Advertisement

Semilinearity as a syntactic invariant

  • Jens Michaelis
  • Marcus Kracht
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1328)

Abstract

Mildly context sensitive grammar formalisms such as multi-component TAGs and linear context free rewrite systems have been introduced to capture the full complexity of natural languages. We show that, in a formal sense, Old Georgian can be taken to provide an example of a non-semilinear language. This implies that none of the aforementioned grammar formalisms is strong enough to generate this language.

Keywords

Regular Language Grammar Formalism Terminal Symbol Phrase Structure Grammar Linear Context 
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.
    Winfried Boeder. Suffixaufnahme in Kartvelian. In [12], pages 151–215.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. A. Browning. Bounding conditions on representations. Linguistic Inquiry 22:541–562, 1991.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nick Evans. Multiple-case in Kayardild: Anti-iconic suffix ordering and the diachronic filter. In [12], pages 396–428.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Seymour Ginsburg and Edwin H. Spanier. Bounded ALGOL-like languages. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 113:333–368, 1964.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Annius V. Groenink. Mild context-sensitivity and tuple-based generalizations of context-free grammar. In D. E. Johnson and L. S. Moss, editors, Special Issue on the Mathematics of Language, Linguistics and Philosophy, forthcoming. Also available as Report CS-R9634, Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica (CWI), Amsterdam, 1996.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Riny Huybregts. The weak inadequacy of context-free phrase structure grammars. In G. de Haan, M. Trommelen, and W. Zonneveld, editors, Van Periferie naar Kern, pages 81–99. Foris Publications, Dordrecht, 1984.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aravind K. Joshi. Tree adjoinig grammars: How much context-sensitivity is required to provide reasonable structural descriptions? In D. Dowty, L. Karttunen, and A. Zwicky, editors, Natural Language Parsing. Theoretical, Computational and Psychological Perspective, pages 206–250. Cambridge University Press, New York, 1985.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Aravind K. Joshi, K. Vijay-Shanker, and David J. Weir. The convergence of mildly context-sensitive grammar formalisms. In P. Sells, S. Shieber, and T. Wasow, editors, Foundational Issues in Natural Language Processing, pages 31–81. MIT Press, Cambridge (Mass.), 1991.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alexis Manaster-Ramer. Dutch as a formal language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 10:221–246, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rohit J. Parikh. On context-free languages. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 13:570–581, 1966.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Frans Plank. (Re-)introducing Suffixaufnahme. In [12], pages 3–110.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Frans Plank, editor. Double Case. Agreement by Suffixaufnahme. Oxford University Press, New York, 1995.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Daniel Radzinski. Chinese number-names, tree adjoining languages, and mild context-sensitivity. Computational Linguistics, 17:277–299, 1991.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Owen Rambow. Formal and Computational Aspects of Natural Language Syntax. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 1994.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    K. Vijay-Shanker and David J. Weir. The equivalence of four extensions of context-free grammars. Mathematical Systems Theory, 27:511–546, 1994.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    David J. Weir. Characterizing Mildly Context-Sensitive Grammar Formalisms. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 1988.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kenneth Wexler and Peter W. Culicover. Formal Principles of Language Aquisition. MIT Press, Cambridge (Mass.), 1980.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jens Michaelis
    • 1
  • Marcus Kracht
    • 2
  1. 1.Institut für Linguistik/InnovationskollegUniversität PotsdamPotsdam
  2. 2.II. Mathematisches InstitutFreie Universität BerlinBerlin

Personalised recommendations