Model-theoretic grammars, also known as constraint-based grammars, contrast with generative grammars in the way they define sets of sentences: they state constraints on syntactic structure rather than providing operations for generating syntactic objects. A generative grammar provides a set of operations such as rewriting, insertion, deletion, movement, or combination, and is interpreted as a definition of the set of all and only the objects that these operations are capable of producing through iterative application. A model-theoretic grammar simply states a set of conditions that an object must meet, and can be regarded as defining the set of all and only the structures of a certain sort that satisfy all of the constraints. The approach applies the mathematical techniques of model theory to the task of syntactic description: a grammar is a theory in the logician's sense (a consistent set of statements) and the well-formed structures are the models that satisfy the theory.
History
David E. Johnson and Paul M. Postal introduced the idea of model-theoretic syntax in their 1980 book Arc Pair Grammar.
Examples of model-theoretic grammars
The following is a sample of grammars falling under the model-theoretic umbrella:
- the non-procedural variant of Transformational grammar (TG) of George Lakoff, that formulates constraints on potential tree sequences
- Johnson and Postal's formalization of Relational grammar (RG) (1980), Generalized phrase structure grammar (GPSG) in the variants developed by Gazdar et al. (1988), Blackburn et al. (1993) and Rogers (1997)
- Lexical functional grammar (LFG) in the formalization of Ronald Kaplan (1995)
- Head-driven phrase structure grammar (HPSG) in the formalization of King (1999)
- Constraint Handling Rules (CHR) grammars
- The implicit model underlying The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language
Strengths
One benefit of model-theoretic grammars over generative grammars is that they allow for gradience in grammaticality. A structure may deviate only slightly from a theory or it may be highly deviant. Generative grammars, in contrast "entail a sharp boundary between the perfect and the nonexistent, and do not even permit gradience in ungrammaticality to be represented."
References
- Pullum, Geoffrey Keith; Scholz, Barbara C. (2001). "On the distinction between generative-enumerative and model-theoretic syntactic frameworks" (PDF). In de Groote, Philippe; Morrill, Glyn; Retor, Christian (eds.). Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics: 4th International Conference. Springer Verlag. pp. 17–43.
- Pullum, Geoffrey Keith (2007). "The evolution of model-theoretic frameworks in linguistics" (PDF). In Rogers, James; Kepser, Stephan (eds.). Model-theoretic syntax at 10 – Proceedings of the ESSLLI2007 MTS@10Workshop. Trinity College Dublin. pp. 1–10.
- Johnson, David E; Postal, Paul M (1980). Arc Pair Grammar. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-1-4008-5555-1.
- ^ Müller, Stefan (2016). Grammatical theory: From transformational grammar to constraint-based approaches. Berlin: Language Science Press. pp. 490–491.
- Christiansen, Henning. "CHR Grammars with multiple constraint stores." First Workshop on Constraint Handling Rules: Selected Contributions. Universität Ulm, Fakultät für Informatik, 2004.
- Pullum, Geoffrey K.; Rogers, James (2008). "Expressive power of the syntactic theory implicit in the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language" (PDF). Annual Meeting of the Linguistics Association of Great Britain: 1–16.
- Pullum, Geoffrey K. (2013). "The Central Question in Comparative Syntactic Metatheory". Mind & Language. 28 (4): 492–521. doi:10.1111/mila.12029.
| Mathematical logic | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| General | |||||||||
| Theorems (list) and paradoxes | |||||||||
| Logics |
| ||||||||
| Set theory |
| ||||||||
| Formal systems (list), language and syntax |
| ||||||||
| Proof theory | |||||||||
| Model theory | |||||||||
| Computability theory | |||||||||
| Related | |||||||||
 Mathematics portal | |||||||||