DOCSLIB.ORG

What Was Wrong with the Chomsky Hierarchy?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

What Was Wrong with the Chomsky Hierarchy? Makoto Kanazawa Hosei University Chomsky Hierarchy of Formal Languages recursively enumerable context- sensitive context- free regular Enduring impact of Chomsky’s work on theoretical computer science. 15 pages devoted to the Chomsky hierarchy. Hopcroft and Ullman 1979 No mention of the Chomsky hierarchy. 450 INDEX The same with the latest edition of Carmichael, R. D., 444 CNF-formula, 302 Cartesian product, 6, 46 Co-Turing-recognizableHopcroft, language, 209 Motwani, and Ullman (2006). CD-ROM, 349 Cobham, Alan, 444 Certificate, 293 Coefficient, 183 CFG, see Context-free grammar Coin-flip step, 396 CFL, see Context-free language Complement operation, 4 Chaitin, Gregory J., 264 Completed rule, 140 Chandra, Ashok, 444 Complexity class Characteristic sequence, 206 ASPACE(f(n)),410 Checkers, game of, 348 ATIME(t(n)),410 Chernoff bound, 398 BPP,397 Chess, game of, 348 coNL,354 Chinese remainder theorem, 401 coNP,297 Chomsky normal form, 108–111, 158, EXPSPACE,368 198, 291 EXPTIME,336 Chomsky, Noam, 444 IP,417 Church, Alonzo, 3, 183, 255 L,349 Church–Turing thesis, 183–184, 281 NC,430 CIRCUIT-SAT,386 NL,349 Circuit-satisfiability problem, 386 NP,292–298 CIRCUIT-VALUE,432 NPSPACE,336 Circular definition, 65 NSPACE(f(n)),332 Clause, 302 NTIME(f(n)),295 Clique, 28, 296 P,284–291,297–298 CLIQUE,296 PH,414 Sipser 2013Closed under, 45 PSPACE,336 Closure under complementation RP,403 context-free languages, non-, 154 SPACE(f(n)),332 deterministic context-free TIME(f(n)),279 languages, 133 ZPP,439 P,322 Complexity theory, 2 regular languages, 85 Composite number, 293, 399 Closure under concatenation Compositeness witness, 401 context-free languages, 158 COMPOSITES,293 NP,322 Compressible string, 267 P,322 Computability theory, 3 regular languages, 47, 60 decidability and undecidability, Closure under intersection 193–210 context-free languages, non-, 154 recursion theorem, 245–252 regular languages, 46 reducibility, 215–239N: finite alphabet of nonterminal Semi-Thue System/StringClosure under Rewriting star Turing machines, 165–182 context-free languages, 158 Computable function, 234 System NP,327 Computation history symbols P,327 context-free languages, 225–226 regular languages, 62 defined, 220 Closure under union linear bounded automata,Σ: finite alphabet of terminal symbols context-free languages, 158 221–225 Production α → βNP,322 α, β ∈ (N ∪ Σ)* Post Correspondence Problem, P,322 227–233 regular languages, 45, 59 reducibility, 220–233 One-step rewriting γαδ ⇒ γβδ Language L(G) = { w ∈ Σ* ∣ S ⇒* w } Type 0 unrestricted Type 1 |α| ≤ |β| Type 2 α ∈ N Type 3 α ∈ N, β ∈ Σ N LBA: linear-bounded automata = rewriting machine systems models NSPACE(n) Turing machines PDA: pushdown automata type 0 recursively Turing machines enumerable FA: finite automata context- LBA type 1 sensitive type 2 context- free PDA type 3 regular FA recursively Context-sensitive languages are enumerable type 0 computationally very complex. Some context-sensitive languages are type 1 context- sensitive PSPACE-complete. PSPACE-complete context- type 2 free regular type 3 • Context-sensitive languages are computationally very complex. • There is a huge gap between context-free and context- sensitive. • Many intermediate classes of languages have been considered in formal language theory. • In particular, “mildly context-sensitive” grammars have been investigated by computational linguists. Indexed Grammars Hopcroft and Ullman 1979 recursively What type of rewriting system is an enumerable type 0 indexed grammar?? type 1 context- sensitive ?? indexed context- type 2 free regular type 3 Type 0 Production α → β One-step rewriting γαδ ⇒ γβδ Indexed Production T → ABC One-step rewriting Tfg ⇒ AfgBfgCfg An indexed grammar is not an instance of a type 0 grammar. recursively Indexed languages are also sort of enumerable type 0 complex. type 1 context- sensitive indexed NP-complete context- type 2 free regular type 3 68 STUART M. SHffiBER 68 STUART M. SHffiBER 2. Robert Berwick and Amy Weinberg. The Grammatical Basis of Linguistic Performance: Language Use and Acquisition. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1984. APPLICABILITYGERALD GAZDAR OF INDEXED GRAMMARS 71 70 GERALD GAZDAR2. Robert Berwick and Amy Weinberg. The Grammatical Basis of Linguistic Performance: Gazdar 1988 3. JoanLanguage Bresnan, Use editor. and Acquisition. The Mental MIT Representation Press, Cambridge, of Grammatical Massachusetts, Relations. 1984. MIT Press, GERALD GAZDAR UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX push items onto, pop3. JoanCambridge, items Bresnan, from,Massachusetts, editor. andThe Mental 1982.copy Representation the stack. of What Grammatical we Relations.end up MIT Press, of orthographic conventions: nonterminal symbols are indicated by upper 4. LucaCambridge, Cardelli Massachusetts, and Peter 1982.Wegner. Understanding types, data abstraction and UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX with now is no longer4. polymorphism.Luca equivalent Cardelli Draft andto thepaper,Peter CF-PSGs 1985.Wegner. Understanding but is significantly types, data more abstraction and case letters (A, B, C),SCHOOL terminal OF SOCIALsymbols SCIENCES by lower case letters (a, b, e), 5. Noampolymorphism. Chomsky. Aspects Draft paper, of the 1985.Theory of Syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, possibly empty stringsSCHOOL of terminals OF SOCIAL and nonterminals SCIENCES by W, W , W , etc., powerful, namely 5.the Noam1965. indexed Chomsky. Aspectsgrammars of the Theory (Aho, of Syntax. 1968). MIT Press,This Cambridge, class Massachusetts,of BRIGHTON 1 2 grammars has been6. Noamalluded1965. Chomsky. to aLectures number on Government of times and in Binding.the recent Foris Publications,linguistic Dordrecht, indices by lower case italic lettersBRIGHTON k), and stacks of indices by square Holland, 1982. 6. Noam Chomsky. Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris Publications, Dordrecht, brackets and periods ([], [ .. ], [i, .. ]) where [i, .. ] is a stack whose topmost literature: by Klein7. Steven Holland,(1981) Fortune, 1982. in Daniel connection Leivant, and Michaelwith O'Donnell.nested Thecomparative Expressiveness of Simple and Second Order Type Structures. Research Report RC 8542, IBM Thomas J. Watson 7. Steven Fortune, Daniel Leivant, and Michael O'Donnell. The Expressiveness of Simple index is i, [] is an empty, and [.. ] is a possibly empty stack of indices. As for constructions, by DahlResearch (1982) Center, in connectionYorktown Heights, with New topicalised York, 1980. pronouns, by and Second Order Type Structures. Research Report RC 8542, IBM Thomas J. Watson the rules themselves, Aho (1968)APPLICABILITY uses one notation, and Hopcroft and Engdahl (1982) and8. Gerald ResearchGazdar Gazdar. Center, (1982)Phrase Yorktown Structurein Heights,connection Grammar, New York, pages with1980. 131-186. Scandinavian D. Reidel, Dordrecht, APPLICABILITY 8. GeraldHolland, Gazdar. 1982.] Phrase Structure Grammar, pages 131-186. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Ullman (1979) use another.OF INDEXED The notation GRAMMARS used below is essentially just a unbounded dependencies,9. Gerald Gazdar, by Huybregts Ewan Klein, Geoffrey(1984) K. ilDdPullum, Pulman and Ivan andA. Sag. Ritchie Generalized Phrase Holland, 1982.] OF INDEXED GRAMMARS (1984) in connection9. GeraldStructure with Gazdar, Grammar. Dutch, Ewan Blackwell Klein, by Geoffrey MarshPublishing, K. Pullum, andOxford, Parteeand England, Ivan A. and(1984) Sag. Harvard Generalized in University Phrase redundant, and intendedlyTO NATURAL more perspicuous, LANGUAGES variant of that employed by connection with variablePress,Structure binding, Cambridge, Grammar. and Massachusetts, Blackwell doubtless Publishing, 1985. elsewhere Oxford, England, as well. and Harvard University Hopcroft and Ullman. TO NATURAL LANGUAGES 10. RonaldPress, Kaplan.Cambridge, Personal Massachusetts, communication, 1985. 1985. Indexed grammars11.10. MartinRonald fall Kaplan.Kay.in Unificationbetween Personal communication,Grammar. CF-PSGs Technical 1985. and Report, context-sensitive Xerox Palo Alto Research In the standard formulations, an indexed grammar can contain rules of Center, Palo Alto, California, 1983. APPLICABILITY OF INDEXED GRAMMARS 73 grammars in their generative11. Martin Kay. capacity. Unification Every Grammar. context-free Technical Report, language Xerox Palo(CPL) Alto Research three72 differentGERALD sorts: GAZDAR 12. FernandoCenter, Palo C. N. Alto, Pereira California, and Stuart 1983. M. Shieber. The semantics of grammar formalisms seen as computer languages. In of the Tenthn International Conference on is an indexed language12. Fernando (IL), C.but N. notPereira conversely. and Stuart M. ThusShieber. anbne The semanticsis an of grammarIL, for formalisms stack to all nonterminal .daughters 1. in all rule* types, and (b) restricts (4) 51] Computationalseen as computer Linguistics, languages. StanfoId In University,of Stanford, the Tenth California, International 2-7 JulyConference 1984. on (1) 1. A[.. ] -> W[ .. ] INTRODUCI10N example, but it is not13. Fernando a CPL. C. And N. Pereira every and ILDavid is H.a D.context-sensitive Warren. Parsing as deduction. language, In 1. INTRODUCI10N* Computational Linguistics, StanfoId University, Stanford, California, 2-7 July 1984. additionsIfi we1. to take theA[ stack..the ] class-> to B[i,casesof context-free .. ] where the phrase mother structure category grammars has but (CF- a single but not conversely.13. ofUntilFernandothe 21st recently, AnnualC. N. Pereira Meeling there and of Davidthe Associationwere H. D. noWarren. for goodComputatiolJal
Recommended publications
  • The Structure of Index Sets and Reduced Indexed Grammars Informatique Théorique Et Applications, Tome 24, No 1 (1990), P

    The Structure of Index Sets and Reduced Indexed Grammars Informatique Théorique Et Applications, Tome 24, No 1 (1990), P

    INFORMATIQUE THÉORIQUE ET APPLICATIONS R. PARCHMANN J. DUSKE The structure of index sets and reduced indexed grammars Informatique théorique et applications, tome 24, no 1 (1990), p. 89-104 <http://www.numdam.org/item?id=ITA_1990__24_1_89_0> © AFCET, 1990, tous droits réservés. L’accès aux archives de la revue « Informatique théorique et applications » im- plique l’accord avec les conditions générales d’utilisation (http://www.numdam. org/conditions). Toute utilisation commerciale ou impression systématique est constitutive d’une infraction pénale. Toute copie ou impression de ce fichier doit contenir la présente mention de copyright. Article numérisé dans le cadre du programme Numérisation de documents anciens mathématiques http://www.numdam.org/ Informatique théorique et Applications/Theoretical Informaties and Applications (vol. 24, n° 1, 1990, p. 89 à 104) THE STRUCTURE OF INDEX SETS AND REDUCED INDEXED GRAMMARS (*) by R. PARCHMANN (*) and J. DUSKE (*) Communicated by J. BERSTEL Abstract. - The set of index words attached to a variable in dérivations of indexed grammars is investigated. Using the regularity of these sets it is possible to transform an mdexed grammar in a reducedfrom and to describe the structure ofleft sentential forms of an indexed grammar. Résumé. - On étudie Vensemble des mots d'index d'une variable dans les dérivations d'une grammaire d'index. La rationalité de ces ensembles peut être utilisée pour transformer une gram- maire d'index en forme réduite, et pour décrire la structure des mots apparaissant dans les dérivations gauches d'une grammaire d'index. 1. INTRODUCTION In this paper we will further investigate indexed grammars and languages introduced by Aho [1] as an extension of context-free grammars and lan- guages.
  • The Mathematics of Syntactic Structure: Trees and Their Logics

    The Mathematics of Syntactic Structure: Trees and Their Logics

    Computational Linguistics Volume 26, Number 2 The Mathematics of Syntactic Structure: Trees and their Logics Hans-Peter Kolb and Uwe MÈonnich (editors) (Eberhard-Karls-UniversitÈat Tubingen) È Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter (Studies in Generative Grammar, edited by Jan Koster and Henk van Riemsdijk, volume 44), 1999, 347 pp; hardbound, ISBN 3-11-016273-3, $127.75, DM 198.00 Reviewed by Gerald Penn Bell Laboratories, Lucent Technologies Regular languages correspond exactly to those languages that can be recognized by a ®nite-state automaton. Add a stack to that automaton, and one obtains the context- free languages, and so on. Probably all of us learned at some point in our univer- sity studies about the Chomsky hierarchy of formal languages and the duality be- tween the form of their rewriting systems and the automata or computational re- sources necessary to recognize them. What is perhaps less well known is that yet another way of characterizing formal languages is provided by mathematical logic, namely in terms of the kind and number of variables, quanti®ers, and operators that a logical language requires in order to de®ne another formal language. This mode of characterization, which is subsumed by an area of research called descrip- tive complexity theory, is at once more declarative than an automaton or rewriting system, more ¯exible in terms of the primitive relations or concepts that it can pro- vide resort to, and less wedded to the tacit, not at all unproblematic, assumption that the right way to view any language, including natural language, is as a set of strings.
  • Genome Grammars

    Genome Grammars

    Genome Grammars Genome Sequences and Formal Languages Andreas de Vries Version: June 17, 2011 Wir sind aus Staub und Fantasie Andreas Bourani, Nur in meinem Kopf (2011) Contents 1 Genetics 5 1.1 Cell physiology ............................. 5 1.2 Amino acids and proteins ....................... 6 1.2.1 Geometry of peptide bonds .................. 8 1.2.2 Protein structure ......................... 10 1.3 Nucleic acids ............................... 12 1.4 DNA replication ............................. 14 1.5 Flow of information for cell growth .................. 16 1.5.1 The genetic code ......................... 18 1.5.2 Open reading frames, coding regions, and genes ...... 19 2 Formal languages 23 2.1 The Chomsky hierarchy ......................... 25 2.2 Regular languages ............................ 28 2.2.1 Regular expressions ....................... 30 2.3 Context-free languages ......................... 31 2.3.1 Linear languages ........................ 33 2.4 Context-sensitive languages ...................... 34 2.4.1 Indexed languages ....................... 35 2.5 Languages and machines ........................ 38 3 Grammar of DNA Strings 42 3.1 Searl’s approach to DNA language .................. 42 3.2 Gene regulation and inadequacy of context-free grammars ..... 45 3.3 DNA splicing rule ............................ 46 A Mathematical Foundations 49 A.1 Notation ................................. 49 A.2 Sets .................................... 49 A.3 Maps ................................... 52 A.4 Algebra .................................
  • Hierarchy and Interpretability in Neural Models of Language Processing ILLC Dissertation Series DS-2020-06

    Hierarchy and Interpretability in Neural Models of Language Processing ILLC Dissertation Series DS-2020-06

    Hierarchy and interpretability in neural models of language processing ILLC Dissertation Series DS-2020-06 For further information about ILLC-publications, please contact Institute for Logic, Language and Computation Universiteit van Amsterdam Science Park 107 1098 XG Amsterdam phone: +31-20-525 6051 e-mail: [email protected] homepage: http://www.illc.uva.nl/ The investigations were supported by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), through a Gravitation Grant 024.001.006 to the Language in Interaction Consortium. Copyright © 2019 by Dieuwke Hupkes Publisher: Boekengilde Printed and bound by printenbind.nl ISBN: 90{6402{222-1 Hierarchy and interpretability in neural models of language processing Academisch Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam op gezag van de Rector Magnificus prof. dr. ir. K.I.J. Maex ten overstaan van een door het College voor Promoties ingestelde commissie, in het openbaar te verdedigen op woensdag 17 juni 2020, te 13 uur door Dieuwke Hupkes geboren te Wageningen Promotiecommisie Promotores: Dr. W.H. Zuidema Universiteit van Amsterdam Prof. Dr. L.W.M. Bod Universiteit van Amsterdam Overige leden: Dr. A. Bisazza Rijksuniversiteit Groningen Dr. R. Fern´andezRovira Universiteit van Amsterdam Prof. Dr. M. van Lambalgen Universiteit van Amsterdam Prof. Dr. P. Monaghan Lancaster University Prof. Dr. K. Sima'an Universiteit van Amsterdam Faculteit der Natuurwetenschappen, Wiskunde en Informatica to my parents Aukje and Michiel v Contents Acknowledgments xiii 1 Introduction 1 1.1 My original plan . .1 1.2 Neural networks as explanatory models . .2 1.2.1 Architectural similarity . .3 1.2.2 Behavioural similarity .
  • The Complexity of Narrow Syntax : Minimalism, Representational

    The Complexity of Narrow Syntax : Minimalism, Representational

    Erschienen in: Measuring Grammatical Complexity / Frederick J. Newmeyer ... (Hrsg.). - Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2014. - S. 128-147. - ISBN 978-0-19-968530-1 The complexity of narrow syntax: Minimalism, representational economy, and simplest Merge ANDREAS TROTZKE AND JAN-WOUTER ZWART 7.1 Introduction The issue of linguistic complexity has recently received much attention by linguists working within typological-functional frameworks (e.g. Miestamo, Sinnemäki, and Karlsson 2008; Sampson, Gil, and Trudgill 2009). In formal linguistics, the most prominent measure of linguistic complexity is the Chomsky hierarchy of formal languages (Chomsky 1956), including the distinction between a finite-state grammar (FSG) and more complicated types of phrase-structure grammar (PSG). This dis- tinction has played a crucial role in the recent biolinguistic literature on recursive complexity (Sauerland and Trotzke 2011). In this chapter, we consider the question of formal complexity measurement within linguistic minimalism (cf. also Biberauer et al., this volume, chapter 6; Progovac, this volume, chapter 5) and argue that our minimalist approach to complexity of derivations and representations shows simi- larities with that of alternative theoretical perspectives represented in this volume (Culicover, this volume, chapter 8; Jackendoff and Wittenberg, this volume, chapter 4). In particular, we agree that information structure properties should not be encoded in narrow syntax as features triggering movement, suggesting that the relevant information is established at the interfaces. Also, we argue for a minimalist model of grammar in which complexity arises out of the cyclic interaction of subderivations, a model we take to be compatible with Construction Grammar approaches. We claim that this model allows one to revisit the question of the formal complexity of a generative grammar, rephrasing it such that a different answer to the question of formal complexity is forthcoming depending on whether we consider the grammar as a whole, or just narrow syntax.
  • Mildly Context-Sensitive Grammar-Formalisms

    Mildly Context-Sensitive Grammar-Formalisms

    Mildly Context Sensitive Grammar Formalisms Petra Schmidt Pfarrer-Lauer-Strasse 23 66386 St. Ingbert [email protected] Overview ,QWURGXFWLRQ«««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««« 3 Tree-Adjoining-Grammars 7$*V «««««««««««««««««««««««««« 4 CoPELQDWRU\&DWHJRULDO*UDPPDU &&*V ««««««««««««««««««««««« 7 /LQHDU,QGH[HG*UDPPDU /,*V ««««««««««««««««««««««««««« 8 3URRIRIHTXLYDOHQFH«««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««« 9 CCG ĺ /,*«««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««« 9 LIG ĺ 7$*«««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««« 10 TAG ĺ &&*«««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««« 13 Linear Context-)UHH5HZULWLQJ6\VWHPV /&)56V «««««««««««««««««««« 15 Multiple Context-Free-*UDPPDUV««««««««««««««««««««««««««« 16 &RQFOXVLRQ«««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««« 17 References««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««« 18 Introduction Natural languages are not context free. An example non-context-free phenomenon are cross-serial dependencies in Dutch, an example of which we show in Fig. 1. ik haar hem de nijlpaarden zag helpen voeren Fig. 1.: cross-serial dependencies A concept motivated by the intention of characterizing a class of formal grammars, which allow the description of natural languages such as Dutch with its cross-serial dependencies was introduced in 1985 by Aravind Joshi. This class of formal grammars is known as the class of mildly context-sensitive grammar-formalisms. According to Joshi (1985, p.225), a mildly context-sensitive language L has to fulfill three criteria to be understood as a rough characterization. These are: The parsing problem for L is solvable in
  • Cs.FL] 7 Dec 2020 4 a Model Programming Language and Its Grammar 11 4.1 Alphabet

    Cs.FL] 7 Dec 2020 4 a Model Programming Language and Its Grammar 11 4.1 Alphabet

    Describing the syntax of programming languages using conjunctive and Boolean grammars∗ Alexander Okhotin† December 8, 2020 Abstract A classical result by Floyd (\On the non-existence of a phrase structure grammar for ALGOL 60", 1962) states that the complete syntax of any sensible programming language cannot be described by the ordinary kind of formal grammars (Chomsky's \context-free"). This paper uses grammars extended with conjunction and negation operators, known as con- junctive grammars and Boolean grammars, to describe the set of well-formed programs in a simple typeless procedural programming language. A complete Boolean grammar, which defines such concepts as declaration of variables and functions before their use, is constructed and explained. Using the Generalized LR parsing algorithm for Boolean grammars, a pro- gram can then be parsed in time O(n4) in its length, while another known algorithm allows subcubic-time parsing. Next, it is shown how to transform this grammar to an unambiguous conjunctive grammar, with square-time parsing. This becomes apparently the first specifica- tion of the syntax of a programming language entirely by a computationally feasible formal grammar. Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 Conjunctive and Boolean grammars 5 2.1 Conjunctive grammars . .5 2.2 Boolean grammars . .6 2.3 Ambiguity . .7 3 Language specification with conjunctive and Boolean grammars 8 arXiv:2012.03538v1 [cs.FL] 7 Dec 2020 4 A model programming language and its grammar 11 4.1 Alphabet . 11 4.2 Lexical conventions . 12 4.3 Identifier matching . 13 4.4 Expressions . 14 4.5 Statements . 15 4.6 Function declarations . 16 4.7 Declaration of variables before use .
  • From Indexed Grammars to Generating Functions∗

    From Indexed Grammars to Generating Functions∗

    RAIRO-Theor. Inf. Appl. 47 (2013) 325–350 Available online at: DOI: 10.1051/ita/2013041 www.rairo-ita.org FROM INDEXED GRAMMARS TO GENERATING FUNCTIONS ∗ Jared Adams1, Eric Freden1 and Marni Mishna2 Abstract. We extend the DSV method of computing the growth series of an unambiguous context-free language to the larger class of indexed languages. We illustrate the technique with numerous examples. Mathematics Subject Classification. 68Q70, 68R15. 1. Introduction 1.1. Indexed grammars Indexed grammars were introduced in the thesis of Aho in the late 1960s to model a natural subclass of context-sensitive languages, more expressive than context-free grammars with interesting closure properties [1,16]. The original ref- erence for basic results on indexed grammars is [1]. The complete definition of these grammars is equivalent to the following reduced form. Definition 1.1. A reduced indexed grammar is a 5-tuple (N , T , I, P, S), such that 1. N , T and I are three mutually disjoint finite sets of symbols: the set N of non-terminals (also called variables), T is the set of terminals and I is the set of indices (also called flags); 2. S ∈N is the start symbol; 3. P is a finite set of productions, each having the form of one of the following: (a) A → α Keywords and phrases. Indexed grammars, generating functions, functional equations, DSV method. ∗ The third author gratefully acknowledges the support of NSERC Discovery Grant funding (Canada), and LaBRI (Bordeaux) for hosting during the completion of the work. 1 Department of Mathematics, Southern Utah University, Cedar City, 84720, UT, USA.
  • Reflection in the Chomsky Hierarchy

    Reflection in the Chomsky Hierarchy

    Journal of Automata, Languages and Combinatorics 18 (2013) 1, 53–60 c Otto-von-Guericke-Universit¨at Magdeburg REFLECTION IN THE CHOMSKY HIERARCHY Henk Barendregt Institute of Computing and Information Science, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] Venanzio Capretta School of Computer Science, University of Nottingham, United Kingdom e-mail: [email protected] and Dexter Kozen Computer Science Department, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853, USA e-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT The class of regular languages can be generated from the regular expressions. These regular expressions, however, do not themselves form a regular language, as can be seen using the pumping lemma. On the other hand, the class of enumerable languages can be enumerated by a universal language that is one of its elements. We say that the enumerable languages are reflexive. In this paper we investigate what other classes of the Chomsky Hierarchy are re- flexive in this sense. To make this precise we require that the decoding function is itself specified by a member of the same class. Could it be that the regular languages are reflexive, by using a different collection of codes? It turns out that this is impossi- ble: the collection of regular languages is not reflexive. Similarly the collections of the context-free, context-sensitive, and computable languages are not reflexive. Therefore the class of enumerable languages is the only reflexive one in the Chomsky Hierarchy. In honor of Roel de Vrijer on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday 1. Introduction Let (Σ∗) be a class of languages over an alphabet Σ.
  • Appendix A: Hierarchy of Grammar Formalisms

    Appendix A: Hierarchy of Grammar Formalisms

    Appendix A: Hierarchy of Grammar Formalisms The following figure recalls the language hierarchy that we have developed in the course of the book. '' $$ '' $$ '' $$ ' ' $ $ CFG, 1-MCFG, PDA n n L1 = {a b | n ≥ 0} & % TAG, LIG, CCG, tree-local MCTAG, EPDA n n n ∗ L2 = {a b c | n ≥ 0}, L3 = {ww | w ∈{a, b} } & % 2-LCFRS, 2-MCFG, simple 2-RCG & % 3-LCFRS, 3-MCFG, simple 3-RCG n n n n n ∗ L4 = {a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 | n ≥ 0}, L5 = {www | w ∈{a, b} } & % ... LCFRS, MCFG, simple RCG, MG, set-local MCTAG, finite-copying LFG & % Thread Automata (TA) & % PMCFG 2n L6 = {a | n ≥ 0} & % RCG, simple LMG (= PTIME) & % mildly context-sensitive L. Kallmeyer, Parsing Beyond Context-Free Grammars, Cognitive Technologies, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-14846-0, c Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010 216 Appendix A For each class the different formalisms and automata that generate/accept exactly the string languages contained in this class are listed. Furthermore, examples of typical languages for this class are added, i.e., of languages that belong to this class while not belonging to the next smaller class in our hier- archy. The inclusions are all proper inclusions, except for the relation between LCFRS and Thread Automata (TA). Here, we do not know whether the in- clusion is a proper one. It is possible that both devices yield the same class of languages. Appendix B: List of Acronyms The following table lists all acronyms that occur in this book. (2,2)-BRCG Binary bottom-up non-erasing RCG with at most two vari- ables per left-hand side argument 2-SA Two-Stack Automaton
  • Noam Chomsky

    Noam Chomsky

    Noam Chomsky “If you’re teaching today what you were teaching five years ago, either the field is dead or you are.” Background ▪ Jewish American born to Ukranian and Belarussian immigrants. ▪ Attended a non-competitive elementary school. ▪ Considered dropping out of UPenn and moving to British Palestine. ▪ Life changed when introduced to linguist Zellig Harris. Contributions to Cognitive Science • Deemed the “father of modern linguistics” • One of the founders of Cognitive Science o Linguistics: Syntactic Structures (1957) o Universal Grammar Theory o Generative Grammar Theory o Minimalist Program o Computer Science: Chomsky Hierarchy o Philosophy: Philosophy of Mind; Philosophy of Language o Psychology: Critical of Behaviorism Transformational Grammar – 1955 Syntactic Structures - 1957 ▪ Made him well-known within the ▪ Big Idea: Given the grammar, linguistics community you should be able to construct various expressions in the ▪ Revolutionized the study of natural language with prior language knowledge. ▪ Describes generative grammars – an explicit statement of what the classes of linguistic expressions in a language are and what kind of structures they have. Universal Grammar Theory ▪ Credited with uncovering ▪ Every sentence has a deep structure universal properties of natural that is mapped onto the surface human languages. structure according to rules. ▪ Key ideas: Humans have an ▪ Language similarities: innate neural capacity for – Deep Structure: Pattern in the mind generating a system of rules. – Surface Structure: Spoken utterances – There is a universal grammar that – Rules: Transformations underlies ALL languages Chomsky Hierarchy ▪ Hierarchy of classes of formal grammars ▪ Focuses on structure of classes and relationship between grammars ▪ Typically used in Computer Science and Linguistics Minimalist Program – 1993 ▪ Program NOT theory ▪ Provides conceptual framework to guide development of linguistic theory.
  • The Evolution of the Faculty of Language from a Chomskyan Perspective: Bridging Linguistics and Biology

    The Evolution of the Faculty of Language from a Chomskyan Perspective: Bridging Linguistics and Biology

    doi 10.4436/JASS.91011 JASs Invited Reviews e-pub ahead of print Journal of Anthropological Sciences Vol. 91 (2013), pp. 1-48 The evolution of the Faculty of Language from a Chomskyan perspective: bridging linguistics and biology Víctor M. Longa Area of General Linguistics, Faculty of Philology, University of Santiago de Compostela, 15782 Santiago de Compostela, Spain e-mail: [email protected] Summary - While language was traditionally considered a purely cultural trait, the advent of Noam Chomsky’s Generative Grammar in the second half of the twentieth century dramatically challenged that view. According to that theory, language is an innate feature, part of the human biological endowment. If language is indeed innate, it had to biologically evolve. This review has two main objectives: firstly, it characterizes from a Chomskyan perspective the evolutionary processes by which language could have come into being. Secondly, it proposes a new method for interpreting the archaeological record that radically differs from the usual types of evidence Paleoanthropology has concentrated on when dealing with language evolution: while archaeological remains have usually been regarded from the view of the behavior they could be associated with, the paper will consider archaeological remains from the view of the computational processes and capabilities at work for their production. This computational approach, illustrated with a computational analysis of prehistoric geometric engravings, will be used to challenge the usual generative thinking on language evolution, based on the high specificity of language. The paper argues that the biological machinery of language is neither specifically linguistic nor specifically human, although language itself can still be considered a species-specific innate trait.