New Generation Computing

, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp 273–306 | Cite as

Computationally relevant properties of natural languages and their grammars

  • Gerald Gazdar
  • Geoffrey K. Pullum
Regular Papers

Abstract

This paper surveys what is currently known about natural language morphology and syntax from the perspective of formal language theory. Firstly, the position of natural language word-sets and sentence-sets on the formal language hierarchy is discussed. Secondly, the contemporary use by linguists of a range of formal grammars (from finite state transducers to indexed grammars) in both word-syntax (i.e. morphology) and sentencesyntax is sketched. Finally, recent developments such as feature-theory, the use of extension and unification, default mechanisms, and metagrammatical techniques, are outlined.

Keyword

Syntax Parsing Grammar Natural Language Morphology Formal Language Theory Features 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1).
    Ades, Anthony E. and Steedman, Mark J., “On the order of words,”Linguistics and Philosophy, 4, pp. 517–558, 1982.Google Scholar
  2. 2).
    Aho, Alfred V., “Indexed grammars — an extension of context-free grammars,”Journal of the ACM, 15, pp. 647–671, 1968.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3).
    Aho, Alfred V. and Ullman, Jeffrey D.,The Theory of Parsing, Translation, and Compiling, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1972.Google Scholar
  4. 4).
    Alam, Yukiko Sasaki, “A two-level morphological analysis of Japanese,” inTexas Linguistic Forum, 22 (Mary Dalrymple et al., eds.), University of Texas, Austin, Texas, pp. 229–252, 1983.Google Scholar
  5. 5).
    Bach, Emmon, “Discontinuous constituents in generalized categorial grammars,” inProceedings of the 11th Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, (V. A. Burke and J. Pustejovsky, eds.), Department of Linguistics, Unversity of Massachusetts at Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts, pp. 1–12, 1981.Google Scholar
  6. 6).
    Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua and Shamir, E., “Finite state languages: formal representations and adequacy problems,” 1960. As reprinted inLanguage and Information (Yehoshua Bar-Hillel, ed.), Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, pp. 87–98, 1964.Google Scholar
  7. 7).
    Barr, Avron and Feigenbaum, Edward (eds.),The Handbook of Artificial Intelligence, Volume 1, William Kaufman, Los Altos, California, 1981.Google Scholar
  8. 8).
    Bear, John and Karttunen, Lauri, “PSG: a simple phrase structure parser,”Texas Linguistic Forum, 15, pp. 1–46, 1979.Google Scholar
  9. 9).
    Berwick, Robert C., “Computational complexity and lexical-functional grammar,”American Journal of Computational Linguistics, 8, 3–4, pp. 97–109, 1982.Google Scholar
  10. 10).
    Bermudez, Manuel, “Regular Lookahead and Lookback in LR Parsers,”PhD thesis, University of California, Santa Cruz, California, 1984.Google Scholar
  11. 11).
    Borgida, Alexander T., “Some formal results about stratificational grammars and their relevance to linguistics,”Mathematical Systems Theory, 16, pp. 29–56, 1983.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12).
    Borsley, Robert, “On the nonexistence of VP’s,” inSentential Complementation, (Willem de Geest and Yvan Putseys, eds.), Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 55–65, 1984.Google Scholar
  13. 13).
    Bresnan, Joan W. (ed.),The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1982.Google Scholar
  14. 14).
    Bronnenberg, W. J. H. J., Bunt, H. C., Landsbergen, S. P. J., Scha, R. J. H., Schoenmakers, W. J. and van Utteren, E. P. C., “The question-answering system PHLIQA 1,” inNatural Language Question-Answering Systems (L. Bolc, ed.), Carl Hanser Verlag, Munich, West Germany, pp. 217–305, 1980.Google Scholar
  15. 15).
    Cann, Ronald, “An approach to the Latin accusative and infinitive,” inOrder, Concord and Constituency (Gerald Gazdar, Ewan H. Klein and Geoffrey K. Pullum, eds.). Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 113–137, 1983.Google Scholar
  16. 16).
    Carden, Guy, “The non-finite-state-ness of the word formation component,”Linguistic Inquiry, 14, pp. 537–541, 1983.Google Scholar
  17. 17).
    Carlson, Greg, “Marking constituents,” inAuxiliaries and Related Puzzles, Vol. 1. (Frank Heny, ed.), D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland, pp. 69–98, 1983.Google Scholar
  18. 18).
    Chomsky, Noam, “Morphophonemics of Modern Hebrew,”MA thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1951.Google Scholar
  19. 19).
    Chomsky, Noam,Syntactic Structures, Mouton, The Hague, Holland, 1957.Google Scholar
  20. 20).
    Chomsky, Noam, “Formal properties of grammars,” inHandbook of Mathematical Psychology, Volume II (R. D. Luce, R. R. Bush and E. Galanter, eds.), Wiley, New York, pp. 323–418, 1963.Google Scholar
  21. 21).
    Chomsky, Noam,Rules and Representations, Blackwell, Oxford, England, 1980.Google Scholar
  22. 22).
    Church, Kenneth, “On Memory Limitations in Natural Language Processing,”M. Sc. thesis. MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1980.Google Scholar
  23. 23).
    Cleaveland, J. and Uzgalis, R.,Grammars for programming languages: what every programmer should know about grammar, Elsevier, New York, New York, 1975.Google Scholar
  24. 24).
    Culy, Christopher, “The complexity of the vocabulary of Bambara,” to appear inLinguistics and Philosophy, 8, 1985.Google Scholar
  25. 25).
    Daly, R. T.,Applications of the Mathematical Theory of Linguistics, Mouton, The Hague, Holland, 1974.Google Scholar
  26. 26).
    Dubinsky, Stanley and Sanamrad, Mohammad Ali, “A universal natural language processor suitable for the hardware realization of phrase structure grammars,” unpublished paper, Kobe University, 1984.Google Scholar
  27. 27).
    Ejerhed, Eva and Church, Kenneth, “Recursion-free context-free grammar,” paper presented at theWorkshop on Scandinavian Syntax and Theory of Grammar, University of Trondheim, June 3–5, 1982.Google Scholar
  28. 28).
    Elster, J.,Logic and Society: Contradictions and Possible Worlds, Wiley, New York, New York, 1978.Google Scholar
  29. 29).
    Engdahl, Elisabet, “The syntax and semantics of questions in Swedish,”PhD dissertation. University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts, 1980.Google Scholar
  30. 30).
    Evans, Roger, “ProGram — A development tool for GPSG grammars,” to appear inLinguistics, 23, 1985.Google Scholar
  31. 31).
    Evans, Roger and Gazdar, Gerald, “The ProGram Manual,”Cognitive Science Research Paper, 35 (CSRP 035), University of Sussex, Brighton, England, 1984.Google Scholar
  32. 32).
    Flickinger, Daniel, “Lexical heads and phrasal gaps,” inProceedings of the Second West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (Michael Barlow, Daniel Flickinger and Michael Wescoat, eds.), Stanford Linguistics Department, Stanford, pp. 89–101. 1983.Google Scholar
  33. 33).
    Flickinger, Daniel, Pollard, Carl and Wasow, Thomas, “Structure-sharing in lexical representation,”Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Association for Computational Linguistics, Morristown, NJ, pp. 262–267, 1985.Google Scholar
  34. 34).
    Friedman, Joyce, “Computational and theoretical studies in Montague Grammar at the University of Michigan”,SISTM Quarterly, 1, pp. 62–66, 1978.Google Scholar
  35. 35).
    Friedman, Joyce, “Expressing logical formulas in natural language”, inFormal Methods in the Study of Language (Jeroen A. G. Groenendijk, Theo Janssen and Martin Stokhof, eds.), Mathematical Centre Tracts, Amsterdam, pp. 113–130, 1981.Google Scholar
  36. 36).
    Friedman, Joyce, Moran, D. and Warren, D., “An interpretation system for Montague Grammar,”American Journal of Computational Linguistics, microfiche, 74, pp. 23–96, 1978.Google Scholar
  37. 37).
    Friedman, Joyce and Warren, David, “A parsing method for Montague Grammars,”Linguistics and Philosophy, 2, pp. 347–372, 1978.MATHGoogle Scholar
  38. 38).
    Fuchi, Kazuhiro, “Natural language and its formal representation: a case study of translation in Montague style from a programmer’s point of view,” paper presented to theFirst Colloquium on Montague Grammar and Related Topics, Kyoto February, 1981.Google Scholar
  39. 39).
    Gajek, Oliver, Beck, Hanno T., Elder, Diane and Whittemore, Greg, “KIMMO Lisp implementation”, inTexas Linguistic Forum, 22 (Mary Dalrymple et al., eds.), University of Texas, Austin, Texas, pp. 187–202, 1983.Google Scholar
  40. 40).
    Gawron, Jean Mark, King, Jonathan, Lamping, John, Loebner, Egon, Paulson, Anne, Pullum, Geoffrey K., Sag, Ivan A. and Wasow, Thomas, “The GPSG linguistics system,” inProceedings of the 20th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Association for Computational Linguistics, Menlo Park, California, pp. 74–81, 1982. Also distributed asHewlett Packard Computer Science Technical Note, CSL-82-5.Google Scholar
  41. 41).
    Gazdar, Gerald, Klein, Ewan, Pullum, Geoffrey K. and Sag, Ivan A.,Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar, Blackwell, Oxford, and Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Ma., 1985.Google Scholar
  42. 42).
    Gunji, Takao, “A phrase structural analysis of the Japanese language,”MA dissertation, Ohio State University, 1981.Google Scholar
  43. 43).
    Gunji, Takao, “Apparent object control of reflexives in a restrictive theory of grammar”,Papers in Japanese Linguistics, 8, pp. 63–78, 1982.Google Scholar
  44. 44).
    Gunji, Takao, “Control of gaps and reflexives in Japanese,” inProceedings of the Second Japanese-Korean Joint Workshop on Formal Grammar, Logico-Linguistic Society of Japan, pp. 151–186, 1983. [in Japanese]Google Scholar
  45. 45).
    Gunji, Takao, “Generalized phrase structure grammar and Japanese reflexivization”,Linguistics and Philosophy, 6, pp. 115–156, 1983.Google Scholar
  46. 46).
    Gunji, Takao,Introduction to Linguistics for Computer Scientists, Information Technology Promotion Agency, Tokyo, 1983. [in Japanese]Google Scholar
  47. 47).
    Gunji, Takao, et al., “Some aspects of generalized phrase structure grammar”,ICOT Technical Memo, TM-0103, Institute for New Generation Computer Technology, Tokyo, 1985.Google Scholar
  48. 48).
    Hagège, Claude, “Relative clause center-embedding and comprehensibility”,Linguistic Inquiry, 7, pp. 198–201, 1976.Google Scholar
  49. 49).
    Harman, Gilbert, “Generative grammars without transformation rules: a defense of phrase structure”,Language, 39, pp. 597–616, 1963.Google Scholar
  50. 50).
    Higginbotham, James, “English is not a context-free language”,Linguistic Inquiry, 15, pp. 225–234, 1984.Google Scholar
  51. 51).
    Hintikka, Jaakko, “On the limitations of generative grammar”, inProceedings of the Scandinavian Seminar on Philosophy of Language, Vol. 1 (Filosofiska Studier, Vol. 26). Philosophical Society and Department of Philosophy, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden, pp. 1–92, 1975.Google Scholar
  52. 52).
    Hirakawa, Hideki, “Chart parsing in Concurrent Prolog,”ICOT Technical Report, TR-008, Institute for New Generation Computer Technology, Tokyo, 1983.Google Scholar
  53. 53).
    Hobbs, Jerry and Rosenschein, Stanley, “Making computational sense of Montague’s intensional logic”,Artificial Intelligence, 9, pp. 287–306, 1978.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  54. 54).
    Hockett, Charles F., “Two models of grammatical description”,Word, 10, pp. 210–233, 1954.Google Scholar
  55. 55).
    Hopcroft, John and Ullman, Jeffrey,Introduction to automata theory, languages, and computation, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1979.MATHGoogle Scholar
  56. 56).
    Horrocks, Geoffrey, “the order of constituents in Modern Greek”, inOrder, Concord and Constituency (Gerald Gazdar, Ewan H. Klein and Geoffrey K. Pullum, eds.), Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 95–112, 1983.Google Scholar
  57. 57).
    Horrocks, Geoffrey, “The lexical head constraint, X’-theory and the ‘pro-drop’ parameter”, inSentential Complementation (Willem de Geest and Yvan Putseys eds.), Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 117–125, 1984.Google Scholar
  58. 58).
    Huybregts, M. A. C., “Overlapping dependencies in Dutch”,Utrecht Working Papers in Linguistics, 1, pp. 24–65, 1976.Google Scholar
  59. 59).
    Ikeya, Akira, “Japanese honorific systems in generalized phrase structure grammar”, inProceedings of the ICOT Workshop on Non-Transformational Grammars, Institute for New Generation Computer Technology, Tokyo, pp. 17–20, 1983.Google Scholar
  60. 60).
    Indurkhya, B., “Sentence analysis programs based on Montague grammar”M. E. E. thesis, Netherlands Universities Foundation for International Cooperation, 1981.Google Scholar
  61. 61).
    Ishimoto, I., “A Lesniewskian version of Montague grammar”, inCOLING 82 (Jan Horecky, ed.), North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 139–144, 1982.Google Scholar
  62. 62).
    Janssen, Theo, “A computer program for Montague Grammar: theoretical aspects and proofs for the reduction rules”,Amsterdam Papers in Formal Grammar, 1, pp. 154–176, 1976.Google Scholar
  63. 63).
    Janssen, Theo, “Simulation of a Montague Grammar”,Annals of System Research, 6, pp. 127–140, 1977.Google Scholar
  64. 64).
    Janssen, Theo, “On problems concerning the quantification rules in Montague grammar”, inTime, tense, and quantifiers (C. Rohrer, ed.), Max Niemeyer, Tubingen, pp. 113–134, 1980.Google Scholar
  65. 65).
    Janssen, Theo,Foundations and Applications of Montague Grammar. Mathematisch Centrum, Amsterdam, 1983.Google Scholar
  66. 66).
    Johnson, C. Douglas, “On the formal properties of phonological rules”,POLA Report, 11, University of California, Berkeley, 1970.Google Scholar
  67. 67).
    Johnson, S. C., “YACC—yet another compiler compiler”,CSTR, 32, Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, N. J., 1975.Google Scholar
  68. 68).
    Joshi, Aravind, “Factoring recursion and dependencies: an aspect of tree-adjoining grammars (TAG) and a comparison of some formal properties of TAGs, GPSGs, PLGs, and LFGs”, inProceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 7–15, 1983.Google Scholar
  69. 69).
    Joshi, Aravind, “Tree Adjoining Grammars: How much context-sensitivity is required to provide reasonable structural descriptions?” inNatural Language Processing: Psycholinguistic, Computational, and Theoretic Perspectives (David R. Dowty, Lauri Karttunen and Arnold M. Zwicky, eds.), Cambridge University Press, New York, New York, 1985.Google Scholar
  70. 70).
    Joshi, Aravind and Levy, Leon, “Phrase structure trees bear more fruit than you would have thought,”American Journal of Computational Linguistics, 8, pp. 1–11, 1982.Google Scholar
  71. 71).
    Kameshima, Nanako, “CNPC Violations in Japanese; A GPSG Account,” unpublished paper, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1984.Google Scholar
  72. 72).
    Kaplan, Ronald M. and Bresnan, Joan, “Lexical-functional grammar: a formal system for grammatical representation,” in (Bresnan, ed.), pp. 173–281, 1982.Google Scholar
  73. 73).
    Kaplan, Ronald M. and Kay, Martin, “Phonological rules and finite state transducers,”ACL/LSA paper, New York, 1981.Google Scholar
  74. 74).
    Karttunen, Lauri, “KIMMO: A general morphological processor,” inTexas Linguistic Forum, 22 (Mary Dalrymple et al., eds.). University of Texas, Austin, Texas, pp. 165–186, 1983.Google Scholar
  75. 75).
    Karttunen, Lauri, “Features and values,” inProceedings of Coling 84, Association for Computational Linguistics, Menlo Park, pp. 28–33, 1984.Google Scholar
  76. 76).
    Karttunen, Lauri and Wittenburg, Kent, “A two-level morphological analysis of English,” inTexas Linguistic Forum, 22 (Mary Dalrymple et al., eds.), University of Texas, Austin, Texas, pp. 217–228, 1983.Google Scholar
  77. 77).
    Kay, Martin, “Functional grammar,” inProceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society (Christina Chiarello et al., eds.), pp. 142–158, 1979.Google Scholar
  78. 78).
    Kay, Martin, “When meta-rules are not meta-rules,” in,Automatic Natural Language Parsing (Karen Sparck-Jones and Yorick Wilks, eds.), Ellis Horwood, Chichester, pp. 94–116, 1983. Also inDevelopments in Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar: Stanford Working Papers in Grammatical Theory, Volume 2 (Michael Barlow, Daniel Flickinger, and Ivan A. Sag, eds.). Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, pp. 69–91, 1983.Google Scholar
  79. 79).
    Kay, Martin, “Functional unification grammar: a formalism for machine translation,” inProceedings of Coling 84, Association for Computation Linguistics, Menlo Park, pp. 75–78, 1984.Google Scholar
  80. 80).
    Kay, Martin, “Two-level morphology with tiers,” presented to theCSLI Workshop on Morphology, July, 1985.Google Scholar
  81. 81).
    Keller, William R., “Generating logic from ProGram parse trees,”Cognitive Science Research Paper, 39 (CSRP 039), University of Sussex, Brighton, England, 1984.Google Scholar
  82. 82).
    Keller, William R., “A lexicon handler for the ProGram grammar development system,”Cognitive Science Research Paper, 40 (CSRP 040), University of Sussex, Bringhton, England, 1984.Google Scholar
  83. 83).
    Khan, Robert, “A two-level morphological analysis of Rumanian,” inTexas Linguistic Forum, 22 (Mary Dalrymple et al., eds.), University of Texas, Austin, Texas, pp. 253–270, 1983.Google Scholar
  84. 84).
    Khan, Robert, Liu, Jocelyn S., Ito, Tatsuo and Shuldberg, Kelly, ⨑KIMMO user’s manual,” inTexas Linguistic Forum, 22 (Mary Dalrymple et al., eds.), University of Texas, Austin, Texas, pp. 203–215, 1983.Google Scholar
  85. 85).
    Kilbury, James, “GPSG-based parsing and generation,“ to appear inProbleme des (Text-) Verstehens — Ansatze der Kunstlichen Intelligenz (Claus-Rainer Rollinger, ed.), Max Niemeyer, Tubingen, 1984.Google Scholar
  86. 86).
    Klein, Ewan H., “The syntax and semantics of nominal comparatives,” inAtti de Seminario su Tempo e Verbale Strutture Quantificate in Forma Logica (M. Moneglia, ed.), Presso l’Accademia della Crusca, Florence, pp. 223–253, 1981.Google Scholar
  87. 87).
    Konolige, Kurt, “Capturing linguistic generalizations with metarules in an annotated phrase-structure grammar,” inProceedings of the 18th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Association for Computational Linguistics, Menlo Park, California, pp. 43–48, 1980.Google Scholar
  88. 88).
    Koskenniemi, Kimmo, “Two-level Morphology: A General Computational Model for Word-Form Recognition and Production,”Publications, No. 11, Department of General Linguistics, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, 1983.Google Scholar
  89. 89).
    Koskenniemi, Kimmo, “Two-level model for morphological analysis,”Proceedings of IJCAI-83, pp. 683–685, 1983.Google Scholar
  90. 90).
    Landsbergen, Jan, “Adaptation of Montague grammar to the requirements of parsing,” inFormal Methods in the Study of Language (Jeroen A. G. Groenendijk, Theo Janssen and Martin Stokhof, eds.), Mathematical Centre Tracts, Amsterdam, pp. 399–419, 1981.Google Scholar
  91. 91).
    Landsbergen, Jan, “Machine translation based on logically isomorphic Montague grammars,” inCOLING 82 (Jan Horecky, ed.), North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 175–182, 1982.Google Scholar
  92. 92).
    Langendoen, D. Terence, “Finite-state parsing of phrase-structure languages and the status of readjustment rules in grammar,”Linguistic Inquiry, 5, pp. 533–554, 1975.Google Scholar
  93. 93).
    Langendoen, D. Terence, “On the inadequacy of type-2 and type-3 grammars for human languages,” inStudies in descriptive and historical linguistics (P. J. Hopper, ed.), John Benjamin, Amsterdam, pp. 159–171, 1977.Google Scholar
  94. 94).
    Langendoen, D. Terence, “The generative capacity of word-formation components,”Linguistic Inquiry, 12, pp. 320–322, 1981.Google Scholar
  95. 95).
    Langendoen, D. Terence and Langsam, Yedidyah, “The representation of constituent structures for finite-state parsing,” inProceedings of Coling 84, Association for Computational Linguistics, Menlo Park, pp. 24–27, 1984.Google Scholar
  96. 96).
    Langendoen, D. Terence and Postal, Paul M.,The Vastness of Natural Languages, Blackwell, Oxford, 1984.Google Scholar
  97. 97).
    Langendoen, D. Terence and Postal, Paul M., “English and the class of context-free languages,”Computational Linguistics, 10, pp. 177–181, 1985.Google Scholar
  98. 98).
    Levelt, W. J. M.,Formal Grammars in Linguistics and Psycholinguistics (Vol. II): Applications in Linguistic Theory, Mouton, The Hauge, Holland, 1974.Google Scholar
  99. 99).
    Lun, S. “A two-level morphological analysis of French,” inTexas Linguistic Forum, 22 (Mary Dalrymple et al., eds.), University of Texas, Austin, Texas, pp. 271–278, 1983.Google Scholar
  100. 100).
    Maling, Joan and Zaenen, Annie, “A phrase structure account of Scandinavian extraction phenomena,” inThe Nature of Syntactic Representation (Pauline Jacobson and Geoffrey K. Pullum, eds.), D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 229–282, 1982.Google Scholar
  101. 101).
    Marsh, William E. and Partee, Barbara H., “How non-context-free is variable binding?,” inProceedings of the Third West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (Mark Cobler et al., eds.), Stanford Linguistics Association, Stanford, California, pp. 179–190, 1984.Google Scholar
  102. 102).
    Matsumoto, Yuji, “Software implementation of Montague grammar and related problems,” inFormal Approaches to Natural Language: Proceedings of the First Colloquium on Montague Grammar and Related Topics (Shogo Iguchi, ed.), Kyoto Working Group of Montague Grammar, Kyoto, pp. 148–158, 1981.Google Scholar
  103. 103).
    Matsumoto, Yuji, “A Montague grammar of Japanese with special regard to meaning adjustment,” paper presented to theSecond Colloquium on Montague Grammar and Related Topics, Kyoto, March, 1982.Google Scholar
  104. 104).
    McCarthy, John J., “Formal Problems in Semitic Phonology and Morphology,”PhD thesis, MIT, 1979. Reproduced by the Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, Indiana, 1982.Google Scholar
  105. 105).
    Montague, Richard,Formal Philosophy, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, 1974.Google Scholar
  106. 106).
    Moran, Douglas B., “Dynamic partial models,”PhD dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Michigan, 1980.Google Scholar
  107. 107).
    Nerbonne, John, “German temporal semantics: three-dimensional tense logic and a GPSG fragment,”Working Papers in Linguistics, 30, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 1984.Google Scholar
  108. 108).
    Nishida, Toyo-aki and Doshita, Shuji, “An English-Japanese machine translation system based on formal semantics of natural language—a progress report,” inCOLING 82 (Jan Horecky, ed.), North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 277–282, 1982.Google Scholar
  109. 109).
    Nishida, Toyo-aki and Doshita, Shuji, “An application of Montague Grammar to English-Japanese machine translation.” inProceedings of the Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing (Santa Monica, California), Association for Computational Linguistics, Menlo Park, California, February, 1983.Google Scholar
  110. 110).
    Nishida, Toyo-aki, Kiyono, Masaki and Doshita, Shuji, “An English-Japanese machine translation system based on formal semantics of natural language,” inFormal Approaches to Natural Language: Proceedings of the First Colloquium on Montague Grammar and Related Topics, Kyoto Working Group of Montague Grammar, Kyoto, pp. 104–147, 1981.Google Scholar
  111. 111).
    Pereira, Fernando C.N., “A new characterization of attachment preferences,” inNatural Language Processing: Psycholinguistic, Computational and Theoretical Perspectives (David R. Dowty, Lauri Karttunen and Arnold M. Zwicky, eds.), Cambridge University Press, New York, New York, 1985.Google Scholar
  112. 112).
    Pereira, Fernando C. N. and Shieber, Stuart M., “The semantics of grammar formalisms seen as computer languages,” inProceedings of Coling 84, Association for Computational Linguistics, Menlo Part, pp. 123–129, 1984.Google Scholar
  113. 113).
    Perrault, C. Raymond, “On the mathematical properties of linguistic theories,”Computational Linguistics (formerlyAmerican Journal of Computational Linguistics),10, pp. 165–176, 1985.Google Scholar
  114. 114).
    Phillips, John D. and Thompson, Henry S., “GPSGP—A parser for generalized phrase structure grammars,” to appear inLinguistics, 23, 1985.Google Scholar
  115. 115).
    Pllard, Carl J., “Generalized Phrase Structure Grammars, Head Grammars, and Natural Languages,”PhD thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 1984.Google Scholar
  116. 116).
    Pollard, Carl and Creary, Lewis, “A computational semantics for natural language,”Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Association for Computational Linguistics, Morristown, NJ, 1985.Google Scholar
  117. 117).
    Postal, Paul, “Limitations of phrase structure grammars,” inThe structure of language: readings in the philosophy of language (J. A. Fodor and J. J. Katz, eds.), Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, pp. 137–151, 1964.Google Scholar
  118. 118).
    Proudian, derek and Pollard, Carl, “Parsing head-driven phrase structure grammar,”Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Association for Computational Linguistics, Morristown, NJ, 1985.Google Scholar
  119. 119).
    Pullum, Geoffrey K., “On two recent attempts to show that English is not a CFL,”Computational Linguistics (formerlyAmerican Journal of Computational Linguistics),10, pp. 182–186, 1985.Google Scholar
  120. 120).
    Pullum, Geoffrey K. and Gazdar, Gerald, “Natural languages and context free languages,”Linguistics and Philosophy, 4, pp. 471–504, 1982.Google Scholar
  121. 121).
    Pulman, Stephen, “Generalised phrase structure grammar, Earley’s algorithm, and the minimisation of recursion,” inAutomatic Natural Language Parsing (Karen Sparck-Jones and Yorick Wilks, eds.), Ellis Horwood, Chichester, pp. 117–131, 1983.Google Scholar
  122. 122).
    Pulman, Stephen, “Limited domain systems for language teaching,” inProceedings of Colling 84, Association for Computational Linguistics, Menlo Park, pp. 84–87, 1984.Google Scholar
  123. 123).
    Rich, Elaine,Artificial Intelligence, McGraw-Hill, New York, New York, 1983.Google Scholar
  124. 124).
    Roach, Kelly, “Formal properties of head grammars,” unpublished paper, Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, Palo Alto, California, 1984.Google Scholar
  125. 125).
    Robinson, Jane, “Computational aspects of the use of metarules in formal grammars,”Research Proposal No. ECU 80-126, S. R. I. International, Menlo Park, California, 1980.Google Scholar
  126. 126).
    Robinson, Jane, “DIAGRAM: a grammar for dialogs,”Communications of the ACM, 25, pp. 27–47, 1982.Google Scholar
  127. 127).
    Root, Rebecca, “SMX: a program for translating English into Montague’s intensional logic,” unpublished manuscript, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, 1981.Google Scholar
  128. 128).
    Rosenbloom, Paul,The Elements of Mathematical Logic, Dover, New York, New York, 1950.MATHGoogle Scholar
  129. 129).
    Rosenschein, S. J. and Shieber, Stuart M., “Translating English into logical form,” inProceedings of the 20th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Association for Computational Linguistics, Menlo Park, California, pp. 1–8, 1982.Google Scholar
  130. 130).
    Ross, Kenneth, “Parsing English phrase structure,”PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts, 1981.Google Scholar
  131. 131).
    Ross, Kenneth, “An improved left-corner parsing algorithm,” inCOLING 82 (Jan Horecky, ed.), North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 333–338, 1982.Google Scholar
  132. 132).
    Rounds, William C., “Complexity of recognition in intermediate-level languages,”Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Switching and Automata Theory, pp. 145–158, 1973.Google Scholar
  133. 133).
    Sadock, Jerrold M., “Autolexical syntax: A theory of noun incorporation and similar phenomena,” inNatural Language and Linguistic Theory, in press, 1985.Google Scholar
  134. 134).
    Sag, Ivan A., “A semantic theory of ‘NP-movement’ dependencies,” inThe Nature of Syntactic Representation (Pauline Jacobson and Geoffrey K. Pullum, eds.), D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 427–466, 1982.Google Scholar
  135. 135).
    Sag, Ivan A., “On parasitic gaps,”Linguistics and Philosophy, 6, pp. 35–45, 1983. Also inProceedings of the First West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (Daniel Flickinger, Marlys Macken and Nancy Wiegand, eds.), Stanford Linguistics Department, Stanford, pp. 35–46, 1982.Google Scholar
  136. 136).
    Saheki, Motoji, “A software program for a language like natural language,” paper presented to theSecond Colloquium on Montague Grammar and Related Topics, Kyoto, March, 1982.Google Scholar
  137. 137).
    Saito, Mamoru, “An analysis of thetough construction in Japanese,”MA dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 1980.Google Scholar
  138. 138).
    Sampson, Geoffrey, “Context-free parsing and the adequacy of context-free grammars,” inParsing Natural Language (Margaret King, ed.), Academic Press, London, pp. 151–170, 1983.Google Scholar
  139. 139).
    Sawamura, Hajime, “Intensional logic as a basis of algorithmic logic,” paper presented to theFirst Colloquium on Montague Grammar and Related Topics, Kyoto, February, 1981.Google Scholar
  140. 140).
    Schnelle, Helmut, “Concurrent parsing in programmable logic array (PLA-) nets: problems and proposals,” inProceedings of Coling 84, Association for Computational Linguistics, Menlo Park, pp. 150–153, 1984.Google Scholar
  141. 141).
    Schubert, Lenhart, “An approach to the syntax and semantics of affixes in ‘conventionalized’ phrase structure grammar,” inProceedings of the 4th Biennial Conference of the Canadian Society for Computational Studies of Intelligence, pp. 189–195, 1982.Google Scholar
  142. 142).
    Schubert, Lenhart and Pelletier, Jeffry, “From English to logic: Context-free computation of “conventional” logical translation,”American Journal of Computational Linguistics, 8, pp. 27–44, 1982.Google Scholar
  143. 143).
    Selkirk, Elisabeth O.,The Syntax of Words, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1982.Google Scholar
  144. 144).
    Shieber, Stuart M., “Sentence disambiguation by a shift-reduce parsing technique,” inProceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 113–118, 1983.Google Scholar
  145. 145).
    Shieber, Stuart M., “Direct parsing of ID/LP grammars,”Linguistics and Philosophy, 7, pp. 135–154, 1984.MATHGoogle Scholar
  146. 146).
    Shieber, Stuart M., “Evidence against the context-freeness of natural language,” to appear inLinguisties and Philosophy, 8, 1985.Google Scholar
  147. 147).
    Shieber, Stuart M., Stucky, Susan, Uszkoreit, Hans and Robinson, Jane, “Formal constraints on metarules,”Technical Note, 283, SRI International, Menlo Park, California, 1983. Also inProceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 22–27, 1983.Google Scholar
  148. 148).
    Shirai, Hidetoshi, “Deterministic parser,” inProceedings of the ICOT Workshop on Non-Transformational Grammars, Institute for New Generation Computer Technology, Tokyo, pp. 57–61, 1983.Google Scholar
  149. 149).
    Slocum, Jonathan, Bennett, Winfield S., Bear, John, Morgan, Martha and Root, Rebecca, “METAL: The LRC machine translation system,”Linguistics Research Center Working Paper LRC-84-2, Austin, Texas, 1984.Google Scholar
  150. 150).
    Sondheimer, Norman and Gunji, Takao, “Applying model-theoretic semantics to natural language understanding: representation and question-answering” inProceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Bergen, Norway, 1978.Google Scholar
  151. 151).
    Steedman, Mark, “Dependency and coordination in the grammar of Dutch and English,” to appear inLanguage, 1985.Google Scholar
  152. 152).
    Stoy, Joseph E.,Denotational Semantics: The Scott-Strachey Approach to the Semantics of Programming Languages, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1977.Google Scholar
  153. 153).
    Stucky, Susan, “Word order variation in Makua: a phrase structure grammar analysis”PhD dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, 1981.Google Scholar
  154. 154).
    Stucky, Susan, “Metarules as meta-node-admissibility conditions,”Technical Note, 304, SRI International Menlo Park, California, 1983.Google Scholar
  155. 155).
    Stucky, Susan, “Verb phrase constituency and linear order in Makua,” inOrder, Concord and Constituency (Gerald Gazdar, Ewan H. Klein and Geoffrey K. Pullum, eds.), Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 75–94, 1983.Google Scholar
  156. 156).
    Thompson, Henry, “Chart parsing and rule schemata in PSG,” inProceedings of the 19th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Association for Computational Linguistics, Menlo Park, California, pp. 167–172, 1981.Google Scholar
  157. 157).
    Thompson, Henry, “Handling metarules in a parser for GPSG,”Edinburgh D. A. I. Research Paper, No. 175, University of Edinburgh, U. K., 1982. Also inDevelopments in Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar: Stanford Working Papers in Grammatical Theory, Volume 2 (Michael Barlow, Daniel Flickinger and Ivan A. Sag, eds.), Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, pp. 26–37. Also inProceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 26–37.Google Scholar
  158. 158).
    Thompson, Henry, “Crossed serial dependencies: a low-power parseable extension to GPSG,” inProceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 16–21, 1983.Google Scholar
  159. 159).
    Thompson, Henry and Phillips, John, “An implementation of GPSG within the MCHART chart parsing framework,”Technical Report, Department of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh, U. K., 1984.Google Scholar
  160. 160).
    Tomita, Masaru, “LR parsers for natural languages,” inProceedings of Coling 84, Association for Computational Linguistics, Menlo Park, pp. 354–357, 1984.Google Scholar
  161. 161).
    Udo, Mariko, “Syntax and morphology of the Japanese verb—a phrase structural approach,”MA thesis, University College London, 1982.Google Scholar
  162. 162).
    Uszkoreit, Hans, “German word order in GPSG,” inProceedings of the First West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (Daniel Flickinger, Marlys Machen and Nancy Wiegand, eds.), Stanford Linguistics Department, Stanford, pp. 137–148, 1982.Google Scholar
  163. 163).
    Uszkoreit, Hans, “A framework for processing partially free word order,” inProceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 106–112, 1983.Google Scholar
  164. 164).
    Warren, David S., “Syntax and semantics in parsing: an application to Montague Grammar,”PhD dissertation, University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1979.Google Scholar
  165. 165).
    Warren, David S. and Friedman, J., “Using semantics in non-context-free parsing of Montague grammar,”American Journal of Computational Linguistics, 8, pp. 123–138, 1982.Google Scholar
  166. 166).
    Wijngaarden, A. van, “Report on the algorithmic language ALGOL68,”Numerische Mathematik, 14, pp. 79–218, 1969.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  167. 167).
    Woods, William A., “Cascaded ATN grammars,”American Journal of Computational Linguistics, 6, pp. 1–12, 1980.Google Scholar
  168. 168).
    Zwicky, Arnold M., “German adjective agreement in GPSG,” to appear inLinguistics, 1985.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ohmsha, Ltd. and Springer 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerald Gazdar
    • 1
  • Geoffrey K. Pullum
    • 2
  1. 1.Cognitive Studies ProgrammeUniversity of SussexBrightonEngland
  2. 2.University of CaliforniaSanta CruzUSA

Personalised recommendations