Lexicalized Non-Local MCTAG with Dominance Links is NP-Complete

Article
  • 60 Downloads

Abstract

An NP-hardness proof for non-local Multicomponent Tree Adjoining Grammar (MCTAG) by Rambow and Satta (1st International Workshop on Tree Adjoining Grammers 1992), based on Dahlhaus and Warmuth (in J Comput Syst Sci 33:456–472, 1986), is extended to some linguistically relevant restrictions of that formalism. It is found that there are NP-hard grammars among non-local MCTAGs even if any or all of the following restrictions are imposed: (i) lexicalization: every tree in the grammar contains a terminal; (ii) dominance links: every tree set contains at most two trees, and in every such tree set, there is a link between the foot node of one tree and the root node of the other tree, indicating that the former node must dominate the latter in the derived tree. This is the version of MCTAG proposed in Becker et al. (Proceedings of the 5th conference of the European chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics 1991) to account for German long-distance scrambling. This result restricts the field of possible candidates for an extension of Tree Adjoining Grammar that would be both mildly context-sensitive and linguistically adequate.

Keywords

Tree Adjoining Grammar MCTAG NP-complete Dominance links Lexicalization Mildly context-sensitive Scrambling 

References

  1. Becker, T., Joshi, A. K., & Rambow, O. (1991). Long-distance scrambling and Tree Adjoining Grammars. In Proceedings of the 5th conference of the European chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 21–26).Google Scholar
  2. Becker, T., Rambow, O., & Niv, M. (1992). The derivational power of formal systems, or scrambling is beyond LCFRS. Technical report IRCS 92 38, Institute for Research in Cognitive Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.Google Scholar
  3. Boullier, P. (1998). A generalization of mildly context-sensitive formalisms. In Proceedings of the 4th international workshop on Tree Adjoining Grammars and related frameworks (TAG+4). University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA (pp. 17–20).Google Scholar
  4. Chen-Main, J., & Joshi, A. K. (2007). Some observations on a “graphical” model-theoretical approach and generative models. In ESSLLI 2007 workshop on model theoretic syntax.Google Scholar
  5. Chen-Main, J., & Joshi, A. K. (2008). Flexible composition, multiple adjoining and word order variation. In Proceedings of the 9th international workshop on Tree Adjoining Grammars and related formalisms (TAG+9). Tübingen, Germany.Google Scholar
  6. Chiang, D., & Scheffler, T. (2008). Flexible composition and delayed tree-locality. In Proceedings of the 9th international workshop on Tree Adjoining Grammars and related formalisms (TAG+9). Tübingen, Germany.Google Scholar
  7. Dahlhaus E., Warmuth M. K. (1986) Membership for Growing context-sensitive grammars is polynomial. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 33(3): 456–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Frank R. (2002) Phrase structure composition and syntactic dependencies. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USAGoogle Scholar
  9. Garey M. R., Johnson D. S. (1979) Computers and intractability. W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  10. Greibach S. A., Hopcroft J. E. (1969) Scattered context grammars. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 3: 233–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Joshi A., Schabes Y. (1997) Tree-adjoining grammars. In: Salomaa A., Rozenberg G. (eds) Handbook of formal languages, vol 3: Beyond words. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany, pp 69–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Joshi A. K. (1985) Tree adjoining grammars: How much context-sensitivity is required to provide reasonable structural descriptions?. In: Dowty D. R., Karttunen L., Zwicky A. M. (eds) Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational, and theoretical perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  13. Joshi A. K. (2004a) Domains of locality. Data & Knowledge Engineering 50(3): 277–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Joshi A. K. (2004b) Starting with complex primitives pays off: Complicate locally, simplify globally. Cognitive Science 28(5): 637–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Joshi A. K., Kallmeyer L. (2003) Flexible composition in LTAG: Quantifier scope and inverse linking. In: Bunt H., Muskens R. (eds) Computing meaning, vol. 3. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  16. Joshi A. K., Levy L. S., Takahashi M. (1975) Tree adjunct grammars. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 10(1): 136–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Joshi A. K., Vijay-Shanker K., Weir D. (1991) The convergence of mildly context-sensitive grammatical formalisms. In: Sells P., Shieber S., Wasow T. (eds) Foundational issues in natural language processing. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, pp 31–81Google Scholar
  18. Joshi A. K., Becker T., Rambow O. (2002) Complexity of scrambling: A new twist to the competence-performance distinction. In: Abeillé A., Rambow O. (eds) Tree-adjoining grammars. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, USA, pp 167–181Google Scholar
  19. Kallmeyer L. (2005) Tree-local multicomponent tree-adjoining grammars with shared nodes. Computational Linguistics 31(2): 187–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kallmeyer L. (2009) A declarative characterization of different types of multicomponent Tree Adjoining Grammars. Research on Language and Computation 7(1): 55–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kallmeyer, L., & Satta, G. (2009). A polynomial-time parsing algorithm for TT-MCTAG. In Proceedings of the 47th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL09), Singapore.Google Scholar
  22. Kroch A. S., Joshi A. K. (1987) Analyzing extraposition in a tree adjoining grammar. In: Huck G., Ojeda A. (eds) Discontinuous constituency, syntax and semantics 20. Academic Press, New York, NY, USA, pp 107–149Google Scholar
  23. Kulick, S. (2000). Constraining non-local dependencies in tree adjoining grammar: Computational and linguistic perspectives. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  24. Lichte, T. (2007). An MCTAG with tuples for coherent constructions in German. In G. Penn (Ed.), Proceedings of the Formal Grammar 2007 conference. CSLI Online Publications.Google Scholar
  25. Pollard, C. (1984). Generalised context-free grammars, head grammars and natural language. PhD thesis, Department of Linguistics, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  26. Rambow, O. (1994). Formal and computational aspects of natural language syntax. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.Google Scholar
  27. Rambow, O., & Satta, G. (1992). Formal properties of non-locality. In Proceedings of 1st international workshop on Tree Adjoining Grammars. 1992.Google Scholar
  28. Rambow O., Vijay-Shanker K., Weir D. J. (2001) D-Tree substitution grammars. Computational Linguistics 27(1): 87–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schabes, Y. (1990). Mathematical and computational aspects of lexicalized grammars. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.Google Scholar
  30. Schabes Y., Shieber S. (1994) An alternative conception of tree-adjoining derivation. Computational Linguistics 20(1): 91–124Google Scholar
  31. Søgaard, A. (2009). Verifying context-sensitive treebanks and heuristic parses in polynomial time. In K. Jokinen & E. Bick (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th Nordic conference on computational linguistics (NODALIDA 2009).Google Scholar
  32. Søgaard, A., Lichte, T., & Maier, W. (2007). The complexity of linguistically motivated extensions of Tree-Adjoining Grammar. In Proceedings of Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing 2007.Google Scholar
  33. Steedman M. (1988) Combinators and grammars. In: Oehrle R., Bach E., Wheeler D. (eds) Categorial grammars and natural language structures. Reidel, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  34. Vijay-Shanker, K., Weir, D. J., & Joshi, A. K. (1987). Characterizing structural descriptions produced by various grammatical formalisms. In Proceedings of the 25th meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
  35. Weir, D. J. (1988). Characterizing mildly context-sensitive grammar formalisms. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tübinger Zentrum für LinguistikEberhard Karls Universität TübingenTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations