Research on Language and Computation

, Volume 5, Issue 2, pp 133–158 | Cite as

Modular Grammar Engineering in GF

Article

Abstract

The Grammatical Framework GF is a grammar formalism designed for multilingual grammars. A multilingual grammar has a shared representation, called abstract syntax, and a set of concrete syntaxes that map the abstract syntax to different languages. A GF grammar consists of modules, which can share code through inheritance, but which can also hide information to achieve division of labour between grammarians working on different modules. The goal is to make it possible for linguistically untrained programmers to write linguistically correct application grammars encoding the semantics of special domains. Such programmers can rely on resource grammars, written by linguists, which play the rôle of standard libraries. Application grammarians use resource grammars through abstract interfaces, and the type system of GF guarantees that grammaticality is preserved. The ongoing GF resource grammar project provides resource grammars for ten languages. In addition to their use as libraries, resource grammars serve as an experiment showing how much grammar code can be shared between different languages.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alshawi H. (1992). The core language engine. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  2. Beckert B., Hähnle R., Schmitt P. (2006). Verification of object-oriented software: The key approach (Vol. 4334 of LNCS). Berlin, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  3. Bescherelle (1997). La conjugaison pour tous. Hatier.Google Scholar
  4. Bringert, B. (2004). Embedded grammars. MSc Thesis, Department of Computing Science, Chalmers University of Technology.Google Scholar
  5. Bringert, B. (2007). Speech recognition grammar compilation in grammatical framework. In Proceddings of the SPEECHGRAM 2007: ACL workshop on grammar-based approaches to spoken language processing, 29 June 2007, Prague.Google Scholar
  6. Copestake, A., & Flickinger, D. (2000). An open-source grammar development environment and broad-coverage English grammar using HPSG. In Proceedings of the 2nd conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC-2000).Google Scholar
  7. Dymetman, M., Lux, V., & Ranta, A. (2000). XML and multilingual document authoring: Convergent trends. In Proceedings of the COLING, Saarbrücken, Germany, pp. 243–249.Google Scholar
  8. Hähnle, R., Johannisson, K., & Ranta, A. (2002). An authoring tool for informal and formal requirements specifications. In R.-D. Kutsche, & H. Weber (Eds.), Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (Vol. 2306 of LNCS. pp. 233–248). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Hockett C.F. (1954). Two models of grammatical description. Word 10:210–233Google Scholar
  10. Huet, G. (2002). The zen computational linguistics toolkit. http://pauillac.inria.fr/~huet/.Google Scholar
  11. Khegai, J., Nordström, B., & Ranta, A. (2003). Multilingual syntax editing in GF. In A. Gelbukh (Ed.), Intelligent text processing and computational linguistics (CICLing-2003), Mexico City (Vol. 2588 of LNCS, pp. 453–464). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Ljunglöf, P. (2004). Grammatical framework and multiple context-free grammars. In G. Jaeger, P. Monachesi, G. Penn, & S. Wintner (Eds.), Proceedings of formal grammar, Nancy, pp. 77–90.Google Scholar
  13. McCarthy J. (1960). Recursive functions of symbolic expressions and their computation by machine, part I. Communications of the ACM 3:184–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Milner R., Tofte M., Harper R. (1990). Definition of standard ML. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  15. Müller, S. (1999). Deutsche syntax deklarativ. Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
  16. Montague, R. (1974). Formal philosophy. New Haven: Yale University Press. Collected papers edited by Richmond Thomason.Google Scholar
  17. Nuance Communications (2002). Nuance. http://www.nuance.com.Google Scholar
  18. Parnas D. (1972). On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules. Communications of the ACM 15:1053–1058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Peyton Jones, S., & Hughes, J. (1999). Report on the programming language Haskell 98, a non-strict, purely functional language. Available from http://www.haskell.org.Google Scholar
  20. Pollard C., Sag I. (1994). Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Ranta A. (1994). Type theoretical grammar. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Ranta, A. (2002). Grammatical framework homepage. www.cs.chalmers.se/aarne/GF/.Google Scholar
  23. Ranta A. (2004a). Computational semantics in type theory. Mathematics and Social Sciences 165:31–57Google Scholar
  24. Ranta A. (2004b). Grammatical framework: A type-theoretical grammar formalism. The Journal of Functional Programming, 14(2):145–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ranta, A. (2004c). Grammatical framework tutorial. In Proceedings of the ESSLLI 2003 course material I, Kurt Gödel Society, pp. 1–86.Google Scholar
  26. Ranta, A., & Cooper R. (2004). Dialogue systems as proof editors. Journal of Logic, Language and Information.Google Scholar
  27. Rayner M., Carter D., Bouillon P., Digalakis V., Wirén M. (2000). The spoken language translator. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Seki H., Matsumura T., Fujii M., Kasami T. (1991). On multiple context-free grammars. Theoretical Computer Science 88:191–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shieber S. (1986). An introduction to unification-based approaches to grammars. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  30. Warmer J., Kleppe A. (1999). The object constraint language: Precise modelling with UML. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringChalmers University of Technology and Göteborg UniversityGöteborgSweden

Personalised recommendations