Research on Language and Computation

, Volume 7, Issue 2–4, pp 171–208 | Cite as

Interaction Grammars

  • Bruno GuillaumeEmail author
  • Guy Perrier


Interaction Grammars are a grammatical formalism based on the notion of polarity. Polarities express the resource sensitivity of natural languages by modelling the distinction between saturated and unsaturated syntactic structures. Syntactic composition is represented as a chemical reaction guided by the saturation of polarities. It is expressed in a model-theoretic framework where grammars are constraint systems using the notion of tree description and parsing appears as a process of building tree description models satisfying criteria of saturation and minimality.


Grammatical formalism Categorial grammar Polarity Tree description 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abeillé, A., Rambow, O. (eds) (2001) Tree adjoining grammars: Formalisms, linguistic analysis and processing. CSLI, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Adjukiewicz K. (1935) Die syntaktische konnexität’. Studia Philosophica 1: 1–27Google Scholar
  3. Baldridge, J., & Kruijff, G. -J. (2003). Multi-modal combinatory categorial grammar. In 10th Conference of the European chapter of the association for computational linguistics (EACL ’2003). Budapest, Hungary.Google Scholar
  4. Bonfante G., Guillaume B., Perrier G. (2003) Analyse syntaxique électrostatique’. Traitement Automatique Des Langues 44(3): 93–120Google Scholar
  5. Bonfante, G., Guillaume, B., & Perrier, G. (2004). Polarization and abstraction of grammatical formalisms as methods for lexical disambiguation. In 20th International conference on computational linguistics, CoLing 2004, Genève, Switzerland (pp. 303–309).Google Scholar
  6. Bonfante, G., Le Roux, J., & Perrier, G. (2006). Lexical disambiguation with polarities and automata. In Lecture notes in computer science, (Vol. 4094. pp. 283–284), Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Boullier, P. (2003). Supertagging: A non-statistical parsing-based approach. In Proceedings of the 8th international workshop on parsing technologies (IWPT 03). Nancy, France (pp. 55–65).Google Scholar
  8. Bresnan J. (2001) Lexical-functional syntax. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Carpenter B. (1998) Type-logical semantics. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  10. Carston R., Blakemore D. (2003) Introduction to coordination: Syntax, semantics and pragmatics. Lingua 115(4): 353–358Google Scholar
  11. Clark, S., & Curran, J. (2004). Parsing the WSJ using CCG and log-linear models. In 42nd Annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (ACL ’04). Barcelona, Spain (pp. 103–110).Google Scholar
  12. Copestake A., Flickinger D., Pollard K., Sag I. (2005) Minimal recursion semantics—an introduction. Research on Language and Computation 3: 281–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Duchier, D., Le Roux, J., & Parmentier, Y. (2004). The metagrammar compiler: An NLP application with a multi-paradigm architecture. In Second international Mozart/Oz conference, MOZ 2004, Charleroi, Belgium (pp. 175–187).Google Scholar
  14. Duchier, D., & Thater, S. (1999). Parsing with tree descriptions: A constraint based approach. In Natural language understanding and logic programming NLULP’99,Dec 1999, Las Cruces, New Mexico.Google Scholar
  15. Egg M., Koller A., Niehren J. (2001) The constraint language for lambda structures. JOLLI 10: 457–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Godard D. (2005) Problmes syntaxiques de la coordination et propositions rcentes dans les grammaires syntagmatiques. Langages 160: 3–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hockenmaier, J. (2003). Parsing with generative models of predicate-argument structure. In 41st Annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (ACL ’03). Sapporo, Japan (pp. 359–366).Google Scholar
  18. Jespersen O. (1937) Analytic syntax. Allen and Unwin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnson M. (1998) Proof nets and the complexity of processing center-embedded constructions. JOLLI 7(4): 433–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kahane, S. (2006). Polarized unification grammars. In 21st International conference on computational linguistics and 44th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics. Sydney, Australia (pp. 137–144).Google Scholar
  21. Kahane, S., Candito, M. -H., & de Kercadio, Y. (2000). An alternative description of extractions in TAG. In Workshop TAG+5, Paris (pp. 115–122).Google Scholar
  22. Kallmeyer, L. (1999). Tree description grammars and underspecified representations. Ph.D. Thesis, Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
  23. Lambek J. (1958) The mathematics of sentence structure. The American Mathematical Monthly 65: 154–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Le Roux, J. (2007). La coordination dans les grammaires d’interaction. Ph.D. Thesis, Université Nancy 2.Google Scholar
  25. Le Roux J., Perrier G. (2006) La coordination dans les grammaires d’interaction. Traitement Automatique Des Langues 47(3): 89–113Google Scholar
  26. Marchand J. (2006) Algorithme de earley pour les grammaires d’interaction. Université Nancy 2: Travaux universitairesGoogle Scholar
  27. Marchand, J., Guillaume, B., & Perrier, G. (2009). Analyse en dépendances à l’aide des grammaires d’interaction. In 16ième Conférence annuelle sur le Traitement Automatique des Langues Naturelles (TALN’09), Senlis, France.Google Scholar
  28. Marcus, M., Hindle, D., & Fleck, M. (1983). D-Theory: Talking about talking about trees. In 21st Annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (pp. 129–136).Google Scholar
  29. Morrill G. (2000) Incremental processing and acceptability. Computational Linguistics 26(3): 319–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mouret, F. (2007). Grammaire des constructions coordonnées. Coordinations simples et coordinations à redoublement en français contemporain. Ph.D. Thesis, Université Paris 7.Google Scholar
  31. Muskens, R., & Krahmer, E. (1998). Talking about trees and truth-conditions. In Logical aspects of computational linguistics, LACL’98. Grenoble, France.Google Scholar
  32. Nasr, A. (1995). A formalism and a parser for lexicalised dependency grammars. In: 4th International workshop on parsing technologies, Prague, Czechoslowakia (pp. 186–195), State University of NY Press.Google Scholar
  33. Nivre, J. (2005). Dependency grammar and dependency parsing. MSI report 04071, Växjö University: School of Mathematics and Systems Engineering.Google Scholar
  34. Perrier, G. (2000). Interaction grammars. In 18th International conference on computational linguistics, CoLing 2000, Sarrebrücken (pp. 600–606).Google Scholar
  35. Perrier, G. (2001). Intuitionistic multiplicative proof nets as models of directed acyclic graph descriptions. In 8th International conference on logic for programming, artificial intelligence and reasoning—LPAR 2001, 2001, Vol. 2250 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Havana, Cuba (pp. 233–248).Google Scholar
  36. Perrier G. (2005) La sémantique dans les grammaires d’interaction. Traitement Automatique Des Langues (TAL) 45(3): 123–144Google Scholar
  37. Perrier, G. (2007). A French interaction grammar. In G. Angelova, K. Bontcheva, R. Mitkov, N. Nicolov, & K. Simov (Eds.), RANLP 2007. Borovets Bulgarie (pp. 463–467).Google Scholar
  38. Pullum, G., & Scholz, B. (2001). On the distinction between model-theoretic and generative-enumerative syntactic frameworks. In P. De Groote, G. Morrill, & C. Retoré (Eds.), Logical aspects of computational linguistics, LACL 2001, Le Croisic, France, Vol. 2099 of lecture notes in computer science (pp. 17–43), Springer.Google Scholar
  39. Rambow O., Vijay-Shanker K., Weir D. (2001) D-tree substitution grammars. Computational Linguistics 27(1): 87–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Retoré, C. (2005). The logic of categorial grammars: Lecture notes. Technical Report RR-5703, INRIA.Google Scholar
  41. Rogers, J., & Vijay-Shanker K. (1992). Reasoning with descriptions of trees. In 30th Annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (pp. 72–80).Google Scholar
  42. Sag, I., Wasow, T., & Bender, E. (2003). Syntactic theory : A formal introduction. Center for the study of language and INF.Google Scholar
  43. Sagot, B., Clément, L., de La Clergerie, E., & Boullier, P. (2006). The Lefff 2 syntactic lexicon for French: Architecture, acquisition, use. In LREC 06, Genova, Italy.Google Scholar
  44. Stabler, E. (1997). Derivational minimalism. In C. Retoré (Ed.), Logical aspects of computational linguistics, LACL’96, Nancy, France, Vol. 1328 of lecture notes in computer science (pp. 68–95).Google Scholar
  45. Steedman M. (1985) Dependency and coordination in the grammar of Dutch and English. Language 61(3): 523–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Steedman M. (2000) The syntactic process, Bradford books. MIT Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  47. Sygal Y., Wintner S. (2009) Associative grammar combination operators for tree-based grammars. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 18(3): 293–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tesnière, L. (1934). Comment construire une syntaxe. Bulletin de la Faculté des Lettres de Strasbourg 7–12iéme année (pp. 219–229).Google Scholar
  49. Tesnière L. (1959) Eléments de syntaxe structurale. Librairie C. Klincksieck, ParisGoogle Scholar
  50. Vijay-Shanker K. (1992) Using description of trees in a tree adjoining grammar. Computational Linguistics 18(4): 481–517Google Scholar
  51. Weir, D. (1988). Characterizing mildly context-sensitive grammar formalisms. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LORIA, INRIANancyFrance
  2. 2.LORIA, Université Nancy2NancyFrance

Personalised recommendations