A Linear Logic Treatment of Phrase Structure Grammars For Unbounded Dependencies

  • Joshua S. Hodas
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1582)

Abstract

A number of researchers have proposed applications of Girard's Linear Logic [7] to computational linguistics. Most have focused primarily on the connection between linear logic and categorial grammars. In this work we show how linear logic can be used to provide an attractive encoding of phrase structure grammars for parsing structures involving unbounded dependencies. The resulting grammars are closely related to Generalized Phrase Structure Grammars [4, 5]. As part of the presentation we show how a variety of issues, such as island and coordination constraints can be dealt with in this model.

Keywords

Noun Phrase Relative Clause Intuitionistic Logic Linear Logic Parse Tree 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Mary Dalrymple, John Lamping, Fernando Pereira, and Vijay Saraswat. Linear logic for meaning assembly. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Logic for Natural Language Processing, 1995.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mary Dalrymple, John Lamping, Fernando Pereira, and Vijay Saraswat. A Deductive Account of Quanti.cation in LFG. Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford, California, 1996.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mary Dalrymple, John Lamping, Fernando Pereira, and Vijay Saraswat. Quantifiers, anaphora, and intensionality. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, 6(3):219–273, 1997.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gerald J. M. Gazdar. Unbounded dependencies and coordinate structure. Linguistic Inquiry, 12(2):154–184, 1981.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gerald J. M. Gazdar. Phrase structure grammar. In P. Jacobson and G. K. Pullum, editors, The Nature of Syntactic Representation, pages 131–186. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1982.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gerald J. M. Gazdar, Ewan Klein, Geoffrey K. Pullum, and Ivan Sag. Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1985.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jean-Yves Girard. Linear logic. Theoretical Computer Science, 50:1–102, 1987.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mark Hepple. Hybrid categorial logics. Bulletin of the Interest Group in Pure and Applied Logics, 3(2.3), 1995.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Joshua Hodas. Specifying filler-gap dependency parsers in a linear-logic programming language. In K. Apt, editor, Proceedings of the Joint International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming, pages 622–636, 1992.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Joshua S. Hodas. Logic Programming in Intuitionistic Linear Logic: Theory, Design, and Implementation. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Department of Computer and Information Science, May 1994.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Joshua S. Hodas and Dale Miller. Logic programming in a fragment of intuitionistic linear logic. Journal of Information and Computation, 1994. To appear.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Joshus Hodas and Dale Miller. Logic programming in a fragment of intuitionistic linear logic: Extended abstract. In G. Kahn, editor, Sixth Annual Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pages 32–42, Amsterdam, July 1991.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mark Johnson. Resource-sensitivity in lexical-functional grammar. In Proceedings of the Roma Workshop, 1996.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    A.K. Joshi. An introduction to tree adjoining grammars. In A. Manaster-Ramer, editor, The Mathematics of Language. Benjamins, 1986.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Aravind K. Joshi. Tree adjoining grammars: How much context-sensitivity is required to provide reasonable structural description? In David Dowty, Lauri Karttunen, and Arnold Zwicky, editors, Natural language processing: psycholinguistic, computational and theoretical perspectives, pages 206–250. Cambridge University Press, New York, 1983.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Max Kanovich. The expressive power of initial fragments of linear logic. A talk given at the Linear Logic Workshop, Cornell University, June 1993.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    J. Lambek. The mathematics of sentence structure. American Mathematical Monthly, 65:154–169, 1958.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. Lambek and P. J. Scott. Introduction to Higher Order Categorical Logic. Cambridge University Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    P. Lincoln, J. Mitchell, A. Scedrov, and N. Shankar. Decision problems for propositional linear logic. Technical Report SRI-CSL-90-08, SRI International, 1990.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Michael Moortgat. Unambiguous proof representations for the lambek calculus. In Proceedings of the 8th Amsterdam Colloquium, 1991.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Glyn Morrill. Clausal proof nets and discontinuity. In Proceedings of the London Workshop on Proof Theory and Linguistic Analysis, 1994.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gopalan Nadathur and Dale Miller. An Overview of λProlog. In Fifth International Logic Programming Conference, pages 810–827, Seattle,Washington, August 1988. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Richard T. Oehrle. Forms of labeled categorial type deduction. In Proceedings of the London Workshop on Proof Theory and Linguistic Analysis, 1994.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Remo Pareschi. Type-driven Natural Language Analysis. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh, 1989.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Remo Pareschi and Dale Miller. Extending definite clause grammars with scoping constructs. In David D. H. Warren and Peter Szeredi, editors, 1990 International Conference in Logic Programming, pages 373–389. MIT Press, June 1990.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fernando C. N. Pereira and Stuart M. Shieber. Prolog and Natural-Language Analysis, volume 10. CLSI, Stanford, CA, 1987.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dirk Roorda. Resource Logics: Proof-Theoretical Investigations. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam, 1991.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    John Robert Ross. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1967.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mark J. Steedman. Combinators and grammars. In Bach Oehrle and Wheeler, editors, Categorial Grammars and Natural Language Structures, 1988.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joshua S. Hodas
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentHarvey Mudd CollegeClaremont

Personalised recommendations