Memory Resource Allocation in Top-Down Minimalist Parsing

  • Gregory M. Kobele
  • Sabrina Gerth
  • John Hale
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8036)

Abstract

This paper provides a linking theory between the minimalist grammar formalism and off-line behavioural data. We examine the transient stack states of a top-down parser for Minimalist Grammars as it analyzes embedded sentences in English, Dutch and German. We find that the number of time steps that a derivation tree node persist on the parser’s stack derives the observed contrasts in English center embedding, and the difference between German and Dutch embedding. This particular stack occupancy measure formalizes the leading idea of “memory burden” in a way that links predictive, incremental parsing to specific syntactic analyses.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abney, S., Johnson, M.: Memory requirements and local ambiguities of parsing strategies. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 20(3), 233–249 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bach, E., Brown, C., Marslen-Wilson, W.: Crossed and nested dependencies in German and Dutch: A psycholinguistic study. Language and Cognitive Processes 1(4), 249–262 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chomsky, N.: Syntactic Structures. Mouton, The Hague (1957)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chomsky, N.: The Minimalist Program. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Crocker, M.W., Brants, T.: Wide-coverage probabilistic sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29(6), 647–669 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gibson, E.: The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In: Miyashita, Y., Marantz, A., O’Neil, W. (eds.) Image, Language, Brain, pp. 95–126. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hale, J.: A Probabilistic Earley Parser as a Psycholinguistic Model. In: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hale, J.T.: Grammar, Uncertainty and Sentence Processing. Ph.D. thesis, The Johns Hopkins University (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hale, J.T.: Uncertainty about the rest of the sentence. Cognitive Science 30, 643–672 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harkema, H.: Parsing Minimalist Languages. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Los Angeles (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Johnson-Laird, P.N.: Mental Models. Cambridge University Press (1983)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Joshi, A.K.: Processing crossed and nested dependencies: An automation perspective on the psycholinguistic results. Language and Cognitive Processes 5(1), 1–27 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kaplan, R.M.: Transient Processing Load in Relative Clauses. Ph.D. thesis, Harvard (1975)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kay, M.: Algorithm schemata and data structures in syntactic processing. In: Grosz, B.J., Jones, K.S., Webber, B.L. (eds.) Readings in Natural Language Processing. Morgan Kaufman (1986)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kayne, R.: The Antisymmetry of Syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge (1994)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kobele, G.M.: Formalizing mirror theory. Grammars 5(3), 177–221 (2002)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kobele, G.M.: Generating Copies: An investigation into structural identity in language and grammar. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Los Angeles (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kobele, G.M.: Importing montagovian dynamics into minimalism. In: Béchet, D., Dikovsky, A. (eds.) Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics. LNCS, vol. 7351, pp. 103–118. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kobele, G.M., Retoré, C., Salvati, S.: An automata theoretic approach to minimalism. In: Rogers, J., Kepser, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the Workshop Model-Theoretic Syntax at 10; ESSLLI 2007, Dublin (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kowalski, R.: Algorithm = logic + control. Communications of the ACM 22(7), 424–436 (1979)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Levy, R.: Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition 106, 1126–1177 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lewis, R.L., Vasishth, S.: An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science 29, 375–419 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mahajan, A.: Word order and (remnant) VP movement. In: Karimi, S. (ed.) Word Order and Scrambling, ch. 10. Blackwell (2003)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mainguy, T.: A probabilistic top-down parser for minimalist grammars. CoRR abs/1010.1826 (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Marr, D.: Vision. W. H. Freeman and Company, New York (1982)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Marslen-Wilson, W.: Linguistic structure and speech shadowing at very short latencies. Nature 244, 522–523 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Michaelis, J.: On Formal Properties of Minimalist Grammars. Ph.D. thesis, Universität Potsdam (2001)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Miller, G.A., Chomsky, N.: Finitary models of language users. In: Luce, R.D., Bush, R.R., Galanter, E. (eds.) Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, ch. 13, pp. 419–491. John Wiley, New York (1963)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mönnich, U.: Minimalist syntax, multiple regular tree grammars and direction preserving tree transductions. In: Rogers, J., Kepser, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the Workshop Model-Theoretic Syntax at 10; ESSLLI 2007, Dublin (2007)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Montague, R.: The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In: Hintikka, J., Moravcsik, J., Suppes, P. (eds.) Approaches to Natural Language, pp. 221–242. D. Reidel, Dordrecht (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Morawietz, F.: Two-Step Approaches to Natural Language Formalisms, Studies in Generative Grammar, vol. 64. Mouton de Gruyter (2003)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rambow, O., Joshi, A.K.: A processing model for free word order languages. In: Clifton, C., Frazier, L., Rayner, K. (eds.) Perspectives on Sentence Processing, pp. 267–301. Lawrence Erlbaum (1994)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rambow, O., Joshi, A.K.: A processing model for free word order languages. Tech. Rep. IRCS-95-13, University of Pennsylvania (1995)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Resnik, P.: Left-corner parsing and psychological plausibility. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Nantes, France (1992)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Shieber, S.M.: Evidence against the context-freeness of natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 8, 333–343 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Stabler, E.: Top-down recognizers for MCFGs and MGs. In: Proceedings of CMCL (2011)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Stabler, E.P.: Derivational minimalism. In: Retoré, C. (ed.) LACL 1996. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1328, pp. 68–95. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Stabler, E.P., Keenan, E.L.: Structural similarity within and among languages. Theoretical Computer Science 293, 345–363 (2003)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tanenhaus, M., Spivey-Knowlton, M., Eberhard, K., Sedivy, J.: Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science 268, 1632–1634 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    VanWagenen, S., Brennan, J., Stabler, E.P.: Evaluating parsing strategies in sentence processing. Poster Presented at CUNY 2011 (2011)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Vasishth, S., Drenhaus, H.: Locality in German. Dialogue and Discourse 1(2), 59–82 (2011)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wanner, E., Maratsos, M.: An ATN approach to comprehension. In: Halle, M., Bresnan, J., Miller, G.A. (eds.) Linguistic Theory and Psychological Reality, ch. 3, pp. 119–161. MIT Press, Cambridge (1978)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wurmbrand, S.: How complex are complex predicates. Syntax 10(3), 243–288 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gregory M. Kobele
    • 1
  • Sabrina Gerth
    • 2
  • John Hale
    • 3
  1. 1.University of ChicagoChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Universität PotsdamPotsdamGermany
  3. 3.Cornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations