wMSO theories as grammar formalisms

Theoretical Computer Science

Volumn 293, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 291-320

  Rogers, James ^a  

^a EARLHAM COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

Descriptive complexity; Model theoretic syntax; Tree adjoining grammar; wSnS

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY; CONTEXT FREE LANGUAGES; FORMAL LOGIC; TREES (MATHEMATICS);

GRAMMAR FORMALISMS;

CONTEXT FREE GRAMMARS;

EID: 0037421559     PISSN: 03043975     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0304-3975(01)00349-8     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (31)

1. Ayari A., Basin D., Friedrich S. Structural and behavioral modeling with monadic logics. Drechsler R., Becker B. 29th IEEE International Symp. on Multiple-Valued Logic. 1999;142-151 IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, Freiburg, Germany.
2. D. Basin, N. Klarlund, Hardware verification using monadic second-order logic, in: Computer Aided Verification: 7th Internat. Conf., CAV'95, no. 939, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Berlin, 1995.
3. T. Becker, HyTAG: a new type of tree adjoining grammars for hybrid syntactic representation of free word order languages, Ph.D. Thesis, Universität des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken, 1993.
4. Büchi J.R. Weak second-order arithmetic and finite automata. Z. Math. Logik Grundlagen der Math. 6:1960;66-92.
5. M.-H. Candito, A principle-based hierarchical representation of LTAGs, in: 16th Internat. Conf. on Computational Linguistics, COLING'96, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1996.
6. Chomsky N., Schüzenberger M.P. The algebraic theory of context-free languages. Braffort P., Hirschberg D. Computer Programming and Formal Systems. 2nd ed. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics. 1963;118-161 North-Holland, Amsterdam.
7. Doner J. Tree acceptors and some of their applications. J. Comput. System Sci. 4:1970;406-451.
8. Elgot C.C. Decision problems of finite automata design and related arithmetics. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 98:1961;21-51.
9. R. Evans, G. Gazdar, D. Weir, Encoding lexicalized tree adjoining grammars with a nonmonotonic inheritance hierarchy, in: 33rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Cambridge, MA, 1995, pp. 77-84.
10. Gécseg F., Steinby M. Tree languages. Rozenberg G., Salomaa A. Handbook of Formal Languages: Beyond Words, Vol. 3. 1997;1-68 Springer, Berlin.
11. S. Gorn, Processors for infinite codes of Shannon-Fano type, in: Proceedings of the Symposium on Mathematical Theory of Automata, New York, April 1962, Brooklyn, N.Y: Polytechnic Press, 1963. Symp. Math. Theory of Automata, 1962.
12. Henriksen J.G., Jensen J., J ø rgensen M., Klarlund N., Paige R., Rauhe T., Sandhol A. MONA: monadic second-order logic in practice. Brinksma E. Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems. TACAS'95 Selected Papers, no. 1019 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 1995;89-110 Springer, Berlin.
13. Joshi A.K., Levy L.S., Takahashi M. Tree adjunct grammars. J. Comput. System Sci. 10:1975;136-163.
14. Joshi A.K. How much context-sensitivity is required to provide reasonable structural descriptions: tree adjoining grammars. Dowty D., Karttunen L., Zwicky A. Natural Language Processing: Psycholinguistic, Computational and Theoretical Perspectives. 1985;Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
15. A.K. Joshi, Y. Schabes, Tree-adjoining grammars and lexicalized grammars, in: M. Nivat, A. Podelski (Eds.), Tree Automata and Languages, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, 1992, pp. 409-431.
16. Kelb P., Margaria T., Mendler M., Gsottberger C. MOSEL: a flexible toolset for monadic second-order logic. Brinksma E. Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems. TACAS '97, LNCS 1217. 1997;Enschede, The Netherlands.
17. A.R. Meyer, Weak monadic second order theory of successor is not elementary-recursive, in: Proc. Logic Colloquium, no. 3 in Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Springer, Berlin, 1975, pp. 132-154.
18. F. Morawietz, T. Cornell, Representing constraints with automata, in: Proc. of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Madrid, Spain, 1997, pp. 468-475.
19. F. Morawietz, T. Cornell, The MSO logic-automaton connection in linguistics, in: M. Moortgat (Ed.), Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics, Springer, Berlin, 2001.
20. Rabin M.O. Decidability of second-order theories and automata on infinite trees. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 141:1969;1-35.
21. J. Rogers, A model-theoretic framework for theories of syntax, in: Proc. of the 34th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Santa Cruz, CA, 1996, pp. 10-16.
22. Rogers J. "Grammarless" phrase structure grammar. Linguist. Philos. 20:1997;721-746.
23. J. Rogers, A descriptive approach to language-theoretic complexity, Studies, Logic, Language Inform. CSLI/FoLLI, 1998.
24. Rounds W.C. Mappings and grammars on trees. Math. Systems Theory. 4:1970;257-287.
25. Thatcher J.W. Characterizing derivation trees of context-free grammars through a generalization of finite automata theory. J. Comput. and System Sci. 1:1967;317-322.
26. Thatcher J.W., Wright J.B. Generalized finite automata theory with an application to a decision problem of second-order logic. Math. Systems Theory. 2:1968;57-81.
27. Vijay-Shanker K., Joshi A.K. Unification based tree adjoining grammars. Wedekind J. Unification-based Grammars. 1991;MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
28. K. Vijay-Shanker, Y. Schabes, Structure sharing in lexicalized tree-adjoining grammars, in: Proceedings COLING'92, Nantes, France, 1992.
29. D.J. Weir, Characterizing mildly context-sensitive grammar formalisms, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 1988.
30. Weir D.J. A geometric hierarchy beyond context-free languages. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 104:1992;235-261.
31. XTAG Research Group, A lexicalized tree adjoining grammar for English, Technical Report IRCS-98-18, Institute for Research in Cognitive Science, 1998.