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