Advertisement

Derivational minimalism

  • Edward Stabler
Invited Papers
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1328)

Abstract

A basic idea of the transformational tradition is that constituents move. More recently, there has been a trend towards the view that all features are lexical features. And in recent “minimalist” grammars, structure building operations are assumed to be feature driven. A simple grammar formalism with these properties is presented here and briefly explored. Grammars in this formalism can define languages that are not in the “mildly context sensitive” class defined by Vijay-Shanker and Weir (1994).

Keywords

Noun Phrase Linguistic Inquiry Syntactic Feature Maximal Projection Phonetic Feature 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Mark Baker. The Polysynthesis Parameter. Oxford University Press, New York, 1996.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Winfried Boeder. Suffixaufname in Kartvelian. In Frans Plank, editor, Double Case: Agreement by Suffixaufnahme. Oxford University Press, New York, 1995.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Denis Bouchard. On the Content of Empty Categories. Foris, Dordrecht, 1984.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Joan Bresnan, Ronald M. Kaplan, Stanley Peters, and Annie Zaenen. Cross-serial dependencies in Dutch. Linguistic Inquiry, 13(4):613–635, 1982.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Michael Brody. Lexico-Logical Form: A Radically Minimalist Theory. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1995.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Noam Chomsky. Barriers. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1986.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Noam Chomsky. The Minimalist Program. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1995.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sandra Chung and James McCloskey. Government, barriers and small clauses in modern Irish. Linguistic Inquiry, 18:173–238, 1987.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Thomas L. Cornell. Deriving the ww language with ΜP style. University of Tübingen, 1996.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Thomas L. Cornell. Representational minimalism. University of Tübingen, 1996.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jane H. Hill and Kenneth C. Hill. Speaking Mexicano. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona, 1986.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Richard Kayne. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1994.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Edward L. Keenan and Edward P. Stabler. Abstract syntax. In Anna-Maria Di Sciullo, editor, Configurations: Essays on Structure and Interpretation, pages 329–344, Somerville, Massachusetts, 1996. Cascadilla Press. Conference version available at http://128.97.8.34/.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hilda Koopman. The Syntax of Verbs: From Verb Movement Rules in the Kru Languages to Universal Grammar. Foris, Dordrecht, 1983.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hilda Koopman. On verbs that fail to undergo V-second. Linguistic Inquiry, 26:137–163, 1995.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hilda Koopman. The spec-head configuration. Syntax at Sunset: UCLA Working Papers in Syntax and Semantics, edited by Edward Garrett and Felicia Lee, 1996.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hilda Koopman and Dominique Sportiche. The position of subjects. Lingua, 85:211–258, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Robert May. Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1985.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dana McDaniel. Partial and multiple wh-movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 7:565–604, 1989.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jens Michaelis and Marcus Kracht. Semilinearity as a syntactic invariant. In Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics (LACL), pages 37–40, 1996.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    David Pesetsky. Principles of sentence pronunciation. MIT Lecture notes. Available at http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/roa.html, 1994.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jean-Yves Pollock. Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry, 20:365–424, 1989.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Daniel Radzinski. Chinese number names, tree adjoining languages and mild context sensitivity. Computational Linguistics, 17:277–300, 1991.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Owen Rambow, K. Vijay-Shanker, and David Weir. D-tree grammars. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 1995. Available at http://xxx.lanl.gov/cmp-lg/ACL-95-proceedings.html.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stuart M. Shieber. Evidence against the context-freeness of natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 8(3):333–344, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ur Shlonsky. Resumptive pronouns as a last resort. Linguistic Inquiry, 23:443–468, 1992.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Edward P. Stabler. Acquiring and parsing languages with movement. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1996. Forthcoming. Draft available at http://128.97.8-34/.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    K. Vijay-Shanker and David Weir. The equivalence of four extensions of context free grammar formalisms. Mathematical Systems Theory, 27:511–545, 1994.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sten Vikner. Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in the Germanic Languages. Oxford University Press, New York, 1995.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Charles Yang. Minimal computation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1996.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Arnold Zwicky. Some languages that are not context free. Technical Report Quarterly Progress Report 70, MIT Research Laboratory of Electronics, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1963.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edward Stabler
    • 1
  1. 1.University of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations