1029,ak | We compare two <term> wide-coverage lexicalized grammars of English </term> , <term> LEXSYS </term> and <term> XTAG </term> , finding that the two <term> grammars </term> exploit <term> EDOL </term> in different ways . | #30398 We compare two wide-coverage lexicalized grammars of English, LEXSYS and XTAG, finding that the twogrammars exploit EDOL in different ways. | |
| other,19-3-E99-1029,ak | We compare two <term> wide-coverage lexicalized grammars of English </term> , <term> LEXSYS </term> and <term> XTAG </term> , finding that the two <term> grammars </term> exploit <term> EDOL </term> in different ways . | #30400 We compare two wide-coverage lexicalized grammars of English, LEXSYS and XTAG, finding that the two grammars exploitEDOL in different ways. |
