Results 1  10
of
78
Categorial Type Logics
 Handbook of Logic and Language
, 1997
"... 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 mana ..."
Abstract

Cited by 238 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
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 syntaxsemantics 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
Categorial Unification Grammars
, 1986
"... 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 wellunderstood and widely used representations inakes them attractive for computational applications and ..."
Abstract

Cited by 80 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
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 wellunderstood and widely used representations inakes them attractive for computational applications and for linguistic research.
The Equivalence Of Four Extensions Of ContextFree Grammars
 Mathematical Systems Theory
, 1994
"... 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 Grammar ..."
Abstract

Cited by 78 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
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 ContextFree 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...
Parsing Some Constrained Grammar Formalisms
 Computational Linguistics
, 1994
"... this paper we present a scheme to extend a recognition algorithm for ContextFree Grammars (CFG) that can be used to derive polynomialtime recognition algorithms for a set of formalisms that generate a superset of languages generated by CFG. We describe the scheme by developing a CockeKasamiYoung ..."
Abstract

Cited by 56 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
this paper we present a scheme to extend a recognition algorithm for ContextFree Grammars (CFG) that can be used to derive polynomialtime recognition algorithms for a set of formalisms that generate a superset of languages generated by CFG. We describe the scheme by developing a CockeKasamiYounger (CKY)like pure bottomup 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 polynomialtime recognition algorithm for Combinatory Categorial Grammars that we are aware of
Towards a minimalist theory of syntactic structure
, 1996
"... No assumption is more fundamental in the theory (and practice) of syntax than ..."
Abstract

Cited by 45 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
No assumption is more fundamental in the theory (and practice) of syntax than
A SemanticHeadDriven Generation Algorithm for UnificationBased Formalisms
 IN 27TH ANNUAL MEETING OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS
, 1989
"... 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 semanticall ..."
Abstract

Cited by 42 (8 self)
 Add to MetaCart
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 leftrecursion. The enabling design feature of the algorithm is its implicit traversal of the analysis tree for the string being generated in a semanticheaddriven fashion.
Parsing And Derivational Equivalence
 In EACL 4
, 1989
"... 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 deriv ..."
Abstract

Cited by 30 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
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 derivationreduction 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 proofreduction, and normal form proof; the invocation of these logical techniques adds a further paragraph to the story of parsingasdeduction.