Learning categorial grammars

In 1967 E. M. Gold published a paper in which the language classes from the Chomsky-hierarchy were analyzed in terms of learnability, in the technical sense of identification in the limit. His results were mostly negative, and perhaps because of this his work had little impact on linguistics. In the early eighties there was renewed interest in the paradigm, mainly because of work by Angluin and Wright. Around the same time, Arikawa and his co-workers refined the paradigm by applying it to so-called Elementary Formal Systems. By making use of this approach Takeshi Shinohara was able to come up with an impressive result; any class of context-sensitive grammars with a bound on its number of rules is learnable. Some linguistically motivated work on learnability also appeared from this point on, most notably Wexler & Culicover 1980 and Kanazawa 1994. The latter investigates the learnability of various classes of categorial grammar, inspired by work by Buszkowski and Penn, and raises some interesting questions. We follow up on this work by exploring complexity issues relevant to learning these classes, answering an open question from Kanazawa 1994, and applying the same kind of approach to obtain (non)learnable classes of Combinatory Categorial Grammars, Tree Adjoining Grammars, Minimalist grammars, Generalized Quantifiers, and some variants of Lambek Grammars. We also discuss work on learning tree languages and its application to learning Dependency Grammars. Our main conclusions are: - formal learning theory is relevant to linguistics, - identification in the limit is feasible for non-trivial classes, - the `Shinohara approach' -i.e., placing a numerical bound on the complexity of a grammar- can lead to a learnable class, but this completely depends on the specific nature of the formalism and the notion of complexity. We give examples of natural classes of commonly used linguistic formalisms that resist this kind of approach, - learning is hard work. Our results indicate that learning even `simple' classes of languages requires a lot of computational effort, - dealing with structure (derivation-, dependency-) languages instead of string languages offers a useful and promising approach to learnabilty in a linguistic contex

CLiFF Notes: Research in the Language, Information and Computation Laboratory of the University of Pennsylvania

One concern of the Computer Graphics Research Lab is in simulating human task behavior and understanding why the visualization of the appearance, capabilities and performance of humans is so challenging. Our research has produced a system, called Jack, for the definition, manipulation, animation and human factors analysis of simulated human figures. Jack permits the envisionment of human motion by interactive specification and simultaneous execution of multiple constraints, and is sensitive to such issues as body shape and size, linkage, and plausible motions. Enhanced control is provided by natural behaviors such as looking, reaching, balancing, lifting, stepping, walking, grasping, and so on. Although intended for highly interactive applications, Jack is a foundation for other research. The very ubiquitousness of other people in our lives poses a tantalizing challenge to the computational modeler: people are at once the most common object around us, and yet the most structurally complex. Their everyday movements are amazingly fluid, yet demanding to reproduce, with actions driven not just mechanically by muscles and bones but also cognitively by beliefs and intentions. Our motor systems manage to learn how to make us move without leaving us the burden or pleasure of knowing how we did it. Likewise we learn how to describe the actions and behaviors of others without consciously struggling with the processes of perception, recognition, and language. Present technology lets us approach human appearance and motion through computer graphics modeling and three dimensional animation, but there is considerable distance to go before purely synthesized figures trick our senses. We seek to build computational models of human like figures which manifest animacy and convincing behavior. Towards this end, we: Create an interactive computer graphics human model; Endow it with reasonable biomechanical properties; Provide it with human like behaviors; Use this simulated figure as an agent to effect changes in its world; Describe and guide its tasks through natural language instructions. There are presently no perfect solutions to any of these problems; ultimately, however, we should be able to give our surrogate human directions that, in conjunction with suitable symbolic reasoning processes, make it appear to behave in a natural, appropriate, and intelligent fashion. Compromises will be essential, due to limits in computation, throughput of display hardware, and demands of real-time interaction, but our algorithms aim to balance the physical device constraints with carefully crafted models, general solutions, and thoughtful organization. The Jack software is built on Silicon Graphics Iris 4D workstations because those systems have 3-D graphics features that greatly aid the process of interacting with highly articulated figures such as the human body. Of course, graphics capabilities themselves do not make a usable system. Our research has therefore focused on software to make the manipulation of a simulated human figure easy for a rather specific user population: human factors design engineers or ergonomics analysts involved in visualizing and assessing human motor performance, fit, reach, view, and other physical tasks in a workplace environment. The software also happens to be quite usable by others, including graduate students and animators. The point, however, is that program design has tried to take into account a wide variety of physical problem oriented tasks, rather than just offer a computer graphics and animation tool for the already computer sophisticated or skilled animator. As an alternative to interactive specification, a simulation system allows a convenient temporal and spatial parallel programming language for behaviors. The Graphics Lab is working with the Natural Language Group to explore the possibility of using natural language instructions, such as those found in assembly or maintenance manuals, to drive the behavior of our animated human agents. (See the CLiFF note entry for the AnimNL group for details.) Even though Jack is under continual development, it has nonetheless already proved to be a substantial computational tool in analyzing human abilities in physical workplaces. It is being applied to actual problems involving space vehicle inhabitants, helicopter pilots, maintenance technicians, foot soldiers, and tractor drivers. This broad range of applications is precisely the target we intended to reach. The general capabilities embedded in Jack attempt to mirror certain aspects of human performance, rather than the specific requirements of the corresponding workplace. We view the Jack system as the basis of a virtual animated agent that can carry out tasks and instructions in a simulated 3D environment. While we have not yet fooled anyone into believing that the Jack figure is real , its behaviors are becoming more reasonable and its repertoire of actions more extensive. When interactive control becomes more labor intensive than natural language instructional control, we will have reached a significant milestone toward an intelligent agent

CLiFF Notes: Research In Natural Language Processing at the University of Pennsylvania

The Computational Linguistics Feedback Forum (CLIFF) is a group of students and faculty who gather once a week to discuss the members\u27 current research. As the word feedback suggests, the group\u27s purpose is the sharing of ideas. The group also promotes interdisciplinary contacts between researchers who share an interest in Cognitive Science. There is no single theme describing the research in Natural Language Processing at Penn. There is work done in CCG, Tree adjoining grammars, intonation, statistical methods, plan inference, instruction understanding, incremental interpretation, language acquisition, syntactic parsing, causal reasoning, free word order languages, ... and many other areas. With this in mind, rather than trying to summarize the varied work currently underway here at Penn, we suggest reading the following abstracts to see how the students and faculty themselves describe their work. Their abstracts illustrate the diversity of interests among the researchers, explain the areas of common interest, and describe some very interesting work in Cognitive Science. This report is a collection of abstracts from both faculty and graduate students in Computer Science, Psychology and Linguistics. We pride ourselves on the close working relations between these groups, as we believe that the communication among the different departments and the ongoing inter-departmental research not only improves the quality of our work, but makes much of that work possible

CLiFF Notes: Research in the Language Information and Computation Laboratory of The University of Pennsylvania

This report takes its name from the Computational Linguistics Feedback Forum (CLIFF), an informal discussion group for students and faculty. However the scope of the research covered in this report is broader than the title might suggest; this is the yearly report of the LINC Lab, the Language, Information and Computation Laboratory of the University of Pennsylvania. It may at first be hard to see the threads that bind together the work presented here, work by faculty, graduate students and postdocs in the Computer Science, Psychology, and Linguistics Departments, and the Institute for Research in Cognitive Science. It includes prototypical Natural Language fields such as: Combinatorial Categorial Grammars, Tree Adjoining Grammars, syntactic parsing and the syntax-semantics interface; but it extends to statistical methods, plan inference, instruction understanding, intonation, causal reasoning, free word order languages, geometric reasoning, medical informatics, connectionism, and language acquisition. With 48 individual contributors and six projects represented, this is the largest LINC Lab collection to date, and the most diverse

CLiFF Notes: Research In Natural Language Processing at the University of Pennsylvania

CLIFF is the Computational Linguists\u27 Feedback Forum. We are a group of students and faculty who gather once a week to hear a presentation and discuss work currently in progress. The \u27feedback\u27 in the group\u27s name is important: we are interested in sharing ideas, in discussing ongoing research, and in bringing together work done by the students and faculty in Computer Science and other departments. However, there are only so many presentations which we can have in a year. We felt that it would be beneficial to have a report which would have, in one place, short descriptions of the work in Natural Language Processing at the University of Pennsylvania. This report then, is a collection of abstracts from both faculty and graduate students, in Computer Science, Psychology and Linguistics. We want to stress the close ties between these groups, as one of the things that we pride ourselves on here at Penn is the communication among different departments and the inter-departmental work. Rather than try to summarize the varied work currently underway at Penn, we suggest reading the abstracts to see how the students and faculty themselves describe their work. The report illustrates the diversity of interests among the researchers here, as well as explaining the areas of common interest. In addition, since it was our intent to put together a document that would be useful both inside and outside of the university, we hope that this report will explain to everyone some of what we are about

Handbook of Lexical Functional Grammar

Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG) is a nontransformational theory of linguistic structure, first developed in the 1970s by Joan Bresnan and Ronald M. Kaplan, which assumes that language is best described and modeled by parallel structures representing different facets of linguistic organization and information, related by means of functional correspondences. This volume has five parts. Part I, Overview and Introduction, provides an introduction to core syntactic concepts and representations. Part II, Grammatical Phenomena, reviews LFG work on a range of grammatical phenomena or constructions. Part III, Grammatical modules and interfaces, provides an overview of LFG work on semantics, argument structure, prosody, information structure, and morphology. Part IV, Linguistic disciplines, reviews LFG work in the disciplines of historical linguistics, learnability, psycholinguistics, and second language learning. Part V, Formal and computational issues and applications, provides an overview of computational and formal properties of the theory, implementations, and computational work on parsing, translation, grammar induction, and treebanks. Part VI, Language families and regions, reviews LFG work on languages spoken in particular geographical areas or in particular language families. The final section, Comparing LFG with other linguistic theories, discusses LFG work in relation to other theoretical approaches