"Grammarless" Phrase Structure Grammar

We sketch an axiomatic reformalization of Generalized Phrase StructureGrammar (GPSG) – a definition purely within the language ofmathematical logic of the theory GPSG embodies. While this treatment raisesa number of theoretical issues for GPSG, our focus is not thereformalization itself but rather the method we employ. The model-theoreticapproach it exemplifies can be seen as a natural step in the evolution ofconstraint-based theories from their grammar-based antecedents. One goal ofthis paper is to introduce this approach to a broader audience and todemonstrate its application to an existing theory. As such, it joins agrowing literature of similar studies. Prior studies, however, have had anumber of weaknesses – they generally offer little in the way ofconcrete examples of the advantages the approach has to offer, theytypically ignore significant portions of the theories they address, and, byfully abstracting away from the notion of grammar mechanism, they largelyabandon the possibility of establishing meaningful complexity results. Thesecond goal of the paper is to address these issues. Our thrust is to sketchthe reformalization sufficiently to illustrate the way in which it capturesFeature Specification Defaults (FSDs) and the Exhaustive Constant PartialOrdering (ECPO) property. Our definition of FSDs is considerably simplifiedrelative to the original formalization and is free of the procedural flavorthat has led some to assume that FSDs are inherently dynamic. Our treatmentof ECPO uncovers a gap in its definition in the context of partialcategories that has heretofore gone unnoticed. We offer these as ademonstration of the kind of insight that a model-theoretic reinterpretationcan bring to an existing theory. Further, since these are the types ofproperties that prior studies in this genre have failed to address, FSDs andECPO provide a means for us to explore the limitations of these approachesand to offer ways of overcoming them. Finally, the logical framework weemploy has a well defined generative capacity – definability in thisframework characterizes strong context-freeness in a particular sense. Thus,despite being more abstract than its constraint-based predecessors, themodel-theoretic approach, as exemplified here, can offer stronger complexityresults than are typically available in the constraint-based framework.

[1]  William C. Rounds,et al.  A logic for partially specified data structures , 1987, POPL '87.

[2]  M. Rabin Decidability of second-order theories and automata on infinite trees , 1968 .

[3]  Anuj Dawar,et al.  An Interpretation of Negation in Feature Structure Descriptions , 1990, Comput. Linguistics.

[4]  M. Rabin Decidability of second-order theories and automata on infinite trees. , 1969 .

[5]  Bob Carpenter,et al.  The logic of typed feature structures , 1992 .

[6]  James Rogers On Descriptive Complexity, Language Complexity, and GB , 1995, ArXiv.

[7]  M. Baltin,et al.  The Mental representation of grammatical relations , 1985 .

[8]  Mark Johnson,et al.  Attribute-value logic and the theory of grammar , 1988 .

[9]  Claire Gardent,et al.  Talking About Trees , 1993, EACL.

[10]  Bernard J. Baars The logic of unification. , 1985 .

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

[12]  James Rogers,et al.  OBTAINING TREES FROM THEIR DESCRIPTIONS: AN APPLICATION TO TREE‐ADJOINING GRAMMARS , 1994, Comput. Intell..

[13]  Patrick Blackburn,et al.  Linguistics, Logic and Finite Trees , 1993, Log. J. IGPL.

[14]  Mark Johnson,et al.  Parsing as deduction: The use of knowledge of language , 1989 .

[15]  Geoffrey K. Pullum,et al.  Generalized phrase structure grammar : a theoretical synopsis , 1982 .

[16]  Aravind K. Joshi,et al.  Phrase Structure Trees Bear More Fruit than You Would Have Thought , 1980, Am. J. Comput. Linguistics.

[17]  Robert T. Kasper,et al.  A Logical Semantics for Feature Structures , 1986, ACL.

[18]  Thomas Longacre Cornell Description theory, licensing theory, and principle-based grammars and parsers , 1992 .

[19]  Marcus Kracht Syntactic codes and grammar refinement , 1995 .

[20]  Aravind K. Joshi,et al.  Constraints on Structural Descriptions: Local Transformations , 1977, SIAM J. Comput..

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

[22]  Gert Smolka,et al.  A Feature Logic with Subsorts , 1988, LILOG-Report.

[23]  James Rogers,et al.  What Does a Grammar Formalism Say About a Language , 1996 .

[24]  David E. Johnson,et al.  Arc Pair Grammar , 1980 .

[25]  Geoffrey K. Pullum,et al.  Category Structures , 1988, Comput. Linguistics.

[26]  James Rogers,et al.  Studies in the logic of trees with applications to grammar formalisms , 1994 .

[27]  Marcus Kracht Syntactic codes and grammar refinement , 1995, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[28]  P. Stanley Peters,et al.  Context-sensitive immediate constituent analysis—context-free languages revisited , 1969, STOC.

[29]  Noam Chomsky Knowledge of language: its nature, origin, and use , 1988 .

[30]  Aravind K. Joshi,et al.  Local Constraints in Programming Languages Part I: Syntax , 1980, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[31]  William C. Rounds,et al.  The logic of unification in grammar , 1990 .