David E. Johnson and Lawrence S. Moss. Some formal properties of stratified feature grammars. To appear in Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 1993.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....although under development, did not have a full logic to go with it. Furthermore, the idea of constraints or principles are very clear, and in some sense precede Chomsky s current theory. I will cover, as an application of feature logic, a current version of this theory due to Johnson and Moss [33], called stratified feature grammar. To my mind this is the kind of synthesis of logic and linguistics that one hopes for when one proposes a theoretical framework like feature logic. 2. Formalizing feature systems Our working hypothesis about objects like Fig. 1.2 is that it is a readable ....

....after. 52 William C. Rounds Ch. 1 We will not dwell in this short exposition on the details of relational diagrams, or on the graphical versions formalized in arc pair grammar [34] or multigraph grammar [59] Instead we will illustrate a current version of the theory, due to Johnson and Moss [33]. Stratified feature grammar is a representation of multistratal grammar which integrates feature logic with the multistratal point of view. Feature logic is useful here because it allows for the natural expression of constructions working across strata, without having to adapt first order logic ....

D. Johnson and L. Moss. Some formal properties of stratified feature grammars. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 8, 1993.

....been substan tial, it has never previously been put in a form suitable for computational use. RG s multiple syntactic strata would seem to preclude its use in the kind of monotonic, unification based parsing sys tem many now consider standard ( 1] 11] However, recent work by Johnson and Moss [2] on a Kasper Rounds (KR) style logic based formalism [5] for RG, called Stratified Feature Grammar ( S F G ) has demonstrated that even RG s multiple strata are amenable to a feature structure treat ment. Based on this work, we have developed a unification based, chart parser for a lexical ....

.... level, four sister arcs (arcs with the same source node) as shown in Figure 1: one arc labeled [H] with target gave, indicating gave is the head of the clause; one with label [1] and target Joe, indicating Joe is both the predicateargument, and surface subject, of the clause; one with label [3,2] and target Mary, indicating that 1 We use the following R signs: 1 (subject) 2 (direct object) 3 (indirect object) 8 (chSmeur) Cat (Category) C (comp) F (flag) H (head) LOC (locative) M (maxked) as well as the special Null P=slgns 0 and , explainedbelow. 97 s [1] Joe [HI ave [3, ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

David E. Johnson and Lawrence S. Moss. Some formal properties of stratified feature grammars. To appear in Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 1993.

....kind of work which we present. We feel that these considerations turned people away from the kind of formalism we are pursuing. At the same time, we feel that there are answers to the worries above. Although we do not yet have complexity results for grammar classes, our upper bound results for SFG [11] suggest that it will be possible to define significant classes of mildly context sensitive grammars using EA s. Concerning the other points, we need only mention the very large literature on formalizations of distributed comptutation, including both declarative and procedural aspects. 2 ....

....a run insures minimality. 5.7 Relational Grammar Relational grammar (RG) is another example of a linguistic framework which was based on dynamic notions. We believe that it would be possible to directly formalize RG along the lines of our other work on stratified feature grammar (SFG, see [10] [11]) To do this would involve relatively large machinery. Rather than sketching these details we instead mention a few points about dynamic aspects of SFG. The basic idea of SFG is to incorporate the RG notion of stratal analysis into an extension of feature structure logics. That is, SFG uses a ....

D. E. Johnson and L. S. Moss. Some formal properties of stratified feature grammars. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 1993.

....kind of work which we present. We feel that these considerations turned people away from the kind of formalism we are pursuing. At the same time, we feel that there are answers to the worries above. Although we do not yet have complexity results for grammar classes, our upper bound results for SFG [11] suggest that it will be possible to define significant classes of mildly context sensitive grammars using EA s. Concerning the other points, we need only mention the very large literature on formalizations of distributed comptutation, including both declarative and procedural aspects. 2 ....

....a run insures minimality. 4.6 Relational Grammar Relational grammar (RG) is another example of a linguistic framework which was based on dynamic notions. We believe that it would be possible to directly formalize RG along the lines of our other work on stratified feature grammar (SFG, see [10] [11]) To do this would involve relatively large machinery. Rather than sketching these details we instead mention a few points about dynamic aspects of SFG. The basic idea of SFG is to incorporate the RG notion of stratal analysis into an extension of feature structure logics. That is, SFG uses a ....

D. E. Johnson and L. S. Moss. Some formal properties of stratified feature grammars. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 1993.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC