Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On the Generative Capacity of Multi-modal Categorial Grammars

  • Published:
Research on Language and Computation

Abstract

In Moortgat (1996) the Lambek Calculus L(Lambek, 1958) is extended by a pair of residuation modalities ♦ and □↓. Categorial Grammars based on the resulting logic L♦ are attractive for the purpose of modelling linguistic phenomena since they offer a compromise between the strict constituent structures imposed by context free grammars and related formalisms on the one hand, and the complete absence of hierarchical information in Lambek grammars on the other hand. The paper contains some results on the generative capacity of Categorial Grammars based on L♦. First it is shownthat adding residuation modalities does not extend the weak generative capacity. This is proved by extending the proof for the context freeness of L-grammars from Pentus (1993) to L♦. Second, the strong generative capacity of L♦-grammars is compared to context free grammars. The results are mainly negative; the set of tree languages generated by L♦-grammars neither contains nor is contained in the class of context free tree languages.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bar-Hillel Y. (1953) A Quasi-arithmetical Notation for Syntactic Description. Language, 29, pp. 47– 58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buszkowski W. (1997) Mathematical Linguistics and Proof Theory. In van Benthem J., ter Meulen A. (eds.), Handbook of Logic and Language, MIT Press, Elesvier, chapter 12, pp. 683–736.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter B. (1999) The Turing-completeness of Multimodal Categorial Grammars. Papers Presented to Johan van Benthem in honor of his 50th Birthday, 1999. European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information, Utrecht.

  • Cohen J. M. (1967) The Equivalence of Two Concepts of Categorial Grammar. Information and Control, 10, pp. 475–484.

    Google Scholar 

  • Došen K. (1992) A Brief Survey of Frames for the Lambek Calculus. Zeitschrift für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik, 38, pp. 179–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emms M. (1994) Extraction Covering Extensions of Lambek Calculus are not Context Free. In Dekker P., Stokhof M. (eds.),Proceedings of the Ninth Amsterdam Colloquium, University of Amsterdam, pp. 269–286.

  • Jäger G. (1998) On Relational Completeness of Multi-modal Categorial Logics. IRCS Report 98-25, Institute for Research in Cognitive Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joshi A. (1985) How Much Context-sensitivity is Necessary for Characterizing Structural Descriptions – Tree Adjoining Grammars. In Dowty D., Karttunen L., Zwicky A. (eds.), Natural Language Processing. Theoretical, Computational and Psychological Perspectives, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (UK).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurtonina N., Moortgat M. (1997) Structural Control. In der Rijke M., Blackburn P. (eds.), Specifying Syntactic Structures, CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp. 75–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambek J. (1958) The Mathematics of Sentence Structure. American Mathematical Monthly, 65, pp. 154–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambek J. (1961) On the Calculus of Syntactic Types. In Jakobson R. (ed.), Structure of Language and Its Mathematical Aspects, Providence, RI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moortgat M. (1996) Multimodal Linguistic Inference. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 5/(3/4), pp. 349–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrill G. (1994) Type Logical Grammar. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pentus M. (1993) Lambek Grammars are Context-free. Proceedings of the 8th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, Montreal.

  • Roorda D. (1991) Resource Logics: Proof-theoretical Investigations. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam.

  • Steedman M. (1993) Categorial Grammar. Tutorial Overview. Lingua, 90, pp. 221–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thatcher J. W. (1967) Characterizing Derivation Trees of Context-free Grammars Through a Generalization of Finite Automata Theory. Journal of Computer Science, 1, pp. 317–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiede H-J. (1999) Deductive Systems and Grammars: Proofs as Grammatical Structures. PhD thesis, Indiana University.

  • Versmissen J. A. G. (1996) Grammatical Composition: Modes, Models, Modalities. PhD thesis, University of Utrecht.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Jägerstr. 10/11, D-10117, Berlin, Germany (E-mail

    Gerhard Jäger

Authors
  1. Gerhard Jäger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

About this article

Cite this article

Jäger, G. On the Generative Capacity of Multi-modal Categorial Grammars. Research on Language and Computation 1, 105–125 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024512212054

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024512212054

Search

Navigation