Contents 1 Introduction: grammatical reasoning 1 2 Linguistic inference: the Lambek systems 5 2.1 Modelinggrammaticalcomposition ............................ 5 2.2 Gentzen calculus, cut elimination and decidability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.3 Discussion: options for resource management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3 The syntax-semantics interface: proofs and readings 16 3.1 Term assignment for categorial deductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.2 Natural language interpretation: the deductive view . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4 Grammatical composition: multimodal systems 26 4.1 Mixedinference:themodesofcomposition........................ 26 4.2 Grammaticalcomposition:unaryoperations ....................... 30 4.2.1 Unary connectives: logic and structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 4.2.2 Applications: imposing constraints, structural relaxation

Abstract not found

Abstract not found

Categorial unification grammars (CUGs) embody the essential properties of both unification and categorial grammar formalisms. Their efficient and uniform way of encoding linguistic knowledge in well-understood and widely used representations inakes them attractive for computational applications and for linguistic research.

There is currently considerable interest among computational linguists in grammatical formalisms with highly restricted generative power. This paper concerns the relationship between the class of string languages generated by several such formalisms viz. Combinatory Categorial Grammars, Head Grammars, Linear Indexed Grammars and Tree Adjoining Grammars. Each of these formalisms is known to generate a larger class of languages than Context-Free Grammars. The four formalisms under consideration were developed independently and appear superficially to be quite different from one another. The result presented in this paper is that all four of the formalisms under consideration generate exactly the same class of string languages. 1 Introduction There is currently considerable interest among computational linguists in grammatical formalisms with highly restricted generative power. This is based on the argument that a grammar formalism should not merely be viewed as a notation, but as part o...

this paper we present a scheme to extend a recognition algorithm for Context-Free Grammars (CFG) that can be used to derive polynomial-time recognition algorithms for a set of formalisms that generate a superset of languages generated by CFG. We describe the scheme by developing a Cocke-Kasami-Younger (CKY)-like pure bottom-up recognition algorithm for Linear Indexed Grammars and show how it can be adapted to give algorithms for Tree Adjoining Grammars and Combinatory Categorial Grammars. This is the only polynomial-time recognition algorithm for Combinatory Categorial Grammars that we are aware of

We present an algorithm for generating strings from logical form encodings that improves upon previous algorithms in that it places fewer restrictions on the class of grammars to which it is applicable. In particular, unlike an Earley deduction generator (Shieber, 1988), it allows use of semantically nonmonotonic grammars, yet unlike topdown methods, it also permits left-recursion. The enabling design feature of the algorithm is its implicit traversal of the analysis tree for the string being generated in a semantic-head-driven fashion.

No assumption is more fundamental in the theory (and practice) of syntax than

It is a tacit assumption of much linguistic inquiry that all distinct derivations of a string should assign distinct meanings. But despite the tidiness of such derlvational uniqueness, there seems to be no a priori reason to assume that a gramma r must have this property. If a grammar exhibits derivational equivalence, whereby distinct derivations of a string assign the same meanings, naive exhaustive search for all derivations will be redundant, and quite possibly intractable. In this paper we show how notions of derivation-reduction and normal form can be used to avoid unnecessary work while parsing with grammars exhibiting derivational equivalence. With grammar regarded as analogous to logic, derivations are proofs; what we are advocating is proof-reduction, and normal form proof; the invocation of these logical techniques adds a further paragraph to the story of parsing-as-deduction.

Abstract not found