Research on Language and Computation

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 163–203 | Cite as

Linguistic Constraint Systems as General Soft Constraint Satisfaction

Article
  • 30 Downloads

Abstract

This paper proposes that linguistic constraint satisfaction can be viewed as an instance of general human soft constraint satisfaction. After a discussion on the relation between modularity in grammar and soft constraints and a review of the conceptions of gradient phenomena in language, the paper presents a generalized theory of soft constraint satisfaction from the AI literature (Bistarelli 2001). It then shows that a unifying underlying theory of constraint satisfaction allows us to bring different constraint-based linguistic theories (e.g., LOT and HPSG) closer together as well as account for certain gradient phenomena straightforwardly.

Keywords

Constraint-based linguistic theories Soft constraint satisfaction Cognitive modeling of language 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aarts B. (2004a) Conceptions of gradience in the history of linguistics. Language Sciences 26(4): 343–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aarts B. (2004b) Modelling linguistic gradience. Studies in Language 28(1): 1–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aarts B. (2007) syntactic gradience: The nature of grammatical indeterminacy. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Aarts, B., Denison, D., Keizer, E., Popova, G. (eds) (2004) Fuzzy grammar: A reader. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Abney S. (1996) Statistical methods and linguistics. In: Klavans J., Resnik P.(eds) The balancing act: Combining symbolic and statistical approaches to language. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  6. Abney S. (1997) Stochastic attribute-value grammars. Computational Linguistics 23(4): 597–618Google Scholar
  7. Andrews A. (1990) Case structure and control in modern icelandic. In: Maling J., Zaenen A.(eds) Modern Icelandic syntax, volume 24 of Syntax and Semantics. Academic Press, New York, pp 187–234Google Scholar
  8. Arnold J. E., Wasow T., Losongco A., Ginstrom R. (2000) Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language 76(1): 28–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bard E.G., Robertson D., Sorace A. (1996) Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language 72(1): 32–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Belletti A., Rizzi L. (1988) Psych verbs and theta theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2(1): 65–86Google Scholar
  11. Bird, S. (1990). Constraint-based phonology. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  12. Bird, S. (1995). Computational phonology: A constraint-based approach. Studies in Natural Language Processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Bird S., Klein E. (1994) Phonological analysis in typed feature systems. Computational Linguistics 20: 455–491Google Scholar
  14. Birner, B. J. (1992). The discourse function of inversion in english. PhD Thesis, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.Google Scholar
  15. Birner B.J. (1994) Information status and word order: An analysis of English inversion. Language 70(2): 233–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bistarelli, S. (2001). Soft constraint solving and programming: A general framework. PhD Thesis, Università di Pisa.Google Scholar
  17. Bod R. (1998) Beyond grammar: An experience-based theory of language. CSLI, Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Bod R., Hay J., Jannedy S.(eds) (2003a) Probabilistic linguistics. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  19. Bod R., Scha R., Sima’an K.(eds) (2003b) Data-oriented parsing. CSLI, University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  20. Boersma P., Hayes B. (2001) Empirical tests of the gradual learning algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 45–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Bolinger D.L. (1961) Generality, gradience and all-or-none. Mouton, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  22. Borning A., Freeman-Benson B., Wilson M. (1992) Constraint hierarchies. Lisp and Symbolic Computation 5(3): 223–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Borsley R., Kornfilt J. (2000) Mixed extended projections. In: Borsley R.(eds) The Nature and Function of Syntactic Categories, Volume 32 of Syntax and Semantics. Academic Press, New York, pp 101–131Google Scholar
  24. Bresnan J. (eds) (1982) The mental representation of grammatical regulations. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  25. Bresnan, J. (1997). Mixed categories as head sharing constructions. In M. Butt & T. Holloway (Eds.), Proceedings of the LFG97 Converende (pp. 1–17). Stanford, CA: University of California, San Diego, CSLI Publications. Online: http://csli-publications.stanord.edu/LFG2/lfg97-toc.html.
  26. Bresnan, J. (2001). Lexical-functional syntax. Malden, MA: Blackwell Textbooks in Linguistics. Blackwell.Google Scholar
  27. Carpenter, B., & Penn, G. (1999). ALE the attribute logic engine: User’s guide. Available online at http://www.cs.toronto.edu/gpenn/ale/files/aleguide.ps.gz.
  28. Chomsky N. (1955) The logical structure of linguistic theory. Plenum Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Chomsky N. (1961) Some methodological remarks on generative grammar. Word 17: 219–239Google Scholar
  30. Chomsky N. (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  31. Chomsky N. (1995) The minimalist program. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  32. Chomsky, N., & Miller, G. (1963). Formal properties of grammars. In R. Luce, R. Bush, & E. Galanter (Eds.), Handbook of mathematical psychology (Vol. II, pp. 323–428). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  33. Collins, M., & Duffy, N. (2001). Parsing with a single neuron: Convolution kernels for natural language problems. Technical Report UCSC-CRL-01-01, University of California at Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
  34. Collins M., Duffy N. (2002) Convolution kernels for natural language. In: Dietterich T.G., Becker S., Ghahramani Z.(eds) Advances in neural information processing systems 14. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  35. Corver N., van Riemsdijk H. (2001) Semi-lexical categories. In: Corver N., Riemsdijk N.(eds) Semi-lexical categories: The function of content words and the content of function words. Mouton de Gruyterm, Berlin, pp 1–19Google Scholar
  36. Cowart W. (1997) Experimental syntax: Applying objective methods to sentence judgements. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  37. Davey, B., Priestley, H. (1990). Introduction to lattices and order. Cambridge Mathematical Textbooks. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Dechter, R., & Pearl, J. (1988). Network-based heuristics for constrain satisfaction problems. In Kanal & Kumar (Eds.), Search in artificial intelligence (pp. 370–425). Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  39. Dubois, D., Fargier, H., & Prade, H. (1993). The calculus of fuzzy restrictions as a basis for flexible constraint satisfaction. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (pp. 1131–1136). IEEE.Google Scholar
  40. Erteschik-Shir N., Lappin S. (1979) Dominance and the functional explanation of island phenomena. Theoretical Linguistics 6: 41–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Fargier, H., & Lang, J. (1993). Uncertainty in constraint satisfaction problems: A probabilistic approach. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Symbolic and Qualitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty (ECSQARU), number 747 in LNCS (pp. 97–104). Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  42. Foth K., Menzel W., Schröder I. (2005) Robust parsing with weighted constraints. Natural Language Engineering 11(1): 1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Freuder, E., & Wallace, R. J. (1992). Partial constraint satisfaction. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-89, number 58, Detroit, MI.Google Scholar
  44. Haji-Abdolhosseini, M. (2003). A constraint-based approach to information structure and prosody correspondence. In S. Müller (Ed.), Proceedings of The HPSG-2003 Conference (pp. 143–162). http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/HPSG/4/.
  45. Haji-Abdolhosseini, M. (2005). Modularity and soft constraints: A study of conflict resolution in grammar. PhD Thesis, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  46. Haussler, D. (1999). Convolution kernels on discrete structures. Technical Report UCS-CRL-99-10, UC Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
  47. Hudson R. (2003) Gerunds without phrase structure. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21(3): 579–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Jackendoff R. (1992) Languages of the mind: Essays on mental representation. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  49. Jackendoff, R. (1997). The architecture of the language faculty. Linguistic Inquiry: Monograph Twenty-Eight. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  50. Jackendoff R. (2002) Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  51. Joos M. (1950) Description of language design. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 22: 701–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Keller, F. (2000). Gradience in grammar: Experimental and computational aspects of degrees of grammaticality. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  53. Lakoff, G. (1973a). Fuzzy grammar and the performance/competence terminology game. In C. T. Corum, C. Smith-Stark, & A. Weiser (Eds.), Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 271–291), Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  54. Lakoff G. (1973b) Hedges: A study in the meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic 2: 458–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lakoff G. (1987a) Cognitive models and prototype theory. In: Corum C.T., Smith-Stark C., Weiser A.(eds) Concepts and conceptual development: Ecological and intelligence factors in categorization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 63–100Google Scholar
  56. Lakoff G. (1987b) Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. University of Chicago Press, Chicago ILGoogle Scholar
  57. Lascarides A., Briscoe T., Asher N., Copestake A. (1996) Order independent and persistent typed default unification. Linguistics and Philosophy 19(1): 1–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lascarides A., Copestake A. (1998) Pragmatics and word meaning. Journal of Linguistics 34(2): 55–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lascarides A., Copestake A. (1999) Default representation in constraint-based frameworks. Computational Linguistics 25(1): 55–105Google Scholar
  60. Malouf R.P. (2000) Mixed categories in the hierarchical lexicon. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  61. Malouf R.P. (2003) Cooperating constructions. In: FrancisE. Michaelis L.(eds) Mismatch: Form-function incongruity and the architecture of grammar. CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp 403–424Google Scholar
  62. Manning, C. (2003). Probabilistic approaches to syntax. In R. Bod, J. Hay, & S. Jannedy (Eds.) (2003a). Probabilistic linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  63. Marriott K., Stuckey P. (1998) Programming with constraints: An introduction. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  64. McCawley, J. (1977). The nonexistence of syntactic categories. In Second Annual Metatheory Conference Proceedings, East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  65. McCawley J. (1982) Thirty million theories of grammar. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  66. McCawley J. (1998) The syntactic phenomena of english (2nd ed). University of Chicago Press, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  67. Menzel, W., & Schröder, I. (1999). Error diagnosis for language learning systems. ReCALL, (Special Edition, May 1999), pp. 20–30.Google Scholar
  68. Newell A. (1982) The knowledge level. Artificial Intelligence 18(1): 87–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Newell A. (1990) Unified theories of cognition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  70. Oatley K. (1992) Best laid schemes: The psychology of emotions. Cambridge, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  71. Oatley K., Johnson-Laird P. (1987) Towards a cognitive theory of emotions. Cognition and Emotions 1: 29–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Penn, G. (2000). The algebraic structure of attributed type signatures. PhD thesis, School of Computer Science, Language Technologies Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
  73. Pinker S. (1999) Words and rules: The ingredients of language. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, LondonGoogle Scholar
  74. Pollard, C., & Sag, I. (1987). Information-Based Syntax and Semantics, Volume I: Fundamentals. Number 13 in CSLI Lecture Notes. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  75. Pollard, C., & Sag, I. (1994). Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Studies in Contemporary Linguistics. Chicago: CSLI.Google Scholar
  76. Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (1993). Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Technical Report 2, Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science, Piscataway, NJ.Google Scholar
  77. Radford A. (1976) On the non-discrete nature of the verb-auxiliary distinction in english. Nottingham Linguistic Circle 5(2): 8–19Google Scholar
  78. Rosenfeld A., Hummel R., Zucker S. (1976) Scene labelling by relaxation operations. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 6(6): 420–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Ross J.R. (1969a) Adjectives as noun phrases. In: Reibel D.A., Shane S.A.(eds) Modern studies in english. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp 352–360Google Scholar
  80. Ross, J. R. (1969b). Auxiliaries as main verbs. In W. Todd (Ed.), Studies in Philosophical Linguistics. Series I (pp. 77–102). Evanstown, IL: Great Expectations Press.Google Scholar
  81. Ross, J. R. (1972). The category squish: Endstation hauptwort. In P. M. Peranteau, J. N. Levi, & G. C. Phares (Eds.), Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 316–328). Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  82. Ross J.R. (1973a) A fake NP squish. In: Bailey C.J., Shuy R.W.(eds) New ways of analyzing variation in english. Georgetown University Press, Washington D.C., pp 96–140Google Scholar
  83. Ross J.R. (1973b) Nouniness. In: Fujimura O.(eds) Three dimensions of linguistic research. TEC Company Ltd, Tokyo, pp 137–257Google Scholar
  84. Ross J.R. (1974) Three batons for cognitive psychology. In: Weimer W., Palermo D.(eds) Cognition and symbolic processes. Lawrance Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 63–124Google Scholar
  85. Ross J.R. (1987) Islands and syntactic prototypes. In: Need B., Schiller E., Bosch A.(eds) Papers from the twenty-third regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Lawrance Erlbaum Associates, Chicago, IL, pp 309–320Google Scholar
  86. Ross J.R. (2000) The frozenness of pseudoclefts: Towards an inequality based syntax. In: Okrent A., Boyle J.P.(eds) Papers from the thirty-sixth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago IL, Lawrance Erlbaum Associates, pp 385–426Google Scholar
  87. Ruttkay, Z. (1994). Fuzzy constraint satisfaction. In Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems, pp. 1263–1268.Google Scholar
  88. Sag I. (1997) English relative clause constructions. Journal of Linguistics 33(2): 431–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Schiex, T., Fargier, H., & Verfaille, G. (1995). Valued constraint satisfaction problems: Hard and easy problems. In Proceedings of IJCAI95 (pp. 631–637). Morgan Kaufman.Google Scholar
  90. Schröder, I. (2002). Natural language parsing with graded constraints. PhD thesis, Fachbereich Informatik der Universität Hamburg.Google Scholar
  91. Schütze C. (1996) The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic meth- odology. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  92. Sorace A., Keller F. (2005) Gradience in linguistic data. Lingua 115(11): 1497–1524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Stevens S.S. (1975) Psychophysics: Introduction to its perceptual, neural, and social prospects. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  94. van Riemsdijk H. (1998) Categorial feature magnetism: The endocentricity and distribution of projections. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 2: 1–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. van Riemsdijk, H. (1999). A far from simple matter: Syntactic reflexes of syntax-pragmatics misalignments. Masters thesis, University of Tilburg.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EnglishIowa State UniversityAmesUSA

Personalised recommendations