Varieties of crossing dependencies: Structure dependence and mild context sensitivity

Cognitive Science

Volumn 28, Issue 5, 2004, Pages 699-720

  Stabler, Edward P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Goal; Language; Sensitivity

Indexed keywords

EID: 13944260955     PISSN: 03640213     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cogsci.2004.05.002     Document Type: Article

References (88)

1. Abeillé, Anne and Owen Rambow. 2000. Tree adjoining grammar: An overview. In Tree adjoining grammars: Formalisms, linguistic analysis, and processing (pp. 1-68). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
2. Abeillé, Anne and Yves Schabes (1989). Parsing idioms in lexicalized TAGs. In Proceedings of the European association for computational linguistics (pp. 161-165).
3. Baker, Mark C. (2001). Syntax. In Mark Aronoff, Janie Rees-Miller (Eds.), The Handbook of Linguistics (pp. 265-294). Oxford: Blackwell.
4. Barton, G. Edward, Robert C. Berwick, & Eric Sven Ristad (1987). Computational complexity and natural language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5. Bresnan J. Kaplan R.M. Peters S. Zaenen A. Cross-serial dependencies in Dutch Linguistic Inquiry 13 4 1982 613-635
6. Buckley, Eugene (1997). Integrity and correspondence in Manam double reduplication. In Proceedings of the North Eastern linguistic society, NELS 27.
7. Chomsky N. Three models for the description of language IRE transactions on information theory IT-2 1956 113-124
8. Chomsky, Noam (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
9. Chomsky, Noam (2001a). Beyond explanatory adequacy. MIT occasional papers in linguistics (p. 20).
10. Chomsky, Noam (2001b). Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11. Culy C. The complexity of the vocabulary of Bambara Linguistics and Philosophy 8 3 1985 345-352
12. Dai J.Z.-L. Some issues on A-not-A questions in Chinese Journal of Chinese Linguistics 18 2 1990 285-371
13. Dalrymple M. Shieber S. Pereira F. Ellipsis and higher order unification Linguistics and Philosophy 14 1991 399-452
14. Ernst T. Conditions on Chinese A-not-A questions Journal of East Asian Linguistics 3 1994 241-264
15. Fiengo, R., May, R. (1995). Indices and identity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16. Foley C. del Prado Z.N. Barbier I. Lust B. Knowledge of variable binding in VP ellipsis Syntax 6 2003 52-83
17. Frank, R. 2002. Phrase structure composition and syntactic dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18. Gardent, C., 1993. A unification-based approach to multiple VP ellipsis resolution. In Proceedings of the sixth European association for computational linguistics, EACL (pp. 139-148).
19. Gazdar, G., Geoffrey K. Pullum (1985). Computationally relevant properties of natural languages and their grammars. New generation computing (Vol. 3, pp. 273-306). In Walter J. Savitch, Emmon Bach, William Marsh, & Gila Safran-Naveh (Eds.), The formal complexity of natural language, Reidel, 1987.
20. Ghomeshi J. Jackendoff R. Rosen N. Russell K. Contrastive focus reduplication in English Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22 2004 307-357
21. Gibbs R.W. Nayak N.P. Cutting C. How to kick the bucket and not decompose: Analyzability and idiom processing Journal of Memory and Language 28 1989 576-593
22. Groenink A. Mild context-sensitivity and tuple-based generalizations of context-free grammar Linguistics and Philosophy 20 1997 607-636
23. Haïk I. Bound variables that need to be Linguistic Inquiry 11 1989 503-530
24. Hardt, Daniel (1993). Verb phrase ellipsis: Form, meaning and processing. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pennsylvania.
25. Harkema, Henk (2000). A recognizer for minimalist grammars. In Proceedings of the sixth International Workshop on parsing technologies, IWPT'2000.
26. Harkema, Henk (2001). A characterization of minimalist languages. In Proceedings of the logical aspects of computational linguistics, LACL'01, Port-aux-Rocs, Le Croisic, France.
27. Harley, Heidi & Maria Amarillas (2003). Reduplication multiplication in Yaqui: Meaning x form. In Luis M. Barragan, Jason D. Haugen (Eds.), Studies in Uto-Aztecan, MIT Working Papers on endangered and less familiar languages (p. 5). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28. Hopcroft, John E., Rajeev Motwani, and Jeffrey D. Ullman (2000). Introduction to automata theory, languages and computation (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
29. Hornstein N. Movement and control Linguistic Inquiry 30 1999 69-96
30. Huang, Cheng-Teh James (1991). Modularity and Chinese A-not-A questions. In C. Georgopoulos, R. Ishihara (Eds.), Interdisciplinary approaches to language: Essays in honor of S.-Y. Kuroda. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
31. Huybregts, M.A.C. (1976). Overlapping dependencies in Dutch. Technical report, University of Utrecht. Utrecht Working Papers in Linguistics.
32. Hyams, Nina (1986). Language Acquisition and the Theory of Parameters. Reidel, Boston.
33. Johnson, Kyle (2001). What VP ellipsis can do, and what it can't, but not why. In Mark Baltin, Chris Collins (Eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory (pp. 439-479). Oxford: Blackwell.
34. Johnson, Mark (1988). Attribute value logic and the theory of grammar. Number 16 in CSLI Lecture Notes Series. Chicago: CSLI Publications.
35. Joshi, Aravind (1985). How much context-sensitivity is necessary for characterizing structural descriptions. In D. Dowty, L. Karttunen & A. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural language processing: Theoretical, computational and psychological perspectives (pp. 206-250). NY: Cambridge University Press.
36. Joshi A.K. Processing crossed and nested dependencies: An automaton perspective on the psycholinguistic results Language and Cognitive Processes 5 1 1990 1-27
37. Joshi, Aravind K., & Yves Schabes (1997). Tree-adjoining grammars. In G. Rozenberg, A. Salomaa (Eds.), Handbook of formal languages, (Vol. 3, pp. 69-124) Beyond words. NY: Springer.
38. Kanazawa, Makoto (1998). Learnable classes of categorial grammmars. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
39. Karp, R.M. (1972). Reducibility among combinatorial problems. In R.E. Miller, J.W. Thatcher (Eds.), Complexity of Computer Computations (pp. 85-103). NY: Plenum Press.
40. Keenan, Edward L., & Edward P. Stabler. 2002. Syntactic invariants. In Ann Copestake, Kees Vermeulen (Eds.), Algebras, Diagrams and Decisions in Language, Logic and Information, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
41. Keenan, Edward L.,& Edward P. Stabler. 2003. Bare grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
42. Kehler, Andrew (2002). Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
43. Kennedy, Christopher (2003). Ellipsis and syntactic representation. In Kerstin Schwabe, Susanne Winkler (Eds.), The interfaces: deriving and interpreting omitted structures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
44. Klein, Ewan, & Kate Stainton-Ellis (1989). A note on multiple VP ellipsis. Technical Report EUCCS/RP-30, Centre for Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh.
45. Kobele, Gregory M., Travis Collier, Charles Taylor, and Edward Stabler (2002). Learning mirror theory. In Proceedings of the sixth International workshop on tree adjoining grammars and related frameworks.
46. Koopman, Hilda, & Anna Szabolcsi (1998). Verbal complexes. UCLA. in press.
47. Kracht, Marcus (1998). Strict compositionality and literal movement grammars. In Proceedings of the Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics, LACL'98 (pp. 126-142). NY: Springer.
48. Kracht, Marcus (2003). Mathematics of Language. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. in press.
49. Kroch, Anthony (1987). Unbounded dependencies and subjacency in a tree adjoining grammar. In Alexis Manaster-Ramer (Ed.), The mathematics of language (pp. 143-172). John Benjamins.
50. Kroch, Anthony (1989). Asymmetries in long distance extraction in a tree adjoining grammar. In Mark Baltin, Anthony Kroch (Eds.), Alternative conceptions of phrase structure (pp. 66-98). Chicago University Press.
51. Kurisu K. Sanders N. Infixal nominal reduplication in Mangarayi Phonology at Santa Cruz 6 1999 47-56
52. Kuroda S.-Y. Classes of languages and linear-bounded automata Information and Control 7 1964 207-223
53. Lappin, Shalom (1996). The interpretation of ellipsis. In Shalom Lappin (Ed.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
54. Lewis, H.R., & C.H. Papadimitriou (1981). Elements of the theory of computation. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
55. Li, Hui-Ju Grace (2002). Ellipsis Constructions in Chinese. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Southern California.A
56. Li, Yen-hui Audrey (1992). Order and constituency in mandarin Chinese. Boston: Kluwer.
57. Manaster-Ramer, Alexis (1986). Copying in natural languages, context freeness, and queue grammars. In Proceedings of the 1986 meeting of the association for computational linguistics.
58. Mandelbrot, Benoit (1961). On the theory of word frequencies and on related Markovian models of discourse. In Roman Jakobson (Ed.), Structure of Language in its Mathematical Aspect, Proceedings of the 12th symposium in applied mathematics (pp. 190-219). Rhode Island: American Mathematical Society, Providence.
59. Mateescu, Alexandru and Arto Salomaa (1997). Aspects of classical language theory. In G. Rozenberg, A. Salomaa (Eds.), Handbook of Formal Languages (Vol. 1, pp. 175-251) Word, language, grammar. NY: Springer
60. McCawley J.D. Remarks on the syntax of Mandarin yes-no questions Journal of East Asian Linguistics 3 1994 179-194
61. Michaelis, Jens (1998). Derivational minimalism is mildly context-sensitive. In Proceedings of the logical aspects of computational linguistics, LACL'98, NY: Springer
62. Michaelis, Jens (2001). Transforming linear context free rewriting systems into minimalist grammars. In Philippe de Groote, Glyn Morrill, Christian Retorrée (Eds.), Logical aspects of computational linguistics (pp. 228-244). Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, No. 2099, NY: Springer
63. Michaelis, Jens and Marcus Kracht (1997). Semilinearity as a syntactic invariant. In Christian Retoré (Ed.), Logical aspects of computational linguistics (pp. 37-40). NY: Springer-Verlag (Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1328)
64. Miller, George A., & Noam Chomsky (1963). Finitary models of language users. In R. Duncan Luce, Robert R. Bush & Eugene Galanter (Eds.), Handbook of mathematical psychology, (Vol. II, pp. 419-492). Wiley, NY
65. Nakanishi, Ryuichi, Keita Takada, and Hiroyuki Seki (1997). An efficient recognition algorithm for multiple context free languages. In Proceedings of the fifth Meeting on Mathematics of Language, MOL5
66. Nunes J. Sideward movement Linguistic Inquiry 32 2001 303-344
67. Peters P.S. Ritchie R.W. On the generative power of transformational grammar Information Sciences 6 1973 49-83
68. Radzinski D. Unbounded syntactic copying in Mandarin Chinese Linguistics and Philosophy 13 1990 113-127
69. Radzinski D. Chinese number names, tree adjoining languages and mild context sensitivity Computational Linguistics 17 1991 277-300
70. Retoré, Christian, & Roberto Bonato (2001). Learning rigid Lambek grammars and minimalist grammars from structured sentences. In L. Popeléinsky, M. Nepil (Eds.), Proceedings of the third learning language in Logic Workshop, LLL3 (pp. 23-34). Brno, Czech Republic. Faculty of Informatics, Masaryk University. Technical report FIMU-RS-2001-08
71. Rizzi, Luigi (2000). Early null subjects and root null subjects. In Luigi Rizzi (Ed.), Comparative syntax and language acquisition (pp. 299-319). NY: Routledge
72. Ross, John R. (1967). Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
73. Sag, Ivan, Timothy Baldwin, Francis Bond, Ann Copestake, and Dan Flickinger (2002). Multiword expressions: A pain in the neck for NLP. In Proceedings of the third International Conference on Intelligent Text Processing and Computational Linguistics (CICLing-2002) (pp. 1-15). Mexico City, Mexico
74. Seki H. Takashi M. Mamoru F. Tadao K. On multiple context-free grammars Theoretical Computer Science 88 1991 191-229
75. Shapiro L.P. Hestvik A. On-line comprehension of VP-ellipsis: Syntactic reconstruction and semantic influence Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 24 1995 517-532
76. Shieber S.M. Evidence against the context-freeness of natural language Linguistics and Philosophy 8 3 1985 333-344
77. Stabler, Edward P. (1997). Derivational minimalism. In Christian Retoré (Ed.), Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics (pp. 68-95) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1328). NY: Springer-Verlag
78. Steedman, Mark J. (1996). Surface structure and interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
79. Tanenhaus M.K. Carlson G.N. Comprehension of deep and surface anaphora Language and Cognitive Processes 5 1990 257-280
80. Torenvliet, Leen, & Marten Trautwein (1995). A note on the complexity of restricted attribute-value grammars. In Proceedings of computational linguistics in the Netherlands (pp. 165-180). CLIN5
81. Trautwein, Marten (1995). The complexity of structure-sharing in unification-based grammars. In Proceedings of computational linguistics in the Netherlands, CLIN5, pages 165-180
82. Vijay-Shanker K. Weir D. The equivalence of four extensions of context free grammar formalisms Mathematical Systems Theory 27 1994 511-545
83. Webber, Bonnie (1978). A Formal Approach to Discourse Anaphora. Ph.D. Thesis, Harvard University
84. Webber, Bonnie (2004). D-LTAG: Extending lexicalized TAG to discourse. Cognitive Science, this issue
85. Weir, David (1988). Characterizing mildly context-sensitive grammar formalisms. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
86. Wu, Jianxin (1997). A model-theoretic approach to A-not-A questions in Chinese. In Proceedings of the 21st Penn Linguistics Colloquium. Philadelphia
87. Zhang Z.-S. Focus, presupposition and the formation of A-not-A questions in Chinese Journal of Chinese Linguistics 25 2 1997 463-477
88. Zipf, George K (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort: An introduction to human ecology. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin