Strict Compositionality and Literal Movement Grammars

  • Marcus Kracht
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2014)


The principle of compositionality, as standardly defined, regards grammars as compositional that are not compositional in an intuitive sense of the word. There is, for example, no notion of a part of a string or structure involved in the formal definition. We shall therefore propose here a stricter version of compositionality. It consists in a conjunction of principles which assure among other that complex signs are in a literal sense made from simpler signs, with the meaning and syntactic type being computed in tandem. We shall argue that given this strict principle, quite powerful string handling mechanisms must be assumed. Linear Context Free Rewrite Systems (see [13]) are not enough to generate human languages, but most likely Literal Movement Grammars will do.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Boeder, W. Suffixaufnahme in Kartvelian. In Plank, F., editor, Double Case. Agreement by Suffixaufnahme, pages 151–215. Oxford University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Calcagno, M. A Sign-Based Extension to the Lambek Calculus for Discontinuous Constituents. In Bulletin of the IGPL, 3:555–578, 1995.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dench, A. Suffixaufnahme and Apparent Ellipsis in Martuthunira. In Plank, F., editor, Double Case. Agreement by Suffixaufnahme, pages 380–395. Oxford University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Evans, N. D. A Grammar of Kayardild. With Historical-Comparative Notes on Tangkic. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, 1995.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Groenink, A. Surface without Structure. Word order and tractability issues in natural language processing. Ph.D. thesis, Utrecht University, 1997.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Janssen, T. Compositionality. In van Benthem, J. and A. ter Meulen, editors, Handbook of Logic and Language, pages 417–473. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1997.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kazmi, A. and F. J. Pelletier. Is Compositionality Formally Vacuous? In Linguistics and Philosophy, 21:629–633, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Michaelis, J. and M. Kracht. Semilinearity as a syntactic invariant. In Retoré, C., editor, Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics (LACL’ 96), number 1328 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 329–345. Springer, Heidelberg, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moortgat, M. Generalized quantifiers and discontinuous type constructors.In Sijtsma, W. and A. van Horck, editors, Discontinuous Constituency. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, 1993.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pollard, C. J. Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar, Head Grammars and Natural Language. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, 1984.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Radzinski, D. Chinese Number Names, Tree Adjoining Languages, and Mild Context-Sensitivity. In Computational Linguistics, 17:277–299, 1991.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rambow, O. Formal and Computational Aspects of Natural Language Syntax. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 1994.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Seki, H., T. Matsumura, M. Fujii, and T. Kasami. On multiple context-free grammars. In Theoretical Computer Science, 88:191–229, 1991.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Westerståhl, D. On Mathematical Proofs of the Vacuity of Compositionality. In Linguistics and Philosophy, 21:635–643, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zadrozny, W. From Compositional Semantics tp Systematic Semantics. In Linguistics and Philosophy, 17:329–342, 1994.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcus Kracht
    • 1
  1. 1.II. Mathematisches InstitutFreie Universität BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations