R. I. Bainbridge
ABSTRACT
This paper reports a completed stage of ongoing research at the University of York. Landsbergen's advocacy of analytical inverses for compositional syntax rules encourages the application of Definite Clause Grammar techniques to the construction of a parser returning Montague analysis trees. A parser MDCG is presented which implements an augmented Friedman - Warren algorithm permitting post referencing, and interfaces with a language of intensional logic translator LILT so as to display the derivational history of corresponding reduced IL formulae. Some familiarity with Montague's PTQ and the basic DCG mechanism is assumed.
- Ajdukiewicz K. (1935) Syntactic connexion. in McCall S. (Ed.) Polish Logic 1920--1939. Clarendon, Oxford, 1967.Google Scholar
- Bennett M. (1976) A variation and extension of a Montague fragment of English. in Partee (1976).Google Scholar
- Clocksin W. F. & Mellish C. S. (1981) <Programming in PROLOG. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Colmerauer A. (1975) Metamorphosis grammars. in Bolc L. (Ed.) Natural Language Communication with Computers. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1978. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dahl V. (1981) Translating spanish into logic through logic. American Journal of Computational Linguistics Vol. 7 No. 3. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Davis S. & Mithun M. (Eds.) (1979) <Linguistics, Philosophy, and Montague Grammar. University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
- Dowty D. R., Wall R. E. & Peters S. (1981) <Introduction to Montague Semantics. Reidel, Dordrecht: Holland.Google Scholar
- Friedman J. (1981) Expressing logical formulas in natural language. in Groenendijk, Janssen, & Stokhof (1981).Google Scholar
- Friedman J. & Warren D. S. (1978) A parsing method for Montague grammars. Linguistics & Philosophy 2.Google Scholar
- Frege G. (1893) On sense and reference. in Geach P. & Black M. (Eds.) <Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege. Blackwell, Oxford, 1966.Google Scholar
- Groenedijk J. A. G., Janssen T. M. V., & Stokhof M. B. J (Eds.) (1981) <Formal Methods in the Study of Language 1 & 2<. Mathematisch Centrum, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
- Hintikka K. J. J., Moravcsik J. M. E. & Suppes P. (Eds.) (1973) <Approaches to Natural Language. Reidel, Dordrecht: Holland.Google Scholar
- Hobbs J. R. & Rosenschein S. J. (1978) Making computational sense of Montague's intensional logic. Artificial Intelligence 9.Google Scholar
- Janssen T. M. V. (1978) Simulation of a Montague grammar. Annals of Systems Research 7.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Janssen T. M. V. (1980) Logical investigations on PTQ arising from programming requirements. Synthese 44.Google Scholar
- Janssen T. M. V. (1981) Compositional semantics and relative clause formation in Montague grammar. in Groenendijk, Janssen & Stokhof (1981). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kaplan R. M. (1973) A general syntactic processor. in Rustin (1973).Google Scholar
- Knuth D. E. (1968) Semantics of context free languages. Mathematical Systems Theory Vol. 2 No. 2.Google Scholar
- Knuth D. E. (1975) The Art of Computer Programming Vol, 1: Fundamental Algorithms. Addison - Wesley, Reading, Mass. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Landsbergen J. (1981) Adaptation of Montague grammar to the requirements of parsing. in Groenendijk, Janssen & Stokhof (1981).Google Scholar
- McCord M. (1982) Using slots and modifiers in logic grammars for natural language. Artificial Intelligence 18.Google Scholar
- Montague R. M. (1972) The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. in Hintikka et al (1973) and Thomason (1974).Google Scholar
- Partee B. H. (1972) Comments on Montague's paper. in Hintikka et al (1973).Google Scholar
- Partee B. H. (1973) Some transformational extensions of Montague grammar. in Partee (1976).Google Scholar
- Partee B. H. (1975) Montague grammar and transformational grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 6.Google Scholar
- Partee B. H. (Ed.) (1976) Montague Grammar. Academic Press, N. Y.Google Scholar
- Partee B. H. (1977) Constraining transformational Montague grammar: a framework and a fragment. in Davis & Mithun (1981).Google Scholar
- Pereira F. C. N. & Warren D. H. D. (1980) Definite clause grammars for language analysis. Artificial Intelligence 13.Google Scholar
- Rustin R. (Ed.) (1973) Natural Language Processing. Algorithmics Press, N. Y.Google Scholar
- Thomason R. H. (1974) (Ed.) Formal Philosophy - Selected Papers of Richard Montague. Yale, New Haven.Google Scholar
- Thompson H. (1981) Chart parsing and rule schemata in PSG. Proceedings of the 19th. annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics 167--172. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Warren D. S. (1983) Using lambda calculus to represent meanings in logic grammars. Proceedings of the 21st. Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics Google ScholarDigital Library
- Warren D. S. & Friedman J. (1982) Using semantics in non context free parsing of Montague grammar. American Journal of Computational Linguistics 8. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Winograd T. (1983) Language as a Cognitive Process. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Woods W. A. (1970) An experimental parsing system for transition network grammars. in Rustin (1973).Google Scholar
- Montagovian Definite Clause Grammar
Recommendations
Web-based Visualisation for Definite Clause Grammars Using Prolog Meta-Interpreters: System Description
PPDP '18: Proceedings of the 20th International Symposium on Principles and Practice of Declarative ProgrammingDefinite Clause Grammars (DCGs) are a convenient way to describe lists in Prolog. They are a common mean to specify grammars for natural language processing and to parse formal languages. Despite its long history, tools dedicated to the development and ...
A definite clause version of Categorial Grammar
ACL '88: Proceedings of the 26th annual meeting on Association for Computational LinguisticsWe introduce a first-order version of Categorial Grammar, based on the idea of encoding syntactic types as definite clauses. Thus, we drop all explicit requirements of adjacency between combinable constituents, and we capture word-order constraints ...
Comments