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

Abstract

Abstract

Proof-theoretic models of grammar are based on the view that an explicit characterization of a language comes in the form of the recursive enumeration of strings in that language. That recursive enumeration is carried out by a procedure which strongly generates a set of structural descriptions Σ and weakly generates a set of strings S; a grammar is thus a function that pairs an element of Σ with elements of S. Structural descriptions are obtained by means of Context-Free phrase structure rules or via recursive combinatorics and structure is assumed to be : binary branching trees all the way down. In this work we will analyse natural language constructions for which such a rigid conception of phrase structure is descriptively inadequate and propose a solution for the problem of phrase structure grammars assigning too much or too little structure to natural language strings: we propose that the grammar can oscillate between levels of computational complexity in local domains, which correspond to elementary trees in a lexicalised Tree Adjoining Grammar.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/elt.00034.kri
2021-11-05
2021-12-03
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abeillé, A.
    (2003) A lexicalist and construction-based approach to coordinations. InS. Müller (ed.), Proceedings of the HPSG03 Conference (pp.5–25). Stanford: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Abney, S.
    (1987) The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. PhD thesis, MIT.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Alexiadou, A.
    (2014) The syntax of adjectives. InA. Carnie, Y. Sato & D. Siddiqi. (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Syntax (pp.89–107). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Aljović, N.
    (2010) Syntactic positions of attributive adjectives. InP. Cabredo Hofherr & O. Matushansky (eds.), Adjectives: Formal analyses on syntax and semantics (pp.29–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.153.01alj
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.153.01alj [Google Scholar]
  5. Allwood, J., Andersson, L-G. & Dahl, Ö.
    (1977) Logic in Linguistics. Oxford: OUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511621017
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621017 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bach, E.
    (1976) An Extension of Classical Transformational Grammar. InProblems of Linguistic Metatheory (pp.183–224). Michigan State University.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Borsley, R. D.
    (2005) Against CoordP. Lingua115. 461–482. 10.1016/j.lingua.2003.09.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2003.09.011 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bortolotto, L.
    (2016) The Syntax of Relational Adjectives in Romance. PhD thesis, University of Venice.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Chandlee, J.
    (2014) Strictly Local Phonological Processes. PhD thesis, University of Delaware.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Chomsky, N.
    (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. (1986) Barriers. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. (2013) Problems of Projection. Lingua130, 33–49. 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.003 [Google Scholar]
  13. Chomsky, N. & Miller, G.
    (1963) Introduction to the Formal Analysis of Natural Languages. InR. Luce, R. Bush & E. Galanter (eds.), Handbook of Mathematical Psychology (pp.269–321). New York: Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Cinque, G.
    (1994) On the Evidence for Partial N-Movement in the Romance DP. InG. Cinque, J. Koster, J.-Y. Pollock, L. Rizzi & R. Zanuttini (eds.), Paths towards Universal Grammar (pp.85–110). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. (2010) The Syntax of Adjectives. A Comparative Study. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262014168.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262014168.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  16. De Vos, M.
    (2005) The syntax of pseudo-coordination in English and Afrikaans. PhD thesis, Leiden University.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Dolatian, H. & Heinz, J.
    (2019) Learning reduplication with 2-way finite-state transducers. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Grammatical Inference, 67–80.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Dowty, D.
    (2003) The Dual Analysis of Adjuncts/Complements in Categorial Grammar. InE. Lang, C. Maienborn & C. Fabricius-Hansen (eds.), Modifying Adjuncts (pp.33–66). Berlin: de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. (2012) Compositionality as an empirical problem. InC. Baker & P. Jacobson (eds.), Direct Compositionality (pp.23–101). Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Dowty, D., Wall, R. & Peters, S.
    (1980) Introduction to Montague semantics. Dordrecht: Reidel. 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑9065‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9065-4 [Google Scholar]
  21. Emonds, J.
    (1976) A Transformational Approach to English Syntax. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Epstein, R.
    (2011) Classical mathematical logic. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 10.1515/9781400841554
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400841554 [Google Scholar]
  23. Frank, R.
    (2013) Tree adjoining grammar. InM. den Dikken (ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax (pp.226–261). Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511804571.011
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804571.011 [Google Scholar]
  24. Fukui, N. & Narita, H.
    (2014) Merge, labelling, and projection. InA. Carnie, Y. Sato & D. Siddiqi (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Syntax (pp.3–23). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Greibach, S.
    (1965) A New Normal-Form Theorem for Context-Free Phrase Structure Grammars. Journal of the ACM12(1), 42–52. 10.1145/321250.321254
    https://doi.org/10.1145/321250.321254 [Google Scholar]
  26. Jackendoff, R.
    (1977) X-bar syntax: A study of phrase structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Jacobson, P.
    (2012) Direct Compositionality. InW. Hinzen, E. Machery & M. Werning (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Compositionality (pp.109–129). Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Joshi, A.
    (1985) Tree adjoining grammars. InD. Dowty, L. Karttunen & A. Zwicky (eds.) Natural Language Parsing (pp.206–250). Cambridge, Mass.: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511597855.007
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597855.007 [Google Scholar]
  29. Joshi, A. & Kulick, S.
    (1997) Partial Proof Trees as Building Blocks for a Categorial Grammar. Linguistics and Philosophy20(6). 637–667. 10.1023/A:1005311532280
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005311532280 [Google Scholar]
  30. Joshi, A. & Schabes, Y.
    (1991) Tree-Adjoining Grammars and Lexicalized Grammars. Technical Reports (CIS). Paper 445. repository.upenn.edu/cis_reports/445
  31. Karlsson, F.
    (2010) Syntactic recursion and iteration. InH. van der Hulst (ed.) Recursion and Human Language (pp.43–67). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219258.43
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219258.43 [Google Scholar]
  32. Kayne, R.
    (1984) Connectedness and Binary Branching. Dordrecht: Foris. 10.1515/9783111682228
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111682228 [Google Scholar]
  33. (1994) The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Krivochen, D. G.
    (2015) On Phrase Structure building and Labeling algorithms: towards a non-uniform theory of syntactic structures. The Linguistic Review32(3). 515–572.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Krivochen, D. G. & L. García Fernández
    (2019) On the position of subjects in Spanish periphrases. Borealis, 8(1), 1–33. 10.7557/1.8.1.4687
    https://doi.org/10.7557/1.8.1.4687 [Google Scholar]
  36. Ladusaw, W.
    (1980) Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Lasnik, H.
    (2011) What Kind of Computing Device is the Human Language Faculty?InA-M. Di Sciullo & C. Boeckx (eds.) The Biolinguistic Enterprise (pp.354–365). Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. May, R.
    (1985) Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. McCawley, J.
    (1971) Interpretative semantics meets Frankenstein. Foundations of Language7, 285–296.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. (1998) The Syntactic Phenomena of English. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Newman, S.
    (1946) On the stress system of English. Word2. 171–187. 10.1080/00437956.1946.11659290
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1946.11659290 [Google Scholar]
  42. Osborne, T.
    (2014) Dependency grammar. InA. Carnie, Y. Sato & D. Siddiqi. (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Syntax (pp.604–626). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Postal, P.
    (1964) Constituent Structure. Bloomington, Indiana: University of Bloomington.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. (2010) Edge-Based Clausal Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262014816.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262014816.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  45. Progovac, L.
    (1998) Structure for coordination. Glot International3(7), 3–6.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Reich, P.
    (1969) The finiteness of natural languages. Language45(4), 831–843. 10.2307/412337
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412337 [Google Scholar]
  47. Ross, J. R.
    (1967) Constraints on Variables in Syntax. PhD Thesis, MIT.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Sarkar, A. & A. Joshi
    (1997) Handling coordination in a tree adjoining grammar. Technical report, University of Pennsylvania.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Schmerling, S.
    (1975) Asymmetric Conjunction and rules of Conversation. InP. Cole & J. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, 211–231. New York: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368811_009
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_009 [Google Scholar]
  50. (2018) Rhetorical meaning. Linguistic Frontiers1(1). 1–8. 10.2478/lf‑2018‑0001
    https://doi.org/10.2478/lf-2018-0001 [Google Scholar]
  51. Scott, G-J.
    (2002) Stacked adjectival modification and the structure of nominal phrases. InG. Cinque (ed.) Functional structure in DP and IP. (pp.91–120). Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Shieber, S.
    (1985) Evidence against the Context-Freeness of Natural Language. Linguistics and Philosophy8(3), 333–343. 10.1007/BF00630917
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00630917 [Google Scholar]
  53. Stabler, E.
    (1997) Derivational Minimalism. InC. Retoré (ed.), Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics (pp.68–95). New York: Springer. 10.1007/BFb0052152
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0052152 [Google Scholar]
  54. (2013) The epicenter of linguistic behavior. InM. Sanz, I. Laka & M. Tanenhaus, (eds.), Language Down the Garden Path. Oxford: OUP. 316–323. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677139.003.0018
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677139.003.0018 [Google Scholar]
  55. Steedman, M.
    (2019) Combinatory Categorial Grammar. InA. Kertész, E. Moravcsik & C. Rákosi (eds.), Current Approaches to Syntax: A Comparative Handbook (pp.389–420). Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110540253‑014
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110540253-014 [Google Scholar]
  56. Svenonius, P.
    (1994) On the structural location of the attributive adjective. Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics12, 439–454.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Uriagereka, J.
    (2008) Syntactic anchors: on semantic structuring. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511481482
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511481482 [Google Scholar]
  58. (2012) Spell-Out and the Minimalist Program. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. XTAG group
    XTAG group (2001) A lexicalized TAG for English. Technical report, University of Pennsylvania. https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&context=ircs_reports
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/elt.00034.kri
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/elt.00034.kri
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): compositionality; derivations; mixed computation; syntax; tree adjoining grammars
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