Geometric Representations for Minimalist Grammars

Journal of Logic, Language and Information

Volumn 21, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 393-432

  Beim Graben, Peter ^a   Gerth, Sabrina ^b  

^a HUMBOLDT UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF POTSDAM   (Germany)

Author keywords

Geometric cognition; Harmony theory; Minimalist grammars; Tensor product representations; Vector symbolic architectures

Indexed keywords

EID: 84866288594     PISSN: 09258531     EISSN: 15729583     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10849-012-9164-2     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Aerts D. (2009) Quantum structure in cognition. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 53(5): 314-348.
2. Aerts D., Czachor M., Moor B. D. (2009) Geometric analogue of holographic reduced representation. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 53(5): 389-398.
3. Balkenius, C., & Gärdenfors, P. (1991). Nonmonotonic inferences in neural networks. In J. A. Allan, R. Fikes, & E. Sandewall (Eds.), Principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (pp. 32-39). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
4. Beim Graben P., Potthast R. (2009) Inverse problems in dynamic cognitive modeling. Chaos 19(1): 015103.
5. beim Graben, P., & Potthast, R. (2012). A dynamic field account to language-related brain potentials. In M. Rabinovich, K. Friston, & P. Varona (Eds.), Principles of brain dynamics: Global state interactions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6. Beim Graben P., Gerth S., Vasishth S. (2008a) Towards dynamical system models of language-related brain potentials. Cognitive Neurodynamics 2(3): 229-255.
7. Beim Graben P., Pinotsis D., Saddy D., Potthast R. (2008b) Language processing with dynamic fields. Cognitive Neurodynamics 2(2): 79-88.
8. Blutner R. (2009) Concepts and bounded rationality: An application of Niestegge's approach to conditional quantum probabilities. AIP Conference Proceedings 1101(1): 302-310.
9. Cederberg, S., & Widdows, D. (2003). Using LSA and noun coordination information to improve the precision and recall of automatic hyponymy extraction. In Proceedings of the 7th conference on natural language learning at HLT-NAACL, association for computational linguistics, Morristown, NJ, CONLL '03, Vol. 4, pp. 111-118.
10. Chomsky N. (1981) Lectures on Goverment and binding. Foris, Dordrecht.
11. Chomsky N. (1995) The minimalist program. No. 28 in current studies in linguistics. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
12. Coecke B., Sadrzadeh M., Clark S. (2011) Mathematical foundations for a compositional distributional model of meaning. Linguistic Analysis 36: 345-384.
13. Engel A. K., Roelfsema P. R., Fries P., Brecht M., Singer W. (1997) Role of the temporal domain for response selection and perceptual binding. Cerebral Cortex 7: 571-582.
14. Fodor J., Pylyshyn Z. W. (1988) Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis. Cognition 28: 3-71.
15. Gärdenfors P. (2004) Conceptual spaces as a framework for knowledge representations. Mind and Matter 2(2): 9-27.
16. Gärtner, H. M., & Michaelis, J. (2007). Some remarks on locality conditions and minimalist grammars. In U Sauerland & HM Gärtner (Eds.), Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Chomsky's minimalism and the view from syntax-semantics (pp. 161-195). Berlin: de Gruyter.
17. Gerth, S. (2006). Parsing mit minimalistischen, gewichteten Grammatiken und deren Zustandsraumdarstellung. Unpublished Master's thesis, Universität Potsdam.
18. Gerth S., Beim Graben P. (2009) Unifying syntactic theory and sentence processing difficulty through a connectionist minimalist parser. Cognitive Neurodynamics 3(4): 297-316.
19. Haag R. (1992) Local quantum physics: Fields, particles, algebras. Springer, Berlin.
20. Haegeman L. (1994) Introduction to Goverment and binding theory. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.
21. Hagoort P. (2005) On Broca, brain, and binding: A new framework. Trends in Cognitve Science 9(9): 416-423.
22. Hale J. T. (2006) Uncertainty about the rest of the sentence. Cognitive Science 30(4): 643-672.
23. Harkema, H. (2001). Parsing minimalist languages. PhD thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.
24. Hopcroft J. E., Ullman J. D. (1979) Introduction to automata theory, languages, and computation. Addison-Wesley, Menlo Park California.
25. Huyck C. R. (2009) A psycholinguistic model of natural language parsing implemented in simulated neurons. Cognitive Neurodynamics 3(4): 317-330.
26. Joshi A. K, Levy L. S., Takahashi M. (1975) Tree adjunct grammars. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 10(1): 136-163.
27. Kobele, G. M. (2006). Generating copies: An investigation into structural identity in language and grammar. PhD thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.
28. Kracht M. (2003) The Mathematics of Language. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
29. Lind D., Marcus B. (1995) An introduction to symbolic dynamics and coding. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
30. Mainguy, T. (2010). A probabilistic top-down parser for minimalist grammars. ArXiv cs. CL 1010. 1826.
31. Michaelis, J. (2001). Derivational minimalism is mildly context-sensitive. In M. Moortgat (Ed.) Logical aspects of computational linguistics, Springer, Berlin, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 2014, pp. 179-198.
32. Michaelis J. (2004) Observations on strict derivational minimalism. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 53: 192-209.
33. Mizraji E. (1992) Vector logics: The matrix-vector representation of logical calculus. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 50: 179-185.
34. Niyogi, S., & Berwick, R. C. (2005) A minimalist implementation of Hale-Keyser incorporation theory. In A. M. D. Sciullo (Ed.) UG and external systems language, brain and computation, linguistik aktuell/linguistics today (Vol. 75, pp. 269-288). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
35. Plate T. (2003) Holographic reduced representations, CSLI lecture notes number 150. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.
36. Potthast R., Beim Graben P. (2009) Inverse problems in neural field theory. SIAM Jounal on Applied Dynamical Systems 8(4): 1405-1433.
37. Seki H., Matsumura T., Fujii M., Kasami T. (1991) On multiple context-free grammars. Theoretical Computer Science 88(2): 191-229.
38. Shieber S. M. (1985) Evidence against the context-freeness of natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 8: 333-343.
39. Simpson, M. J. (2003). Hitchhiker: A biography of Douglas Adams. Boston, MA: Justin, Charles and Co.
40. Smolensky P. (2006) Harmony in linguistic cognition. Cognitive Science 30: 779-801.
41. Smolensky P., Legendre G. (2006a) The harmonic mind. From neural computation to optimality-theoretic grammar, Vol. 1: Cognitive architecture. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
42. Smolensky P., Legendre G. (2006b) The harmonic mind. From neural computation to optimality-theoretic grammar, Vol. 2: Linguistic and philsophic implications. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
43. Stabler, E. (2011). Top-down recognizers for MCFGs and MGs. In Proceedings of the 2nd workshop on cognitive modeling and computational linguistics, association for computational linguistics, Portland, pp. 39-48.
44. Stabler, E. P. (1996). Parsing and generation for grammars with movement. In R. Berwick (Ed.) Principle-based parsing: from theory to practice. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
45. Stabler, E. P. (1997). Derivational minimalism. In C. Retoré (Ed.), Logical aspects of computational linguistics, lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 1328, pp. 68-95). New York: Springer.
46. Stabler, E. P. (1999). Remnant movement and complexity. In G. Bouma, E. Hinrichs, G. J. M. Kruijff, & R. T. Oehrle (Eds.), Constraints and resources in natural language syntax and semantics, (pp. 299-326). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
47. Stabler E. P. (2004) Varieties of crossing dependencies: Structure dependence and mild context sensitivity. Cognitive Science 28: 699-720.
48. Stabler E. P., Keenan E. L. (2003) Structural similarity within and among languages. Theoretical Computer Science 293: 345-363.
49. Tabor W. (2009) A dynamical systems perspective on the relationship between symbolic and non-symbolic computation. Cognitive Neurodynamics 3(4): 415-427.
50. van der Waerden B. L. (2003) Algebra, Vol. 2. Springer, New York.
51. van Gelder T. (1998) The dynamical hypothesis in cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21(05): 615-628.
52. Vosse T., Kempen G. (2009) The Unification Space implemented as a localist neural net: Predictions and error-tolerance in a constraint-based parser. Cognitive Neurodynamics 3(4): 331-346.
53. Weinberg, A. (2001). A minimalist theory of human sentence processing. In S. D. Epstein & N. Hornstein (Eds.), Working minimalism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.