Journal of Logic, Language and Information

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 353–381 | Cite as

Grammar Induction by Unification of Type-logical Lexicons

Article

Abstract

A method is described for inducing a type-logical grammar from a sample of bare sentence trees which are annotated by lambda terms, called term-labelled trees. Any type logic from a permitted class of multimodal logics may be specified for use with the procedure, which induces the lexicon of the grammar including the grammatical categories. A first stage of semantic bootstrapping is performed, which induces a general form lexicon from the sample of term-labelled trees using Fulop’s (J Log Lang Inf 14(1):49–86, 2005) procedure. Next we present a two-stage procedure for performing distributional learning by unifying the lexical types that are initially discovered. The first structural unification algorithm in essence unifies the initial family of sets of types so that the resulting grammar will generate all term-labelled trees that follow the usage patterns evident from the learning sample. Further altering the lexical categories to generate a recursively extended language can be accomplished by a second unification. The combined unification algorithm is shown to yield a new type-logical lexicon that extends the learning sample to a possibly infinite (and possibly context-sensitive) language in a principled fashion. Finally, the complete learning strategy is analyzed from the perspective of algorithmic learning theory; the range of the procedure is shown to be a class of term-labelled tree languages which is finitely learnable from good examples (Lange et al in Algorithmic learning theory, Vol 872 of lecture notes in artificial intelligence, Springer, Berlin, pp 423–437), and so is identifiable in the limit as a corollary.

Keywords

Categorial grammar Type-logical grammar Grammar induction Algorithmic learning theory Language acquisition 

References

  1. Andrews P. B. (1986) An introduction to mathematical logic and type theory: To truth through proof. Academic Press, OrlandoGoogle Scholar
  2. Bloomfield L. (1933) Language. Allen and Unwin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Buszkowski W., Penn G. (1990) Categorial grammars determined from linguistic data by unification. Studia Logica 49: 431–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen J., Bangalore S., Vijay-Shanker K. (2006) Automated extraction of tree-adjoining grammars from treebanks. Natural Language Engineering 12(3): 251–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Church A. (1940) A formulation of a simple theory of types. Journal of Symbolic Logic 5: 56–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dunn J. M. (1993) Partial gaggles applied to logics with restricted structural rules. In: Došen K., Schroeder-Heister P. (eds) Substructural logics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 63–108Google Scholar
  7. Fulop, S. A. (2003). Discovering a new class of languages. In Proceedings of mathematics of language 8. Available online at the MOL website.Google Scholar
  8. Fulop S. A. (2004) On the logic and learning of language. Trafford, VictoriaGoogle Scholar
  9. Fulop S. A. (2005) Semantic bootstrapping of type-logical grammar. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 14(1): 49–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Galatos N., Jipsen P., Kowalski T., Ono H. (2007) Residuated lattices: An algebraic glimpse at substructural logics. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  11. Gentzen, G. (1934) Untersuchungen über das logische Schliessen. Mathematical Zeitschrift 39, 176–210, 405–431. English translation in (Szabo, 1969).Google Scholar
  12. Gold E. M. (1967) Language identification in the limit. Information and Control 10: 447–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hindley J. R. (1997) Basic simple type theory. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Howard W. A. (1980) The formulas-as-types notion of construction. In: Seldin J. P., Hindley J. R. (eds) To H.B. Curry: Essays on combinatory logic, lambda calculus and formalism. Academic Press, New York, pp 479–490Google Scholar
  15. Husserl, E. (1913) Logische Untersuchungen, Vol. II. Halle: M. Niemeyer, 2nd German edition. Investigation IV: The distinction between independent and non-independent meanings and the idea of pure grammar, from the 1970 English edition translated by J. N. Findlay.Google Scholar
  16. Joshi, A. K. (1983) Factoring recursion and dependencies: An aspect of tree adjoining grammars (TAG) and a comparison of some formal properties of TAGs, GPSGs, PLGs, and LPGs. In 21st Annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics, (pp. 7–15).Google Scholar
  17. Kanazawa, M. (1998). Learnable classes of categorial grammars, studies in logic, language and information. Stanford, CA.: CSLI Publications and the European Association for Logic, Language and Information.Google Scholar
  18. Klein, D. (2005) The unsupervised learning of natural language structure. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  19. Klein, D., Manning, C. D. (2002) A generative constituent-contex model for improved grammar induction. In 40th Annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics, ACL, (pp. 128–135).Google Scholar
  20. Lambek J. (1961) On the calculus of syntactic types. In: Jakobson R. (eds) Structure of language and its mathematical aspects. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, pp 166–178Google Scholar
  21. Lange S., Nessel J., Wiehagen R. (1994) Language learning from good examples. In: Arikawa S., Jantke K. P. (eds) Algorithmic learning theory, Vol 872 of lecture notes in artificial intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 423–437Google Scholar
  22. Moortgat M. (1997) Categorial Type Logics. In: Benthem J., ter Meulen A. (eds) Handbook of logic and language. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  23. Moortgat, M. (1999) Meaningful patterns. In: J. Gerbrandy, M. Marx, M. de Rijke, Y. Venema (Eds.), JFAK: Essays dedicated to Johan van Benthem on the occasion of his 50th birthday. Institute for Logic, Language, and Computation, University of Amsterdam. Available on CD-ROM at http://turing.wins.uva.nl.
  24. Moot, R. (2002) Proof nets for linguistic analysis. Ph.D. thesis, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  25. Pinker S. (1984) Language learnability and language development. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Radford A. (1988) Transformational grammar. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. Siskind, J. M. (1991) Naive physics, event perception, lexical semantics and language acquisition. In Proceedings of the AAAI spring symposium workshop on machine learning of natural language and ontology, (pp. 165–168).Google Scholar
  28. Siskind J. M. (1996) A computational study of cross-situational techniques for learning word-to-meaning mappings. Cognition 61: 39–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Szabo M. (1969) The collected papers of Gerhard Gentzen. North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  30. van Benthem J. (1991) Language in action. North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  31. Wansing H. (1992) Formulas-as-types for a hierarchy of sublogics of intuitionist propositional logic. In: Pearce D., Wansing H. (eds) Non-classical logics and information processing, Vol. 619 of lecture notes in artificial intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 125–145Google Scholar
  32. Wells R. S. (1947) Immediate constituents. Language 83: 81–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsCalifornia State University FresnoFresnoUSA

Personalised recommendations