Results 1  10
of
18
Generating Copies: An investigation into structural identity in language and grammar
, 2006
"... ..."
Transforming linear contextfree rewriting systems into minimalist grammars
"... Abstract. The type of a minimalist grammar (MG) as introduced by Stabler [11, 12] provides an attempt of a rigorous algebraic formalization of the new perspectives adopted within the linguistic framework of transformational grammar due to the change from GB–theory to minimalism. Michaelis [6] has sh ..."
Abstract

Cited by 25 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. The type of a minimalist grammar (MG) as introduced by Stabler [11, 12] provides an attempt of a rigorous algebraic formalization of the new perspectives adopted within the linguistic framework of transformational grammar due to the change from GB–theory to minimalism. Michaelis [6] has shown that MGs constitute a subclass of mildly context–sensitive grammars in the sense that for each MG there is a weakly equivalent linear context–free rewriting system (LCFRS). However, it has been left open in [6], whether the respective classes of string languages derivable by MGs and LCFRSs coincide. This paper completes the picture by showing that MGs in the sense of [11] and LCFRSs in fact determine the same class of derivable string languages. 1
Structural similarity within and among languages
 Theoretical Computer Science
"... Linguists rely on intuitive conceptions of structure when comparing expressions and languages. In an algebraic presentation of a language, some natural notions of similarity can be rigorously dened (e.g. among elements of a language, equivalence w.r.t. isomorphisms of the language; and among langua ..."
Abstract

Cited by 14 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Linguists rely on intuitive conceptions of structure when comparing expressions and languages. In an algebraic presentation of a language, some natural notions of similarity can be rigorously dened (e.g. among elements of a language, equivalence w.r.t. isomorphisms of the language; and among languages, equivalence w.r.t. isomorphisms of symmetry groups), but it turns out that slightly more complex and nonstandard notions are needed to capture the kinds of comparisons linguists want to make. This paper identies some of the important notions of structural similarity, with attention to similarity claims that are prominent in the current linguistic tradition of transformational grammar.
An automata theoretic approach to minimalism
 PROCEEDINGS OF THE WORKSHOP MODELTHEORETIC SYNTAX AT 10; ESSLLI 2007
, 2007
"... VijayShanker et al. (1987) note that many interesting linguistic formalisms can be thought of as having essentially contextfree structure, but operating over objects richer than simple strings (sequences of strings, trees, or graphs). They introduce linear contextfree rewriting systems (LCFRS’s ..."
Abstract

Cited by 14 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
VijayShanker et al. (1987) note that many interesting linguistic formalisms can be thought of as having essentially contextfree structure, but operating over objects richer than simple strings (sequences of strings, trees, or graphs). They introduce linear contextfree rewriting systems (LCFRS’s, see also Weir (1988)) as a unifying framework for superficially different such formalisms (like (multi component) tree adjoining grammars, head grammars, and categorial grammars). Later work (Michaelis, 1998) has added minimalist grammars (MGs, see (Stabler, 1997)) to this list. Recently, Fülöp et al. (2004) have introduced multiple bottomup tree transducers (mbutt), which can be thought of as offering a transductive perspective on LCFRSs. The transductive
Learning mirror theory
, 2002
"... Mirror Theory is a syntactic framework developed in (Brody, 1997), where it is offered as a consequence of eliminating purported redundancies in Chomsky’s minimalism (Chomsky, 1995). A fundamental feature of Mirror Theory is its requirement that the syntactic headcomplement relation mirror certain ..."
Abstract

Cited by 13 (10 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Mirror Theory is a syntactic framework developed in (Brody, 1997), where it is offered as a consequence of eliminating purported redundancies in Chomsky’s minimalism (Chomsky, 1995). A fundamental feature of Mirror Theory is its requirement that the syntactic headcomplement relation mirror certain morphological relations (such as constituency). This requirement constrains the types of syntactic structures that can express a given phrase; the morphological constituency of the phrase determines part of the syntactic constituency, thereby ruling out other, weakly equivalent, alternatives. A less fundamental, but superficially very noticeable feature is the elimination of phrasal projection. Thus the Xbar structure on the left becomes the mirror theoretic structure on the right:
A Minimalist Implementation Of Verb Subcategorization
 IN PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON PARSING TECHNOLOGIES (IWPT2001
, 2001
"... Traditional accounts of verb subcategorization, from the classic work of Fillmore on, require either a considerable number of syntactic rules to account for diverse sentence constructions, including crosslanguage variation, or else complex linking rules mapping the thematic roles of semantic event t ..."
Abstract

Cited by 3 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Traditional accounts of verb subcategorization, from the classic work of Fillmore on, require either a considerable number of syntactic rules to account for diverse sentence constructions, including crosslanguage variation, or else complex linking rules mapping the thematic roles of semantic event templates with possible syntactic forms. In this paper we exhibit a third approach: we implement, via an explicit parser and lexicon, the incorporation theory of Hale and Keyser (1993, 1998) to systematically cover most patterns in English Verb Classes and Alternations (Levin 1993), typically using only 1 or 2 lexical entries per verb to subsume a large number of syntactic constructions and also most information typically contained in semantic event templates, and, further, replacing the notion of "thematic roles" with precise structural configurations. The implemented parser uses the merge and move operations formalized by Stabler (1997) in the minimalist framework of Chomsky (2001). As a side benefit, we extend the minimalist recognizer of Harkema (2000) to a full parsing implementation. We summarize the current compactness and coverage of our account and provide this minimalist lexicon and parser online at http://web.mit.edu/niyogi/www/minimal.htm
Implications of a Revised Perspective on Minimalist Grammars
"... The type of a minimalist grammar (MG) as introduced by Stabler [17] provides an attempt of a rigorous formalization of the perspectives adopted nowadays within the linguistic framework of transformational grammar. As shown in [11], MGs constitute a weakly equivalent subclass of linear contextfree ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
The type of a minimalist grammar (MG) as introduced by Stabler [17] provides an attempt of a rigorous formalization of the perspectives adopted nowadays within the linguistic framework of transformational grammar. As shown in [11], MGs constitute a weakly equivalent subclass of linear contextfree rewriting systems (LCFRSs) in the sense of VijayShanker et al. [21]. Independent work of Harkema [5] and Michaelis [13] has proven the reverse to be true, as well. Hence, MGs as defined in [17] join to a series of formalism classesamong which there is e.g. the class of multicomponent tree adjoining grammars (MCTAGs) in their setlocal variant of admitted adjunction (cf. [22])all generating the same class of string languages. Inspired by current linguistic developments, a revised type of an MG as well as a certain type of a strict MG (SMG) has been proposed by Stabler [18]. Here we show that, in terms of derivable string languages, the revised MGtype as well as the SMGtype is not only subsumed by LCFRSs, but both also fall within a particular subclass of the latter: the righthand side of each rewriting rule of a corresponding LCFRS involves at most two nonterminals, and if two nonterminals appear on the righthand side then only simple strings of terminals are derivable from the first one. This result is in fact of specific interest, since conversely, in terms of weak equivalence, the corresponding LCFRSsubclass is provably subsumed by the class of revised MGs as well as the class of SMGs ([10]). Whether the inclusion of the respective classes of string languages derivable by the corresponding LCFRSsubclass and the class of all LCFRSs is proper or not seems to be an open problem. We briefly discuss what seems to constitute the crucial difference seen from the ...
4 Linear grammars with labels
"... The purpose of this paper is to show that we can work in the spirit of Minimalist Grammars by means of an undirected deductive system calledLGL, enhanced with constraints on the use of assumptions. Lexical entries can be linked to sequences of controlled hypotheses which represent intermediary sites ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The purpose of this paper is to show that we can work in the spirit of Minimalist Grammars by means of an undirected deductive system calledLGL, enhanced with constraints on the use of assumptions. Lexical entries can be linked to sequences of controlled hypotheses which represent intermediary sites. These assumptions must be introduced in the derivation and then discharged in tandem by their proper entry which will therefore manage to find its final position: this allows to logically simulate move operation. Relevance of this formalism will be stressed by showing its ability to analyze difficult linguistic phenomena in a neat fashion.