Skip to main content

A Note on the Complexity of Constraint Interaction: Locality Conditions and Minimalist Grammars

  • Conference paper
Book cover Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics (LACL 2005)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 3492))

Abstract

Locality Conditions (LCs) on (unbounded) dependencies have played a major role in the development of generative syntax ever since the seminal work by Ross [22]. Descriptively, they fall into two groups. On the one hand there are intervention-based LCs (ILCs) often formulated as “minimality constraints” (“minimal link condition,” “minimize chain links”, “shortest move”, “attract closest,” etc.). On the other hand there are containment-based LCs (CLCs) typically de.ned in terms of (generalized) grammatical functions (“adjunct island”, “subject island”, “specifier island”, etc.). Research on LCs has been dominated by two very general trends. First, attempts have been made at unifying ILCs and CLCs on the basis of notions such as “government” and “barrier” (e.g. [4]). Secondly, research has often been guided by the intuition that, beyond empirical coverage, LCs somehow contribute to restricting the formal capacity of grammars (cf. [3–p. 125], [6–p. 14f]). Both these issues, we are going to argue, can be fruitfully studied within the framework of minimalist grammars (MGs) as defined by Stabler [25]. In particular, we are going to demonstrate that there is a specic asymmetry between the in.uence of ILCs and CLCs on complexity. Thus, MGs, including an ILC, namely, the shortest move condition (SMC) have been shown to belong to the mildly context-sensitive grammar formalisms by Michaelis [14]. The same has been shown in [16, 18] for a revised version of MGs introduced in [26], which includes the SMC and an additional CLC, namely, the specifier island condition (SPIC). In particular [14] and [16, 18] show that, in terms of derivable string languages, both the original MG-type and the revised MG-type constitute a subclass of the class of linear context-free rewriting systems (LCFRSs) in the sense of [28, 29], and thus, a series of other formalism classes all generating the same class of string languages as LCFRSs. Here we will demonstrate that removing the SMC from the revised MG-version increases the generative power in such a way that the resulting formalism is not mildly context-sensitive anymore. This suggests that intuitions to the contrary notwithstanding, imposing an LC as such, here the SPIC, does not necessarily reduce formal complexity.

This work has been carried out partially funded by DFG-grant. Thanks to two anonymous referees for valuable comments on a previous version of this paper.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Boullier, P.: Proposal for a natural language processing syntactic backbone. Report No. 3342, INRIA research reports, INRIA Rocquencourt (1998), Available at http://www.inria.fr/rrrt/rr-3342.html

  2. Brody, M.: Mirror theory. Syntactic representation in perfect syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 31, 29–65 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Chomsky, N.: On wh-movement. In: Culicover, P., Wasow, T., Akmajian, A. (eds.) Formal Syntax, pp. 71–132. Academic Press, New York (1977)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Chomsky, N.: Barriers. MIT Press, Cambridge (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Chomsky, N.: The Minimalist Program. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Chomsky, N.: Beyond explanatory adequacy. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics (MITOPL # 20), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, Cambridge, MA (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  7. de Groote, P., Morrill, G., Retoré, C.: Logical aspects of computational linguistics: An introduction. In: Retoré, C. (ed.) LACL 1996. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1328, p. 1. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Harkema, H.: A characterization of minimalist languages. In: de Groote, P. (ed.) [7], pp. 193–211.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Jäger, G.: On the generative capacity of multi-modal categorial grammars. Research on Language and Computation 1, 105–125 (2003)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Kobele, G.M.: Formalizing mirror theory. Grammars 5, 177–221 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Gregory, M.: Kobele. Features moving madly. Research on Language and Computation, to appear. Draft version, available at http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/grads/kobele/papers.htm

  12. Koopman, H., Szabolcsi, A.: Verbal Complexes. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lambek, J.: How to program an (infinite) abacus. Canadian Mathematical Bulletin 4, 295–302 (1961)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Michaelis, J.: Derivational minimalism is mildly context-sensitive. In: Moortgat, M. (ed.) LACL 1998. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2014, pp. 179–198. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Michaelis, J.: Observations on strict derivational minimalism. In: FGMOL 2001. Preproceedings. Joint conference of the 6th conference on Formal Grammar and the 7th meeting of the Association for Mathematics of Language, Helsinki (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Jens Michaelis. On Formal Properties of Minimalist Grammars. PhD thesis, Potsdam University, Potsdam (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Michaelis, J.: Transforming linear context-free rewriting systems into minimalist grammars. In: de Groote, P. (ed.) [7], pp. 228–244.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Michaelis, J.: Implications of a revised perspective on minimalist grammars. Draft, Potsdam University (2002), Available at http://www.ling.uni-potsdam.de/~michael/papers.html

  19. Moortgat, M.: Multimodal linguistic inference. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 5, 349–385 (1996)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Morrill, G.: Type Logical Grammar. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1994)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Rambow, O., Satta, G.: Independent parallelism in finite copying parallel rewriting systems. Theoretical Computer Science 223, 87–120 (1999)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. John, R.: Ross. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA (1967)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Rudin, C.: On multiple questions and multiple wh-fronting. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6, 445–501 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Seki, H., Matsumura, T., Fujii, M., Kasami, T.: On multiple context-free grammars. Theoretical Computer Science 88, 191–229 (1991)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. Stabler, E.P.: Derivational minimalism. In: Retoré, C. (ed.) LACL 1996. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1328, pp. 68–95. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Stabler, E.P.: Remnant movement and complexity. In: Bouma, G., Kruijff, G.-J.M., Hinrichs, E., Oehrle, R.T. (eds.) Constraints and Resources in Natural Language Syntax and Semantics, pp. 299–326. CSLI Publications, Stanford (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Steedman, M.: Surface Structure and Interpretation. MIT Press, Cambridge (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Vijay-Shanker, K., Weir, D.J., Joshi, A.K.: Characterizing structural descriptions produced by various grammatical formalisms. In: 25th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 1987), Stanford, CA, pp. 104–111. ACL (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  29. David, J.: Weir. Characterizing Mildly Context-Sensitive Grammar Formalisms. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA (1988)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2005 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Gärtner, HM., Michaelis, J. (2005). A Note on the Complexity of Constraint Interaction: Locality Conditions and Minimalist Grammars. In: Blache, P., Stabler, E., Busquets, J., Moot, R. (eds) Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics. LACL 2005. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 3492. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11422532_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11422532_8

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-25783-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-31953-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics