Parsing with a GB-Grammar

  • Eric Wehrli
Part of the Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 35)


Over the last few years, research in theoretical linguistics has been marked by a significant change of perspective with regard to the conception of natural language grammars. Often characterized as a shift in focus from a conception of grammar as a set of rules to a conception of grammars as a set of interactive principles of well-formedness and parameters (in short rule-based vs. principle-based grammars), this change has been primarily triggered by the search for a more explanatory theory. It took place gradually, extending from the first attempts to reduce the excessive generative power of the transformational component of generative grammars, in the early ’70s, to the more recent developments affecting the phrase-structure component of the grammar1.


Direct Object Lexical Ambiguity Binding Component Input Sentence Grammatical Function 
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. Abney, S. and J. Cole (1985). “A government-binding parser,” Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society XVI.Google Scholar
  2. Barton, G. E. Jr.(1984). “Toward a principle-based parser,”, A.I. Memo 788, MIT AI Lab.Google Scholar
  3. Berwick, R. and A. Weinberg (1984). The Grammatical Basis of Linguistic Performance: Language Use and Acquisition, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Borer, H., ed. (1986). The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics. Syntax and Semantics, vol.19, Academic Press.Google Scholar
  5. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris Publications.Google Scholar
  6. Chomsky, N. (1982). Some Concepts and Consequences in the Theory of Government and Binding, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of Language: Its Origin, Nature and Use, Praeger Publishers, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Crain, S. and J. D. Fodor (1985). “How can grammars help parsers?” in Dowty et al. (1985), 94–128.Google Scholar
  9. Dowty, D., L. Karttunen and A. Zwicky, eds. (1985). Natural Language Parsing: Psychological, Computational and Theoretical Perspectives, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Earley, J. (1970). “An efficient context-free parsing algorithm,” Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery 13:2 94–102.Google Scholar
  11. Fodor, J.D. (1983). “Phrase structure parsing and the island constraints,” Linguistics and Philosophy 6 163:223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Karttunen, L. and M. Kay (1985). “Parsing in a free word order language,” in Dowty et al. (1985).Google Scholar
  13. Kashket, M.B. (1986). “Parsing a free-word order language: Warlpiri,” Proceedings of the 24th ACL Conference, 60–66.Google Scholar
  14. Kay, M. (1977). “Morphological and syntactic analysis” in A. Zampolli (ed.) Syntactic Structures Processing, North Holland.Google Scholar
  15. Kay, M. (1980). “Algorithm schemata and data structures in syntactic processing” CSL-80-12 Xerox Palo Alto Research Center.Google Scholar
  16. Kuhns, R.J. (1986). “A PROLOG implementation of government-binding theory,” COLING.Google Scholar
  17. Kuno, S. (1965). “The predictive analyzer and a path elimination technique.” Communications of the ACM 8 453–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Larson, R.K. (1985). “Bare-NP adverbs,” Linguistic Inquiry 16:4 595–621.Google Scholar
  19. Marcus, M. (1980). A Theory of Syntactic Recognition for Natural Language, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Milne, R. (1986) “Resolving lexical ambiguity in a deterministic parser,” Computational Linguistics 12.1. pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
  21. Rizzi, L. (1986). “On chain formation,” in H. Borer (ed).Google Scholar
  22. Sharp, R. (1985). A Model of Grammar Based on Principles of Government and Binding, M.S. Thesis, The University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
  23. Stabler, E.P. (1986). “Restricting logic grammars with Government-Binding theory”, mimeo, Quintus Computers Systems.Google Scholar
  24. Stowell, T. (1981). Origins of Phrase Structure, Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  25. Stowell, T. (1982). “A formal theory of configurational phenomena,” in J. Pustejovsky and P. Sells Proceedings of the XIIth conference of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, 235–257.Google Scholar
  26. Thiersh, C. and H-P. Kolb (1986). “Strict X-bar parsing: prolegomena to a government and binding parser”, paper presented at the GLOW meeting, Barcelona-Girona.Google Scholar
  27. Wehrli, E. (1983). “A modular parser for French,” in Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, William Kaufmann, 686–689.Google Scholar
  28. Wehrli, E. (1984). “A Government-Binding parser for French,” Working Paper No 48, Institut pour les Etudes Sémantiques et Cognitives, Université de Genève.Google Scholar
  29. Wehrli, E. (in preparation). “Deterministic parsing: a critical evaluation”.Google Scholar
  30. Williams, E. (1981). “Argument structure and morphology,” The Linguistic Review 1:1 81–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Winograd, T. (1983). Language as a Cognitive Process, Addison Wesley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric Wehrli
    • 1
  1. 1.U.C.L.A.USA

Personalised recommendations