On Limit Points for Some Variants of Rigid Lambek Grammars

  • Annie Foret
  • Yannick Le Nir
Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2484)

Abstract

In this paper we give some learnability results in the field of categorial grammars. We show that in contrast to k-valued classical categorial grammars, different classes of Lambek grammars are not learnable from strings following Gold’s model. The results are obtained by the construction of limit points in each considered class: non associative Lambek grammars with empty sequences and Lambek grammars without empty sequences and without product. Such results express the difficulty of learning categorial grammars from unstructured strings and the need for structured examples.

Keywords

grammatical inference categorial grammars Lambek calculus learning from positive examples computational linguistic 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [Ang80]
    Dana Angluin. Inductive inference of formal languages from positive data. Information and Control, 45:117–135, 1980.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. [BH53]
    Y. Bar-Hillel. A quasi arithmetical notation for syntactic description. Language, 29:47–58, 1953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [BR01]
    Roberto Bonato and Christian Retoré. Learning rigid lambek grammars and minimalist grammars from structured sentences. Third workshop on Learning Language in Logic, Strasbourg, 2001.Google Scholar
  4. [Bus97]
    W. Buszkowski. Mathematical linguistics and proof theory. In van Benthem and ter Meulen [vBtM97], chapter 12, pages 683–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [Cas88]
    Claudia Casadio. Semantic categories and the development of categorial grammars. In R. Oehrle, E. Bach, and D. Wheeler, editors, Categorial Grammars and Natural Language Structures, pages 95–124. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1988.Google Scholar
  6. [CF01]
    C. Costa Florêncio. Consistent Identification in the Limit of the Class k-valued is NP-hard. In LACL, 2001.Google Scholar
  7. [DSTT01]
    Dudau-Sofronie, Tellier, and Tommasi. Learning categorial grammars from semantic types. In 13th Amsterdam Colloquium, 2001.Google Scholar
  8. [FL02]
    Annie Foret and Yannick Le Nir. Rigid lambek grammars are not learnable from strings. Coling 2002. http://www.irisa.fr/prive/foret/learn.ps.
  9. [Gol67]
    E.M. Gold. Language identification in the limit. Information and control, 10:447–474, 1967.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. [Kan98]
    Makoto Kanazawa. Learnable classes of categorial grammars. Studies in Logic, Language and Information. FoLLI & CSLI, 1998. distributed by Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. [Lam58]
    Joachim Lambek. The mathematics of sentence structure. American mathematical monthly, 65:154–169, 1958.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. [Moo97]
    Michael Moortgat. Categorial type logic. In van Benthem and ter Meulen [vBtM97], chapter 2, pages 93–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [Nic99]
    Jacques Nicolas. Grammatical inference as unification. Rapport de Recherche RR-3632, INRIA, 1999. http://www.inria.fr/RRRT/publications-eng.html.
  14. [Pen93]
    Mati Pentus. Lambek grammars are context-free. In Logic in Computer Science. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  15. [Shi90]
    T. Shinohara. Inductive inference from positive data is powerful. In The 1990 Workshop on Computational Learning Theory, pages 97–110, San Mateo, California, 1990. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  16. [vBtM97]
    J. van Benthem and A. ter Meulen, editors. Handbook of Logic and Language. North-Holland Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1997.MATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Annie Foret
    • 1
  • Yannick Le Nir
    • 1
  1. 1.IRISARennesFrance

Personalised recommendations