Skip to main content
Log in

Computational structure of GPSG models

  • Published:
Linguistics and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The primary goal of this essay is to demonstrate how considerations from computational complexity theory can inform grammatical theorizing. To this end, generalized phrase structure grammar (GPSG) linguistic theory is revised so that its power more closely matches the limited ability of an ideal speaker-hearer: GPSG Recognition is EXP-POLY time hard, while Revised GPSG Recognition is NP-complete. A second goal is to provide a theoretical framework within which to better understand the wide range of existing GPSG models, embodied in formal definitions as well as in implemented computer programs.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barton, E.: 1985, ‘On the Complexity of ID/LP Parsing’,Computational Linguistics 11, 205–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barton, E.: 1986, ‘Constraint Propagation in Kimmo Systems’,Proceedings of the 24th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Association for Computational Linguistics, Columbia University, New York, pp. 53–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barton, E., R. Berwick, and E. Ristad: 1987,Computational Complexity and Natural Language, MIT Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berwick, R. and K. Wexler: 1982, ‘Parsing Efficiency andc-Command’.Proceedings of the First West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, pp. 29–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandra, A., D. Kozen, and L. Stockmeyer: 1981, ‘Alternation’,J. ACM 28, 114–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N.: 1965,Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N.: 1986,Knowledge of Language: Its Origins, Nature, and Use, Praeger Publishers, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, R.: 1985, ‘ProGram — a Development Tool for GPSG Grammars’,Linguistics 23, 213–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garey, M. and D. Johnson: 1979,Computers and Intractability, W. H. Freeman and Co, San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gazdar, G.: 1982, ‘Phrase Structure Grammar’, in P. Jacobson and G. Pullum (eds),The Nature of Syntactic Representation, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gazdar, G., E. Klein, G. Pullum, and I. Sag: 1985,Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gazdar, G., G. Pullum, R. Carpenter, E. Klein, T. Hukari, and R. Levine: 1988, ‘Category Structures’,Computational Linguistics 14, 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, P. and M. Maxwell: 1986. ‘A New Implementation for Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar‘,Proceedings of the 6th Annual Canadian Artificial Intelligence Conference.

  • Kayne, R.: 1981, ‘Unambiguous Paths’, in R. May and J. Koster (eds.),Levels of Syntactic Representation, Foris Publications, Dordrecht, pp. 143–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, H. and C. Papadimitriou: 1978, ‘The Efficiency of Algorithms’,Scientific American 238, 96–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCawley, J. D.: 1982, ‘Parentheticals and Discontinuous Constituent Structure’,Linguistic Inquiry 13, 91–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pesetsky, D.: 1982, ‘Paths and Categories’, Ph.D. dissertation. MIT Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, J. and H. Thompson: 1985, ‘GPSGP — a Parser of Generalized Phrase Structure Grammars’,Linguistics 23, 245–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollard, C.: 1984, ‘Generalized Phrase Structure Grammars, Head Grammars, and Natural Language’, Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.

  • Pollard, C.: 1985, ‘Phrase Structure Grammar without Metarules’, in WCCFL IV.

  • Ristad, E. S.: 1986, ‘Computational Complexity of Current GPSG Theory’,Proceedings of the 24th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Association for Computational Linguistics, Columbia University, New York, pp. 30–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Ristad, E. and R. Berwick: 1989, ‘Computational Consequences of Agreement and Ambiguity in Natural Language’,Journal of Mathematical Psychology 33, 379–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shieber, S.: 1983, ‘Direct Parsing of ID/LP Grammars’,Linguistics and Philosophy 7, 135–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shieber, S.: 1986, ‘A Simple Reconstruction of GPSG’,Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Bonn, West Germany, 20–22 August, 1986.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ristad, E.S. Computational structure of GPSG models. Linguist Philos 13, 521–587 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00627292

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00627292

Keywords

Navigation