Two Models of Minimalist, Incremental Syntactic Analysis

Topics in Cognitive Science

Volumn 5, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 611-633

  Stabler, Edward P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Grammar; Minimalist grammar; Multiple context free grammar; Parsing; Succinctness

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; GRAMMAR; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; LINGUISTICS; MINIMALIST GRAMMAR; MULTIPLE CONTEXT-FREE GRAMMAR; PARSING; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; SUCCINCTNESS;

GRAMMAR; MINIMALIST GRAMMAR; MULTIPLE CONTEXT-FREE GRAMMAR; PARSING; SUCCINCTNESS;

HUMANS; LANGUAGE; LINGUISTICS; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL;

EID: 84880330098     PISSN: 17568757     EISSN: 17568765     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/tops.12031     Document Type: Article

References (82)

1. Abels, K. (2007). Towards a restrictive theory of (remnant) movement: Improper movement, remnant movement, and a linear asymmetry. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2007, 7, 53-120.
2. Abels, K. (2012). The Italian left periphery: A view from locality. Linguistic Inquiry, 43, 229-254.
3. Abels, K., & Neeleman, A. (2012). Linear asymmetries and the LCA. Syntax, 12(1), 25-74.
4. Adger, D. (2010). A minimalist theory of feature structure. In A. Kibort & G. Corbett (Eds.), Features: Perspectives on a key notion in linguistics (pp. 185-218). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
5. Bartek, B., Lewis, R. L., Vasishth, S., & Smith, M. R. (2011). In search of on-line locality effects in sentence comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(5), 1178-1198.
6. Bašić, M. (2004). Nominal subextraction and the structure of NPs in Serbian and English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Tromsø: Universitetet i Tromsø.
7. Besten, H. den. (1985). The ergative hypothesis and free word order in Dutch and German. In J. Toman (Ed.), Studies in German grammar (pp. 23-64). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.
8. Bobaljik, J. D. (in press). Universals in comparative morphology: Suppletion, superlatives and the structure of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9. Brody, M. (2000). Mirror theory: Syntactic representation in perfect syntax. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 29-56.
10. Caha, P. (2009). The nanosyntax of case. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Tromsø: University of Tromsø.
11. Charniak, E. (1993). Statistical language learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12. Chomsky, N. (1955). The logical structure of linguistic theory. New York: Plenum. (1955 typescript published, in part, in 1975)
13. Chomsky, N. (1956). Three models for the description of language. IRE Transactions on Information Theory, IT-2, 113-124.
14. Chomsky, N. (1964). Degrees of grammaticalness. In J. Fodor & J. Katz (Eds.), The structure of language: Readings in the philosophy of language (pp. 384-389). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
15. Chomsky, N. (1973). Conditions on transformations. In S. R. Anderson & P. Kiparsky (Eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle (pp. 232-286). New York: Holt, Rinehard & Winston.
16. Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17. Chomsky, N. (2008). On phases. In R. Freidin, C. P. Otero, & M. L. Zubizarreta (Eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud (pp. 133-166). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18. Chomsky, N. (in press). Problems of projection. Lingua.
19. Collins, C. (2005). A smuggling approach to passive in English. Syntax, 8, 81-120.
20. Corver, N. (1990). The syntax of left branch extraction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Tilburg: Katholieke Universiteit Brabant.
21. Corver, N. (2006). Subextraction. In M. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, volume iv (pp. 566-600). Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishing.
22. Crocker, M. W., & Keller, F. (2006). Probabilistic grammars as models of gradience in language processing. In G. Fanselow, C. Féry, M. Schlesewsky, & R. Vogel (Eds.), Gradience in grammar: Generative perspectives (pp. 227-245). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
23. Eisner, J. (2000). Bilexical grammars and their cubic-time parsing algorithms. In H. Bunt & A. Nijholt (Eds.), Advances in probabilistic and other parsing technologies (pp. 29-62). Boston: Kluwer.
24. Eisner, J., & Satta, G. (1999). Efficient parsing for bilexical context-free grammars and head automaton grammars. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting, ACL'99 (pp. 457-464).
25. Fanselow, G., Féry, C., Schlesewsky, M., & Vogel, R. (2006). Gradience in grammar. In G. Fanselow, C. Féry, M. Schlesewsky, & R. Vogel (Eds.), Gradience in grammar: Generative perspectives (pp. 1-21). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
26. Ferreira, F. (2005). Psycholinguistics, formal grammars, and cognitive science. Linguistic Review, 22, 365-380.
27. Friedmann, N., & Lavi, H. (2006). On the order of acquisition of A-movement, wh-movement and V-C movement. In A. Belletti, E. Bennati, C. Chesi, E. D. Domenico, & I. Ferrari (Eds.), Language acquisition and development (pp. 211-217). Cambridge, England: Cambridge Scholars Press.
28. Gärtner, H.-M., & Michaelis, J. (2007). Some remarks on locality conditions and minimalist grammars. In U. Sauerland & H.-M. Gärtner (Eds.), Interfaces + recursion = language? Chomsky's minimalism and the view from syntax-semantics (pp. 161-196). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
29. Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1-76.
30. Graf, T. (2011). Closure properties of minimalist derivation tree languages. In S. Pogodalla & J.-P. Prost (Eds.), Logical aspects of computational linguistics, LACL'11 (pp. 96-111). Berlin: Springer.
31. Grenander, U. (1967). Syntax-controlled probabilities (Tech. Rep.). Providence, RI: Brown University.
32. Grillo, A. (2008). Generalized minimality: Syntactic underspecification in Broca's aphasia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, RI: Universiteit Utrecht.
33. Groenink, A. (1995). Literal movement grammars. In Proceedings of the 7th Meeting of the European Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 90-97).
34. Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The view from building 20 (pp. 111-176). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
35. Harkema, H. (2001a). A characterization of minimalist languages. In P. de Groote, G. Morrill, & C. Retoré (Eds.), Logical aspects of computational linguistics (pp. 193-211). New York: Springer.
36. Harkema, H. (2001b). Parsing minimalist languages. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Los Angeles: University of California.
37. Hawkins, J. A. (2006). Gradedness as relative efficiency in the processing of syntax and semantics. In G. Fanselow, C. Féry, M. Schlesewsky, & R. Vogel (Eds.), Gradience in grammar: Generative perspectives (pp. 207-226). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
38. Hofmeister, P., & Sag, I. A. (2010). Cognitive constraints and island effects. Language, 86(2), 366-415.
39. Huang, C.-T. J. (1982). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
40. Jurka, J., Nakao, C., & Omaki, A. (2011). It's not the end of the CED as we know it. In M. B. Washburn, K. McKinney-Bock, E. Varis, A. Sawyer, & B. Tomaszewicz (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 124-132). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.
41. Kanazawa, M., Michaelis, J., Salvati, S., & Yoshinaka, R. (2011). Well-nestedness properly subsumes strict derivational minimalism. In S. Pogodalla, & J.-P. Prost (Eds.), Logical aspects of computational linguistics, LACL'11 (pp. 112-128). Berlin: Springer.
42. Kayne, R. S. (1994). The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
43. Kobele, G. M. (2011). Minimalist tree languages are closed under intersection with recognizable tree languages. In S. Pogodalla & J.-P. Prost (Ed.), Logical aspects of computational linguistics, LACL'11 (pp. 129-144). Berlin: Springer.
44. Kobele, G. M., & Michaelis, J. (2005). Two type 0 variants of minimalist grammars. In Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Formal Grammar and the 9th Meeting on Mathematics of Language, FGMOL05 (pp. 81-91). Stanford: CSLI.
45. Kobele, G. M., & Michaelis, J. (2011). Disentangling notions of specifier impenetrability. In M. Kanazawa, A. Kornai, M. Kracht, & H. Seki (Eds.), The mathematics of language (pp. 126-142). Berlin: Springer.
46. Kobele, G. M., Retoré, C., & Salvati, S. (2007). An automata-theoretic approach to minimalism. In J. Rogers & S. Kepser (Eds.), Model theoretic syntax at 10. ESSLLI'07 workshop proceedings.
47. Koopman, H. (2002). Derivations and complexity filters. In A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou, S. Barbiers, & H.-M. Gärtner (Eds.), Dimensions of movement: From features to remnants (pp. 151-188). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
48. Koopman, H. (2012). Recursion restrictions: Where grammars count. Los Angeles: UCLA.
49. Koopman, H., & Szabolcsi, A. (2000). Verbal complexes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
50. Mainguy, T. (2010). A probabilistic top-down parser for minimalist grammars. (http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.1826v1)
51. Marantz, A. (1997). No escape from syntax: Don't try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium (pp. 201-225). University of Pennsylvania.
52. Michaelis, J. (1998). Derivational minimalism is mildly context-sensitive. In Proceedings, Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics, LACL'98 (pp. 179-198). New York: Springer.
53. Michaelis, J. (2001). Transforming linear context free rewriting systems into minimalist grammars. In P. de Groote, G. Morrill, & C. Retoré (Eds.), Logical aspects of computational linguistics (pp. 228-244). New York: Springer.
54. Michaelis, J. (2004). Observations on strict derivational minimalism. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 53, 192-209. (Proceedings of the joint meeting of the 6th Conference on Formal Grammar and the 7th Conference on Mathematics of Language (FGMOL '01))
55. Michaelis, J. (2005). An additional observation on strict derivational minimalism. In J. Rogers (Ed.), Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Formal Grammar and the 9th Meeting on Mathematics of Language, FGMOL05. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
56. Michaelis, J., Mönnich, U., & Morawietz, F. (2000). Derivational minimalism in two regular and logical steps. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Tree Adjoining Grammars and Related Formalisms (TAG+5) (pp. 163-170).
57. Mönnich, U. (1998). TAGs M-constructed. In The 1998 Conference on Tree Adjoining Grammars and Related Formalisms, TAG+.
58. Mönnich, U. (2010). Well-nested tree languages and attributed tree transducers. In The 10th International Conference on Tree Adjoining Grammars and Related Formalisms TAG+10.
59. Morawietz, F. (2003). Two step approaches to natural language formalisms. Berlin: de Gruyter.
60. Müller, G. (2010). On deriving CED effects from the PIC. Linguistic Inquiry, 41(1), 35-82.
61. Nederhof, M.-J., & Satta, G. (2000). Left-to-right parsing and bilexical context-free grammars. In Proceedings of anlp-NAACL 2000.
62. Pereira, F. C. N. (1981). Extraposition grammars. American Journal of Computational Linguistics, 7, 243-256.
63. Pollard, C. (1984). Generalized phrase structure grammars, head grammars and natural language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
64. Roark, B. (2001). Probabilistic top-down parsing and language modeling. Computational Linguistics, 27(2), 249-276.
65. Roark, B., & Johnson, M. (1999). Efficient probabilistic top-down and left-corner parsing. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 421-428).
66. Rogers, J. (2003). wMSO theories as grammar formalisms. Theoretical Computer Science, 293(2), 291-320.
67. Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
68. Salvati, S. (2011). Minimalist grammars in the light of logic. In S. Pogodalla, M. Quatrini, & C. Retoré (Eds.), Logic and grammar (pp. 81-117). Berlin: Springer.
69. Sauerland, U. (1999). Erasability and scrambling. Syntax, 2(3), 161-188.
70. Seki, H., Matsumura, T., Fujii, M., & Kasami, T. (1991). On multiple context-free grammars. Theoretical Computer Science, 88, 191-229.
71. Sorace, A., & Keller, F. (2005). Gradience in linguistic data. Lingua, 115(11), 1497-1524.
72. Sportiche, D. (1998). Partitions and atoms of clause structure: Subjects, agreement, case and clitics. New York: Routledge.
73. Stabler, E. P. (1999). Remnant movement and complexity. In G. Bouma, E. Hinrichs, G.-J. Kruijff, & D. Oehrle (Eds.), Constraints and resources in natural language syntax and seman-tics (pp. 299-326). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
74. Stabler, E. P. (2011a). Computational perspectives on minimalism. In C. Boeckx (Ed.), Oxford handbook of linguistic minimalism (pp. 617-641). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
75. Stabler, E. P. (2011b). Top-down recognizers for MCFGs and MGs. In F. Keller & D. Reitter (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics (CMCL), 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics.
76. Stabler, E. P., & Keenan, E. L. (2003). Structural similarity. Theoretical Computer Science, 293, 345-363.
77. Szabolcsi, A. (1983). The possessor that ran away from home. The Linguistic Review, 3, 89-102.
78. Szabolcsi, A. (2006). Strong vs. weak islands. In M. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, 4 (pp. 479-531). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
79. van Kampen, J. (1997). First steps in wh-movement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Utrecht: University of Utrecht.
80. Villemonte de la Clergerie, E. (2002). Parsing MCS languages with thread automata. In Proceedings, 6th International Workshop on Tree Adjoining Grammars and Related Frameworks, TAG+6.
81. Wexler, K., & Culicover, P. W. (1980). Formal principles of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
82. Yoshida, M. (2006). Constraints and mechanisms in long-distance dependency formation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, College Park, MD: University of Maryland.