Skip to main content

What Is a Natural Language and How to Describe It? Meaning-Text Approaches in Contrast with Generative Approaches

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Book cover Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing (CICLing 2001)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 2004))

Abstract

The paper expounds the general conceptions of the Meaning- Text theory about what a natural language is and how it must be de- scribed. In a second part, a formalization of these conceptions - the transductive grammars - is proposed and compared with generative ap- proaches.

I want to thank Kim Gerdes, Alain Polguère and Pascal Amsili for many valuable comments and corrections. I want also to thank Alexander Gelbukh for his sugges- tions about the topic of this paper.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aho Alfred & Ullman Jeffrey, 1972, The Theory of Parsing, Translation and Compiling, Vol. I: Parsing, London: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Arnola Harri, 1998, “On parsing binary dependency structures deterministically in linear time”, in Kahane & Polguère (eds), Workshop on dependency-based grammars, COLING-ACL’98, Montreal, 68–77.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Blanche Philippe, 1998, “Parsing ambiguous structures using controlled disjunctions and unary quasi-trees”, Proc. COLING-ACL ’98, Montreal, 124–130.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Boyer Michel & Lapalme Guy, 1985, “Generating paraphrases from Meaning-Text semantic networks”, Comput. Intell., 1, 103–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Brody Michael, 1997, Lexico-Logical Form: A Radically Minimalist Theory, Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Chomsky Noam, 1957, Syntactic Structure, Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Courtin Jacques & Genthial Damien, 1998, “Parsing with Dependency Relations and Robust Parsing”, in Kahane & Polguère (eds), Workshop on dependency-based grammars, COLING-ACL’98, Montreal, 95–101.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dikovsky Alexander & Modina Larissa, 2000, “Dependencies on the other side of the Curtain”, in S. Kahane (ed.), Grammaires de dépendance, T.A.L., 41:1.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gaifman Haïm, 1965, “Dependency systems and phrase-structure systems”, Information and Control8, 304–337; Rand Corporation Techn. Report RM-2315, 1961.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Gladkij Aleksej & Mel’čuk Igor, 1975, “Tree grammars: A Formalism for Syntactic Transformations in Natural Language”, Linguistics, 150, 47–82.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Iordanskaja Lidija, 1963, “O nekotoryx svojstvax pravil’noj sintaksičeskoj struktury (na materiale russkogo jazyka)” [On some properties of the correct syntactic structure (on the basis of Russian)], Voprosy jazykoznanija, 4, 102–12.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Iordanskaja Lidija & Polguère Alain, 1988, “Semantic processing for text generation”, in Proc. First International Computer Science Conf.-88, Hong Kong, 310–18.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Jackendoff Ray S., 1977, X’ Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure, Linguistic Inquiry Monograph, MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kahane Sylvain, 1997, “Bubble trees and syntactic representations”, in Becker & Krieger (eds), Proc. 5th Meeting of the Mathematics of Language (MOL5), Saarbrücken: DFKI.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kahane Sylvain, 2001, “A fully lexicalized grammar for French based on the Meaning-Text theory”, this issue.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kahane Sylvain & Mel’čuk Igor, 1999, “Synthèse des phrases à extraction en français contemporain (Du graphe sémantique à l’arbre de dépendance)”, T.A.L., 40:2, 25–85.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lecerf Yves, 1961, “Une représentation algébrique de la structure des phrases dans diverses langues naturelles”, C. R. Acad. Sc. Paris, 252, 232–234.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kornaï Andreás & Tuza Zsolt, 1992, “Narrowness, pathwidth, and their application in natural language processing”, Disc. Appl. Math, 36, 87–92.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Mel’čuk Igor, 1967, “Ordre des mots en synthèse automatique des textes russes”, T.A. Informations, 8:2, 65–84.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Mel’čuk Igor, 1988, Dependency Syntax: Theory and Practice, Albany, NY: State Univ. of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Mel’čuk Igor, 1997, Vers une Linguistique Sens-Texte, Leçon inaugurale au Collège de France, Paris: Collège de France.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Mel’çuk Igor, 1993-2000, Cours de morphologie générale, Vol. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5, Montreal: Presses de l’Univ. Montreal / Paris: CNRS.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Mel’çuk Igor & Pertsov Nikolaj, 1987, Surface Syntax of English. A Formal Model within the Meaning-Text Framework, Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Mel’çuk Igor et al., 1984, 1988, 1992, 1999, Dictionnnaire explicatif et combinatoire du français contemporain, Vol. 1, 2, 3, 4,Montreal: Presses de l’Univ. Montreal.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Milićević Jasmina, 2001, “A short guide to the Meaning-Text linguistic theory”, in Alexander Gelbukh (ed.), Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing, Colección en Ciencias de Computación, Fondo de Cultura Económica-IPN-UNAM, Mexico.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Nasr Alexis, 1995, “A formalism and a parser for lexicalised dependency grammars”, 4th Int. Workshop on Parsing Technologies, State Univ. of NY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Polguère Alain, 1997, “Meaning-Text Semantic Networks as a Formal Language”, in L. Wanner (ed.), Recent Trends in Meaning-Text Theory, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Pollard Carl & Sag Ivan A., 1994, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, CSLI series, Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Žolkovskij Aleksandr & Mel’çuk Igor, 1965, “O vozmožnom metode i instrumentax semantičeskogo sinteza” [On a possible method an instruments for semantic synthesis (of texts)], Naučno-texničeskaja informacija [Scientific and Technological Information], 6, 23–28.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Žolkovskij Aleksandr & Mel’čuk Igor, 1967, “O semantičeskom sintez” [On semantic synthesis (of texts)], Problemy kybernetiki [Problems of Cybernetics], 19, 177–238. [Fr. transl.: 1970, T.A. Information, 2, 1-85.]

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2001 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Kahane, S. (2001). What Is a Natural Language and How to Describe It? Meaning-Text Approaches in Contrast with Generative Approaches. In: Gelbukh, A. (eds) Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing. CICLing 2001. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2004. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44686-9_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44686-9_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-41687-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-44686-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics