1887
Volume 3, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2589-1588
  • E-ISSN: 2589-1596
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Aravind Joshi famously hypothesized that natural language syntax was characterized (in part) by mildly context-sensitive generative power. Subsequent work in mathematical linguistics over the past three decades has revealed surprising convergences among a wide variety of grammatical formalisms, all of which can be said to be mildly context-sensitive. But this convergence is not absolute. Not all mildly context-sensitive formalisms can generate exactly the same stringsets (i.e. they are not all weakly equivalent), and even when two formalisms can both generate a certain stringset, there might be differences in the structural descriptions they use to do so. It has generally been difficult to find cases where such differences in structural descriptions can be pinpointed in a way that allows linguistic considerations to be brought to bear on choices between formalisms, but in this paper we present one such case. The empirical pattern of interest involves wh-movement dependencies in languages that do not enforce the wh-island constraint. This pattern draws attention to two related dimensions of variation among formalisms: whether structures grow monotonically from one end to another, and whether structure-building operations are conditioned by only a finite amount of derivational state. From this perspective, we show that one class of formalisms generates the crucial empirical pattern using structures that align with mainstream syntactic analysis, and another class can only generate that same string pattern in a linguistically unnatural way. This is particularly interesting given that (i) the structurally-inadequate formalisms are strictly more powerful than the structurally-adequate ones from the perspective of weak generative capacity, and (ii) the formalism based on derivational operations that appear on the surface to align most closely with the mechanisms adopted in contemporary work in syntactic theory (merge and move) are the formalisms that fail to align with the analyses proposed in that work when the phenomenon is considered in full generality.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/elt.00033.fra
2021-11-05
2021-12-03
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Chomsky, N.
    (1995) The Minimalist Program. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. (2000) Minimalist inquiries: the framework. InR. Martin, D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka (eds.) Step by Step, Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik (pp.89–155). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Evers, A.
    (1975) The transformational cycle in Dutch and German. PhD thesis, University of Utrecht. Published by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Frank, R.
    (2002) Phrase Structure Composition and Syntactic Dependencies. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. 10.7551/mitpress/5366.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5366.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  5. Gärtner, H-M., and J. Michaelis
    (2005) A Note on the Complexity of Constraint Interaction: Locality Conditions and Minimalist Grammars. InP. Blache, E. P. Stabler, J. Busquets, and R. Moot (eds.) Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics, 5th International Conference, LACL 2005, Bordeaux, France, April 28–30, 2005, Proceedings (pp.114–130). LNCS. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer. 10.1007/11422532_8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/11422532_8 [Google Scholar]
  6. Gärtner, H-M. and J. Michaelis
    (2010) On the Treatment of Multiple-Wh Interrogatives in Minimalist Grammars. InT. Hanneforth and G. Fanselow (eds.) Language and Logos (pp.339–366). Berlin: Akademie Verlag. 10.1524/9783050062365.339
    https://doi.org/10.1524/9783050062365.339 [Google Scholar]
  7. Gazdar, G.
    (1988) Applicability of Indexed Grammars to Natural Languages. InU. Reyle and C. Rohrer (eds.) Natural Language Parsing and Linguistic Theories (pp.69–94). Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑1337‑0_3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-1337-0_3 [Google Scholar]
  8. Graf, T.
    (2012) Movement-Generalized Minimalist Grammars. InD. Béchet and A. Dikovsky (eds.) LACL 20127351 (pp.58–73). Lecture Notes in Computer Science. doi:  10.1007/978‑3‑642‑31262‑5_4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31262-5_4 [Google Scholar]
  9. Graf, T. and K. Kostyszyn
    (2021) Multiple Wh-Movement is not Special: The Subregular Complexity of Persistent Features in Minimalist Grammars. InProceedings of the Society for Computation in Linguistics: Vol.4, Article 26.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Grewendorf, G.
    (2001) Multiple Wh-Fronting. Linguistic Inquiry32 (1): 87–122. 10.1162/002438901554595
    https://doi.org/10.1162/002438901554595 [Google Scholar]
  11. Haegeman, L. and H. Van Riemsdijk
    (1986) Verb Project Raising, Scope and the Typology of Rules Affecting Verbs. Linguistic Inquiry17(3): 417–466.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Joshi, A. K.
    (1985) How Much Context-Sensitivity Is Necessary for Characterizing Structural Descriptions?InD. Dowty, L. Karttunen, and A. Zwicky (eds.) Natural Language Processing: Theoretical, Computational and Psychological Perspectives. (pp.206–250). New York: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511597855.007
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597855.007 [Google Scholar]
  13. Joshi, A. K., T. Becker, and O. Rambow
    (2000) Complexity of Scrambling: A New Twist to the Competence-Performance Distinction. InA. Abeillé and O. Rambow (eds.) Tree Adjoining Grammars (pp.167–181). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Joshi, A. K., and Y. Schabes
    (1997) Tree-Adjoining Grammars. InG. Rozenberg and A. Salomaa (eds.) Handbook of Formal Languages, Vol.3 (pp.69–124). New York: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑59126‑6_2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-59126-6_2 [Google Scholar]
  15. Joshi, A. K., K. Vijay-Shanker, and D. Weir
    (1991) The Convergence of Mildly Context-Sensitive Grammar Formalisms. InP. Sells, S. Shieber, and T. Wasow (eds.) Foundational Issues in Natural Language Processing (pp.31–81). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Kepser, S. and J. Rogers
    (2011) The Equivalence of TAGs and Monadic Linear CF Tree Grammars. Journal of Logic, Language and Information20(3): 361–84. 10.1007/s10849‑011‑9134‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10849-011-9134-0 [Google Scholar]
  17. Kobele, G., and J. Michaelis
    (2005) Two Type-0 Variants of Minimalist Grammars. InJ. Rogers (ed.) Proceedings of FG-MoL 2005.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Kobele, G. M.
    (2010) Without remnant movement, MGs are context-free. InC. Ebert, G. Jäger and J. Michaelis (eds.), Proceedings of Mathematics of Language 10/11, volume 6149 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp.160–173). Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑14322‑9_13
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14322-9_13 [Google Scholar]
  19. Kobele, G. M., Retoré, C. and Salvati, S.
    (2007) An automata theoretic approach to minimalism. InJ. Rogers and S. Kepser (eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop Model-Theoretic Syntax at 10; ESSLLI '07, Dublin.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Koopman, H. and A. Szabolcsi
    (2000) Verbal Complexes. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. 10.7551/mitpress/7090.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7090.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  21. Kroch, A. S.
    (1987) Unbounded dependencies and subjacency in a tree adjoining grammar. InA. Manaster-Ramer (ed.) The Mathematics of Language (pp.143–172). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.35.09kro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.35.09kro [Google Scholar]
  22. Kroch, A. and B. Santorini
    (1991) The derived constituent structure of the West Germanic verb raising construction. InR. Freidin (ed.) Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, (pp.269–338). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Michaelis, J.
    (2001) Derivational minimalism is mildly context-sensitive. InLogical Aspects of Computational Linguistics, volume 2014 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp.179–198). Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/3‑540‑45738‑0_11
    https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45738-0_11 [Google Scholar]
  24. (2002) Notes on the complexity of complex heads in a Minimalist Grammar. InProceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Tree Adjoining Grammar and Related Frameworks (TAG+6) (pp.57–65). Venice.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Miller, G. A., and N. Chomsky
    (1963) Finitary Models of Language Users. InR. D. Luce, R. Bush, and E. Galanter (eds.) Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, Vol.2. (pp.421–491) New York: Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Miller, P.
    (1991) Scandinavian extraction phenomena revisited: Weak and strong generative capacity. Linguistics and Philosophy14:101–113. 10.1007/BF00628305
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00628305 [Google Scholar]
  27. (1999) Strong Generative Capacity: The Semantics of Linguistic Formalisms. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Mönnich, U.
    (2007) Minimalist Syntax, Multiple Regular Tree Grammars and Direction Preserving Tree Transductions. InProceedings of Model-Theoretic Syntax at 10, (pp.83–88).
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Pesetsky, D.
    (1982) Paths and Categories. PhD thesis, MIT.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Richards, N.
    (1997) What Moves Where When in Which Language?PhD thesis, MIT.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Rizzi, L.
    (1990) Relativized Minimality. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Rogers, J.
    (2003) Syntactic Structures as Multi-Dimensional Trees. Research on Language and Computation1: 265–305. 10.1023/A:1024695608419
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024695608419 [Google Scholar]
  33. Rudin, C.
    (1988) On Multiple Questions and Multiple Wh-Fronting. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory6: 445–501. 10.1007/BF00134489
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00134489 [Google Scholar]
  34. Seki, H., T. Matsumura, M. Fujii and T. Kasami
    (1991) On multiple context-free grammars. Theoretical Computer Science88: 191–229. 10.1016/0304‑3975(91)90374‑B
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3975(91)90374-B [Google Scholar]
  35. Shieber, S.
    (1985) Evidence against the context-freeness of natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy8: 333–343. 10.1007/BF00630917
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00630917 [Google Scholar]
  36. Stabler, E.
    (2011) Computational Perspectives on Minimalism. InC. Boeckx, (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism (pp.616–641). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Steedman, M.
    (1996) Surface Structure and Interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. (2018) The Lost Combinator. Computational Linguistics44(4): 613–629. 10.1162/coli_a_00328
    https://doi.org/10.1162/coli_a_00328 [Google Scholar]
  39. Weir, D.
    (1992) A Geometric Hierarchy Beyond Context-Free Languages. Theoretical Computer Science104 (2): 235–61. 10.1016/0304‑3975(92)90124‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3975(92)90124-X [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/elt.00033.fra
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/elt.00033.fra
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error