Chapter 3

Context-Free
Grammars
 Context-Free Grammars and Languages
 Defn. 3.1.1 A context-free grammar is a quadruple (V, ,
P, S), where
 V is a finite set of variables (non-terminals)
 , the alphabet, is a finite set of terminal symbols
 P is a finite set of rules of the form V  (V  )*, and
 S  V, is the start symbol

 A production rule of the form A  w, where w  (V 

 )*, applied to the string uAv yields uwv, and u and
v define the context in which A occurs.
 Because the context places no limitations on the applicability
of a rule, such a grammar is called context-free grammar
(CFG)
2
 Context-Free Grammars and Languages
 Defn. 3.1.2. Let G = (V, , P, S) be a CFG and v  (V  )*.
The set of strings derivable from v is defined recursively
as follows:
i) Basis: v is derivable from v
ii) Recursion: If u = xAy is derivable from v and A  w  P, then
xwy is derivable from v
iii) Closure: All strings constructed from v and a finite number of
applications of (ii) are derivable from v

 The derivability of w  (V  )* from v  (V  )+ is denoted

*  n *
v  w , or v  w , v  w, v  w
G

 The language of the grammar G is the set of terminal strings

derivable from the start symbol of G
3
 CFG and Languages
 Defn. 3.1.3. Let G = (V, , P, S) be a CFG
(i) A string w  (V  )* is a sentential form of G if S 
*
G
w
(ii) A string w  * is a sentence of G if S 
*
G
w
(iii) The language of G, denoted L(G), is the set { w  * |
S*
w}
 A set of strings w over an alphabet is called a CFL if there
is a CFG that generates w

 Leftmost (Rightmost) derivation: a derivation that transforms

the 1st variable occurring in a string from left-to-right
(right-to-left)
e.g., Fig. 3.1(a) and (b) exhibit a leftmost derivation, whereas
Fig. 3.1(c) shows a rightmost derivation

 The derivation of a string can be graphically depicted by a

derivation/parse tree 4
CFG and Languages

5
 CFG and Languages
 Design CFG for the following languages:
(i) The set { 0n1n | n  0 }.

(ii) The set { aibjck | i  j or j  k }, i.e., the set of strings of a’s

followed by b’s followed by c’s such that there are either
a different number of a’s and b’s or a different number of
b’s and c’s, or both.

 Given the following grammar:

S  A1 B
A  0A | 
B  0B | 1B | 

Give the leftmost and rightmost derivation of the string 00101

6
 CFG and Languages
Defn. 3.1.4. Let G = (V, , P, S) be a CFG and S 
*

G w a
derivation. The derivation tree, DT, of S 
*
G
w is an
ordered tree that can be built iteratively as follows:
(i) Initialize DT T with root S
(ii) If A  x1 ... xn, where xi  (V  ), is a rule in the derivation
applied to rAv, then add x1 ... xn as the children of A in T
(iii) If A   is a rule in the derivation applied to uAv, then add
 as the only child of A in T
e.g., Fig. 3.2 for Fig. 3.1(a) S  AA  aA  aAAA
 abAAA  abaAA  ababAA
 ababaA  ababaa
Fig. 3.3 for Fig. 3.1(a)...(d)

 Example. Let G be the CFG .. P = S  zMNz, M  aMa | z,

N  bNb | z
which generates strings of the form zanzanbmzbmz, where n, m  0 7
3.2 Examples of Context-Free Grammar (CFG)
 Many CFGs are the union of simpler CFGs, i.e., combining
individual grammars by putting their rules S1, S2, ..., Sn
together using S, the start symbol:
S  S1 | S2 | ... | Sn

 Example. Consider the language { 0n1n | n  0 }  { 1n0n | n  0 }

Step 1. Construct the CFG for the language { 0n1n | n  0 }
S1  0 S1 1 | 
Step 2. Construct the CFG for the language { 1n0n | n  0 }
S2  1 S2 0 | 
Step 3. Construct the CFG for the language { 0n1n | n  0 } 
{ 1 n0 n | n  0 }
S  S1 | S2
S1  0 S1 1 | 
S2  1 S2 0 |  8
 3.2. Examples of CFG
 Example. Consider the following grammar:
S  aSa | bSb | a | b | 
where S  aSa | bSb capture the recursive generation process
and the grammar generates the set of palindromes over {a, b}

 Example. Consider a CFG which generates the language

consisting of even number of a’s and even number of b’s:
S  aB | bA |  {S: even a’s and even b’s}
A  aC | bS {A: even a’s and odd b’s}
B  aS | bC {B: odd a’s and even b’s}
C  aA | bB {C: odd a’s and odd b’s}
 Example. Same as above except odd a’s and odd b’s
S  aB | bA
A  aC | bS
B  aS | bC
C  aA | bB |  9
 4.5 Chomsky Normal Form
 A simplified normal form which restricts the length and
composition of the R.H.S. of a rule in CFG

 Defn 4.5.1. A CFG G = (V, , P, S) is in chomsky normal

form if each rule in G has one of the following forms:
i) A  BC
ii) A  a
iii) S  

where A, B, C, S  V, and B, C  V - { S }, and a  

 The derivation tree for a string generated by a CFG

in chomsky normal form is a binary tree

10
 Chomsky Normal Form
 Theorem 4.5.2. Let G = (V, , P, S) be a CFG. There is an
algorithm to construct a grammar G’ = (V’, ’, P’, S’) in
chomsky normal form that is equivalent to G
Proof (sketch):
(i) For each rule A  w, where |w| > 1, replace each terminal
symbol a  w by a distinct variable Y and create new rule
Y  a.
(ii) For each modified rule X  w, w is either a terminal or a
string in V+. Rules in the latter form must be broken into a
sequence of rules, each of whose R.H.S. consists of two
variables.
 Example 4.5.1

 One of the applications of using CFGs that are in Chomsky

Normal Form
- Constructing binary search trees to accomplish “optimal” time
11
and space search complexity for parsing an input string
 3.5 Leftmost Derivations and Ambiguity
 Theorem 3.5.1 Let G = (V, , P, S) be a CFG. A string
w  L(G) iff there is a leftmost derivation of w from S.
Proof. It is clear that if there is a leftmost derivation of w from S, w
 L(G).
We can show that every string in w  L(G) is derivable in a
leftmost manner, i.e., S  * w, is a leftmost derivation.
If there is any rule application that is not leftmost, the rule
applications can be reordered so that they are leftmost.

 Is there a unique leftmost derivation for every string in a CFL?

 Answer: No. (Consider the two leftmost derivations in Fig. 3.1.)
 The possibility of a string having several leftmost derivations
introduces the notion of ambiguity.
 The ambiguity increases the burden on debugging a program,
which should be avoided.
12
 3.5 Leftmost Derivations and Ambiguity
 Defn. 3.5.2 A CFG G is ambiguous if there is a string w  L(G)
that can be derived by two distinct leftmost derivations. A
grammar that is not ambiguous is called unambiguous.

 Example 3.5.1 The grammar G, which is defined as

S  aS | Sa | a
is ambiguous, since there are two leftmost derivations on aa:
S  aS  aa and S  Sa  aa
however, G’, which is defined as S  aS | a, is unambiguous.

 Unfortunately, there are some CFLs that cannot be generated

by any unambiguous grammars. Such languages are
called inherently ambiguous.

 A grammar is unambiguous if, at each leftmost-derivation step,

there is only one rule that can lead to a derivation of the
desired string. 13
 3.5 Leftmost Derivations and Ambiguity
 Example 3.5.2 The ambiguous grammar G,
S  bS | Sb | a

can be converted into unambiguous grammar G1 or G2, where

G1: S  bS | aA A  bA | 
G2: S  bS | A A  Ab | a

 Example 3.5.3 The following grammar G is ambiguous:

S  aSb | aSbb |  (in Example 3.2.4), since
S  aSb  aaSbbb  aabbb, and
S  aSbb  aaSbbb  aabbb

which can be converted into an unambiguous grammar

S  aSb | A |  A  aAbb | abb
14
 3.5 Leftmost Derivations and Ambiguity
 Example. An inherently ambiguous language
L = { anbncm | n, m  0 }  { anbmcm | m, n  0 }
 Every grammar that generates L is ambiguous
 Consider the following grammar of L:
S  S1 | S2,
S1  S1c | A, A  aAb | 
S2  aS2 | B, B  bBc | 
 the strings { anbncn | n  0 } always have two different DTs, e.g.,
S S

S1 S2

S1 c a S2

S1 c a S2
15
…… ……
 3.5 Leftmost Derivations and Ambiguity
 Another example of inherently ambiguous language:
L = { anbncmdm | n, m > 0 }  { anbmcmdn | n, m > 0 }

 The problem of determining whether an arbitrary language

is inherently ambiguous is recursively unsolvable.
 i.e., there is no algorithm that determines whether an
arbitrary language is inherently ambiguous.

 Reference:
“Ambiguity in context free languages,” S. Ginsburg and J. Ullian,
Journal of the ACM, (13)1: 62- 89, January 1966.

16