Advertisement

Separating Linguistic Analyses from Linguistic Theories

  • Stuart M. Shieber
Part of the Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 35)

Abstract

Many of the papers in this volume stress the desirability of making computational use of insights from linguistics as an aid in the processing of natural language. Groups of researchers throughout the world are engaged in efforts that are often described as implementing a linguistic theory. In this paper I will start out by addressing the question of what level of linguistic practice is best for natural-language-processing (NLP) efforts1, whether results from linguistic theory (LT) should be utilized by modeling a particular linguistic theory, interpreting a linguistic formalism, or embodying a linguistic analysis. That is, I will investigate what the role of linguistic theories and their associated formalisms and analyses should be in the engineering discipline of developing NLP applications. In particular, I will contend that, because the goals and strategies of LT and NLP research differ, linguistic theories and formalisms may be inappropriate for importation into NLP applications.

Keywords

Linguistic Theory Disjunctive Normal Form Linguistic Analysis Computational Linguistics Grammar Formalism 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Barton, G. Edward, Robert C. Berwick and Eric Sven Ristad. Agreement and Ambiguity In Computational Complexity and Natural Language. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1987.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Robert Berwick and Amy Weinberg. The Grammatical Basis of Linguistic Performance: Language Use and Acquisition. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1984.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Joan Bresnan, editor. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1982.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Luca Cardelli and Peter Wegner. Understanding types, data abstraction and polymorphism. Draft paper, 1985.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Noam Chomsky. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1965.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Noam Chomsky. Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris Publications, Dordrecht, Holland, 1982.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Steven Fortune, Daniel Leivant, and Michael O’Donnell. The Expressiveness of Simple and Second Order Type Structures. Research Report RC 8542, IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, New York, 1980.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gerald Gazdar. Phrase Structure Grammar, pages 131–186. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland, 1982.]Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gerald Gazdar, Ewan Klein, Geoffrey K. Pullum, and Ivan A. Sag. Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, England, and Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1985.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ronald Kaplan. Personal communication, 1985.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Martin Kay. Unification Grammar. Technical Report, Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, Palo Alto, California, 1983.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fernando C. N. Pereira and Stuart M. Shieber. The semantics of grammar formalisms seen as computer languages. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 2–7 July 1984.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fernando C. N. Pereira and David H. D. Warren. Parsing as deduction. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 137–144, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 15–17 June 1983.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ritchie, Graeme. The Computational Complexity of Sentence Derivation in Functional Unification Grammar. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 584–586, University of Bonn, Bonn, West-Germany, August 1986.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    William C. Rounds and Robert Kasper. A Complete Logical Calculus for Record Structures Representing Linguistic Information. In Proceedings of the 15th Annual Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachussetts, June 1986.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stuart M. Shieber. The design of a computer language for linguistic information. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 2–7 July 1984.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stuart M. Shieber. An Introduction to Unification-Based Approaches to Grammar. Volume 4 of Lecture Note Series, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford, California, 1986.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stuart M. Shieber. A simple reconstruction of GPSG. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, University of Bonn, Bonn, West Germany, 25–29 August 1986.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stuart M. Shieber. Using restriction to extend parsing algorithms for complex-feature-based formalisms. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, July 1985.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Patrick H. Winston and Karen A. Prendergast. The AI Business: Commercial Uses of Artificial Intelligence. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1984.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stuart M. Shieber
    • 1
  1. 1.Artificial Intelligence Center and Center for the Study of Language and InformationSRI InternationalUSA

Personalised recommendations