Journal of Logic, Language and Information

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 159–198

Polyadic Dynamic Logics for HPSG Parsing

Article

Abstract

Head-driven phrase structure grammar (HPSG) is one of the most prominent theories employed in deep parsing of natural language. Many linguistic theories are arguably best formalized in extensions of modal or dynamic logic (Keller, Feature logics, infinitary descriptions and grammar, 1993; Kracht, Linguistics Philos 18:401–458, 1995; Moss and Tiede, In: Blackburn, van Benthem, and Wolther (eds.) Handbook of modal logic, 2006), and HPSG seems to be no exception. Adequate extensions of dynamic logic have not been studied in detail, however; the most important aspect is the reference to sets of substructures. In this paper, an adequate extension is identified, and some important results are established: Satisfiability is highly undecidable, and model checking is shown to be in EXPTIME and PSPACE-hard. A fragment with polynomial time model checking procedures is identified; it is shown to cover considerable fragments of HPSG.

Keywords

Dynamic logic HPSG Model checking Parsing 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Benevides, M. (2003). Modal logics for finite graphs. In: R. de Queiroz (Ed.), Logic for concurrency and synchronisation (pp. 239–267). Norwell, Michigan: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blackburn P. (1994) Structures, languages and translations: The structural approach to feature logic. In: Rupp C.J., Johnson R., Rosner M. (eds) Constraints, language and computation. Academic Press, London, pp 1–29Google Scholar
  3. Blackburn P., Meyer-Viol W. (1994) Linguistics, logic and finite trees. Logic Journal of IGPL 2(1): 3–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blackburn, P., Spaan, E. (1993). Decidability and undecidability in stand-alone feature logics. In Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 30–36). Utrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  5. Bredenkamp, A., Markantonatou, S., & Sadler, L. (1996). Lexical rules: What are they? In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. 163–168). Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
  6. Carpenter B. (1991) The generative power of categorial grammars and head-driven phrase structure grammars with lexical rules. Computational Linguistics 17(3): 301–313Google Scholar
  7. Chandra A., Kozen D., Stockmeyer L. (1981) Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery 28(1): 114–133Google Scholar
  8. Danecki, S. (1984). Nondeterministic propositional dynamic logic with intersection is decidable. In A. Skowron (Ed.), Proceedings of the 5th Symposium on Computation Theory, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 208, pp. 34–53). Zaborów, Poland: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Fischer M.J., Ladner R.E. (1979) Propositional dynamic logic of regular programs. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 18(2): 194–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Franceschet M., de Rijke M. (2005) Model checking for hybrid logics. Journal of Applied Logic 4(3): 279–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Harel D. (1985) Recurring dominoes: Making the highly undecidable highly understandable. Annals of Discrete Mathematics 24: 51–72Google Scholar
  12. Jaeger E., Francez N., Wintner S. (2005) Unification grammars and off-line parsability. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 14: 199–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Johnson M. (1988) Attribute-value logic and the theory of grammar. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  14. Keller B. (1993) Feature logics, infinitary descriptions and grammar. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  15. Kepser S. (2001) On the complexity of RSRL. Electronic Notes in Computer Science 53: 146–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kepser, S., & Mönnich, U. (2003). Undecidability results for HPSG. In Algebraic methods in language processing 3 (pp. 1–12). Verona, Italy.Google Scholar
  17. King, P. (1989). A logical formalism for head-driven phrase structure grammar. Ph.D. thesis, University of Manchester. Doctoral thesis.Google Scholar
  18. King, P. (1999). Towards truth in head-driven phrase structure grammar. In V. Kordoni (Ed.), Tübingen studies in head-driven phrase structure grammar (Vol. 2, pp. 301–352). Tübingen, Germany: Arbeitspapiere des SFB 340, Bericht Nr. 132.Google Scholar
  19. King P., Simov K., Aldag B. (1999) The complexity of modellability in finite and computable signatures of a constraint logic for head-driven phrase structure grammar. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 8(1): 83–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kracht M. (1995) Is there a genuine modal perspective on feature structures? Linguistics & Philosophy 18: 401–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lange M. (2006) Model checking propositional dynamic logic with all extras. Journal of Applied Logic 4: 39–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lange M., Lutz C. (2005) 2-ExpTime lower bounds for propositional dynamic logics with intersection. Journal of Symbolic Logic 70(4): 1072–1086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moens, M., Calder, J., Klein, E., Reape, M., & Zeevat, H. (1989). Expressing generalizations in unification-based grammar formalisms. In Proceedings of the 4th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Manchester, England.Google Scholar
  24. Moss L., Tiede H. (2006) Applications of modal logic in linguistics. In: Blackburn P., van Benthem J., Wolther F. (eds) Handbook of modal logic. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp 1031–1072Google Scholar
  25. Pollard C. (1999) Strong generative capacity in HPSG. In: Webelhuth G., Koenig J.-P., Kathol A. (eds) Lexical and constructional aspects of linguistic explanation. CSLI Publications, Stanford, California, pp 281–297Google Scholar
  26. Pollard C., Sag I. (1987) Information-based syntax and semantics. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  27. Pollard C., Sag I. (1994) Head-driven phrase structure grammar. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  28. Reape, M. (1992). A formal theory of word order: A case study of West Germanic. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland.Google Scholar
  29. Reape M. (1994) A feature value logic with intensionality, nonwellfoundedness and functional and relational dependencies. In: Rupp C.J., Rosner M., Johnson R. (eds) Constraints, language and computation. Academic Press, San Francisco, California, pp 77–110Google Scholar
  30. Richter, F. (2004). A mathematical formalism for linguistic theories with an application in head-driven phrase structure grammar. Ph.D. thesis, Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.Google Scholar
  31. Rounds B. (1994) Feature logics. In: van Benthem J., ter Meulen A. (eds) Handbook of logic and language. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp 1–61Google Scholar
  32. Sag I., Fodor J. (1994) Extraction without traces. In: Aranovich R., Byrne W., Preuss S., Senturia M. (eds) Proceedings of the 13th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. CSLI Publications, Stanford, California, pp 365–384Google Scholar
  33. Shieber S. (1992) Constraint-based grammar formalisms. MIT Press, Cambridge, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  34. Søgaard, A. (2006). Logical investigations of certain feature-based theories of natural language. In Proceedings of The Joint Human Language Technology Conference and the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics 2006, Companion Volume (pp. 239–242). New York, NY.Google Scholar
  35. Trautwein, M. (1995). Computational pitfalls in tractable grammar formalisms. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. ILLC Dissertation Series DS-1995-15.Google Scholar
  36. Warshall S. (1962) A theorem on Boolean matrices. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery 9(1): 11–12Google Scholar
  37. Wedekind J. (1997) Approaches to unification in grammar. In: Blackburn P., de Rijke M. (eds) Specifying syntactic structure. CSLI Publications, Stanford, California, pp 245–280Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Theoretische ComputerlinguistikInstitut für Linguistik, Universität PotsdamPotsdamGermany
  2. 2.Theoretische InformatikInstitut für Informatik, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität MünchenMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations