Advertisement

Late Merge as Lowering Movement in Minimalist Grammars

  • Thomas Graf
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8535)

Abstract

Minimalist grammars can be specified in terms of their derivation tree languages and a mapping from derivations to derived trees, each of which is definable in monadic second-order logic (MSO). It has been shown that the linguistically motivated operation Late Merge can push either component past the threshold of MSO-definability. However, Late Merge as used in the syntactic literature can be elegantly recast in terms of Lowering movement within the framework of Movement-generalized Minimalist grammars. As the latter are MSO-definable, the linguistically relevant fragment of Late Merge is too.

Keywords

Minimalist grammars countercyclic operations late merge lowering movement monadic second-order logic 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Chomsky, N.: The Minimalist Program. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fowlie, M.: Order and optionality: Minimalist grammars with adjunction. In: Proceedings of MOL 2013 (2013) (to appear)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Frey, W., Gärtner, H.M.: On the treatment of scrambling and adjunction in minimalist grammars. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Formal Grammar (FGTrento), Trento, pp. 41–52 (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gärtner, H.M., Michaelis, J.: A note on countercyclicity and minimalist grammars. In: Penn, G. (ed.) Proceedings of Formal Grammar 2003, pp. 95–109. CSLI-Online, Stanford (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Graf, T.: Locality and the complexity of minimalist derivation tree languages. In: de Groote, P., Nederhof, M.-J. (eds.) Formal Grammar 2010/2011. LNCS, vol. 7395, pp. 208–227. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Graf, T.: Movement-generalized minimalist grammars. In: Béchet, D., Dikovsky, A. (eds.) LACL 2012. LNCS, vol. 7351, pp. 58–73. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Graf, T.: Tree adjunction as minimalist lowering. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Tree Adjoining Grammars and Related Formalisms (TAG+11), pp. 19–27 (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Graf, T.: Local and Transderivational Constraints in Syntax and Semantics. Ph.D. thesis, UCLA (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Harkema, H.: A characterization of minimalist languages. In: de Groote, P., Morrill, G., Retoré, C. (eds.) LACL 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2099, pp. 193–211. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kobele, G.M.: On late adjunction in minimalist grammars (2010), slides for a talk given at MCFG+ 2010Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kobele, G.M.: Without remnant movement, MGs are context-free. In: Ebert, C., Jäger, G., Michaelis, J. (eds.) MOL 10/11. LNCS, vol. 6149, pp. 160–173. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kobele, G.M.: Idioms and extended transducers. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Tree Adjoining Grammars and Related Formalisms (TAG+11), Paris, France, September 2012, pp. 153–161 (2012), http://www.aclweb.org/anthology-new/W/W12/W12-4618
  13. 13.
    Kobele, G.M.: Importing montagovian dynamics into minimalism. In: Béchet, D., Dikovsky, A. (eds.) LACL 2012. LNCS, vol. 7351, pp. 103–118. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kobele, G.M., Michaelis, J.: Disentangling notions of specifier impenetrability: Late adjunction, islands, and expressive power. In: Kanazawa, M., Kornai, A., Kracht, M., Seki, H. (eds.) MOL 12. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6878, pp. 126–142. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kobele, G.M., Retoré, C., Salvati, S.: An automata-theoretic approach to minimalism. In: Rogers, J., Kepser, S. (eds.) Model Theoretic Syntax at 10, pp. 71–80 (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lebeaux, D.: Language Acquisition and the Form of the Grammar. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst (1988)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Michaelis, J.: Transforming linear context-free rewriting systems into minimalist grammars. In: de Groote, P., Morrill, G., Retoré, C. (eds.) LACL 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2099, pp. 228–244. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mönnich, U.: Grammar morphisms (2006), ms. University of TübingenGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mönnich, U.: Minimalist syntax, multiple regular tree grammars and direction preserving tree transductions. In: Rogers, J., Kepser, S. (eds.) Model Theoretic Syntax at 10, pp. 83–87 (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mönnich, U.: A logical characterization of extended TAGs. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Tree Adjoining Grammars and Related Formalisms (TAG+11), Paris, France, pp. 37–45 (September 2012), http://www.aclweb.org/anthology-new/W/W12/W12-4605
  21. 21.
    Nissenbaum, J.: Covert movement and parasitic gaps. Proceedings of North Eastern Linguistic Society 30 (2000)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ochi, M.: Multiple spell-out and PF adjacency. Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society 29 (1999)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rogers, J.: A Descriptive Approach to Language-Theoretic Complexity. CSLI, Stanford (1998)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stabler, E.P.: Derivational minimalism. In: Retoré, C. (ed.) LACL 1996. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1328, pp. 68–95. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stabler, E.P.: Computational perspectives on minimalism. In: Boeckx, C. (ed.) Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism, pp. 617–643. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2011)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stabler, E.P.: Top-down recognizers for MCFGs and MGs. In: Proceedings of the 2011 Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics (2011) (to appear)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stabler, E.P.: Bayesian, minimalist, incremental syntactic analysis. Topics in Cognitive Science 5, 611–633 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stepanov, A.: Late adjunction and minimalist phrase structure. Syntax 4, 94–125 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Takahashi, S., Hulsey, S.: Wholesale Late Merger: Beyond the A/Ā distinction. Linguistc Inquiry 40, 387–426 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Graf
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsStony Brook UniversityU.S.A

Personalised recommendations