Advertisement

On the Computational Complexity of Head Movement and Affix Hopping

  • Miloš StanojevićEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11668)

Abstract

Head movement is a syntactic operation used in most generative syntactic analyses. However, its computational properties have not been extensively studied. [27] formalises head movement in the framework of Minimalist Grammars by extending the item representation to allow for easy extraction of the head. This work shows that Stabler’s representation is in fact suboptimal because it causes higher polynomial parsing complexity. A new algorithm is derived for parsing head movement and affix hopping by changing the kinds of representations that the parser deals with. This algorithm has much better asymptotic worst-case runtime of \(\mathcal {O}(n^{2k+5})\). This result makes parsing head movement and affix hopping computationally as efficient as parsing a single phrase movement.

Keywords

Minimalist Grammars Parsing Head movement Affix hopping 

Notes

Acknowledgement

I am grateful to John Torr and the three anonymous reviewers for comments that have greatly improved this paper. This work was supported by ERC H2020 Advanced Fellowship GA 742137 SEMANTAX grant.

References

  1. 1.
    Adger, D.: Core Syntax: A Minimalist Approach, vol. 33. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carnie, A.: Syntax: A Generative Introduction, 3rd edn. Wiley, Hoboken (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chomsky, N.: Syntactic Structures. Mouton, The Hague (1957)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chomsky, N.: The Minimalist Program. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dowling, W.F., Gallier, J.H.: Linear-time algorithms for testing the satisfiability of propositional horn formulae. J. Logic Program. 1(3), 267–284 (1984)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eisner, J., Blatz, J.: Program transformations for optimization of parsing algorithms and other weighted logic programs. In: Wintner, S. (ed.) Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Formal Grammar 2006, pp. 45–85. CSLI Publications, Stanford (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fowlie, M., Koller, A.: Parsing minimalist languages with interpreted regular tree grammars. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Tree Adjoining Grammars and Related Formalisms, pp. 11–20 (2017)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gerth, S.: Memory Limitations in Sentence Comprehension: A Structural-based Complexity Metric of Processing Difficulty, vol. 6. Universitätsverlag Potsdam, Potsdam (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Graf, T., Monette, J., Zhang, C.: Relative clauses as a benchmark for minimalist parsing. J. Lang. Model. 5(1), 57–106 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harkema, H.: A recognizer for minimalist grammars. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Parsing Technologies (IWPT 2000), pp. 111–122. Springer, Berlin (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Harkema, H.: A recognizer for minimalist languages. In: Bunt, H., Carroll, J., Satta, G. (eds.) New Developments in Parsing Technology. Text, Speech and Language Technology, vol. 23, pp. 251–268. Springer, Dordrecht (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2295-6_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hunter, T.: Left-corner parsing of minimalist grammars. Technical report, UCLA (2017). forthcomingGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hunter, T., Stanojević, M., Stabler, E.: The active-filler strategy in a move-eager left-corner minimalist grammar parser. In: Proceedings of the 9th Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics (CMCL 2019). Association for Computational Linguistics (2019)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Johnson, M.: Transforming projective bilexical dependency grammars into efficiently-parsable CFGs with unfold-fold. In: Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics, pp. 168–175. Association for Computational Linguistics (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kanazawa, M.: Parsing and generation as datalog queries. In: Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics, pp. 176–183. Association for Computational Linguistics, Prague, June 2007Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kobele, G.M.: Across-the-board extraction in minimalist grammars. In: Proceedings of the Ninth International Workshop on Tree Adjoining Grammar and Related Frameworks (TAG+ 9), pp. 113–120. Association for Computational Linguistics (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kobele, G.M., Gerth, S., Hale, J.: Memory resource allocation in top-down minimalist parsing. In: Morrill, G., Nederhof, M.J. (eds.) FG 2012-2013. LNCS, vol. 8036, pp. 32–51. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39998-5_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Koopman, H., Szabolcsi, A.: Verbal Complexes. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    McAllester, D.: On the complexity analysis of static analyses. J. ACM 49(4), 512–537 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Michaelis, J.: Derivational minimalism is mildly context–sensitive. In: Moortgat, M. (ed.) LACL 1998. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2014, pp. 179–198. Springer, Heidelberg (2001).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45738-0_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Michaelis, J.: Notes on the complexity of complex heads in a minimalist grammar. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Tree Adjoining Grammar and Related Frameworks (TAG+ 6), pp. 57–65 (2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Radford, A.: Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the Structure of English. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shepherdson, J.C.: Unfold/fold transformations of logic programs. Math. Struct. Comput. Sci. 2(2), 143–157 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shieber, S.M., Schabes, Y., Pereira, F.C.: Principles and implementation of deductive parsing. J. Logic Program. 24(1–2), 3–36 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sportiche, D., Koopman, H., Stabler, E.: An Introduction to Syntactic Analysis and Theory. Wiley, Hoboken (2013)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stabler, E.: Derivational minimalism. In: Retoré, C. (ed.) LACL 1996. LNCS, vol. 1328, pp. 68–95. Springer, Heidelberg (1997).  https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0052152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stabler, E.P.: Recognizing head movement. In: de Groote, P., Morrill, G., Retoré, C. (eds.) LACL 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2099, pp. 245–260. Springer, Heidelberg (2001).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48199-0_15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stabler, E.: Comparing 3 perspectives on head movement. In: From Head Movement and Syntactic Theory, UCLA/Potsdam Working Papers in Linguistics, pp. 178–198 (2003)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Stabler, E.: Computational perspectives on minimalism. In: Boeckx, C. (ed.) Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism, pp. 617–641. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2011)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Stabler, E.: Top-down recognizers for MCFGs and MGs. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics, pp. 39–48. Association for Computational Linguistics, Portland, Oregon, June 2011Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Stabler, E.: Two models of minimalist, incremental syntactic analysis. Top. Cogn. Sci. 5(3), 611–633 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stanojević, M., Stabler, E.: A sound and complete left-corner parsing for minimalist grammars. In: Proceedings of the Eight Workshop on Cognitive Aspects of Computational Language Learning and Processing, pp. 65–74. Association for Computational Linguistics (2018)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Stanojević, M.: Minimalist grammar transition-based parsing. In: Amblard, M., de Groote, P., Pogodalla, S., Retoré, C. (eds.) LACL 2016. LNCS, vol. 10054, pp. 273–290. Springer, Heidelberg (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53826-5_17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Torr, J.: Constraining MGbank: agreement, l-selection and supertagging in minimalist grammars. In: Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, Melbourne (2018)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Torr, J., Stabler, E.: Coordination in minimalist grammars. In: Proceedings of the 12th Annual Workshop on Tree-Adjoining Grammars and Related Formalisms (TAG+ 12) (2016)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Torr, J., Stanojević, M., Steedman, M., Cohen, S.: Wide-coverage neural A* parsing for minimalist grammars. In: Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Vol. 1: Long Papers). Association for Computational Linguistics, Florence (2019)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of InformaticsUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations