Part of the Cognitive Technologies book series (COGTECH, volume 0)


Since the 1980s it has been known that context-free grammars (CFGs) are not powerful enough to describe all phenomena we encounter in natural languages. Examples that show the limitation of CFGs are cross-serial dependencies in Dutch, as in (1), and in Swiss German (Shieber, 1985; Bresnan et al., 1982) and so-called unbounded scrambling phenomena (Becker, Rambow, and Niv, 1992; Rambow, 1994) in, for instance, German and Korean. A German scrambling example is given in (2).


Natural Language Derivation Tree Finite State Automaton Grammar Formalism Categorial Grammar 
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. Frank, Robert. 2002. Phrase Structure Composition and Syntactic Dependencies. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  2. Lichte, Timm. 2007. An MCTAG with Tuples for Coherent Constructions in German. In Proceedings of the 12th Conference on Formal Grammar 2007, Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
  3. Kay, Martin. 1986. Algorithm schemata and data structures in syntactic processing. In Barbara J. Grosz, Karen Sparck-Jones, and Bonnie Lynn Webber, editors, Readings in Natural Language Processing. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, pages 35—70.Google Scholar
  4. Abeillé, Anne. 2002. Une Grammaire Électronique du Français. CNRS Editions, Paris.Google Scholar
  5. Rambow, Owen. 1994. Formal and Computational Aspects of Natural Language Syntax. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  6. Seki, Hiroyuki, Takahashi Matsumura, Mamoru Fujii, and Tadao Kasami. 1991. On multiple context-free grammars. Theoretical Computer Science, 88(2):191–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Villemonte de la Clergerie, Éric. 2002. Parsing mildly context-sensitive languages with thread automata. In Proceedings of COLING’02, August.Google Scholar
  8. Søgaard, Anders. 2008. Range concatenation grammars for translation. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Manchester, England.Google Scholar
  9. Kroch, Anthony S. 1987. Unbounded dependencies and subjacency in a Tree Adjoining Grammar. In A. Manaster-Ramer, editor, Mathematics of Language. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pages 143–172.Google Scholar
  10. Sagot, Benoît. 2005. Linguistic facts as predicates over ranges of the sentence. In Proceedings of LACL 05, number 3492 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 271–286, Bordeaux, France. Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Crabbé, Benoit. 2005. Représentation informatique de grammaires ďarbres fortement lexicalisées : le cas de la grammaire ďarbres adjoints. Ph.D. thesis, Université Nancy 2.Google Scholar
  12. Shieber, Stuart M. 1985. Evidence against the context-freeness of natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 8:333–343. Reprinted in Savitch:87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Weir, David J. 1988. Characterizing Mildly Context-Sensitive Grammar Formalisms. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  14. Steedman, Mark. 2000. The Syntactic Process. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Vijay-Shanker, K. 1987. A Study of Tree Adjoining Grammars. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  16. Kroch, Anthony. 1989. Asymmetries in long-distance extraction in a Tree Adjoining Grammar. In Baltin and Kroch, editors, Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure. University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  17. Frank, Robert. 1992. Syntactic Locality and Tree Adjoining Grammar: Grammatical, Acquisition and Processing Perspectives. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  18. Kuhlmann, Marco. 2007. Dependency Structures and Lexicalized Grammars. Ph.D. thesis, Saarland University.Google Scholar
  19. de Groote, Philippe. 2001. Towards abstract categorial grammars. In Association for Computational Linguistics, 39th Annual Meeting and 10th Conference of the European Chapter, Proceedings of the Conference, pages 148–155.Google Scholar
  20. Becker, Tilman. 1994. A new automaton model for TAGs: 2-SA. Computational Intelligence, 10(4):422–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Bresnan, Joean, Ronald M. Kaplan, Stanley Peters, and Annie Zaenen. 1982. Cross-serial dependencies in Dutch. Linguistic Inquiry, 13(4):613–635. Reprinted in Savitch:87.Google Scholar
  22. Groenink, Annius Victor. 1996. Mild context-sensitivity and tuple-based generalizations of context-free grammar. Report CS-R9634, Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  23. Maier, Wolfgang. 2010. Direct parsing of discontinuous constituents in German. In Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010 First Workshop on Statistical Parsing of Morphologically-Rich Languages, pages 58–66, Los Angeles, CA, USA, June. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
  24. Bresnan, Joan. 2001. Lexical-Functional Syntax, volume 16 of Blackwell Textbooks in Linguistics. Blackwell.Google Scholar
  25. Joshi, Aravind K. 1985. Tree adjoining grammars: How much context-sensitivity is required to provide reasonable structural descriptions? In D. Dowty, L. Karttunen, and A. Zwicky, editors, Natural Language Parsing. Cambridge University Press, pages 206–250.Google Scholar
  26. Abeillé, Anne. 1988. Parsing French with Tree Adjoining Grammar: some linguistic accounts. In Proceedings of COLING, pages 7–12, Budapest.Google Scholar
  27. Radzinski, Daniel. 1991. Chinese number-names, tree adjoining languages, and mild context-sensitivity. Computational Linguistics, 17:277–299.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SFB 833Universität TübingenTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations