Unlike other mildly context-sensitive formalisms, Combinatory Categorial Grammar (CCG) cannot be parsed in polynomial time when the size of the grammar is taken into account. Refining this result, we show that the parsing complexity of CCG is exponential only in the maximum degree of composition. When that degree is fixed, parsing can be carried out in polynomial time. Our finding is interesting from a linguistic perspective because a bounded degree of composition has been suggested as a universal constraint on natural language grammar. Moreover, ours is the first complexity result for a version of CCG that includes substitution rules, which are used in practical grammars but have been ignored in theoretical work.

We study the parsing complexity of Combinatory Categorial Grammar (CCG) in the formalism of Vijay-Shanker and Weir ( 1994 ). As our main result, we prove that any parsing algorithm for this formalism will take in the worst case exponential time when the size of the grammar, and not only the length of the input sentence, is included in the analysis. This sets the formalism of Vijay-Shanker and Weir ( 1994 ) apart from weakly equivalent formalisms such as Tree Adjoining Grammar, for which parsing can be performed in time polynomial in the combined size of grammar and input sentence. Our results contribute to a refined understanding of the class of mildly context-sensitive grammars, and inform the search for new, mildly context-sensitive versions of CCG.

Graphs exceeding the formal complexity of rooted trees are of growing relevance to much NLP research. Although formally well understood in graph theory, there is substantial variation in the types of linguistic graphs, as well as in the interpretation of various structural properties. To provide a common terminology and transparent statistics across different collections of graphs in NLP, we propose to establish a shared community resource with an open-source reference implementation for common statistics.

The weak equivalence of Combinatory Categorial Grammar (CCG) and Tree-Adjoining Grammar (TAG) is a central result of the literature on mildly context-sensitive grammar formalisms. However, the categorial formalism for which this equivalence has been established differs significantly from the versions of CCG that are in use today. In particular, it allows restriction of combinatory rules on a per grammar basis, whereas modern CCG assumes a universal set of rules, isolating all cross-linguistic variation in the lexicon. In this article we investigate the formal significance of this difference. Our main result is that lexicalized versions of the classical CCG formalism are strictly less powerful than TAG.

Syntactic representations based on word-to-word dependencies have a long-standing tradition in descriptive linguistics, and receive considerable interest in many applications. Nevertheless, dependency syntax has remained something of an island from a formal point of view. Moreover, most formalisms available for dependency grammar are restricted to projective analyses, and thus not able to support natural accounts of phenomena such as wh-movement and cross–serial dependencies. In this article we present a formalism for non-projective dependency grammar in the framework of linear context-free rewriting systems. A characteristic property of our formalism is a close correspondence between the non-projectivity of the dependency trees admitted by a grammar on the one hand, and the parsing complexity of the grammar on the other. We show that parsing with unrestricted grammars is intractable. We therefore study two constraints on non-projectivity, block-degree and well-nestedness. Jointly, these two constraints define a class of “mildly” non-projective dependency grammars that can be parsed in polynomial time. An evaluation on five dependency treebanks shows that these grammars have a good coverage of empirical data.

A lexicalized tree-adjoining grammar is a tree-adjoining grammar where each elementary tree contains some overt lexical item. Such grammars are being used to give lexical accounts of syntactic phenomena, where an elementary tree defines the domain of locality of the syntactic and semantic dependencies of its lexical items. It has been claimed in the literature that for every tree-adjoining grammar, one can construct a strongly equivalent lexicalized version. We show that such a procedure does not exist: Tree-adjoining grammars are not closed under strong lexicalization.