Base_JSON/prefixC/json/C67/C67-1016.json

{
    "paper_id": "C67-1016",
    "header": {
        "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
        "date_generated": "2023-01-19T12:35:36.653924Z"
    },
    "title": "\u2022 \u2022The Elimination of Grammatical Restrictions in a String Grammar of English",
    "authors": [
        {
            "first": "M",
            "middle": [],
            "last": "Salkoff",
            "suffix": "",
            "affiliation": {},
            "email": ""
        },
        {
            "first": "N",
            "middle": [],
            "last": "Sager",
            "suffix": "",
            "affiliation": {},
            "email": ""
        }
    ],
    "year": "",
    "venue": null,
    "identifiers": {},
    "abstract": "N 1 and N 2 are of particular subclasses: ~ five feet in \u2022beauty. One of the theories of linguistic structure which is particularly relevant to this problem is linguistic string analysis\u2022[1]. In this theory, the major syntactic structures of English are stated as a set of elementary strings (a string is a sequence of word categories, e.g., N V____NN, N V P N, eta). Each sentence of the language consists of one elementary sentence (its center string) plus zero or more elementary adjunct strings which are adjoined either to the right or left or in place of particular elements of other elementary strings in the sentence. 17.~ The elementary strings can be grouped into classes according to how and where they can be inserted into other strings.",
    "pdf_parse": {
        "paper_id": "C67-1016",
        "_pdf_hash": "",
        "abstract": [
            {
                "text": "N 1 and N 2 are of particular subclasses: ~ five feet in \u2022beauty. One of the theories of linguistic structure which is particularly relevant to this problem is linguistic string analysis\u2022[1]. In this theory, the major syntactic structures of English are stated as a set of elementary strings (a string is a sequence of word categories, e.g., N V____NN, N V P N, eta). Each sentence of the language consists of one elementary sentence (its center string) plus zero or more elementary adjunct strings which are adjoined either to the right or left or in place of particular elements of other elementary strings in the sentence. 17.~ The elementary strings can be grouped into classes according to how and where they can be inserted into other strings.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Abstract",
                "sec_num": null
            }
        ],
        "body_text": [
            {
                "text": "demonstrate that such a restrictionless grammar can be written [4] .",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 63,
                        "end": 66,
                        "text": "[4]",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF3"
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "In order to obtain a restrictionless form of a string grammar of English, we take as a point of departure the grammar used by the computer program for string decomposition of sentences, developed at the University of Pennsylvania [2, 3] . This gran~nar is somewhat more detailed than the sketch of an English string grammar in Ill. A summary of the form of the computer grammar is presented below in section 2. In section 3 we show how the restrictions can be eliminated from the gran~nar. Then Y can appear in the subject Z of the linguistic center string CI:",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 230,
                        "end": 233,
                        "text": "[2,",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF1"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 234,
                        "end": 236,
                        "text": "3]",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF2"
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "(7) Cl = z v n",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "This yields Which he chose was important; What he chose was impDrtant.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "As it is defined here, Y can also be used to represent the wh-clauses in the right adjuncts of the noun: worked seriously , or is said to be known to in It is said to be known to surprise him that we worked seriuusly are analyzed as adjuncts.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "If we place such sequences among the left adjuncts of the verb, \u00a3v ' then the sentences above can be put in the form (9) It~_\u00a3 v surprise him that we worked seriously ~v = seemed to begin to ; is said to be known to ; etc.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "However, when the adjunct ~v takes on the value zero (as can all adjuncts, by definition), then (9) above becomes the non-grammatical sequence It surprise him that we worked seriously. This happens because the first verb of ~v (seemed or is__) carries the tense morpheme, and the latter disappears when ~ = O. We separate the tense morpheme from the verb, and (a) New strings must be written in which only the wellformed sequences of subcategories appear.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "In the example of subject-verb agreement, the original Yi (Yi = C1) must be replaced by two options: As many new sets rAi must be defined as there were special sub-categories of (c) A new element corresponding to the/adjunct set must be defined in which the adjuncts appear correctly ordered with respect to each other, and each one must be able to take on the value zero.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Cl= N t V ~ \u00f7 Ns t Vs ~ / N t V",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "This procedure for eliminating restrictions is also the algorithm for introducing further grammatical refinements into the restrictionless grammar. ",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "",
                "sec_num": null
            }
        ],
        "back_matter": [],
        "bib_entries": {
            "BIBREF0": {
                "ref_id": "b0",
                "title": "String Analysis of Sentence Structure",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "Z",
                        "middle": [
                            "S"
                        ],
                        "last": "Harris",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1962,
                "venue": "Papers on Formal Linguistics",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Harris, Z. S., String Analysis of Sentence Structure, Papers on Formal Linguistics, No. l, Mouton and Co., The Hague, 1962.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF1": {
                "ref_id": "b1",
                "title": "Report on the String Analysis Programs",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "N",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Sager",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "M",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Salkoff",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "J",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Morris",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "C",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Raze",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1966,
                "venue": "",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Sager , N., Salkoff, M., Morris, J., and Raze, C., Report on the String Analysis Programs, Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania, March 1966.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF2": {
                "ref_id": "b2",
                "title": "Syntactic Analysis of Natural Language",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "N",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Sager",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1967,
                "venue": "Advances in Computers",
                "volume": "8",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "153--188",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Sager, N., \"Syntactic Analysis of Natural Language\", Advances in Computers (Alt, F. and Rubinoff, M., eds.), vol. 8, pp. 153-188. Academic Press, New York, 1967.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF3": {
                "ref_id": "b3",
                "title": "This problem was suggested by Professor J. Schwartz of the Courant institute of",
                "authors": [],
                "year": null,
                "venue": "",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "This problem was suggested by Professor J. Schwartz of the Courant institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York University.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF4": {
                "ref_id": "b4",
                "title": "The option Yi here corresponds to the linguistic string Y of the previous section. The symbol / separates the options of a string definition",
                "authors": [],
                "year": null,
                "venue": "",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "The option Yi here corresponds to the linguistic string Y of the previous section. The symbol / separates the options of a string definition.",
                "links": null
            }
        },
        "ref_entries": {
            "FIGREF0": {
                "uris": null,
                "type_str": "figure",
                "num": null,
                "text": "grammatical dependency mentioned above is formulated by the restriction: if f N1 is plural, theh V does not carry the singular morpheme -_ss. The string grammar with restrictions gives a compact representation of the linguistic data of a language, and provides a framework within which it is relatively simple to incorporate more linguistic refinement, i.e., more detailed restrictions. J One may ask whether it is possible to write such a string grammar without any restrictions at all, i.e., to express the grammatical dependencies (restrictions) in the syntactic structures themselves. In the resulting restrictionless grammar, any elements which are related by a grammatical dependency wilLbeelements of the same elementary string. No grammatical relations, other than those given by the simple rule of string combination, obtain between two strings of a sentence. The result of this paper is to"
            },
            "FIGREF1": {
                "uris": null,
                "type_str": "figure",
                "num": null,
                "text": "An example of a typical output obtained for a short sentence from a text of a medical abstract is shown in Figs. 1 and 2. The decomposition of the sentence into a sequence of nested strings is indicated in the output by the numbering of the strings. As indicated in line 1., the sentence consists of the two assertion centers in lines 2.and ~ ~ conjoined by and. The line B \u2022 contains a sentence adjunct th~_~) on the assertion center as a whole . The assertion center 2 . is of the form N V A : Spikes would be effective . The noun spikes has a left adjunct (such enhanced) in line 5 -\u2022 as indicated by the appearance of 5 . to the left of spikes . The object effective has a left adjunct ~9_~) in line 6 . and a right adjunct in line 7 \u2022 In the same wsy, each of the elements of the adjunct strings may have its own left and right adjuncts. Line IO . contains an assertion center in which the subject and the modal verb (woul____dd) have been zeroed. This zeroing is indicated in the output by printing the zeroe~ element in parentheses. The difference between the two analyses in Figs. i an~ 2 lies in the decomposition of the sequence in initiating synaptlc action. In the first analysis (Fig. I), this sequence is taken as a P_~N right adjunct on effective, where initiating synaptlc is a left adjunct (onaction) of the form of a repeated adjective (parallel to escaping toxic in the sequence in eseap.ing toxic gases) . In the second analysis (~ig. 2), this same sequence is taken as a ~ right adjunct of effective, where initiating / is the Ving, and synaptic action is the Object of initiating. -The Computer String Grammar. In representing the string grammar in the computer, a generalized grammar string is used 5 which is defined as (i) Y = Y1 / Y2 / \" \" \" / Yn where Yi = Yil Yi2 \" \" \" Yim and (3) Y-. = Y' IS where Y' is a grammar string like Y."
            },
            "FIGREF2": {
                "uris": null,
                "type_str": "figure",
                "num": null,
                "text": "Z V (e.g., which he chose) Y2 = what E V (e.g., what he chose)"
            },
            "FIGREF3": {
                "uris": null,
                "type_str": "figure",
                "num": null,
                "text": "rN = . . . / Y / . . but in r N only the which option of Y gives wellformed sequences: 3 the book which he chose the book what he chose Hence a restriction R a is attached to the what option of Y (eq. 5) whose effect is to prevent that option from being used in r N. Type B: With some given set of rather broadly defined major categories (noun, verb, adjective, etc.) it is always possible to express more detailed linguistic relations by defining sub-categories of the major categories. These relations then appear as constraints on how the sub-categories may appear together in the grammar strings Y. If some element Yij of Yi is an atomic string (hence a word-category symbol) representing some major category, say C, then R b may exclude the subcategory Cj as value of Yij if some other element Yik of Yi has the value C k. Yikmay also be a grammar string, in which case Rbmay exclude a particular option of Yik when Yij has value C.. The restrictions R b may be classified into three kinds: (a) Between elements of some string Y. where the Y.. correspond to elements 1 i~ of a linguistic string. For example, A noun in the sub-category singular cannot appear with a verb in the sub-category plural. ~ The man agree. Only a certain sub-category of adjective can appear in the sentence adjunct P__AA : in general, in particular, ~ in ha~py. (b) Between a Yij and a Yik where Yij corresponds to an element of a linguistic string and Yik corresponds to a set of adjuncts of that element. For example, In rN, the string to V 2 cannot adjoin a noun of sub-categoryN 2 (proper names): the man to do the job ~ John to do the ~ob. Only a certain adjective sub-category (e.g., re~/.e~, available) can appear in r N without any left or right adjunct of its own: the people present ; ~ the people happy. (c) Between Yij and Yik ' where one corresponds to an element of a linguistic string and the other corresponds to an adjunct set which can repeat itself, i.e., which allows 2 or more adjuncts on the same linguistic element. These restrictions enable one to express the ordering among adjuncts in some adjunct sets. For example, Q (quantifier) and A (adjective) are both in the set \u00a3N ' the left adjuncts of the noun. However, _Q can precede A but A cannot precede _Q when both are adjuncts of the same N in a sentence: 3 Q A N e.g., five green books , but ~ A Q N e.g., green five books. The string grammar defined by eqs. i-3, together with the atomic strings (word-category symbols) have the form of a BNF definition. The system with eq. 4, however, departs from a BNF definition in two important respects : (a) it contains restrictions (tests) on the options of a definition; (b) the atomic strings (word-categories) of the grammar have sub-classifications. With the elimination of the restrictions, the computer grammar will again have the form of a BNF definition. Elimination of the Restrictions The restrictionless string grammar is obtained from the grammar described above by the methods of (A) and (B) below. Initially (in this paper), conjunctional strings have not been included in the restrictionless grammar. We estimate that the addition of conjunctions/ strings will increase the size of the restrictionless grammar by a factor of about 5. (A) The linguistic strings represented in the computer graz~,ar are reformulated in accordance with the following requirement. Given any utterance of a language containing A . . . B . . . , where a grammatical dependency obtains between A and B , the elementary strings of a restrictionless string grammar are defined so that A and B appear together in the same linguistic string, and any iterable sequence between A and B is an adjunct of that string. Iterable sequences of the type seemed to begin to in It seemed to be~in to surprise him that we"
            },
            "FIGREF4": {
                "uris": null,
                "type_str": "figure",
                "num": null,
                "text": "place it in the center string as one of the required elements.(i0) C1 = Z t ~ V g; V t = o I -\u00a3 I -ed I will, ca.__~n, ... This formulation of the assertion center string C1 (lO), in which the tense morpheme is an independent element and iterable sequences are taken as adjuncts, is necessary in ord@r to preserve, for example, the dependence between the particle it and the succeeding sequence surprises him that we worked seriously: ~ The book surprises him that we worked seriously.In the grammar~which includes restrictions, this formulation is not necessary because this dependence can be checked by a restriction.(B) Turning to the computer form of the grammar, all the restrictions of the grammar are eliminated either by defining new grammar strings (for the elimination of the restrictions Ra) ' or by replacing the general wordcategories by the particular subclasses of those categories which are required by the restriction (to eliminate Rb). The application of this procedure increases the number of strings in the grammar, of course. The restrictions R a can be eliminated in the following manner. Suppose the option Yi of Y has a restriction R a on it which prevents it from being chosen in Y' (Y is a Y'ij of Y'). Then define a new grammar string Y'which contains all the options of Y but Y. : 1 (15) !~ = Y1 / Y2 / \" \" \" / Yi-i / Yi+l / \u2022 \u2022 / Then the new gran~nar string Y* replaces Y in Y'. Thus, in the example of R a on p. 5, the string Y* = which Z t fv V / .... (in the modified treatment of tense and iterable sequences) would replace Y in r N. The restrictions R b are eliminated in a different way, according to the types described on p. 6."
            },
            "FIGREF5": {
                "uris": null,
                "type_str": "figure",
                "num": null,
                "text": "where N s and Np are singular and plural nouns, V s and Vp singular and plural verbs. (b) If an element of a particular subcategory, say Ai, can take only a subset of the adjuncts rA, then a new adjunct s~ring rAi is defined. It contains those options~_ of r A which can appear only with A i plus all the options of r A which are common to all the sub-categ0ries of A. When this has been done f0r \u2022 all A i having some particular behavior withrespect to rA, all the remaining sub-categories of A will have a common adjunct string r : a A r A ~ AlrA1 / A3rA3 / . . . / A2r a / A4r a / . ."
            },
            "FIGREF6": {
                "uris": null,
                "type_str": "figure",
                "num": null,
                "text": "Such a general procedure can be formulated because of an essential property of a string grammar: In terms of linguistic (elementary) strings, all restrictions are either a) \u2022between elements of a string, or b) between an element of the string and its adjunct, or c) between related adjuncts of the same string. Further, there is no problem with discontinuous elements in a string grammar: all elements which depend in some way on each other grammatically appear in the same string or in strings which are contiguous by adjunction. The cost of the elimination of all restrictions in this way is about an order of magnitude increase in the number of strings of the grammar. Instead of about 200 strings of the computer grammar, the grammar presented here has about 2000 strings. It is interesting that the increase in the size of the"
            },
            "TABREF1": {
                "content": "<table><tr><td/><td>Fi~e 2</td><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">SENIENCE NEUH-.IB \u2022 SUCH ENHANCED SPIKES kOULD BE MORE EFFECTIVE</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">grammar is not greater than roughly one order of magnitude. there may be practical applications for such a grammar, e.g. IN INITIATING SYNAPTIC ACTION AND THUS BE RESPONSIBLE This suggests that in a program FOR THE OBSERVED POST-TETANIC POTENTIATION \u2022 PARSE Ol I. SENTENCE = INTRODUCER CENTER AND END MARK Z, AND 3, 4, \u2022 2, CI ASSERTION \u2022 $ SUBJECT $ VERB $ OBJECT 5. SPIKES gOULD BE 6. EFFECTIVE T, RV $ 3, ACVERB = ADVERB THUS ~, CONJUNCTION \u2022 CENIER 10, 5. LN = ARTICLE QUANTIFIER ADJECTIVE TYPE-NS\" NOUN SUCH ENHANCED 6. AEVERB = ADVERB MORE 7. P N lO. CI ASSERTION = LP PREPOSITION N IN It, ACTION = $ SUBJECT $ VERB I 5. SPIKES | (WOULD | BE $ OBJECT RV $ RESPONSIBLE t2, IN INI|iATING SYNAPTIC ACTION AND THUS UE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OBSERVED POST-TETANIC POTENTIATION \u2022 PARSE 02 1\u00b0 SENTENCE = |NTROOUCER CENTER AND END MARK Z. AND 3\u00b0 6\u00b0 \u2022 2, CI ASSERTION \u2022 = \u2022 S~BJECT . 5. SPIKES 3\u00b0 ACVERB S ADVERB IHUS \u2022 VERB \u2022 OBJECT kOULD BE 6\u00b0 EFFECTIVE T, RV \u2022 6 .~NJUNCTIGN = CENIER 10. 5. LN \u2022 ARTICLE QUANTIFIER ADJECTIVE TYPE-NS NOUN SUCH ENHANCED 6, lCVERB = ADVERB MORE To P NS VINGIOF| 0 = PREPOSITION SN IN INIIIATING 11o ACTION 10. CI ASSERTION \u2022 \u2022 SUBJECT \u2022 VERB \u2022 OBJECT RV \u2022 ( 5. SPIKES I (WOULD) BE RESPONSIBLE 12, designed to carry SENTENCE NEUH-IB \u2022 SUCE ENHANCED SPIKES WOULD BE MORE EFFECTIVE 11. LN = ARTICLE QUANTIFIER ADJECT|VE TYPE-NS NOUN</td></tr><tr><td>II. LN</td><td colspan=\"2\">ARTICLE QUANTIFIER ADJECTIVE SYNAPT|C</td><td>TYPE-MS NOUN</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>INITIATING</td><td>SYNAPTIC</td></tr><tr><td>\u00b0</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td>12. P N</td><td colspan=\"2\">= LP PREPOSITICN N</td></tr><tr><td>12. P N</td><td colspan=\"2\">= LP PREPOS|TICN N FOR 13o POTENTIATION</td></tr><tr><td/><td>FOR</td><td colspan=\"2\">13, POTENTIATION</td></tr><tr><td>13,'LN</td><td colspan=\"2\">= ARTICLE QUANTIFIER ADJECTIVE</td><td>TYPE-NS NOUN</td></tr><tr><td>13. LN</td><td colspan=\"3\">= ARTICLE GUANTIFIER ADJECTIVE THE OBSERVEO POST-TETANIC</td><td>TYPE-NS NOUN</td></tr><tr><td/><td>THE</td><td colspan=\"2\">OBSERVED POST-TETANIC</td></tr><tr><td>NG MCRE PARSES</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td>-lh-</td><td>-13-</td></tr><tr><td/><td>+</td><td/></tr></table>",
                "type_str": "table",
                "num": null,
                "html": null,
                "text": "out all analyses of a sentence in real time. Also, since the restrictionless grammar is equivalent to a B.N.F. grammar of English, it may prove useful in adding English-language features to programming languages which are written in B.N.F."
            }
        }
    }
}