AS CAN BE SEEN, THE ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF THE MAR TABLE CONSTITUTES...

6. As can be seen, the argument in favor of the

mar table constitutes a set of input data to the particu-

lar algorithm, in a similar way in which the sentences

separation of grammar and algorithm is considered far

from convincing. It does raise a related question, how-

to be parsed constitute input data. In this author’s

ever: If the major separation is not to be that between

opinion, this is again an oversimplification.

grammar and algorithm, what then are the major com-

First of all, it is to be noted that, in the view of

many programmers, only those data are considered in-

ponents of a parsing program?

The answer which this author has found satisfactory

put that are designed to be actually processed. Since

is the well-known one of structuring the parsing pro-

the grammar rules are not intended to be subject to

processing, but rather to constitute the parameters for

gram as an executive main routine with appropriate

processing, they are not input data in any way com-

subroutines. This raises the further question of the

parable to the sentences that are to be parsed.

functions and design of the executive routine and sub-

If, on the other hand, the question of processing is

routines.

to be ignored in deciding what is to be viewed as in-

In this type of parsing program, the function of the

put data, then another consideration must be taken

executive routine will be to determine what units to

into account. It is the following: the question as to

look for and where to look for them. The aim of the

what constitutes input can not be answered in the ab-

subroutines will be to provide the means for carrying

solute, but only relatively. That is, the question is not

out the necessary searches.

simply “Is it input?” but “What is it input to?” This

The design principle for such a parsing program

means that the answer depends, at least in part, on

will be the well-known one of functional subroutiniza-

what portions of the program are previously present

tion: the program will contain a set of self-contained

in the work space and what additional portions are in-

and interchangeable subroutines designed to perform

putted subsequently. In a bipartite program in which

individual functions.

The subroutines will be of two kinds: analytic sub-

the grammar is written into the algorithm, such as is

the case in the approach this author has taken, the

routines, the purpose of which will be to perform tasks

of linguistic analysis such as the determination of the

question of whether the grammar constitutes input

data can then be viewed as follows: while the gram-

internal structure and external functioning of the dif-

mar does not constitute a separate set of input data, it

ferent constructions that are to be recognized, and

nevertheless will use separate sets of grammatical in-

housekeeping subroutines, which are to insure that the

put data in the form of a grammar-coded dictionary

program is at all times aware of where it stands. The

latter means the following: the program has to know

that is fed into the program from a separate source.

what word it is dealing with; the program has to know

Likewise, it is possible to view the executive routine

at each step how far a given search is allowed to go

of the algorithm which contains the grammar as the

actual parsing algorithm and to view the remaining

and what points it is not allowed to go beyond; the

program has to be informed at all times of the neces-

portions as forms of input data.

sary location information, such as sentence boundaries,