%
% GENERATED FROM https://www.coli.uni-saarland.de
%    by   : anonymous
%    IP   : coli2006.lst.uni-saarland.de
%    at   : Mon, 05 Feb 2024 15:42:29 +0100 GMT
%    
% Selection : Author: Gertjan_van-Noord
%




@InCollection{Mohri_Nederhof:2001,
      AUTHOR = {Mohri, Mehryar and Nederhof, Mark-Jan},
      TITLE = {Regular Approximation of Context-Free Grammars through Transformation},
      YEAR = {2001},
      BOOKTITLE = {Robustness in Language and Speech Technology},
      PAGES = {153--163},
      EDITOR = {Junqua, Jean-Claude and van Noord, Gertjan},
      ADDRESS = {Dordrecht},
      PUBLISHER = {Kluwer Academic Publishers},
      URL = {ftp://lt-ftp.dfki.uni-sb.de/pub/papers/local/nederhof01b.ps.gz},
      ABSTRACT = {We present an algorithm for approximating context-free languages with regular languages. The algorithm is based on a simple transformation that applies to any context-free grammar and guarantees that the result can be compiled into a finite automaton. The resulting grammar contains at most one new nonterminal for any nonterminal symbol of the input grammar. The result thus remains readable and if necessary modifiable. We extend the approximation algorithm to the case of weighted context-free grammars. We also report experiments with several grammars showing that the size of the minimal deterministic automata accepting the resulting approximations is of practical use for applications such as speech recognition.},
      ANNOTE = {COLIURL : Mohri:2001:RAC.pdf Mohri:2001:RAC.ps}
}

@TechReport{Neumann_van Noord:1991,
      AUTHOR = {Neumann, Günter and van Noord, Gertjan},
      TITLE = {Self-Monitoring with Reversible Grammars},
      YEAR = {1991},
      MONTH = {October},
      PAGES = {7},
      ADDRESS = {Saarbrücken},
      INSTITUTION = {Universität des Saarlandes},
      ABSTRACT = {We describe a method and its implementation for self-monitoring during natural language generation. In situations of communication where the generation of ambiguous utterances should be avoided our method is able to compute an unambiguous utterance for a given semantic input. The proposed method is based on a very strict integration of parsing and generation. During the monitored generation step, a previously generated (possibly) ambiguous utterance is parsed and the obtained alternative derivation trees are used as a guide for re-generating the utterance. To achieve such an integrated approach the underlying grammar should be reversible.},
      ANNOTE = {COLIURL : Neumann:1991:SMR.pdf}
}

@InProceedings{Neumann_van Noord:1992,
      AUTHOR = {Neumann, Günter and van Noord, Gertjan},
      TITLE = {Self-Monitoring with Reversible Grammars},
      YEAR = {1992},
      BOOKTITLE = {Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING '92), July 23-28},
      VOLUME = {2},
      PAGES = {700-706},
      EDITOR = {ICCL},
      ADDRESS = {Nantes, France},
      URL = {http://www.dfki.de/~neumann/publications/new-ps/monitor.ps.gz ftp://lt-ftp.dfki.uni-sb.de/pub/papers/local/monitor.dvi.Z ftp://lt-ftp.dfki.uni-sb.de/pub/papers/local/monitor.entry},
      ANNOTE = {COLIURL : Neumann:1992:SMR.pdf Neumann:1992:SMR.ps}
}

@InCollection{Neumann_van Noord:1994,
      AUTHOR = {Neumann, Günter and van Noord, Gertjan},
      TITLE = {Reversibility and Self-Monitoring in Natural Language Generation},
      YEAR = {1994},
      BOOKTITLE = {Reversible Grammar in Natural Language Processing},
      PAGES = {59-96},
      EDITOR = {Strzalkowski, Tomek},
      ADDRESS = {Boston},
      PUBLISHER = {Kluwer Academic Publishers},
      URL = {ftp://lt-ftp.dfki.uni-sb.de/pub/papers/local/monitor.dvi.Z ftp://lt-ftp.dfki.uni-sb.de/pub/papers/local/revgram.entry ftp://lt-ftp.dfki.uni-sb.de/pub/papers/local/revgram.ps.Z http://www.dfki.de/cl/papers/cl-abstracts.html#revgram.abstract}
}

@Article{Shieber_et_al:1990,
      AUTHOR = {Shieber, Stuart M. and van Noord, Gertjan and Pereira, Fernando and Moore, Robert},
      TITLE = {A Semantic-Head-Driven Generation Algorithm for Unification-Based Formalisms},
      YEAR = {1990},
      JOURNAL = {Computational Linguistics},
      VOLUME = {16},
      NUMBER = {1},
      PAGES = {30-42}
}

@TechReport{van Noord:1991,
      AUTHOR = {van Noord, Gertjan},
      TITLE = {Head Corner Parsing},
      YEAR = {1991},
      MONTH = {December},
      NUMBER = {15},
      ADDRESS = {Saarbrücken},
      TYPE = {CLAUS-Report},
      INSTITUTION = {Universität des Saarlandes},
      ABSTRACT = {I describe a head-driven parser for a class of grammars that handle discontinuous constituency by a richer notion of string combination than ordinary concatenation. The parser is a generalization of the left-corner parser and can be used for grammars written in powerful formalisms such as non- concatenative versions of UCG and HPSG.}
}

@Article{van Noord_et_al:1999,
      AUTHOR = {van Noord, Gertjan and Bouma, Gosse and Koeling, Rob and Nederhof, Mark-Jan},
      TITLE = {Robust Grammatical Analysis for Spoken Dialogue Systems},
      YEAR = {1999},
      JOURNAL = {Natural Language Engineering},
      VOLUME = {5},
      NUMBER = {1},
      PAGES = {45-93},
      URL = {http://odur.let.rug.nl/~vannoord/papers/nle/},
      ABSTRACT = {We argue that grammatical analysis is a viable alternative to concept spotting for processing spoken input in a practical spoken dialogue system. We discuss the structure of the grammar, and a model for robust parsing which combines linguistic sources of information and statistical sources of information. We discuss test results suggesting that grammatical processing allows fast and accurate processing of spoken input.}
}

@InCollection{van Noord_Neumann:1987,
      AUTHOR = {van Noord, Gertjan and Neumann, Günter},
      TITLE = {Syntactic Generation},
      YEAR = {1987},
      BOOKTITLE = {Survey of the State of the Art in Human Language Technology},
      EDITOR = {Cole, Ronald A. and Mariani, Joseph and Uszkoreit, Hans and Zaenen, Annie and Zue, Victor},
      ADDRESS = {Cambridge},
      PUBLISHER = {Cambridge University Press},
      URL = {http://www.dfki.de/~neumann/publications/new-ps/nlg-survey.ps.gz http://grid.let.rug.nl/~vannoord/papers/survey.ps},
      ABSTRACT = {In a natural language generation module, we often distinguish two components. On the one hand it needs to be decided what should be said. This task is delegated to a planning component. Such a component might produce an expression representing the content of the proposed utterance. On the basis of this representation the syntactic generation component produces the actual output sentence(s). Although the distinction between planning and syntactic generation is not uncontroversial, we will nonetheless assume such an architecture here, in order to explain some of the issues that arise in syntactic generation. A (natural language) grammar is a formal device that defines a relation between (natural language) utterances and their corresponding meanings. In practice this usually means that a grammar defines a relation between strings and logical forms. During natural language understanding, the task is to arrive at a logical form that corresponds to the input string. Syntactic generation can be described as the problem to find the corresponding string for an input logical form. We are thus making a distinction between the grammar which defines this relation, and the procedure that computes the relation on the basis of such a grammar. In the current state of the art unification-based (or more general: constraint-based) formalisms are used to express such grammars e.g., Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG) [Bre82], Head-Driven Phrase-Structure Grammar (HPSG) [PS87] and constraint-based categorial frameworks (cf. [Usz86] and [ZKC87]). Almost all modern linguistic theories assume that a natural language grammar not only describes the correct sentences of a language, but that such a grammar also describes the corresponding semantic structures of the grammatical sentences. Given that a grammar specifies the relation between phonology and semantics it seems obvious that the generator is supposed to use this specification. For example Generalized Phrase Structure Grammars (GPSG) [GKPS85] provide a detailed description of the semantic interpretation of the sentences licensed by the grammar. Thus one might assume that a generator based on GPSG constructs a sentence for a given semantic structure, according to the semantic interpretation rules of GPSG. Alternatively, [Bus90] presents a generator, based on GPSG, which does not take as its input a logical form, but rather some kind of control expression which merely instructs the grammatical component which rules of the grammar to apply. Similarly, in the conception of [GP90], a generator is provided with some kind of deep structure which can be interpreted as a control expression instructing the grammar which rules to apply. These approaches to the generation problem clearly solve some of the problems encountered in generation---simply by pushing the problem into the conceptual component (i.e., the planning component). In this overview we restrict the attention to the more ambitious approach sketched above. The success of the currently developed constraint-based theories is due to the fact that they are purely declarative. Hence, it is an interesting objective---theoretically and practically---to use one and the same grammar for natural language understanding and generation. In fact the potential for reversibility was a primary motivation for the introduction of Martin Kay’s Functional Unification Grammar (FUG). In recent years interest in such a reversible architecture has led to a number of publications.},
      ANNOTE = {COLIURL : Noord:1987:SG.pdf Noord:1987:SG.ps}
}

@InProceedings{NV2005,
      AUTHOR = {van Noord, Gertjan and Kordoni, Valia},
      TITLE = {A Raising Analysis of the Dutch Passive},
      YEAR = {2005},
      BOOKTITLE = { The Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Department of Informatics, University of Lisbon, August 23-24, 2005},
      PAGES = {410-426},
      EDITOR = {Müller, Stefan},
      ADDRESS = {Stanford},
      PUBLISHER = {CSLI Publications},
      ABSTRACT = {This paper focuses on passive constructions in Dutch.
            Specifically, we focus on worden, as well as krijgen
            passives in Dutch, for which we propose a uniform, raising
            analysis in HPSG. We also show that such an analysis can be
            carried over to account for passives cross-linguistically.
            Specifically, we look at corresponding structures in German
            and show that there is no need for a dual raising and
            control analysis for the German ``agentive\'\' (werden) and
            the German ``dative\'\' (kriegen) passives, respectively, as
            has been proposed in Müller (2002) and Müller (2003)},
      NOTE = {ISSN 1535-1793}
}

@InProceedings{FKN2005,
      AUTHOR = {Fouvry, Frederik and Kordoni, Valia and van Noord, Gertjan},
      TITLE = {Object-to-Subject Raising: An Analysis of the Dutch Passive.},
      YEAR = {2005},
      MONTH = {23-24 August},
      BOOKTITLE = { HPSG 2005, 12th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar},
      PUBLISHER = {University of Lisbon, Portugal},
      NOTE = {Presented at  HPSG 2005}
}

@Unpublished{FKNVG2005,
      AUTHOR = {Fouvry, Frederik and Kordoni, Valia and van Noord, Gertjan},
      TITLE = {On Passives},
      YEAR = {2005},
      NOTE = {Talk at the  2nd International Workshop on Constraint-Based Grammar,Universität Bremen, Germany, July 12-13, 2005}
}

@Article{KoNo2010,
      AUTHOR = {Kordoni, Valia and van Noord, Gertjan},
      TITLE = {Passives in Germanic Languages: the case of Dutch and German},
      YEAR = {2010},
      JOURNAL = {Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik (GAGL), December 2009},
      VOLUME = {49},
      PAGES = {77-96},
      NOTE = {HU}
}