Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Formalisms for grammatical knowledge representation

  • Published:
Artificial Intelligence Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Computational linguists require descriptively powerful, computationally effective formalisms for representing grammatical information or knowledge. A wide variety of formalisms have been employed in natural language processing systems over the past several decades, including simple phrase structure grammars, augmented transition networks, logic grammars and unification-based grammar formalisms. Until fairly recently however, comparatively little attention has been given to the issues which underly good grammar formalism design in computational linguistics.

This paper examines a number of fundamental issues in the design of formalisms for representing grammatical knowledge. We begin by examining the role of grammar formalisms in computational linguistics, and the trend towards declarative descriptions of grammar. Grammar formalism design is then considered with respect to choices of linguistic representation and grammar notation. The consequences of some specific design choices for the linguistic and computational utility of grammar formalisms are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aho A. V. (1968) ‘Indexed Grammars — An Extension of Context-free Grammars’, Journal of the ACM 15, 647–671.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barton G. E., Berwick R. C. and Ristad E. S. (1987) Computational Complexity and Natural Languages, MIT Press: Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calder, J., Klein E. and Zeevat, H. (1988) ‘Unification Categorial Grammar: A Concise, Extendable Grammar for Natural Language Processing’, in Proceedings of COLING 88, 83–86.

  • Chomsky N. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Culy C. (1985) ‘The Complexity of the Vocabulary of Bambara’, Linguistics and Philosophy 8, 345–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Earley J. (1970) ‘An Efficient Context-free Parsing Algorithm’, Communications of the ACM 14, 453–460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gazdar G. (1988) ‘Applicability of Indexed Grammars to Natural Languages’, in U.Reyle and C.Rohrer (eds.), Natural Language Parsing and Linguistic Theories, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 69–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gazdar G., Klein E., Pullum G. K. and Sag I. A. (1985) Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunji T. (1987) Japanese Phrase Structure Grammar, Dordrecht, Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopcroft J. and Ullman J. (1979) Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huybregts R. (1985) ‘The Weak Inadequacy of Context-free Phrase Structure Grammar’, in G.deHaan, M.Trommelen and W.Zonnenveld (eds.), Van Periferie naar Kern, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 81–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joshi A. K. (1985) ‘Tree Adjoining Grammars: How Much Context-sensitivity Is Required to Provide Reasonable Structural Descriptions?’, in D.Dowty, L.Karttunen and A.Zwicky (eds.), Natural Language Processing — Theoretical, Computational and Psychological Perspective, Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 206–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joshi A. K., Levy L. and Takahashi M. (1975) ‘Tree Adjunct Grammars’, Journal of the Computer and System Sciences 10(1), 136–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan R. M. (1987) ‘Three Seductions of Computational Psycholinguistics’, in P.Whitelock et al. (eds.), Linguistic Theory and Computer Applications, Academic Press, London, pp. 149–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan R. M. (1989) ‘The Formal Architecture of Lexical-Functional Grammar’, Information Science and Engineering 5, 305–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan R. M. and Bresnan J. (1982) ‘Lexical-Functional Grammar: A Formal System for Grammatical Representation’, in J.Bresnan (ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 173–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasami T. (1965) ‘An Efficient Recognition and Syntax Algorithm for Context-free Languages’, Scientific Report AFCRL-65–758, Air Force Cambridge Research Lab., Bedford: Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kay, M. (1979) ‘Functional Grammar’, in Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 142–158.

  • Kay M. (1985) ‘Parsing in Functional Unification Grammar’, in D.Dowty, L.Karttunen and A.Zwicky (eds.), Natural Language Parsing, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 251–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langaker R. W. (1969) ‘On Pronominalization and the Chain of Command’, in D.Reidel and S.Schane (eds.), Modern Studies in English, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, pp. 160–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller P. H. (1991) ‘Scandinavian Extraction Phenomena Revisited: Weak and Strong Generative Capacity’, Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 101–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partee B. H., terMeulen A. and Wall R. E. (1990) ‘Mathematical Methods in Linguistics’, Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 30, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pereira F. C. N. and Warren D. (1980) ‘Definite Clause Grammars for Language Analysis — A Survey of the Formalism and a Comparison with Augmented Transition Networks’, Artificial Intelligence 13, 231–278. Reprinted in B. J. Grosz, K. Sparck Jones and B. L. Webber (eds.), (1986) Readings in Natural Language Processing, Morgan Kaufman, Los Altos, pp. 101–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollard, C. (1984) ‘Generalized Phrase Structure Grammars, Head Grammars, and Natural Language’, Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University.

  • Pollard C. and Sag I. A. (1987) Information-Based Syntax and Semantics: Volume 1 — Fundamentals. CSLI Lecture Notes No. 13., Chicago University Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pullum, G. K. (1982) ‘Free Word Order and Phrase Structure Rules’, in J. Pustejovsky and P. Sells (eds.), Proceedings of the 12th Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, Graduate Linguistics Student Association, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, pp. 209–220.

  • Ristad E. S. (1990) ‘Computational Structure of GPSG Models’, Linguistics and Philosophy 13, 521–587.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shieber, S. M. (1984) ‘The Design of a Computer Language for Linguistic Information’, in Proceedings of COLING 84, 363–366.

  • Shieber S. M. (1985) ‘Evidence Against the Context-freeness of Natural Language’, Linguistics and Philosophy 8, 333–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shieber S. M. (1986) An Introduction to Unification-Based Approaches to Grammar, CSLI Lecture Notes No. 4., Chicago University Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shieber S. M. (1988) ‘Separating Linguistic Analyses from Linguistic Theories’, in U.Reyle and C.Rohrer (eds.), Natural Language Parsing and Linguistic Theories, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 33–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shieber S. M., Uszkoreit H., Robinson J. and Tyson M. (1983) ‘The Formalism and Implementation of PATR II’, in B.Grosz and M.Stickel (eds.), Research on Interactive Acquisition and Use of Knowledge, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steedman M. J. (1985) ‘Dependency and Coordination in the Grammar of Dutch and English’, Language 61, 523–568.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steedman, M. J. (1987) ‘Combinatory Grammars and Parasitic Gaps’, in N. J. Haddock, E. Klein, and G. Morrill (eds.), Categorial Grammar, Unification Grammar and Parsing, Edinburgh Working Papers in Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh, Vol. 1., pp. 30–70.

  • Thompson H. S. (1981) ‘Natural Language Processing: A Critical Analysis of the Structure of the Field, with some Implications for Parsing’, in K.Sparck-Jones and Y. A.Wilks (eds.), Automatic Natural Language Parsing, Ellis Horwood, Wiley, Chichester, New York, pp. 23–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uszkoreit, H. (1986) ‘Categorial Unification Grammar’, in Proceedings of COLING 86, 187–194.

  • Vijay-Shanker, K. and Weir, D. J. (1989) ‘The Recognition of Combinatory Categorial Grammars, Linear Indexed Grammars and Tree Adjoining Grammars’, in International Workshop on Parsing Technologies, Pittsburgh, PA.

  • Vijay-Shanker, K. and Weir, D. J. (1990) ‘Polynomial Parsing of Combinatory Categorial Grammars’, in 28th meeting Assoc. Comput. Ling., Pittsburgh, PA.

  • Weir, D. J. (1988) ‘Characterizing Mildly Context-Sensitive Grammar Formalisms’, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pennsylvania: Philadephia PA.

  • Woods W. A. (1970) ‘Transition Network Grammars for Natural Language Analysis’, Communications of the ACM 13, 591–606. Reprinted in B. J. Grosz, K. Sparck-Jones and B. L. Webber (eds.), Readings in Natural Language Processing, Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos., pp. 71–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Younger D. H. (1967) ‘Recognition and Parsing of Context-free Languages in Time n 3’, Information and Control 10, 189–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeevat, H., Klein, E., and Calder, J. (1987) ‘Unification Categorial Grammar’, in N. Haddock, E. Klein and G. Morrill (eds.), Categorial Grammar, Unification Grammar and Parsing, Edinburgh Working Papers in Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh, Vol. 1., pp. 195–233.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Cognitive & Computing Sciences, University of Sussex, Falmer, BN1 9QH, Brighton, UK

    Bill Keller

Authors
  1. Bill Keller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Keller, B. Formalisms for grammatical knowledge representation. Artif Intell Rev 6, 365–381 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00123690

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00123690

Key Words

Search

Navigation