Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Mixed computation.Diego Gabriel Krivochen - 2021 - Evolutionary Linguistic Theory 3 (2):215-244.
    Proof-theoretic models of grammar are based on the view that an explicit characterization of a language comes in the form of the recursive enumeration of strings in that language. That recursive enumeration is carried out by a procedure which strongly generates a set of structural descriptions Σ and weakly generates a set of strings S; a grammar is thus a function that pairs an element of Σ with elements of S. Structural descriptions are obtained by means of Context-Free phrase structure (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Parsing natural language using LDS: a prototype.M. Finger, R. Kibble, D. Gabbay & R. Kempson - 1997 - Logic Journal of the IGPL 5 (5):647-671.
    This paper describes a prototype implementation of a Labelled Deduction System for natural language interpretation, where interpretation is taken to be the process of understanding a natural language utterance. The implementation models the process of understanding wh-gap dependencies in questions and relative clauses for a fragment of English. The paper is divided in three main sections. In Section 1, we introduce the basic architecture of the system. Section 2 outlines a prototype implementation of wh-binding and indicates its potential for explanation (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Starting with complex primitives pays off: complicate locally, simplify globally.Aravind K. Joshi - 2004 - Cognitive Science 28 (5):637-668.
    In setting up a formal system to specify a grammar formalism, the conventional (mathematical) wisdom is to start with primitives (basic primitive structures) as simple as possible, and then introduce various operations for constructing more complex structures. An alternate approach is to start with complex (more complicated) primitives, which directly capture some crucial linguistic properties and then introduce some general operations for composing these complex structures. These two approaches provide different domains of locality, i.e., domains over which various types of (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • On the Expressive Power of Abstract Categorial Grammars: Representing Context-Free Formalisms.Philippe Groote & Sylvain Pogodalla - 2004 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 13 (4):421-438.
    We show how to encode context-free string grammars, linear context-free tree grammars, and linear context-free rewriting systems as Abstract Categorial Grammars. These three encodings share the same constructs, the only difference being the interpretation of the composition of the production rules. It is interpreted as a first-order operation in the case of context-free string grammars, as a second-order operation in the case of linear context-free tree grammars, and as a third-order operation in the case of linear context-free rewriting systems. This (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Restricting grammatical complexity.Robert Frank - 2004 - Cognitive Science 28 (5):669-697.
    Theories of natural language syntax often characterize grammatical knowledge as a form of abstract computation. This paper argues that such a characterization is correct, and that fundamental properties of grammar can and should be understood in terms of restrictions on the complexity of possible grammatical computation, when defined in terms of generative capacity. More specifically, the paper demonstrates that the computational restrictiveness imposed by Tree Adjoining Grammar provides important insights into the nature of human grammatical knowledge.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • On the expressive power of abstract categorial grammars: Representing context-free formalisms. [REVIEW]Philippe de Groote & Sylvain Pogodalla - 2004 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 13 (4):421-438.
    We show how to encode context-free string grammars, linear context-free tree grammars, and linear context-free rewriting systems as Abstract Categorial Grammars. These three encodings share the same constructs, the only difference being the interpretation of the composition of the production rules. It is interpreted as a first-order operation in the case of context-free string grammars, as a second-order operation in the case of linear context-free tree grammars, and as a third-order operation in the case of linear context-free rewriting systems. This (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Mixed computation: grammar up and down the Chomsky Hierarchy.Diego Gabriel Krivochen - 2021 - Evolutionary Linguistic Theory 2 (3):215-244.
    Proof-theoretic models of grammar are based on the view that an explicit characterization of a language comes in the form of the recursive enumeration of strings in that language. That recur-sive enumeration is carried out by a procedure which strongly generates a set of structural de-scriptions Σ and weakly generates a set of strings S; a grammar is thus a function that pairs an element of Σ with elements of S. Structural descriptions are obtained by means of Context-Free phrase structure (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark