Skip to main content
Log in

Group Theory and Computational Linguistics

  • Published:
Journal of Logic, Language and Information Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There is currently much interest in bringing together the tradition of categorial grammar, and especially the Lambek calculus, with the recent paradigm of linear logic to which it has strong ties. One active research area is designing non-commutative versions of linear logic (Abrusci, 1995; Retoré, 1993) which can be sensitive to word order while retaining the hypothetical reasoning capabilities of standard (commutative) linear logic (Dalrymple et al., 1995). Some connections between the Lambek calculus and computations in groups have long been known (van Benthem, 1986) but no serious attempt has been made to base a theory of linguistic processing solely on group structure. This paper presents such a model, and demonstrates the connection between linguistic processing and the classical algebraic notions of non-commutative free group, conjugacy, and group presentations. A grammar in this model, or G-grammar is a collection of lexical expressions which are products of logical forms, phonological forms, and inverses of those. Phrasal descriptions are obtained by forming products of lexical expressions and by cancelling contiguous elements which are inverses of each other. A G-grammar provides a symmetrical specification of the relation between a logical form and a phonological string that is neutral between parsing and generation modes. We show how the G-grammar can be “oriented” for each of the modes by reformulating the lexical expressions as rewriting rules adapted to parsing or generation, which then have strong decidability properties (inherent reversibility). We give examples showing the value of conjugacy for handling long-distance movement and quantifier scoping both in parsing and generation. The paper argues that by moving from the free monoid over a vocabulary V (standard in formal language theory) to the free group over V, deep affinities between linguistic phenomena and classical algebra come to the surface, and that the consequences of tapping the mathematical connections thus established can be considerable.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrusci, V., 1991, “Phase semantics and sequent calculus for pure non-commutative classical linear logic,” Journal of Symbolic Logic 56(4), 1403–1451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chenadec, P.L., 1995, “A survey of symmetrized and complete group presentations,” pp. 135–153 in Term Rewriting, H. Comon and J. Jouannaud, eds., LNCS, Vol. 909, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colmerauer, A., 1970, “Les systèmes-Q ou un formalisme pour analyser et synthétiser des phrases sur ordinateur,” Publication interne 43, Département d'Informatique, Université de Montréal, Montréal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalrymple, M., Lamping, J., Pereira, F., and Saraswat, V., 1995, “Linear logic for meaning assembly,” in Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Logic for Natural Language Processing, Edinburgh.

  • Dymetman, M., 1992, “Transformations de grammaires logiques et réversibilité en traduction automatique,” Thèse d'État, Université Joseph Fourier (Grenoble 1), Grenoble, France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dymetman, M., 1994, “Inherently reversible grammars,” pp. 33–57 in Reversible Grammar in Natural Language Processing, T. Strzalkowski, ed., Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dymetman, M.: 1998, “Group theory and linguistic processing,” pp. 348–352 in Proceedings of the Coling-ACL Conference, Montreal: ACL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Girard, J., 1987, “Linear logic,” Theoretical Computer Science 50(1), 1–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D., 1997, Presentations of Groups, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambek, J., 1958, “The mathematics of sentence structure,” American Mathematical Monthly 65, 154–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyndon, R. and Schupp, P., 1977, Combinatorial Group Theory, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pentus, M., 1993, “Lambek grammars are context free,” pp. 371–373 in Proceedings of Eigth Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, LICS '93, R.L. Constable, ed., Montreal: IEEE Computer Society Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pereira, F.C.N. and Warren, D.H.D., 1980, “Definite clause grammars for language analysis,” Artificial Intelligence 13, 231–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rétoré, C., 1993, “Réseaux et séquents ordonnés,” Ph.D. Thesis, Université de Paris 7.

  • Rotman, J.J., 1994, An Introduction to the Theory of Groups, fourth edition, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Benthem, J., 1986, Essays in Logical Semantics, Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Kampen, E., 1933, “On some lemmas in the theory of groups,” American Journal of Mathematics 55, 268–273.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dymetman, M. Group Theory and Computational Linguistics. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 7, 461–497 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008395026374

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008395026374

Navigation