Models of Adjunction in Minimalist Grammars

  • Thomas Graf
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8612)


Three closely related proposals for adding (cyclic) adjunction to Minimalist grammars are given model-theoretic definitions and investigated with respect to their linguistic and formal properties. While they differ with respect to their linguistic adequacy, they behave largely the same on a computational level. Weak generative capacity is not affected, and while subregular complexity varies betweeen the three proposals, it does not exceed the complexity imposed by Move. The closure of Minimalist derivation tree languages under intersection with regular tree languages, however, is lost.


Minimalist grammars adjunction derivation trees subregular tree languages closure properties 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Collins, C.: Argument sharing in serial verb constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 28, 461–497 (1997)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fowlie, M.: Order and optionality: Minimalist grammars with adjunction. In: Kornai, A., Kuhlmann, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 13th Meeting on the Mathematics of Language (MoL 2013), pp. 12–20 (2013)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.
    Graf, T.: Closure properties of minimalist derivation tree languages. In: Pogodalla, S., Prost, J.-P. (eds.) LACL 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6736, pp. 96–111. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle 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.: Local and Transderivational Constraints in Syntax and Semantics. Ph.D. thesis, UCLA (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Graf, T.: The syntactic algebra of adjuncts. In: Proceedings of CLS49 (to appear)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hunter, T.: Deriving syntactic properties of arguments and adjuncts from neo-davidsonian semantics. In: Ebert, C., Jäger, G., Michaelis, J. (eds.) MOL 10/11. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6149, pp. 103–116. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kobele, G.M.: Minimalist tree languages are closed under intersection with recognizable tree languages. In: Pogodalla, S., Prost, J.-P. (eds.) LACL 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6736, pp. 129–144. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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
  11. 11.
    Mönnich, U.: Grammar morphisms, ms. University of Tübingen (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stabler, E.P.: Derivational minimalism. In: Retoré, C. (ed.) LACL 1996. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1328, pp. 68–95. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Graf
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsStony Brook UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations