Simple chain grammars

A subclass of the LR(0)-grammars, the class of simple chain grammars is introduced. Although there exist simple chain grammars which are not LL(k) for any k, this new class of grammars is very close related to the class of LL(1) and simple LL(1) grammars. In fact it can be proved (not in this paper) that each simple chain grammar has an equivalent simple LL(1) grammar. A very simple (bottom-up) parsing method is provided. This method follows directly from the definition of a simple chain grammar and can easily be given in terms of the well-known LR(0) parsing method

Simple chain grammars and languages

A subclass of the LR(0)-grammars, the class of simple chain grammars is introduced. Although there exist simple chain grammars which are not LL(k) for any k>0, this new class of grammars is very closely related to the LL(1) and simple LL(1) grammars. In fact it can be shown that every simple chain grammar has an equivalent simple LL(1) grammar. Cover properties for simple chain grammars are investigated and a deterministic pushdown transducer which acts as a right parser for simple chain grammars is presented

Syntactic features in morphology : general problems of so-called pronominal inflection in german

Morphological analysis of inflectional categories has been for a long time a favored field of classical structuralism. American scholars, in this respect, concentrated on the representation of inflected forms in terms of concatenated morphemes

Metaphoric coherence: Distinguishing verbal metaphor from `anomaly\u27

Theories and computational models of metaphor comprehension generally circumvent the question of metaphor versus “anomaly” in favor of a treatment of metaphor versus literal language. Making the distinction between metaphoric and “anomalous” expressions is subject to wide variation in judgment, yet humans agree that some potentially metaphoric expressions are much more comprehensible than others. In the context of a program which interprets simple isolated sentences that are potential instances of cross‐modal and other verbal metaphor, I consider some possible coherence criteria which must be satisfied for an expression to be “conceivable” metaphorically. Metaphoric constraints on object nominals are represented as abstracted or extended along with the invariant structural components of the verb meaning in a metaphor. This approach distinguishes what is preserved in metaphoric extension from that which is “violated”, thus referring to both “similarity” and “dissimilarity” views of metaphor. The role and potential limits of represented abstracted properties and constraints is discussed as they relate to the recognition of incoherent semantic combinations and the rejection or adjustment of metaphoric interpretations