Journal of Logic, Language and Information

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 421–438 | Cite as

On the Expressive Power of Abstract Categorial Grammars: Representing Context-Free Formalisms

  • Philippe de Groote
  • Sylvain Pogodalla
Original Article


We show how to encode context-free string grammars, linear context-free tree grammars, and linear context-free rewriting systems as Abstract Categorial Grammars. These three encodings share the same constructs, the only difference being the interpretation of the composition of the production rules. It is interpreted as a first-order operation in the case of context-free string grammars, as a second-order operation in the case of linear context-free tree grammars, and as a third-order operation in the case of linear context-free rewriting systems. This suggest the possibility of defining an Abstract Categorial Hierarchy.

Key words

Abstract categorial grammars context-free grammars formal language theory lambda-calculus 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abrusci, M., Fouqueré, C., and Vauzeilles, J., 1999, “Tree-adjoining grammars in a fragment of the Lambek calculus,” Computational Linguistics 25, 209–236.Google Scholar
  2. Barendregt, H., 1984, The Lambda Calculus, its Syntax and Semantics, North-Holland, revised edition.Google Scholar
  3. Carpenter, B., 1996, Type-Logical Semantics, Cambridge, MA and London, U.K.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. de Groote, P., 2001, “Towards Abstract Categorial Grammars,” pp. 148–155 in Association for Computational Linguistics, 39th Annual Meeting and 10th Conference of the European Chapter, Proceedings of the Conference.Google Scholar
  5. de Groote, P., 2002, “Tree-adjoining grammars as Abstract Categorial Grammars,” in pp. 145–150 TAG+6, Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Tree Adjoining Grammars and Related Frameworks.Google Scholar
  6. Girard, J.-Y., 1987, “Linear logic,” Theoretical Computer Science 50, 1–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Joshi, A.K. and Kulick, S., 1997, “Partial proof trees as building blocks for a categorial grammar,” Linguistic & Philosophy 20, 637–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Joshi, A.K. and Schabes, Y., 1997, “Tree-adjoining grammars,” in Handbook of Formal Languages, Vol. 3, G.R. and A. Salomaa, ed., Springer, Chapter 2.Google Scholar
  9. Mönnich, U., 1997, “Adjunction as substitution,” pp. 169–178. in G.-J. Kruiff, G. Morrill, and D. Oehrle (eds.) Formal Grammar.Google Scholar
  10. Moortgat, M., 1997, “Categorial type logics,” in Handbook of Logic and Language, J. van Benthem and A. ter Meulen, eds., Elsevier, Chapter 2.Google Scholar
  11. Morrill, G., 1994, Type Logical Grammar: Categorial Logic of Signs, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  12. Oehrle, R.T., 1994, “Term-labeled categorial type systems,” Linguistic & Philosophy 17, 633–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Pollard, C., 1984, “Generalized phrase structure grammars, head grammars, and natural language,” Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University, CA.Google Scholar
  14. Ranta, A., 2002, “Grammatical Framework,” Journal of Functional Programming 14, 145–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Seki, H., Matsumura, T., Fujii, M., and Kasami T., 1991, “On multiple context-free grammars,” Theoretical Computer Science 223, 87–120.Google Scholar
  16. Vijay-Shanker, K., Weir, D. J., and Joshi, A. K. 1987, ‘Characterizing structural descriptions produced by various grammatical formalisms,’ pp. 104–111 in Proceedings of the 25th ACL, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  17. Weir, D.J., 1988, “Characterizing mildly context-sensitive grammar formalisms,” Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philippe de Groote
    • 1
  • Sylvain Pogodalla
    • 1
  1. 1.INRIA LorraineFrance

Personalised recommendations