The Mathematical Intelligencer

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 74–78 | Cite as

The mathematics of language

Studies in Generative Grammar, 63
  • Geoffrey K. Pullum
Department Review


Modal Logic Mathematical Intelligencer Holonomy Group Generative Grammar Theoretical Computer Science 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Aho, A. V. Indexed grammars—an extension of context-free grammars.Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery 75(1968), 647–671.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Gazdar, G., Klein, E., Pullum, G. K., and Sag, I. A.Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1985.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Hayashi, T. On derivation trees of indexed grammars—an extension of the uvwxytheorem.Publications of the Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences, Kyoto University 9 (1973), 61–92.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Immerman, N.Descriptive Complexity. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1998.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Joshi, A. K. Tree adjoining grammars: how much context-sensitivity is required to provide reasonable structural descriptions? InNatural Language Parsing: Psychological, Computational and Theoretical Perspectives, D. Dowty, L. Karttunen, and A. Zwicky, Eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985, pp. 206–250.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Levelt, W. J. M.Formal Grammars in Linguistics and Psycholinguistics, 3 volumes ed. Mouton, The Hague, 1974.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Marsh, W., and Partee, B. H. How noncontext-free is variable binding? InProceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Volume Three, M. Cobler, S. MacKaye, and M. T. Wescoat, Eds. CSLI Publications, Stanford, California, 1984, pp. 179–190.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Montague, R.Formal Philosophy. Yale University Press, New Haven, 1974.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Partee, B. H., ter Meulen, A., and Wall, R. E.Mathematical Foundations for Linguistics. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1990.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Peters, P. S., and Ritchie, R. W. On restricting the base component of transformational grammars.Information and Control 18 (1969), 483–501.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Postal, P. M., and Pullum, G. K. The contraction debate.Linguistic Inquiry 13 (1982), 122–138.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Pullum, G. K. The morpholexical nature of to-contraction.Language 73 (1997), 79–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Pullum, G. K., and Scholz, B. C. Contrasting applications of logic in natural language syntactic description. InProceedings of the 13th International Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, P. Hajek, L. Valdes-Villanueva, and D. Westerstahl, Eds. KCL Publications, London, 2005.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Rogers, J.A Descriptive Approach to Language-Theoretic Complexity. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, 1998.MATHGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Rogers, J. The descriptive complexity of generalized local sets. InThe Mathematics of Syntactic Structure: Trees and their Logics, H.-P. Kolb and U. Mönnich, Eds., no. 44 in Studies in Generative Grammar. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, 1999, pp. 21–40.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Rounds, W. C. Complexity of recognition in intermediate-level languages.In Proceedings of the 14th Annual IEEE Symposium on Switching and Automata Theory Northridge, CA IEEE (1973), pp. 145–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Radcliffe Institute for Advanced StudyHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations