Journal of Logic, Language and Information

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 201–228 | Cite as

PGF: A Portable Run-time Format for Type-theoretical Grammars

Article

Abstract

Portable Grammar Format (PGF) is a core language for type-theoretical grammars. It is the target language to which grammars written in the high-level formalism Grammatical Framework (GF) are compiled. Low-level and simple, PGF is easy to reason about, so that its language-theoretic properties can be established. It is also easy to write interpreters that perform parsing and generation with PGF grammars, and compilers converting PGF to other formats. This paper gives a concise description of PGF, covering syntax, semantics, and parser generation. It also discusses the technique of embedded grammars, where language processing tasks defined by PGF grammars are integrated in larger systems.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Angelov, K. (2009). Incremental parsing with parallel multiple context-free grammars. In European chapter of the association for computational linguistics.Google Scholar
  2. Angelov, K., & Ranta, A. (2009). Implementing Controlled Languages in GF. In CNL-2009, Controlled Natural Language Workshop, Marettimo, Sicily, 2009.Google Scholar
  3. Appel, A. W. (1997). Modern compiler implementation in ML. Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521582741Google Scholar
  4. Bresnan, J. (eds) (1982) The mental representation of grammatical relations. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  5. Bringert, B. (2007a). Speech recognition grammar compilation in grammatical framework. In Proceedings of the workshop on grammar-based approaches to spoken language processing (pp. 1–8), Prague, Czech Republic. URL:http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W/W07/W07-1801.
  6. Bringert, B. (2007b, September). Rapid development of dialogue systems by grammar compilation. In S. Keizer, H. Bunt, T. Paek (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th SIGdial workshop on discourse and dialogue (pp. 223–226). Antwerp, Belgium.Google Scholar
  7. Bringert, B. (2008, August). Speech translation with grammatical framework. In Coling 2008: Proceedings of the workshop on speech processing for safety critical translation and pervasive applications (pp. 5–8). Manchester, UK. Coling 2008 Organizing Committee. URL:http://www.cs.chalmers.se/~bringert/publ/gf-slt/gf-slt.pdf.
  8. Bringert, B., Cooper, R., Ljunglöf, P., & Ranta, A. (2005). Multimodal dialogue system grammars. In Proceedings of DIALOR’05, 9th workshop on the semantics and pragmatics of dialogue (pp. 53–60). Nancy, France. URL:http://www.cs.chalmers.se/~bringert/publ/mm-grammars-dialor/mm-grammars-dialor.pdf.
  9. Brown, M. R. (1996, May). FastCGI: A high-performance gateway interface. In A. Eliëns (Ed.), Programming the Web—a search for APIs, 5th international World Wide Web Conference (WWW5). Paris, France. URL:http://www.cs.vu.nl/~eliens/WWW5/papers/FastCGI.html.
  10. Burden, H., & Ljunglöf, P. (2005). Parsing linear context-free rewriting systems. In Proceedings of the 9th international workshop on parsing technology (pp. 11–17), Vancouver, BC: Association for Computational Linguistics. URL:http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W/W05/W05-1502.
  11. Burke, D., & Van Tichelen, L. (2006, November). Semantic interpretation for speech recognition (SISR) Version 1.0. Working draft, W3C. URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-semantic-interpretation-20061103.
  12. Burke, D. A., & Johannisson, K. (2005). Translating formal software specifications to natural language/a grammar-based approach. In P. Blache, E. Stabler, J. Busquets, & R. Moot (Eds.), Logical aspects of computational linguistics (LACL 2005) (Vol. 3402 of LNCS/LNAI, pp. 51–66). SpringerGoogle Scholar
  13. Callaghan, P., & Medlock, B. (2004). Happy-GLR. URL:http://www.dur.ac.uk/p.c.callaghan/happy-glr/.
  14. Cohen, A., Cuypers, H., Poels, K., Spanbroek, M., & Verrijzer, R. (2006, January). WExEd–WebALT exercise editor for multilingual mathematical exercises. In M. Seppälä, S. Xambo, & O. Caprotti (Eds.), WebALT 2006, First WebALT conference and exhibition (pp. 141–145). Eindhoven, The Netherlands. URL:http://www.win.tue.nl/~amc/pub/wexed.pdf.
  15. Cooper, R., Crouch, D., van Eijck, J., Fox, C., van Genabith, J., Jaspars, J., et al. (1996, January). A semantic test suite. URL:ftp://ftp.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/pub/FRACAS/del16.ps.gz.
  16. Copestake A. (2002) Implementing typed feature structure grammars. CSLI Publications, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Curry, H. B. (1961). Some logical aspects of grammatical structure. In R. O. Jakobson (Ed.), Structure of language and its mathematical aspects, Vol. 12 of Symposia on Applied Mathematics (pp. 56–68). Providence: American Mathematical SocietyGoogle Scholar
  18. de Groote, P. (2001, July). Towards abstract categorial grammars. In Proceedings of 39th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Toulouse, France (pp. 252–259). Morristown, NJ, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi:10.3115/1073012.1073045.
  19. Douglas, C. (2006, July). The application/json Media Type for JavaScript Object Notation (JSON). RFC 4627 (Informational). URL:http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4627.txt.
  20. Ericsson, S., Amores, G., Bringert, B., Burden, H., Forslund, A.-C., Hjelm, D., et al. (2006). Software illustrating a unified approach to multimodality and multilinguality in the in-home domain. Technical Report 1.6, TALK Project. URL:http://www.talk-project.org/fileadmin/talk/publications_public/deliverables_public/D1_6.pdf.
  21. Fielding, R. T. (2000). Architectural styles and the design of network-based software architectures. PhD thesis, University of California, Irvine. URL:http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/fielding_dissertation.pdf.
  22. Harper R., Honsell F., Plotkin G. (1993) A framework for defining logics. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery 40(1): 143–184Google Scholar
  23. Ishii, M., Ohta, K., & Saito, H. (1994). An efficient parser generator for natural language. In Proceedings of the 15th conference on computational linguistics (pp. 417–420). Morristown, NJ, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi:10.3115/991886.991959.
  24. Johannisson, K., Khegai, J., Forsberg, M., & Ranta, A. (2003). From grammars to gramlets. In The joint winter meeting of computing science and computer engineering. Chalmers University of Technology (2003)Google Scholar
  25. Johnson, S. C. (1975). Yacc—yet another compiler compiler. Technical Report CSTR-32. Murray Hill, NJ: AT & T Bell Laboratories.Google Scholar
  26. Jonson, R. (2006). Generating statistical language models from interpretation grammars in dialogue systems. In Proceedings of EACL’06. URL:http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/jonson06generating.html.
  27. Jonson, R. (2007, June). Grammar-based context-specific statistical language modelling. In Proceedings of the workshop on grammar-based approaches to spoken language processing (pp. 25–32). Prague, Czech Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. URL:http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W/W07/W07-1804.
  28. Joshi A., Vijay-Shanker K., Weir D. (1991) The convergence of mildly context-sensitive grammar formalisms. In: Sells P., Shieber S., Wasow T. (eds) Foundational issues in natural language processing. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 31–81Google Scholar
  29. Kaplan, R., & Maxwell, J. (2007). XLE project homepage. URL:http://www2.parc.com/isl/groups/nltt/xle/.
  30. Khegai, J. (2006, June). Grammatical Framework (GF) for MT in sublanguage domains. In Proceedings of EAMT-2006, 11th annual conference of the European Association for Machine Translation, Oslo, Norway (pp. 95–104). URL:http://www.mt-archive.info/EAMT-2006-Khegai.pdf.
  31. Khegai, J., Nordström, B., & Ranta, A. (2003). Multilingual syntax editing in GF. In A. Gelbukh (Ed.) Computational linguistics and intelligent text processing, Vol. 2588 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, (pp. 199–204). doi:10.1007/3-540-36456-0_48.
  32. Lemon, O., & Liu, X. (2006). DUDE: A dialogue and understanding development environment, mapping business process models to information state update dialogue systems. In EACL 2006, 11st conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. URL:http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/olemon/dude-final.pdf.
  33. Lemon, O., Liu, X., Shapiro, D., & Tollander, C. (2006, September). Hierarchical reinforcement learning of dialogue policies in a development environment for dialogue systems: REALL–DUDE. In BRANDIAL’06, Proceedings of the 10th workshop on the semantics and pragmatics of dialogue (pp. 185–186). URL:http://www.ling.uni-potsdam.de/brandial/Proceedings/brandial06_lemon_ etal.pdf.
  34. Ljunglöf, P. (2004). Expressivity and complexity of the grammatical framework. PhD thesis, Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden. URL:http://www.ling.gu.se/~peb/pubs/p04-PhD-thesis.pdf.
  35. Martin-Löf P. (1984) Intuitionistic type theory. Bibliopolis, NapoliGoogle Scholar
  36. McCarthy, J. (1962, August). Towards a mathematical science of computation. In Proceedings of the information processing congress (Vol. 62, pp. 21–28). Munich, West Germany: North-HollandGoogle Scholar
  37. Meza Moreno, M. S. (2008). Implementation of a JavaScript Syntax Editor and Parser for Grammatical Framework. Master’s thesis, Chalmers University of Technology.Google Scholar
  38. Meza Moreno, M. S., & Bringert, B. (2008, August). Interactive multilingual web applications with grammatical framework. In B. Nordström, & A. Ranta (Eds.), Advances in natural language processing, 6th international conference, GoTAL 2008, Gothenburg, Sweden (Vol. 5221 of LNAI, pp. 336–347). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  39. Minnen, G., Gerdemann, D., & Götz, T. (1995). Off-line optimization for Earley-style HPSG processing. URL:http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/article/minnen95offline.html.
  40. Montague, R. (1974). Formal philosophy. New Haven: Yale University Press. Collected papers edited by R. Thomason.Google Scholar
  41. Muskens, R. (2001). Lambda grammars and the syntax-semantics interface. In R. van Rooy, & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th Amsterdam colloquium (pp. 150–155), Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  42. Nakanishi, R., Takada, K., & Seki, H. (1997, August). An efficient recognition algorithm for multiple context-free languages. In 5th Meeting on mathematics of language. The Association for Mathematics of Language. URL:http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/65591.html.
  43. Nuance Speech Recognition System 8.5 (2003, December). Grammar developer’s guide. Menlo Park, CA, USA: Nuance Communications, Inc.Google Scholar
  44. Pollard, C. (2004, June). Higher-order categorial grammar. In Proceedings of categorial grammars 2004 (pp. 340–361). URL:http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~hana/hog/pollard2004-CG.pdf.
  45. Pollard C., Sag I. (1994) Head-driven phrase structure grammar. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  46. Ranta A. (1994) Type theoretical grammar. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  47. Ranta, A. (2004, March). Grammatical framework: A type-theoretical grammar formalism. Journal of Functional Programming, 14 (2), 145–189. ISSN 0956-7968. doi:10.1017/S0956796803004738.
  48. Ranta A. (2007) Modular grammar engineering in GF. Research on Language and Computation 5: 133–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ranta A. (2008) Grammars as software libraries. In: Bertot Y., Huet G., Lévy J.-J., Plotkin G. (eds) From semantics to computer science. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  50. Ranta, A., & Cooper, R. (2004). Dialogue systems as proof editors. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 13(2), 225–240. ISSN 0925-8531. URL:http://10.1023/B:JLLI.0000024736.34644.48.
  51. Rayner, M., Hockey, B. A., & Bouillon, P. (2006, July). Putting linguistics into speech recognition: The regulus grammar compiler. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. ISBN 1575865262.Google Scholar
  52. Seki, H., & Kato, Y. (2008). On the generative power of multiple context-free grammars and macro grammars. IEICE-Transactions on Info and Systems, E91-D (2), 209–221. URL:http://ietisy.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/E91-D/2/209.
  53. Seki, H., Matsumura, T., Fujii, M., & Kasami, T. (1991, October). On multiple context-free grammars. Theoretical Computer Science, 88(2), 191–229. ISSN 0304-3975. URL:http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=123648.
  54. Seki, H., Nakanishi, R., Kaji, Y., Ando, S., & Kasami, T. (1993, June). Parallel multiple context-free grammars, finite-state translation systems, and polynomial-time recognizable subclasses of lexical-functional grammars. In 31st Annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (pp. 130–140). Ohio State University, Association for Computational Linguistics. URL:http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/P/P93/P93-1018.pdf.
  55. Tomita, M., Carbonell, J. G. (1987). The universal parser architecture for knowledge-based machine translation. In IJCAI (pp. 718–721).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Krasimir Angelov
    • 1
  • Björn Bringert
    • 1
    • 2
  • Aarne Ranta
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Chalmers University of TechnologyUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden
  2. 2.Google IncMountain ViewUSA

Personalised recommendations