| { |
| "paper_id": "J14-3002", |
| "header": { |
| "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", |
| "date_generated": "2023-01-19T02:42:08.430059Z" |
| }, |
| "title": "On the Universal Generation Problem for Unification Grammars", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "J\u00fcrgen", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Wedekind", |
| "suffix": "", |
| "affiliation": { |
| "laboratory": "", |
| "institution": "University of Copenhagen", |
| "location": {} |
| }, |
| "email": "jwedekind@hum.ku.dk.submission" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": "", |
| "venue": null, |
| "identifiers": {}, |
| "abstract": "The universal generation problem for unification grammars is the problem of determining whether a given grammar derives any terminal string with a given feature structure. It is known that the problem is decidable for LFG and PATR grammars if only acyclic feature structures are taken into consideration. In this brief note, we show that the problem is undecidable for cyclic structures. This holds even for grammars that are off-line parsable.", |
| "pdf_parse": { |
| "paper_id": "J14-3002", |
| "_pdf_hash": "", |
| "abstract": [ |
| { |
| "text": "The universal generation problem for unification grammars is the problem of determining whether a given grammar derives any terminal string with a given feature structure. It is known that the problem is decidable for LFG and PATR grammars if only acyclic feature structures are taken into consideration. In this brief note, we show that the problem is undecidable for cyclic structures. This holds even for grammars that are off-line parsable.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Abstract", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "body_text": [ |
| { |
| "text": "The universal generation problem for unification grammars is the problem of determining for an arbitrary grammar G and an arbitrary feature structure F whether there exists at least one sentence that G derives with F. If F is acyclic, Wedekind and Kaplan (2012) have shown that the problem is decidable for LFG (Kaplan and Bresnan 1982) and PATR (Shieber et al. 1983) grammars. They prove that the set of strings that a grammar relates to an acyclic feature structure can be described by a context-free grammar. Decidability of the problem then follows because the emptiness problem is decidable for contextfree languages. For cyclic feature structures they demonstrated by example that the set of strings that a grammar relates to an input might not be context-free, but they did not further investigate the formal properties of the languages that are in general related to cyclic structures.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 235, |
| "end": 261, |
| "text": "Wedekind and Kaplan (2012)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 311, |
| "end": 336, |
| "text": "(Kaplan and Bresnan 1982)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 341, |
| "end": 367, |
| "text": "PATR (Shieber et al. 1983)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In this brief note, we show the undecidability of the universal generation problem by reduction from the undecidable emptiness problem for the intersection of two context-free languages. We provide a proof for LFG-or PATR-style grammars that associate feature structures with trees derived in accordance with a context-free grammar. Our result also applies to other systems such as HPSG (Pollard and Sag 1994) whose formal devices are powerful enough to simulate, albeit indirectly, the effect of contextfree derivation.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 387, |
| "end": 409, |
| "text": "(Pollard and Sag 1994)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF4" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "To state the universal generation problem more formally, recall that a unification grammar G defines a binary derivation relation \u0394 G between terminal strings and feature structures, as given in (1).", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(1) \u0394 G (s, F) iff G derives terminal string s with feature structure F The universal generation problem is then the problem of deciding for an arbitrary unification grammar G and an arbitrary feature structure F whether", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "{s | \u0394 G (s, F)} is empty or not. S A D B C b c d root B E L R B E L R B E B E B E b c d root B E ' L' R' B E ' L' R' B E ' B E ' B E ' b c d", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "A sample c-structure and the f-structures associated with it by type 1 (top) and type 2 (bottom) string grammar derivations.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Figure 1", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "For the reduction of the emptiness problem for the intersection of two context-free languages, we can, without loss of generality, assume that the context-free languages are -free. These languages can be described by grammars in Chomsky normal form, that is, by context-free grammars G = (N, T, S, P) with nonterminal vocabulary N, terminal vocabulary T, and start symbol S where every rule in P is of the form", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Figure 1", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "A \u2192 BC with B, C \u2208 N, or A \u2192 a with a \u2208 T.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Figure 1", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "For the proof we first define for each context-free grammar G in Chomsky normal form two LFG grammars that both derive L(G) and that associate with each derivable terminal string feature structures (f-structures) that provide slightly different encodings of the derivable string.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Figure 1", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Let G = (N, T, S, P) be a context-free grammar in Chomsky normal form. A type 1 string grammar String 1 (G) for G is an LFG grammar (N, T, S, P ) whose rule set P includes for each rule A \u2192 BC in P a rule of the form (2a) and for each rule A \u2192 a in P a rule of the form (2b).", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Figure 1", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Figure 1", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "2) a. A \u2192 B C (\u2191 L) = \u2193 (\u2191 R) = \u2193 (\u2191 B) = (\u2193 B) (\u2191 E) = (\u2193 E) (\u2191 L E) = (\u2193 B) b. A \u2192 a (\u2191 B a) = (\u2191 E)", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Figure 1", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "A type 2 string grammar String 2 (G) for G is an LFG grammar (N, T, S, P ) whose rule set P includes a rule of the form (3a) for each A \u2192 BC in P and a rule of the form (3b) for each A \u2192 a in P.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Figure 1", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(3) a. A \u2192 B C (\u2191 L') = \u2193 (\u2191 R') = \u2193 (\u2191 B) = (\u2193 B) (\u2191 E') = (\u2193 E') (\u2191 L' E') = (\u2193 B) b. A \u2192 a (\u2191 B a) = (\u2191 E')", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Figure 1", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Figure 1 illustrates a c-structure and the f-structures associated with it by type 1 and type 2 string grammar derivations. 1 The attributes L, R, B, and E are mnemonic for 'left', 'right', 'begin', and 'end', respectively. For later reference, we also depicted the constant root that we uniformly use to instantiate the \u2191 of a derivation that refers to the c-structure root; root then labels the f-structure element to which it refers in the minimal model of the f-description. (In Kaplan and Bresnan's [1982] terminology, root corresponds to the f-structure variable associated with the c-structure root, usually notated by f 1 .)", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 124, |
| "end": 125, |
| "text": "1", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 483, |
| "end": 510, |
| "text": "Kaplan and Bresnan's [1982]", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF3" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Figure 1", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Both types of string grammars have in common that they have G as their contextfree skeleton and that for every string in L(G), the f-structure for each string grammar encodes both the string itself and also the branching structure of a derivation in G that leads to that terminal string. The f-structures derived by the two types of grammars vary only slightly in the labels that they use to encode those properties. An f-structure of a type 2 grammar derivation for a given string shares the 'begin' attribute (B) with the f-structure of a corresponding type 1 grammar derivation, but it has distinct 'left', 'right', and 'end' attributes (L', R', E') .", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 645, |
| "end": 652, |
| "text": "R', E')", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Figure 1", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Because the derived f-descriptions can never be unsatisfiable (the string grammars do not contain atomic values), the f-structure constraints of the string grammars do not actually filter the language of the context-free grammar. Thus G and its string grammars must have the same language L(G) = L(String 1 (G)) = L(String 2 (G)). By induction on the depth of the derivation trees it is also easy to see that the minimal solution of the f-description of a derivation of a terminal string s is acyclic and single-rooted, and satisfies (root B s ) = (root E) and (root B s ) = (root E'), respectively, if and only if s = s. That is, these grammars both encode their terminal strings in their respective (root B) to (root E)/(root E') paths.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Figure 1", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Before going into the details of the undecidability proof, we first give an outline of the proof idea. For the reduction, we have to construct for two arbitrary -free context-free languages L 1 and L 2 an LFG grammar G and an input structure F such that the set of terminal strings that G derives with F is empty if and only if the intersection of L 1 and L 2 is empty. Because every -free context-free language is derivable by a context-free grammar in Chomsky normal form, we can make the LFG grammar G by combining the productions of String 1 (G 1 ) and String 2 (G 2 ), for two arbitrary context-free grammars", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Figure 1", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "G 1 = (N 1 , T 1 , S 1 , P 1 ) and G 2 = (N 2 , T 2 , S 2 , P 2 )", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Figure 1", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "in Chomsky normal form. To avoid undesired interactions between the rules of the two string grammars, we assume that the sets of nonterminals of G 1 and G 2 are disjoint (this is without loss of generality because nonterminals can always be renamed).", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Figure 1", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "We observed already that the string grammars String 1 (G 1 ) and String 2 (G 2 ) associate with any c-structure derivation of a terminal string s 1 in G 1 and any c-structure derivation of a terminal string s 2 in G 2 f-structures that encode s 1 and s 2 as their respective (root B) values. By construction of the string grammars, the only paths that the two f-structures share are the paths (root B s ) where s is a common prefix of s 1 and s 2 . Thus, if we define G to consist of the rules of String 1 (G 1 ) and String 2 (G 2 ), and a start rule that expands S to S 1 S 2 and forces the f-structures for s 1 and s 2 to unify, their (root E) and (root E') paths become reentrant ((root E) = (root E')) if and only if s 1 and s 2 are identical. G then assigns to a terminal string an f-structure with reentrant (root E) and (root E') paths if and only if it has the form s s and s is in", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Figure 1", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "L(G 1 ) \u2229 L(G 2 ).", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Figure 1", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "If all we do is unification on the top level the f-structures for the strings s 1 s 2 would still record information on the structure of their derivation. Thus distinct strings in {s s | s \u2208 L(G 1 ) \u2229 L(G 2 )} would get assigned distinct f-structures. However, the proof requires that there be a single f-structure that is assigned to all strings s s with", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Figure 1", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "root E E' E E B L R L' R'", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Figure 1", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "cycles for the attributes in T 1 \u2229 T 2", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Figure 1", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The functional contribution of the S rule to a derivation in G.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Figure 2", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "s in L(G 1 ) \u2229 L(G 2 )", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Figure 2", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": ". We achieve that by annotating the start rule so that the unified f-structures derived by the string grammars are folded up into one and the same cyclic f-structure F. This f-structure consists of a single element (node) and |T 1 \u2229 T 2 | + 7 cycles of length 1, each one labeled with one of the attributes in {B, L, R, L', R', E, E'} \u222a (T 1 \u2229 T 2 ). F thus has the following form.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Figure 2", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "2 (4) B L R L' R' E E'", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Figure 2", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "cycles for the attributes in T 1 \u2229 T 2 F must contain cycles for all terminals in T 1 \u2229 T 2 , so that it imposes no constraints on the strings that may appear in", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Figure 2", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "L(G 1 ) \u2229 L(G 2 ).", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Figure 2", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The folding into F is accomplished by annotations of G's start rule whose contribution to a derivation in G is depicted in Figure 2 . As earlier, we include root for later use. Obviously, if (root E) = (root E') holds in the unified f-structures of the string grammars, then the unification of the string grammar f-structures and the structure in Figure 2 yields F. Otherwise, their unification results in a structure that only properly subsumes F. This is because neither (root E E) nor (root E' E) exists in the unified f-structures of the two string grammars, and therefore their values in the structure in Figure 2 are not merged when the structures are unified. Thus G derives with F exactly the set of strings", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 123, |
| "end": 131, |
| "text": "Figure 2", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 347, |
| "end": 355, |
| "text": "Figure 2", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 610, |
| "end": 618, |
| "text": "Figure 2", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Figure 2", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "s s with s in L(G 1 ) \u2229 L(G 2 ). Hence, this set is empty if and only if L(G 1 ) \u2229 L(G 2 ) is empty.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Figure 2", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "We now give a rigorous statement and proof of our undecidability theorem.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Figure 2", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "For an arbitrary LFG grammar G and an arbitrary f-structure F it is undecidable whether", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Theorem", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "{s | \u0394 G (s, F)} = \u2205.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Theorem", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Let G 1 = (N 1 , T 1 , S 1 , P 1 ) and G 2 = (N 2 , T 2 , S 2 , P 2 ) be two arbitrary context-free grammars in Chomsky normal form. Without loss of generality, we can assume that N 1 \u2229 N 2 = \u2205. On the basis of String 1 (G 1 ) and String 2 (G 2 ) we construct an LFG grammar", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Proof", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "G = (N, T, S, P) with N = N 1 \u222a N 2 \u222a {S}, S \u2208 N 1 \u222a N 2 , and T = T 1 \u222a T 2 .", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Proof", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The rule set P consists of the rules of String 1 (G 1 ) and String 2 (G 2 ) and the following start rule.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Proof", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "S \u2192 S 1 S 2 \u2191 = \u2193 \u2191= \u2193 (\u2191 E E) = \u2191 (\u2191 E' E) = (\u2191 E' E B) (\u2191 E' E) = (\u2191 E' E L) (\u2191 E' E) = (\u2191 E' E R) (\u2191 E' E) = (\u2191 E' E L') (\u2191 E' E) = (\u2191 E' E R') . . . . . . annotations (\u2191 E' E) = (\u2191 E' E x) for all x in T 1 \u2229 T 2", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Proof", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The functional contribution of this start rule to a derivation in G is depicted in Figure 2 . The (\u2191 E E) = \u2191 annotation at S 1 introduces the left cycle and the annotations at S 2 account for the rest. Now let F be the f-structure in (4) and consider an arbitrary derivation of a terminal string s with f-description FD in G. By construction of G, s must have the form s 1 s 2 , with s 1 derived from S 1 and s 2 derived from S 2 . We claim s 1 = s 2 iff F is the f-structure for FD. Note first that also G does not contain atomic values. Thus, FD cannot be unsatisfiable and must have an f-structure. If s 1 = s 2 , then FD (root E) = (root E'), since (root B s 1 ) = (root E) and (root B s 2 ) = (root E') follow from FD. From (root E) = (root E') and the instantiated annotations of the S rule, we get (root", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 83, |
| "end": 91, |
| "text": "Figure 2", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Proof", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "x) = root, for all x \u2208 {B, L, R, L', R'} \u222a (T 1 \u2229 T 2 )", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Proof", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": ". With these equations we can then derive from (root B s 1 ) = (root E) and (root B s 2 ) = (root E') equations root = (root x), for x \u2208 {E, E'}. Thus F must be the f-structure that we obtain from a minimal model of FD. Now suppose s 1 = s 2 . Let FD 1 and FD 2 be the f-descriptions of the string grammars, FD 1 = FD 1 \u222a {root = n 1 }, FD 2 = FD 2 \u222a {root = n 2 }, with n 1 and n 2 instantiating \u2193 in the annotations at S 1 and S 2 , and FD = FD 1 \u222a FD 2 . By construction of G, the only terms shared by the deductive closures of FD 1 and FD 2 are the common subterms of (root B s 1 ) and (root B s 2 ). Thus FD (root E) = (root E'), because otherwise FD 1 (root B s ) = (root E) and FD 2 (root B s ) = (root E') would imply s = s 1 and s = s 2 , as we saw earlier. Because obviously (root E E) and (root E' E) do not occur in any equation derivable from FD , (root E) = (root E') cannot follow from FD either, and F cannot be the f-structure for FD.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Proof", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Thus {s | \u0394 G (s, F)} = {s s | s \u2208 L(G 1 ) \u2229 L(G 2 )} and hence {s | \u0394 G (s, F)} = \u2205 if and only if L(G 1 ) \u2229 L(G 2 ) = \u2205.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Proof", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Since the emptiness problem for the intersection of context-free languages is in general undecidable, the generation problem must be undecidable too.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Proof", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "As a consequence of this theorem we know that there does not exist a general generation algorithm, at least if cyclic input structures are considered as legitimate inputs.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Proof", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "We note that the grammars constructed in this proof are off-line parsable (cf., e.g., Kaplan and Bresnan 1982; Johnson 1988; Jaeger, Francez, and Wintner 2005) . Offline parsability is sufficient to guarantee the decidability of the recognition/parsing problem even for cyclic f-structures. But Wedekind and Kaplan (2012) have shown that off-line parsability is not necessary to guarantee that generation from acyclic structures is decidable, and the grammars in this proof demonstrate that it is not sufficient for cyclic structures.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 86, |
| "end": 110, |
| "text": "Kaplan and Bresnan 1982;", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 111, |
| "end": 124, |
| "text": "Johnson 1988;", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 125, |
| "end": 159, |
| "text": "Jaeger, Francez, and Wintner 2005)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 295, |
| "end": 321, |
| "text": "Wedekind and Kaplan (2012)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Proof", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Off-line parsability typically bounds the size of the c-structures of a string by a function of the length of that string. This works for parsing because the size of the f-structure is bounded by the size of the c-structure, but it is insufficient for generation because it does not constrain the structural correspondence between the c-and f-structure (see also Dymetman 1991) . A single constraint that guarantees decidability for both parsing and generation must not only bound the size of the f-structures for a terminal string by the length of the string, but it must also ensure, as we have learned from the proof herein, that the determination of the terminal strings for an f-structure can be achieved with finite control.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 363, |
| "end": 377, |
| "text": "Dymetman 1991)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF0" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Proof", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Note that the terminal symbols also occur as attributes in the annotations of the terminal rules. This \"abuse\" of the terminal symbols is not essential to our argument (a set of new attributes that is in one-to-one correspondence with the set of terminals would also suffice), but it makes the encoding of the terminal strings in the f-structures more perspicuous.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "This f-structure may look peculiar in that it does not contain atomic feature values. However, this is not relevant to the proof. To make the f-structure look more \"natural,\" we can, for example, expand G by an annotation (\u2191 D) = V at the start rule and F by a feature D with value V.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "back_matter": [ |
| { |
| "text": "The author wishes to thank Ron Kaplan for his insightful comments and helpful suggestions during the preparation of this paper, and the four anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback on an earlier draft.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Acknowledgments", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "bib_entries": { |
| "BIBREF0": { |
| "ref_id": "b0", |
| "title": "Inherently reversible grammars, logic programming and computability", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Marc", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Dymetman", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1991, |
| "venue": "Proceedings of the ACL Workshop: Reversible Grammar in Natural Language Processing", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "20--30", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Dymetman, Marc. 1991. Inherently reversible grammars, logic programming and computability. In Proceedings of the ACL Workshop: Reversible Grammar in Natural Language Processing, pages 20-30, Berkeley, CA.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF1": { |
| "ref_id": "b1", |
| "title": "Unification grammars and off-line parsability", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Efrat", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Jaeger", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Nissim", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Francez", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Shuly", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Wintner", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2005, |
| "venue": "Journal of Logic, Language, and Information", |
| "volume": "14", |
| "issue": "2", |
| "pages": "199--234", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Jaeger, Efrat, Nissim Francez, and Shuly Wintner. 2005. Unification grammars and off-line parsability. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, 14(2):199-234.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF2": { |
| "ref_id": "b2", |
| "title": "Attribute-Value Logic and the Theory of Grammar", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Mark", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Johnson", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1988, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Johnson, Mark. 1988. Attribute-Value Logic and the Theory of Grammar. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF3": { |
| "ref_id": "b3", |
| "title": "Lexical-Functional Grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Ronald", |
| "middle": [ |
| "M" |
| ], |
| "last": "Kaplan", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Joan", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Bresnan", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1982, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "173--281", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Kaplan, Ronald M. and Joan Bresnan. 1982. Lexical-Functional Grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation. In Joan Bresnan, editor, The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pages 173-281.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF4": { |
| "ref_id": "b4", |
| "title": "The formalism and implementation of PATR-II", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Carl", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Pollard", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Ivan", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Sag", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": ";", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Shieber", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "M", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Stuart", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Hans", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Uszkoreit", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "C", |
| "middle": [ |
| "N" |
| ], |
| "last": "Fernando", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Jane", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Pereira", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Mabry", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Robinson", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Tyson", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1983, |
| "venue": "Research on Interactive Acquisition and Use of Knowledge. SRI Final Report 1894. SRI International", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "39--79", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Pollard, Carl and Ivan Sag. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Shieber, Stuart M., Hans Uszkoreit, Fernando C. N. Pereira, Jane Robinson, and Mabry Tyson. 1983. The formalism and implementation of PATR-II. In Barbara J. Grosz and Mark E. Stickel, editors, Research on Interactive Acquisition and Use of Knowledge. SRI Final Report 1894. SRI International, Menlo Park, CA, pages 39-79.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF5": { |
| "ref_id": "b5", |
| "title": "LFG generation by grammar specialization", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "J\u00fcrgen", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Wedekind", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Ronald", |
| "middle": [ |
| "M" |
| ], |
| "last": "Kaplan", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2012, |
| "venue": "Computational Linguistics", |
| "volume": "38", |
| "issue": "4", |
| "pages": "867--915", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Wedekind, J\u00fcrgen and Ronald M. Kaplan. 2012. LFG generation by grammar specialization. Computational Linguistics, 38(4):867-915.", |
| "links": null |
| } |
| }, |
| "ref_entries": {} |
| } |
| } |
