Topic
Context-sensitive grammar
About: Context-sensitive grammar is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 1938 publications have been published within this topic receiving 45911 citations. The topic is also known as: CSG.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
•
TL;DR: periodically time-variant grammars yield the rst example of a non-trivial equivalence of generating and accepting mode in the absence of appearance checkings.
Abstract: In this paper, we study the concept of accepting grammars within various forms of regulated grammars like programmed grammars, matrix (set) grammars, grammars with regular (set) control, periodically time-variant grammars as variants of grammars controlled by bi-coloured digraphs. We focus on their descriptive capacity. In this way, we continue our studies of accepting grammars 1, 2, 3, 11, 13, 14, 15]. Periodically time-variant grammars yield the rst example of a non-trivial equivalence of generating and accepting mode in the absence of appearance checkings. Supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft grant DFG La 618/3-1.
10 citations
01 Jan 2003
TL;DR: Conjunctive Grammars were introduced in 2000 as a generalization of context-free grammars that allows the use of an explicit intersection oper-ation in rules and several theoretical results on their properties have been obtained and numerous open problems are proposed.
Abstract: Conjunctive grammars were introduced in 2000 as a generalization ofcontext-free grammars that allows the use of an explicit intersection oper-ation in rules. Several theoretical results on their properties have been ob-tained since then, and a number of efficient parsing algorith ms that justifythe practical value of the concept have been developed. This article reviewsthese results and proposes numerous open problems. 1 Introduction The generative power of context-free grammars is generallyconsidered to beinsufficient for denoting many languages that arise in pract ice: it has often beenobserved that all natural languages contain non-context-free constructs, whilethe non-context-freeness of programming languages was proved already in early1960s. A review of several widely different subject areas led the authors of [5] tothe noteworthy conclusion that “the world seems to be non-context-free”.This leaves the aforementioned world with the question of fin ding an ade-quate tool for denoting formal languages. As the descriptive means of context-free grammars are not sufficient but necessary for practical use, the attemptsat developing new generative devices have usually been made by generalizingcontext-free grammars in this or that way. However, most of the time an exten-sion that appears to be minorleads to a substantialincrease in the generative power(context-sensitive and indexed grammars being good examples), which is usuallyaccompanied by strong and very undesirable complexity hardness results. Theability to encode hard problems makes a formalism, in effect, a peculiar low-levelprogramming language, where writing a grammar resembles coding in assembly
10 citations
••
02 Nov 2004TL;DR: It is proved that any division order on L is a well quasi-order on L, and applications of this result are given to some quasi-orders associated with unitary grammars.
Abstract: Let G be a context-free grammar and let L be the language of all the words derived from any variable of G. We prove the following generalization of Higman's theorem: any division order on L is a well quasi-order on L. We also give applications of this result to some quasi-orders associated with unitary grammars.
10 citations
••
10 citations
••
TL;DR: Generalized Context- free (Regular) Kolam Array Grammars [GCF(R)KAG] are introduced as models for generation of rectangular arrays and are found to be richer in generative capacity than Context-Free (Regular).
Abstract: Generalized Context-Free (Regular) Kolam Array Grammars [GCF(R)KAG] are introduced as models for generation of rectangular arrays. These grammars are found to be richer in generative capacity than Context-Free (Regular) Kolam Array Grammars. Two subclasses of these grammars are also considered. Comparisons are made. Hierarchies and closure properties are examined. The effects of control devices on GCF(R)KAGs are discussed.
10 citations