Skip to main content

Tree adjoining grammars in noncommutative linear logic

Extended abstract

  • Selected Papers
  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics (LACL 1996)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 1328))

Abstract

This paper presents a logical formalization of Tree-Adjoining Grammar (TAG). TAG deals with lexicalized trees and two operations are available: substitution and adjunction. Adjunction is generally presented as an insertion of a tree inside another, surrounding the subtree at the adjunction node. This seems to be contradictory with standard logical ability. We prove that some logic, namely a fragment of non-commutative intuitionistic linear logic (N-ILL), can serve this purpose. Briefly speaking, linear logic is a logic considering facts as resources. NILL can then be considered either as an extension of Lambek calculus, or as a restriction of linear logic. We model the TAG formalism in four steps: trees (initial or derived) and the way they are constituted, the operations (substitution and adjunction), and the elementary trees, i.e. the grammar. The sequent calculus is a restriction of the standard sequent calculus for N-ILL. Trees (initial or derived) are then obtained as the closure of the calculus under two rules that mimic the grammatical ones. We then prove the equivalence between the language generated by a TAG grammar and the closure under substitution and adjunction of its logical representation. Besides this nice property, we relate parse trees to logical proofs, and to their geometric representation: proofnets. We briefly present them and give examples of parse trees as proofnets. This process can be interpreted as an assembling of blocks (proofnets corresponding to elementary trees of the grammar).

An extended version is currently in submission and available as a technical report

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. A. Abeillé, K. Bishop, S. Cote, and Y. Schabes. A lexicalized tree-adjoining grammar for english. Technical Report MS-CIS-90-24, LINC LAB 170, Computer Science Department, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  2. M. Abrusci. Noncommutative intuitionnistic linear prepositional logic. Zeitschrift für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik, 36:297–318, 1990.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. M. Abrusci. Phase semantics and sequent calculus for pure noncommutative classical linear prepositional logic. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 56(4):1403–1451, 1991.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. M. Abrusci. Noncommutative proof nets. In J.-Y. Girard, Y. Lafont, and L. Regnier, editors, Advances in Linear Logic, volume 222, pages 271–296. Cambridge University Press, 1995. Proceedings of the Workshop on Linear Logic, Ithaca, New York, June 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  5. M. Abrusci, C. Fouqueré, and J. Vauzeilles. Tree adjoining grammars in noncommutative linear logic. Technical Report 97-03, LIPN, Université Paris-Nord, France, 1997. In submission.

    Google Scholar 

  6. J.-Y. Girard. Linear logic. Theoretical Computer Science, 50:1–102, 1987.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. A.K. Joshi and S. Kulick. Partial proof trees, resource conscious logic and syntactic constraints. In (this volume), 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  8. A.K. Joshi, L.S. Levy, and M. Takahashi. Tree adjunct grammars. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 10(1):136–163, 1975.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Aravind Joshi and Yves Schabes. Tree-adjoining grammars. In Grzegorz Rozenberg and Arto Salomaa, editors, Handbook of Formal Languages, volume 3 — Beyond Words, chapter 2, pages 69–124. Springer-Verlag, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  10. A.S. Kroch and A.K. Joshi. Linguistic relevance of tree adjoining grammars. Technical Report MS-CIS-85-18, LINC LAB 170, Computer Science Department, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  11. J. Lambek. The mathematics of sentence structure. Am. Math. Monthly, 65:154–169, 1958.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. G. Sundholm. Systems of deduction. In D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, editors, Handbook of Philosophical Logic, volume 1, pages 133–188. D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  13. K. Vijay-Shanker. Using descriptions of trees in a tree adjoining grammar. Computational Linguistics, 18(4):481–517, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  14. K. Vijay-Shanker and A.K. Joshi. Some computational properties of tree adjoining grammars. In 23rd Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 82–93, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  15. K. Vijay-Shanker and D.J. Weir. The equivalence of four extensions of context-free grammars. Mathematical Systems Theory, 27:511–545, 1994.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. K. Vijay-Shanker and D.J. Weir. Parsing some constrained grammar formalisms. Computational Linguistics, 19(4):591–636, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Christian Retoré

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1997 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Abrusci, V.M., Fouqueré, C., Vauzeilles, J. (1997). Tree adjoining grammars in noncommutative linear logic. In: Retoré, C. (eds) Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics. LACL 1996. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1328. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0052153

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0052153

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-63700-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-69631-5

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics