Parsing Spoken Language Using Combinatory Grammars

  • Mark Steedman
Part of the The Springer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science book series (SECS, volume 126)


Combinatory Grammars are a generalization of Categorial Grammars to include operations on function categories corresponding to the combinators of Combinatory Logic, such as functional composition and type raising. The introduction of such operations is motivated by the need to provide an explanatory account of coordination and unbounded dependency. However, the associativity of functional composition tends to engender an equivalence class of possible derivations for each derivation permitted by more traditional grammars. While all derivations in each class by definition deliver the same function-argument relations in their interpretation, the proliferation of structural analyses presents obvious problems for parsing within this framework and the related approaches based on the Lambek calculus (cf. Moortgat, 1988).


Functional Composition Categorial Grammar Pitch Accent Prosodic Phrase Intonational Phrase 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Altmann, G., & Steedman, M. (1988). Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition, 30, 191–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beckman, M., & Pierrehumbert, J. (1986). Intonational structure in Japanese and English. Phonology Yearbook, 3, 255–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chomsky, N. (1971). Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation. In D. Steinberg & L. Jakobovits (Eds.), Semantics, Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  4. Crain, S., & Steedman, M. (1985). On not being led up the garden path: The use of context by the psychological parser. In D. Dowty, L. Kartunnen, & A. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational and theoretical perspectives (ACL Studies in Natural Language Processing). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Curry, H., & Feys, R. (1958). Combinatory logic. Amsterdam: North Holland.MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Hajičová, E., & Sgall, P. (1988). Topic and focus of a sentence and the patterning of a text. In J. Petöfi (Ed.), Text and discourse constitution. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  7. Halliday,M.(1967). Intonation and grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  8. Hausser, R. (1986). NEWCAT: Parsing natural language using left-associative grammar. Berlin: Springer Verlag.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hepple, M., & Morrill, G. (1989). Parsing and derivational equivalence. Proceedings of the Fourth Conference of the European Chapter of the ACL (pp. 10–18). Manchester.Google Scholar
  10. Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. König, E. (1989). Parsing as natural deduction. Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the ACL (pp. 272–280). Vancouver, BC.Google Scholar
  12. Marcus, M., Hindle, D., & Fleck, M. (1983). D-theory: Talking about talking about trees. Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 129–136). Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  13. Moortgat, M. (1988). Categorial investigations. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  14. Oehrle, R. T. (1985). Paper to the Conference on Categorial Grammar. Tucson, AR. Also published in R. T. Oehrle, E. Bach, & D. Wheeler, (Eds.) (in press), Categorial grammars and natural language structures. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  15. Pareschi, R., & Steedman, M. (1987). A lazy way to chart parse with categorial grammars. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the ACL (pp. 81–88). Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  16. Pierrehumbert, J. (1980). The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Cambridge, MA: MIT. (Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, IN.)Google Scholar
  17. Pierrehumbert, J., & Beckman, M. (1989). Japanese tone structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Pierrehumbert, J., & Hirschberg, J. (1987). The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse (Tech. Rep.). Bell Labs.Google Scholar
  19. Prince, E. F. (1986). On the syntactic marking of presupposed open propositions. Papers from the Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory at the 22nd Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 208–222).Google Scholar
  20. Selkirk, E. (1984). Phonology and syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Steedman, M. (1985). Dependency and coordination in the grammar of Dutch and English. Language, 61, 523–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Steedman, M. (1987). Combinatory grammars and parasitic gaps. NL&LT, 5, 403–439.Google Scholar
  23. Steedman, M. (1990a). Intonation and syntax in spoken language systems. Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the ACL (to appear). Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
  24. Steedman, M. (1990b). Structure and intonation (Tech. Rep.). University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  25. Winograd, T. (1972). Understanding natural language. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Wittenburg, K. B. (1986). Natural language parsing with combinatory calegorial grammar in a graph-unification based formalism. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Austin: University of Texas.Google Scholar
  27. Wittenburg, K. B. (1987). Predictive combinators: A method for efficient processing of combinatory grammars. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the ACL (pp. 73–80). Stanford, CA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark Steedman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer and Information ScienceUniversity of PennsylvaniaUSA

Personalised recommendations