Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Interaction Grammars

  • Published:
Research on Language and Computation

Abstract

Interaction Grammars are a grammatical formalism based on the notion of polarity. Polarities express the resource sensitivity of natural languages by modelling the distinction between saturated and unsaturated syntactic structures. Syntactic composition is represented as a chemical reaction guided by the saturation of polarities. It is expressed in a model-theoretic framework where grammars are constraint systems using the notion of tree description and parsing appears as a process of building tree description models satisfying criteria of saturation and minimality.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abeillé, A., Rambow, O. (eds) (2001) Tree adjoining grammars: Formalisms, linguistic analysis and processing. CSLI, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  • Adjukiewicz K. (1935) Die syntaktische konnexität’. Studia Philosophica 1: 1–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldridge, J., & Kruijff, G. -J. (2003). Multi-modal combinatory categorial grammar. In 10th Conference of the European chapter of the association for computational linguistics (EACL ’2003). Budapest, Hungary.

  • Bonfante G., Guillaume B., Perrier G. (2003) Analyse syntaxique électrostatique’. Traitement Automatique Des Langues 44(3): 93–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonfante, G., Guillaume, B., & Perrier, G. (2004). Polarization and abstraction of grammatical formalisms as methods for lexical disambiguation. In 20th International conference on computational linguistics, CoLing 2004, Genève, Switzerland (pp. 303–309).

  • Bonfante, G., Le Roux, J., & Perrier, G. (2006). Lexical disambiguation with polarities and automata. In Lecture notes in computer science, (Vol. 4094. pp. 283–284), Springer.

  • Boullier, P. (2003). Supertagging: A non-statistical parsing-based approach. In Proceedings of the 8th international workshop on parsing technologies (IWPT 03). Nancy, France (pp. 55–65).

  • Bresnan J. (2001) Lexical-functional syntax. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter B. (1998) Type-logical semantics. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Carston R., Blakemore D. (2003) Introduction to coordination: Syntax, semantics and pragmatics. Lingua 115(4): 353–358

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, S., & Curran, J. (2004). Parsing the WSJ using CCG and log-linear models. In 42nd Annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (ACL ’04). Barcelona, Spain (pp. 103–110).

  • Copestake A., Flickinger D., Pollard K., Sag I. (2005) Minimal recursion semantics—an introduction. Research on Language and Computation 3: 281–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duchier, D., Le Roux, J., & Parmentier, Y. (2004). The metagrammar compiler: An NLP application with a multi-paradigm architecture. In Second international Mozart/Oz conference, MOZ 2004, Charleroi, Belgium (pp. 175–187).

  • Duchier, D., & Thater, S. (1999). Parsing with tree descriptions: A constraint based approach. In Natural language understanding and logic programming NLULP’99,Dec 1999, Las Cruces, New Mexico.

  • Egg M., Koller A., Niehren J. (2001) The constraint language for lambda structures. JOLLI 10: 457–485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godard D. (2005) Problmes syntaxiques de la coordination et propositions rcentes dans les grammaires syntagmatiques. Langages 160: 3–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hockenmaier, J. (2003). Parsing with generative models of predicate-argument structure. In 41st Annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (ACL ’03). Sapporo, Japan (pp. 359–366).

  • Jespersen O. (1937) Analytic syntax. Allen and Unwin, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson M. (1998) Proof nets and the complexity of processing center-embedded constructions. JOLLI 7(4): 433–447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahane, S. (2006). Polarized unification grammars. In 21st International conference on computational linguistics and 44th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics. Sydney, Australia (pp. 137–144).

  • Kahane, S., Candito, M. -H., & de Kercadio, Y. (2000). An alternative description of extractions in TAG. In Workshop TAG+5, Paris (pp. 115–122).

  • Kallmeyer, L. (1999). Tree description grammars and underspecified representations. Ph.D. Thesis, Universität Tübingen.

  • Lambek J. (1958) The mathematics of sentence structure. The American Mathematical Monthly 65: 154–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Le Roux, J. (2007). La coordination dans les grammaires d’interaction. Ph.D. Thesis, Université Nancy 2.

  • Le Roux J., Perrier G. (2006) La coordination dans les grammaires d’interaction. Traitement Automatique Des Langues 47(3): 89–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Marchand J. (2006) Algorithme de earley pour les grammaires d’interaction. Université Nancy 2: Travaux universitaires

  • Marchand, J., Guillaume, B., & Perrier, G. (2009). Analyse en dépendances à l’aide des grammaires d’interaction. In 16ième Conférence annuelle sur le Traitement Automatique des Langues Naturelles (TALN’09), Senlis, France.

  • Marcus, M., Hindle, D., & Fleck, M. (1983). D-Theory: Talking about talking about trees. In 21st Annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (pp. 129–136).

  • Morrill G. (2000) Incremental processing and acceptability. Computational Linguistics 26(3): 319–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mouret, F. (2007). Grammaire des constructions coordonnées. Coordinations simples et coordinations à redoublement en français contemporain. Ph.D. Thesis, Université Paris 7.

  • Muskens, R., & Krahmer, E. (1998). Talking about trees and truth-conditions. In Logical aspects of computational linguistics, LACL’98. Grenoble, France.

  • Nasr, A. (1995). A formalism and a parser for lexicalised dependency grammars. In: 4th International workshop on parsing technologies, Prague, Czechoslowakia (pp. 186–195), State University of NY Press.

  • Nivre, J. (2005). Dependency grammar and dependency parsing. MSI report 04071, Växjö University: School of Mathematics and Systems Engineering.

  • Perrier, G. (2000). Interaction grammars. In 18th International conference on computational linguistics, CoLing 2000, Sarrebrücken (pp. 600–606).

  • Perrier, G. (2001). Intuitionistic multiplicative proof nets as models of directed acyclic graph descriptions. In 8th International conference on logic for programming, artificial intelligence and reasoning—LPAR 2001, 2001, Vol. 2250 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Havana, Cuba (pp. 233–248).

  • Perrier G. (2005) La sémantique dans les grammaires d’interaction. Traitement Automatique Des Langues (TAL) 45(3): 123–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrier, G. (2007). A French interaction grammar. In G. Angelova, K. Bontcheva, R. Mitkov, N. Nicolov, & K. Simov (Eds.), RANLP 2007. Borovets Bulgarie (pp. 463–467).

  • Pullum, G., & Scholz, B. (2001). On the distinction between model-theoretic and generative-enumerative syntactic frameworks. In P. De Groote, G. Morrill, & C. Retoré (Eds.), Logical aspects of computational linguistics, LACL 2001, Le Croisic, France, Vol. 2099 of lecture notes in computer science (pp. 17–43), Springer.

  • Rambow O., Vijay-Shanker K., Weir D. (2001) D-tree substitution grammars. Computational Linguistics 27(1): 87–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Retoré, C. (2005). The logic of categorial grammars: Lecture notes. Technical Report RR-5703, INRIA.

  • Rogers, J., & Vijay-Shanker K. (1992). Reasoning with descriptions of trees. In 30th Annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (pp. 72–80).

  • Sag, I., Wasow, T., & Bender, E. (2003). Syntactic theory : A formal introduction. Center for the study of language and INF.

  • Sagot, B., Clément, L., de La Clergerie, E., & Boullier, P. (2006). The Lefff 2 syntactic lexicon for French: Architecture, acquisition, use. In LREC 06, Genova, Italy.

  • Stabler, E. (1997). Derivational minimalism. In C. Retoré (Ed.), Logical aspects of computational linguistics, LACL’96, Nancy, France, Vol. 1328 of lecture notes in computer science (pp. 68–95).

  • Steedman M. (1985) Dependency and coordination in the grammar of Dutch and English. Language 61(3): 523–568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steedman M. (2000) The syntactic process, Bradford books. MIT Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Sygal Y., Wintner S. (2009) Associative grammar combination operators for tree-based grammars. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 18(3): 293–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tesnière, L. (1934). Comment construire une syntaxe. Bulletin de la Faculté des Lettres de Strasbourg 7–12iéme année (pp. 219–229).

  • Tesnière L. (1959) Eléments de syntaxe structurale. Librairie C. Klincksieck, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Vijay-Shanker K. (1992) Using description of trees in a tree adjoining grammar. Computational Linguistics 18(4): 481–517

    Google Scholar 

  • Weir, D. (1988). Characterizing mildly context-sensitive grammar formalisms. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. LORIA, INRIA, Nancy, France

    Bruno Guillaume

  2. LORIA, Université Nancy2, Nancy, France

    Guy Perrier

Authors
  1. Bruno Guillaume
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Guy Perrier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bruno Guillaume.

About this article

Cite this article

Guillaume, B., Perrier, G. Interaction Grammars. Res on Lang and Comput 7, 171–208 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11168-010-9066-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11168-010-9066-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation