Skip to main content

Grammars with Composite Storages

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics (LACL 1998)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 2014))

Abstract

Linear indexed grammars (LIGs) can be used to describe nonlocal dependencies. The indexing mechanism, however, can only account for dependencies that are nested. In natural languages one can easily find examples to which this simple model cannot be applied straight forwardly. In this paper I will show that a formalism fitting better to linguistic structures can be obtained by using a sequence of pushdowns instead of one pushdown for the storage of the indices in a derivation. Crucially, we have to avoid unwanted interactions between the push-downs that would make possible the simulation of a turing machine. [1] solves this problem for multi– pushdown automata by restricting reading to the first nonempty pushdown. I will argue that the corresponding restriction on writing is more natural from a linguistic point of view. I will show that, under each of both restrictions, grammars with a sequence of n pushdowns give rise to a subclass of the nth member of the hierarchy defined by [15,16], and therefore are mildly context sensitive.

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. Breveglieri, L., A. Cherubini, C. Citrini, and S. Crespi Reghizzi. Multi–push–down languages and grammars. International Journal of Foundations of Computer Science, 7(3): 253–291, 1996.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Chomsky, N. The Minimalist Program. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Ferguson, K. S., and E. M. Groat. Defining “shortest move”, deriving A–movement, strict cyclicity and incorporation phenomena. In GLOW Newsletter 32, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Gazdar, G. Applicability of indexed grammars to natural languages. In U. Reyle and C. Rohrer, editors, Natural Language Parsing and Linguistic Theories, pages 69–94. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Lewis, R. L. Interference in short–term memory: The magical number two (or three) in sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25(1):93–115, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Michaelis, J., and C. Wartena. How linguistic constraints on movement conspire to yield languages analyzable with a restricted form of LIGs. In Proceedings of the Conference on Formal Grammar (FG’ 97), pages 158–168, Aix en Provence, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Michaelis, J., and C. Wartena. LIGs with reduced derivation sets. In Bouma, G., G.-J. M. Kruijff, E. Hinrichs, and R. T. Oehrle, editors, Constraints and Resources in Natural Language Syntax and Semantics, volume II of Studies in Constrained Based Lexicalism, pages 263–279. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Rado, J. Topic–focus vs. background: The role of structural information in discourse interpretation. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Rambow, O. Formal and Computational Aspects of Natural Language Syntax. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Rizzi, L. Relativized Minimality. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Rogers, J. On descriptive complexity, language complexity, and GB. In Black-burn, P., and M. de Rijke, editors, Specifying Syntactic Structures, chapter 6. Cambridge University Press, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Rudin, C. On multiple question and multiple wh–fronting. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 6:445–501, 1988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Stabler, E. P. The finite connectivity of linguistic structure. In Clifton, C., L. Frazier, and K. Rayner, editors, Perspectives on Sentence Processing, chapter 13, pages 303–336. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Vogler, H. Iterated linear control and iterated one–turn pushdowns. Mathematical Systems Theory, 19(2):117–133, 1986.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Weir, D. J. Characterizing Mildly Context–Sensitive Grammar Formalisms. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Weir, D. J. A geometric hierarchy beyond context–free languages. Theoretical Computer Science, 104(4):235–261, 1992.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Weir, D. J. Linear iterated pushdowns. Computational Intelligence, 10(4):422–430, 1994.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1999 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Wartena, C. (1999). Grammars with Composite Storages. In: Moortgat, M. (eds) Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics. LACL 1998. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 2014. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45738-0_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45738-0_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-42251-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-45738-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics