Article contents
A Principle-Based System for Syntactic Analysis
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 June 2016
Extract
Traditional approaches to natural language processing (NLP) can be considered construction-based. That is to say, they employ surface oriented, language specific rules, whether in the form of an Augmented Transition Network (ATN), logic grammar or some other grammar/parsing formalism. The problems of such approaches have always been apparent; they involve large sets of rules, often ad hoc, and their adequacy with respect to the grammar of the language is difficult to ensure.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , March 1991 , pp. 1 - 26
- Copyright
- Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 1991
References
Abramson, Harvey, and Dahl, Veronica
1988
Logic Grammars. Symbolic Computation Series. New York: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Berwick, Robert C.
1987
Principle-Based Parsing. Technical Report 972. MIT AI Laboratory, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Berwick, Robert C., and Wexler, Kenneth
1982
Parsing Efficiency, Binding, and C-Command. Pp. 41–52 in Proceedings of the Fifth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Flickinger, Daniel, Macken, Marlys, and Wiegand, Nancy, eds. Stanford: Stanford Linguistics Association.Google Scholar
Berwick, Robert C., and Weinberg, Amy S.
1984
The Grammatical Basis of Linguistic Performance. Current Studies in Linguistics. Cambridge: Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1982
Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph
6. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1986a Barriers. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph
13. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1986b Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use. Convergence Series. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Crocker, Matthew W.
1988
A Principle-Based System for Natural Language Analysis and Translation. Master’s thesis, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1990
Principle-Based Sentence Processing: A Cross-Linguistic Account. Human Communication Research Centre Report
1, Human Communication Research Centre, University of Edinburgh, U.K., March 1990.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1991
Multiple Meta-Interpreters in a Logical Model of Sentence Processing. In Natural Language Understanding and Logic Programming
III. Brown, Charles and Koch, Gregers, eds. Stockholm: Elsevier (North-Holland). [To appear.]Google Scholar
Dahl, Veronica, and Saint-Dizier, Patrick
1986
Constrained Discontinuous Grammars — A Linguistically Motivated Tool for Processing Language. LCCR TR86-8, LCCR, Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar
Dorr, Bonnie
1987
UNITRAN: A Principle-Based Approach to Machine Translation. Master’s thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Frazier, Lyn
1987
Syntactic Processing: Evidence from Dutch. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory
5:519–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiazier, Lyn, and Rayner, Kieth
1988
Parameterizing the Language Processing System: Left- vs. Right- Branching Within and Across Languages. Pp. 247–279 in Explaining Linguistic Universale. Hawkins, John, ed. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Johnson, Mark
1989
Use of Knowledge of Language. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research
18:105–128.Google Scholar
Johnson, Mark
1991
Program Transformation Techniques for Deductive Parsing. In Natural Language Understanding and Logic Programming
III. Brown, Charles and Koch, Gregers, eds. Stockholm: Elsevier (North-Holland). [To appear.]Google Scholar
Kashket, Michael
1986
Parsing a Free-Word Order Language: Warlpiri. Pp. 60–66 in Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Conference of the ACL. New York: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Kolb, Hans Peter, and Thiersch, Craig
1990
Levels and Empty Categories in a Principles and Parameters Ap proach to Parsing. Research Report
19, Institute for Language Technology and Artificial Intelligence. Tilburg: Tilburg University.Google Scholar
Kuhns, Robert J.
1986
A PROLOG Implementation of Government-Binding Theory. Pp. 546–550 in 11th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Bonn: International Committee on Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard, and Saito, Mamoru
1989
Move-α: Conditions on its Application and Output. Ms.Google Scholar
Pereira, Fernando C.N.
1981
Extraposition Grammars. American Journal of Computational Linguistics
7:243–256.Google Scholar
Pereira, Fernando C. N., and Warren, D.H.D.
1980
Definite Clause Grammars for Language Analysis. Artificial Intelligence
13:231–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereira, Fernando C. N., and Warren, D.H.D.
1983
Parsing as Deduction. Pp. 137–143 in Proceedings of the Twenty-First Conference of the ACL. Cambridge, Mass.: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Pereira, Fernando C.N., and Shieber, Stuart M.
1987
Prolog and Natural-Language Analysis. CSLI Lecture Notes. Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford, California.Google Scholar
Sharp, Randall M.
1985
A Model of Grammar Based on Principles of Government and Binding. Master’s thesis, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Stabler, Edward P.
1987
Restricting Logic Grammars with Government-Binding Theory. Computational Linguistics
13:1–10.Google Scholar
Stabler, Edward P.
1991
The Logical Approach to Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. [To appear.]Google Scholar
Sterling, Leon, and Shapiro, Ehud
1986
The Art of Prolog. The MIT Press Series in Logic Programming. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wehrli, Eric
1984
A Government-Binding Parser for French. Working Paper
48, Institut pour les Etudes Semantiques et Cognitives. Geneva: University of Geneva.Google Scholar
Wehrli, Eric
1988
Parsing with a GB-Grammar. Pp. 177–201 in Natural Language Parsing and Linguistic Theories. Reyle, Uwe and Rohrer, Christian, eds. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
- 2
- Cited by