Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Linguistic Constraint Systems as General Soft Constraint Satisfaction

  • Published:
Research on Language and Computation

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aarts B. (2004a) Conceptions of gradience in the history of linguistics. Language Sciences 26(4): 343–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aarts B. (2004b) Modelling linguistic gradience. Studies in Language 28(1): 1–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aarts B. (2007) syntactic gradience: The nature of grammatical indeterminacy. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Aarts, B., Denison, D., Keizer, E., Popova, G. (eds) (2004) Fuzzy grammar: A reader. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Abney S. (1997) Stochastic attribute-value grammars. Computational Linguistics 23(4): 597–618

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 187–234

    Google Scholar 

  • 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): 28–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bard E.G., Robertson D., Sorace A. (1996) Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language 72(1): 32–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belletti A., Rizzi L. (1988) Psych verbs and theta theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2(1): 65–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Bird, S. (1990). Constraint-based phonology. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh.

  • Bird, S. (1995). Computational phonology: A constraint-based approach. Studies in Natural Language Processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Bird S., Klein E. (1994) Phonological analysis in typed feature systems. Computational Linguistics 20: 455–491

    Google Scholar 

  • Birner, B. J. (1992). The discourse function of inversion in english. PhD Thesis, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.

  • Birner B.J. (1994) Information status and word order: An analysis of English inversion. Language 70(2): 233–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bistarelli, S. (2001). Soft constraint solving and programming: A general framework. PhD Thesis, Università di Pisa.

  • Bod R. (1998) Beyond grammar: An experience-based theory of language. CSLI, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Bod R., Hay J., Jannedy S.(eds) (2003a) Probabilistic linguistics. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Bod R., Scha R., Sima’an K.(eds) (2003b) Data-oriented parsing. CSLI, University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Boersma P., Hayes B. (2001) Empirical tests of the gradual learning algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 45–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolinger D.L. (1961) Generality, gradience and all-or-none. Mouton, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Borning A., Freeman-Benson B., Wilson M. (1992) Constraint hierarchies. Lisp and Symbolic Computation 5(3): 223–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 101–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Bresnan J. (eds) (1982) The mental representation of grammatical regulations. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Bresnan, J. (2001). Lexical-functional syntax. Malden, MA: Blackwell Textbooks in Linguistics. Blackwell.

  • 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.

  • Chomsky N. (1955) The logical structure of linguistic theory. Plenum Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky N. (1961) Some methodological remarks on generative grammar. Word 17: 219–239

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky N. (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky N. (1995) The minimalist program. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 1–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowart W. (1997) Experimental syntax: Applying objective methods to sentence judgements. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Davey, B., Priestley, H. (1990). Introduction to lattices and order. Cambridge Mathematical Textbooks. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Erteschik-Shir N., Lappin S. (1979) Dominance and the functional explanation of island phenomena. Theoretical Linguistics 6: 41–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Foth K., Menzel W., Schröder I. (2005) Robust parsing with weighted constraints. Natural Language Engineering 11(1): 1–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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/.

  • Haji-Abdolhosseini, M. (2005). Modularity and soft constraints: A study of conflict resolution in grammar. PhD Thesis, University of Toronto.

  • Haussler, D. (1999). Convolution kernels on discrete structures. Technical Report UCS-CRL-99-10, UC Santa Cruz.

  • Hudson R. (2003) Gerunds without phrase structure. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21(3): 579–615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackendoff R. (1992) Languages of the mind: Essays on mental representation. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackendoff, R. (1997). The architecture of the language faculty. Linguistic Inquiry: Monograph Twenty-Eight. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

  • Jackendoff R. (2002) Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Joos M. (1950) Description of language design. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 22: 701–708

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, F. (2000). Gradience in grammar: Experimental and computational aspects of degrees of grammaticality. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh.

  • 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.

  • Lakoff G. (1973b) Hedges: A study in the meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic 2: 458–508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 63–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff G. (1987b) Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. University of Chicago Press, Chicago IL

    Google Scholar 

  • Lascarides A., Briscoe T., Asher N., Copestake A. (1996) Order independent and persistent typed default unification. Linguistics and Philosophy 19(1): 1–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lascarides A., Copestake A. (1998) Pragmatics and word meaning. Journal of Linguistics 34(2): 55–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lascarides A., Copestake A. (1999) Default representation in constraint-based frameworks. Computational Linguistics 25(1): 55–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Malouf R.P. (2000) Mixed categories in the hierarchical lexicon. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Malouf R.P. (2003) Cooperating constructions. In: FrancisE. Michaelis L.(eds) Mismatch: Form-function incongruity and the architecture of grammar. CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp 403–424

    Google Scholar 

  • Manning, C. (2003). Probabilistic approaches to syntax. In R. Bod, J. Hay, & S. Jannedy (Eds.) (2003a). Probabilistic linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Marriott K., Stuckey P. (1998) Programming with constraints: An introduction. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • McCawley, J. (1977). The nonexistence of syntactic categories. In Second Annual Metatheory Conference Proceedings, East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.

  • McCawley J. (1982) Thirty million theories of grammar. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL

    Google Scholar 

  • McCawley J. (1998) The syntactic phenomena of english (2nd ed). University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL

    Google Scholar 

  • Menzel, W., & Schröder, I. (1999). Error diagnosis for language learning systems. ReCALL, (Special Edition, May 1999), pp. 20–30.

  • Newell A. (1982) The knowledge level. Artificial Intelligence 18(1): 87–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newell A. (1990) Unified theories of cognition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Oatley K. (1992) Best laid schemes: The psychology of emotions. Cambridge, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Oatley K., Johnson-Laird P. (1987) Towards a cognitive theory of emotions. Cognition and Emotions 1: 29–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penn, G. (2000). The algebraic structure of attributed type signatures. PhD thesis, School of Computer Science, Language Technologies Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.

  • Pinker S. (1999) Words and rules: The ingredients of language. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollard, C., & Sag, I. (1987). Information-Based Syntax and Semantics, Volume I: Fundamentals. Number 13 in CSLI Lecture Notes. Stanford: CSLI.

  • Pollard, C., & Sag, I. (1994). Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Studies in Contemporary Linguistics. Chicago: CSLI.

  • Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (1993). Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Technical Report 2, Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science, Piscataway, NJ.

  • Radford A. (1976) On the non-discrete nature of the verb-auxiliary distinction in english. Nottingham Linguistic Circle 5(2): 8–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld A., Hummel R., Zucker S. (1976) Scene labelling by relaxation operations. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 6(6): 420–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 352–360

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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 96–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross J.R. (1973b) Nouniness. In: Fujimura O.(eds) Three dimensions of linguistic research. TEC Company Ltd, Tokyo, pp 137–257

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 63–124

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 309–320

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 385–426

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruttkay, Z. (1994). Fuzzy constraint satisfaction. In Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems, pp. 1263–1268.

  • Sag I. (1997) English relative clause constructions. Journal of Linguistics 33(2): 431–484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiex, T., Fargier, H., & Verfaille, G. (1995). Valued constraint satisfaction problems: Hard and easy problems. In Proceedings of IJCAI95 (pp. 631–637). Morgan Kaufman.

  • Schröder, I. (2002). Natural language parsing with graded constraints. PhD thesis, Fachbereich Informatik der Universität Hamburg.

  • Schütze C. (1996) The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic meth- odology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorace A., Keller F. (2005) Gradience in linguistic data. Lingua 115(11): 1497–1524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens S.S. (1975) Psychophysics: Introduction to its perceptual, neural, and social prospects. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • van Riemsdijk H. (1998) Categorial feature magnetism: The endocentricity and distribution of projections. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 2: 1–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Riemsdijk, H. (1999). A far from simple matter: Syntactic reflexes of syntax-pragmatics misalignments. Masters thesis, University of Tilburg.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of English, Iowa State University, 355 Ross Hall, Ames, IA, 50011, USA

    Nick Pendar

Authors
  1. Nick Pendar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nick Pendar.

About this article

Cite this article

Pendar, N. Linguistic Constraint Systems as General Soft Constraint Satisfaction. Res on Lang and Comput 6, 163–203 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11168-008-9050-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11168-008-9050-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation