Skip to main content

A Model-Theoretic Framework for Grammaticality Judgements

  • Conference paper
Formal Grammar (FG 2009)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 5591))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Although the observation of grammaticality judgements is well acknowledged, their formal representation faces problems of different kinds: linguistic, psycholinguistic, logical, computational. In this paper we focus on addressing some of the logical and computational aspects, relegating the linguistic and psycholinguistic ones in the parameter space. We introduce a model-theoretic interpretation of Property Grammars, which lets us formulate numerical accounts of grammaticality judgements. Such a representation allows for both clear-cut binary judgements, and graded judgements. We discriminate between problems of Intersective Gradience (i.e., concerned with choosing the syntactic category of a model among a set of candidates) and problems of Subsective Gradience (i.e., concerned with estimating the degree of grammatical acceptability of a model). Intersective Gradience is addressed as an optimisation problem, while Subsective Gradience is addressed as an approximation problem.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Pullum, G., Scholz, B.: On the distinction between model-theoretic and generative-enumerative syntactic frameworks. In: de Groote, P., Morrill, G., Rétoré, C. (eds.) LACL 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2099, pp. 17–43. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Prost, J.P.: Modelling Syntactic Gradience with Loose Constraint-based Parsing. Cotutelle Ph.D. Thesis, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia, and Université de Provence, Aix-en-Provence, France (December 2008)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Aarts, B.: Syntactic gradience: the nature of grammatical indeterminacy. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Blache, P.: Constraints Graphs and Linguistic Theory (source unknown) (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Keller, F.: Gradience in Grammar - Experimental and Computational Aspects of Degrees of Grammaticality. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Schröder, I.: Natural Language Parsing with Graded Constraints. PhD thesis, Universität Hamburg (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Aarts, B.: Modelling Linguistic Gradience. Studies in Language 28(1), 1–49 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Blache, P., Prost, J.P.: Gradience, constructions and constraint systems. In: Christiansen, H., Skadhauge, P.R., Villadsen, J. (eds.) CSLP 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3438, pp. 74–89. Springer, Heidelberg (2005) (revised and extended version)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Blache, P., Hemforth, B., Rauzy, S.: Acceptability prediction by means of grammaticality quantification. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 44th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Sydney, Australia, pp. 57–64. Association for Computational Linguistics (July 2006)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bresnan, J., Nikitina, T.: On the Gradience of the Dative Alternation. Draft (May 7, 2003)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Foth, K.: Writing Weighted Constraints for Large Dependency Grammars. Proceedings of Recent Advances in Dependency Grammars, COLING-Workshop (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gibson, E.: The Dependency Locality Theory: A Distance-Based Theory of Linguistic Complexity. In: Marantz, A., Miyashita, Y., O’Neil, W. (eds.) Image, Language, Brain, pp. 95–126. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Heinecke, J., Kunze, J., Menzel, W., Shröder, I.: Eliminative Parsing with Graded Constraints. In: Proceedings 7th International Conferenceon Computational Linguistics, 36th Annual Meeting of the ACL, Coling–ACL 1998, Montreal, Canada, pp. 526–530 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Sorace, A., Keller, F.: Gradience in linguistic data. Lingua 115(11), 1497–1524 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. VanRullen, T.: Vers une analyse syntaxique à granularité variable. PhD thesis, Université de Provence, Informatique (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Gibson, E., Schütze, C.T., Salomon, A.: The relationship between the frequency and the processing complexity of linguistic structure. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 25(1), 59–92 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bard, E., Robertson, D., Sorace, A.: Magnitude Estimation of Linguistic Acceptability. Language 72(1), 32–68 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Duchier, D., Prost, JP., Dao, TBH. (2011). A Model-Theoretic Framework for Grammaticality Judgements. In: de Groote, P., Egg, M., Kallmeyer, L. (eds) Formal Grammar. FG 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 5591. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20169-1_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20169-1_2

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-20168-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-20169-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics