The convergence of mildly context-sensitive grammar formalisms

Investigations of classes of grammars that are nontransformational and at the same time highly constrained are of interest both linguistically and mathematically. Context-free grammars (CFG) obviously form such a class. CFGs are not adequate (both weakly and strongly) to characterize some aspects of language structure. Thus how much more power beyond CFG is necessary to describe these phenomena is an important question. Based on certain properties of tree adjoining grammars (TAG) an approximate characterization of class of grammars, mildly context-sensitive grammars (MCSG), has been proposed earlier. In this paper, we have described the relationship between several different grammar formalisms, all of which belong to MCSG. In particular, we have shown that head grammars (HG), combinatory categorial grammars (CCG), and linear indexed grammars (LIG) and TAG are all weakly equivalent. These formalisms are all distinct from each other at least in the following aspects: (a) the formal objects and operations in each formalism, (b) the domain of locality over which dependencies are specified, (c) the degree to which recursion and the domain of dependencies are factored, and (d) the linguistic insights that are captured in the formal objects and operations in each formalism. A deeper understanding of this convergence is obtained by comparing these formalisms at the level of the derivation structures in each formalism. We have described a formalism, the linear context-free rewriting system (LCFR), as a first attempt to capture the closeness of the derivation structures of these formalisms. LCFRs thus make the notion of MCSGs more precise. We have shown that LCFRs are equivalent to muticomponent tree adjoining grammars (MCTAGs), and also briefly discussed some variants of TAGs, lexicalized TAGs, feature structure based TAGs, and TAGs in which local domination and linear precedence are factored TAG(LD/LP). Disciplines Computer Sciences Comments University of Pennsylvania Department of Computer and Information Science Technical Report No. MSCIS-90-01. This technical report is available at ScholarlyCommons: http://repository.upenn.edu/cis_reports/539 The Convergence Of Mildly Context-Sensitive Grammar Formalisms MS-CIS-90-01 LINC LAB 161 Aravind K. Joshi K. Vijay Shanker David Weir Department of Computer and Information Science School of Engineering and Applied Science University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA 19104-6389

[1]  Mark Steedman,et al.  On the order of words , 1982 .

[2]  Aravind K. Joshi,et al.  Some Computational Properties of Tree Adjoining Grammars , 1985, Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics.

[3]  Aravind K. Joshi,et al.  An Introduction to Tree Adjoining Grammar , 1987 .

[4]  Mark Steedman,et al.  A Lazy way to Chart-Parse with Categorial Grammars , 1987, ACL.

[5]  Aravind K. Joshi,et al.  An Earley-Type Parsing Algorithm for Tree Adjoining Grammars , 1988, ACL.

[6]  Gerald Gazdar,et al.  Applicability of Indexed Grammars to Natural Languages , 1988 .

[7]  Anthony S. Kroch,et al.  Analyzing extraposition in a Tree Adjoining Gram-mar , 1987 .

[8]  Stuart M. Shieber,et al.  Evidence against the context-freeness of natural language , 1985 .

[9]  David J. Weir,et al.  Characterizing Structural Descriptions Produced by Various Grammatical Formalisms , 1987, ACL.

[10]  Weiguo Wang,et al.  The Weak Generative Capacity of Parenthesis-Free Categorial Grammars , 1986, COLING.

[11]  Stanley Peters,et al.  Cross-Serial Dependencies in Dutch , 1982 .

[12]  Kent Barrows Wittenburg,et al.  Natural language parsing with combinatory categorial grammar in a graph-unification-based formalism , 1986 .

[13]  Ramarathnam Venkatesan,et al.  Categorial and Non-Categorial Languages , 1986, ACL.

[14]  David J. Weir,et al.  The Relationship Between Tree Adjoining Grammars And Head Grammarst , 1986, ACL.

[15]  David J. Weir,et al.  Combinatory Categorial Grammars: Generative Power and Relationship to Linear Context-Free Rewriting Systems , 1988, ACL.

[16]  Robert C. Berwick,et al.  The Grammatical Basis of Linguistic Performance: Language Use and Acquisition , 1986 .

[17]  Kelly Roach,et al.  Formal Properties of Head Grammars , 1987 .

[18]  Mark Steedman,et al.  Combinatory grammars and parasitic gaps , 1987 .

[19]  Carl Jesse Pollard,et al.  Generalized phrase structure grammars, head grammars, and natural language , 1984 .

[20]  Jeffrey D. Ullman,et al.  Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages and Computation , 1979 .

[21]  Aravind K. Joshi,et al.  Parsing Strategies with ‘Lexicalized’ Grammars: Application to Tree Adjoining Grammars , 1988, COLING.

[22]  Anthony S. Kroch,et al.  The Linguistic Relevance of Tree Adjoining Grammar , 1985 .

[23]  Aravind K. Joshi,et al.  Some Computational Properties of Tree Adjoining Grammars , 1985, ACL.

[24]  William C. Rounds,et al.  LFP A Logic for Linguistic Descriptions and an Analysis of its Complexity , 1988, Comput. Linguistics.

[25]  Aravind K. Joshi,et al.  Tree Adjunct Grammars , 1975, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[26]  David J. Weir,et al.  Tree Adjoining and Head Wrapping , 1986, COLING.

[27]  Anthony S. Kroch,et al.  Unbounded Dependencies and Subjacency in a Tree Adjoining Grammar , 1987 .

[28]  Aravind K. Joshi,et al.  Word-Order Variation in Natural Language Generation , 1987, AAAI.

[29]  Geoffrey K. Pullum,et al.  Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar , 1985 .

[30]  Mark Steedman,et al.  Dependency and Coordination in the Grammar of Dutch and English , 1985 .

[31]  Mark Steedman,et al.  Combinators and Grammars , 1988 .

[32]  藤井 護,et al.  Generalized Context - Free Grammars, Multiple Context - Free Grammars and Head Grammars , 1987 .