Journal of Logic, Language and Information

, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp 1–16

Off-Line Parsability and the Well-Foundedness of Subsumption

  • Shuly Wintner
  • Nissim Francez
Article

Abstract

Typed feature structures are used extensively for the specification of linguistic information in many formalisms. The subsumption relation orders TFSs by their information content. We prove that subsumption of acyclic TFSs is well founded, whereas in the presence of cycles general TFS subsumption is not well founded. We show an application of this result for parsing, where the well-foundedness of subsumption is used to guarantee termination for grammars that are off-line parsable. We define a new version of off-line parsability that is less strict than the existing one; thus termination is guaranteed for parsing with a larger set of grammars.

computational linguistics parsing feature structures unification 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Carpenter, B., 1992a, “ALE - The attribute logic engine: User' guide,” Technical report, Laboratory for Computational Linguistics, Philosophy Department, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213.Google Scholar
  2. Carpenter, B., 1992b, The Logic of Typed Feature Structures, Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Haas, A., 1989, “A parsing algorithm for unification grammar,” Computational Linguistics 15(4), 219–232.Google Scholar
  4. Haddock, N., Klein, E., and Morill, G., eds., 1987, Categorial Grammar, Unification and Parsing, Working Papers in Cognitive Science, Vol. 1, University of Edinburgh, Center for Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
  5. Johnson, M., 1988, Attribute-Value Logic and the Theory of Grammar, CSLI Lecture Notes, Vol. 16, Stanford, CA: CLSI.Google Scholar
  6. Kaplan, R. and Bresnan, J., 1982, “Lexical functional grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation,” pp. 173–281 in TheMental Representation ofGrammatical Relations, J. Bresnan, ed., Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Moshier, D.M. and Rounds, W.C., 1987, “A logic for partially specified data structures,” pp. 156–167 in 14th Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages.Google Scholar
  8. Pereira, F.C.N. and Warren, D.H.D., 1983, “Parsing as deduction,” pp. 137–144 in Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
  9. Pollard, C. and Sag, I.A., 1994, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Chicago: University of Chicago Press and Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  10. Shieber, S.M., 1992, Constraint-Based Grammar Formalisms, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Shieber, S.M., Schabes, Y., and Pereira, F.C.N., 1994, “Principles and implementation of deductive parsing,” Technical Report TR-11-94, Center for Research in Computing Technology, Division of Applied Sciences, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  12. Sikkel, K., 1993, Parsing Schemata, Enschede: Klaas Sikkel.Google Scholar
  13. Wintner, S. and Francez, N., 1995a, “An abstract machine for typed feature structures,” pp. 205–220 in Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Natural Language Understanding and Logic Programming, Lisbon, May 1995.Google Scholar
  14. Wintner, S. and Francez, N., 1995b, “Parsing with typed feature structures,” Technical Report LCL 95-1, Laboratory for Computational Linguistics, Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 32000, Israel.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shuly Wintner
    • 1
    • 2
  • Nissim Francez
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceTechnionIsrael
  2. 2.Institute of TechnologyHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations