Multiple Context-Free Tree Grammars: Lexicalization and Characterization

Multiple (simple) context-free tree grammars are investigated, where "simple" means "linear and nondeleting". Every multiple context-free tree grammar that is finitely ambiguous can be lexicalized; i.e., it can be transformed into an equivalent one (generating the same tree language) in which each rule of the grammar contains a lexical symbol. Due to this transformation, the rank of the nonterminals increases at most by 1, and the multiplicity (or fan-out) of the grammar increases at most by the maximal rank of the lexical symbols; in particular, the multiplicity does not increase when all lexical symbols have rank 0. Multiple context-free tree grammars have the same tree generating power as multi-component tree adjoining grammars (provided the latter can use a root-marker). Moreover, every multi-component tree adjoining grammar that is finitely ambiguous can be lexicalized. Multiple context-free tree grammars have the same string generating power as multiple context-free (string) grammars and polynomial time parsing algorithms. A tree language can be generated by a multiple context-free tree grammar if and only if it is the image of a regular tree language under a deterministic finite-copying macro tree transducer. Multiple context-free tree grammars can be used as a synchronous translation device.Comment: 78 pages, 13 figure

Capturing CFLs with Tree Adjoining Grammars

We define a decidable class of TAGs that is strongly equivalent to CFGs and is cubic-time parsable. This class serves to lexicalize CFGs in the same manner as the LCFGs of Schabes and Waters but with considerably less restriction on the form of the grammars. The class provides a normal form for TAGs that generate local sets in much the same way that regular grammars provide a normal form for CFGs that generate regular sets.Comment: 8 pages, 3 figures. To appear in proceedings of ACL'9

Tree-Adjoining Grammars and Lexicalized Grammars

In this paper, we will describe a tree generating system called tree-adjoining grammar(TAG)and state some of the recent results about TAGs. The work on TAGS is motivated by linguistic considerations. However, a number of formal results have been established for TAGs, which we believe, would be of interest to researchers in tree grammars and tree automata. After giving a short introduction to TAG, we briefly state these results concerning both the properties of the string sets and tree sets (Section 2). We will also describe the notion of lexicalization of grammars (Section 3) and investigate the relationship of lexicalization to context-free grammars (CFGs) and TAGS (Section 4)

The Tree-Generative Capacity of Combinatory Categorial Grammars

The generative capacity of combinatory categorial grammars as acceptors of tree languages is investigated. It is demonstrated that the such obtained tree languages can also be generated by simple monadic context-free tree grammars. However, the subclass of pure combinatory categorial grammars cannot even accept all regular tree languages. Additionally, the tree languages accepted by combinatory categorial grammars with limited rule degrees are characterized: If only application rules are allowed, then they can accept only a proper subset of the regular tree languages, whereas they can accept exactly the regular tree languages once first degree composition rules are permitted

Floating constraints in lexical choice

Lexical choice is a computationally complex task, requiring a generation system to consider a potentially large number of mappings between concepts and words. Constraints that aid in determining which word is best come from a wide variety of sources, including syntax, semantics, pragmatics, the lexicon, and the underlying domain. Furthermore, in some situations, different constraints come into play early on, while in others, they apply much later. This makes it difficult to determine a systematic ordering in which to apply constraints. In this paper, we present a general approach to lexical choice that can handle multiple, interacting constraints. We focus on the problem of floating constraints, semantic or pragmatic constraints that float, appearing at a variety of different syntactic ranks, often merged with other semantic constraints. This means that multiple content units can be realized by a single surface element, and conversely, that a single content unit can be realized by a variety of surface elements. Our approach uses the Functional Unification Formalism (FUF) to represent a generation lexicon, allowing for declarative and compositional representation of individual constraints

Applications of Evolutionary Algorithms in Formal Languages

Starting from the model proposed by means of Grammatical Evolution, we extend the applicability of the parallel and cooperative searching processes of Evolutionary Algorithms to a new topic: Tree Adjoining Grammar parsing. We evolved derived trees using a string-tree-representation.We also used a linear matching function to compare the yield of a derived tree with a given input. The running tests presented several encouraging results. A post running analysis allowed us to propose several research directions for extending the currently known computational mechanisms in the mildly context sensitive class of languages

Assumptions behind grammatical approaches to code-switching: when the blueprint is a red herring

Many of the so-called ‘grammars’ of code-switching are based on various underlying assumptions, e.g. that informal speech can be adequately or appropriately described in terms of ‘‘grammar’’; that deep, rather than surface, structures are involved in code-switching; that one ‘language’ is the ‘base’ or ‘matrix’; and that constraints derived from existing data are universal and predictive. We question these assumptions on several grounds. First, ‘grammar’ is arguably distinct from the processes driving speech production. Second, the role of grammar is mediated by the variable, poly-idiolectal repertoires of bilingual speakers. Third, in many instances of CS the notion of a ‘base’ system is either irrelevant, or fails to explain the facts. Fourth, sociolinguistic factors frequently override ‘grammatical’ factors, as evidence from the same language pairs in different settings has shown. No principles proposed to date account for all the facts, and it seems unlikely that ‘grammar’, as conventionally conceived, can provide definitive answers. We conclude that rather than seeking universal, predictive grammatical rules, research on CS should focus on the variability of bilingual grammars