Advertisement

Subjacency in a Principle-Based Parser

  • Bradley L. Pritchett
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 44)

Abstract

Recent wide-spread shifts in the conception of grammar from a system of rules to a system of constraints on representation has raised the possibility that a similar refocusing might also be appropriate with respect to performance and in particular natural language processing. This chapter explores certain empirical and theoretical issues relevant to principle-based approaches to parsing with special attention to the processing of long-distance dependencies.

Keywords

Relative Clause Parse Tree Head Noun Complement Clause Internal Domain 
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. Abney, S.: 1987, The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, Massachusetts Institute sof Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  2. Abney, S.: 1988, ‘On the Notion GB-parser and Psychological Reality’, in S. Abney (ed.), The MIT Parsing Volume, 1987–1988, Center for Cognitive Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 1–18.Google Scholar
  3. Aoun, J.: 1979, Generalized Binding, Foris, Dordrecht, Holland.Google Scholar
  4. Baker, C.: 1970, ‘Notes on the Description of the English Questions: The Role of an Abstract Question Morpheme’, Foundations of Language 6, 197–219.Google Scholar
  5. Berwick, R.: 1988 Principle-Based Parsing and Parsing Efficiency, paper presented at the University of Maryland Conference on Grammar and Language Processing, University of Maryland and College Park, College Park, Maryland.Google Scholar
  6. Berwick, R.: 1987, 1991 forthcoming, ‘Principle-Based Parsing’, in P. Sells, S. Shieber, and T. Wasow (eds.), Foundational Issues in Natural Language Processing, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Also MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory Technical Report 972, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  7. Berwick, R. and A. Weinberg: 1984, The Grammatical Basis of Linguistic Performance, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  8. Bever, T. and B. McElree: 1988, ‘Empty Categories Access Their Antecedents During Comprehension’, Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 35–43.Google Scholar
  9. Carlson, G. and M. Tanenhaus: 1988, ‘Thematic Roles and Language Comprehension’, in W. Wilkins (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 21: Thematic Relations, Academic Press, New York, pp. 263–288.Google Scholar
  10. Chomsky, N.: 1988, ‘Linguistics and Adjacent Fields: the State of the Art’, unpublished manuscript, Department of Linguistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  11. Chomsky, N.: 1973, ‘Conditions on Transformations’, in S. Anderson and P. Kiparksy (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York, pp. 232–286.Google Scholar
  12. Chomsky, N.: 1977, ‘On Wh-Movement’, in P. Culicover, T. Wasow, and A. Akmajian (eds.), Formal Syntax, Academic Press, New York, pp. 71–132.Google Scholar
  13. Chomsky, N.: 1981, Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures, Foris, Dordrecht, Holland.Google Scholar
  14. Chomsky, N.: 1982, Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  15. Chomsky, N.: 1986a, Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use, Praeger Publishers, New York.Google Scholar
  16. Chomsky, N.: 1986b, Barriers, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  17. Chung, S.: forthcoming, ‘Sentential Subjects and Proper Government in Chamorro’, in C. Georgeopolous and R. Ishihara (eds.), Interdisciplinary Approaches to Language: Essays in Honor of S. Y. Kuroda, Kluwer, Dordrecht, Holland.Google Scholar
  18. Engdahl, E.: 1983, ‘Parasitic Gaps’, Linguistics and Philosophy, 6, 5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fiengo, R., J. Huang, H. Lasnik, and T. Reinhart: 1988, ‘The Syntax of Wh-in-situ’, Proceedings of the 7th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Stanford Linguistics Association, Stanford, California, pp. 81–98.Google Scholar
  20. Fodor, J.D.: 1978, ‘Parsing Strategies and Constraints on Transformations’, Linguistic Inquiry 8, 427–473.Google Scholar
  21. Fodor J.D.: 1983, ‘Phrase Structure Parsing and the Island Constraints’, Linguistics and Philosophy 6, 163–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fodor, J.D.: 1984, ‘Constraints on Gaps: Is the Parser a Significant Influence’, in B. Butterword, B. Comrie, and O. Dahl (eds.), Explanations for Language Universals, Mouton, Cambridge, England, pp. 9–34.Google Scholar
  23. Fodor, J.D.: 1985, ‘Deterministic Parsing and Subjacency’, Language and Cognitive Processes 1, pp. 3–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Frazier, L. and K. Rayner: 1982, ‘Making and Correcting Errors During Sentence Comprehension: Eye Movements in the Analysis of Structurally Ambiguous Sentences’, Cognitive Psychology 14, 178–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gibson T.: 1988, ‘Subjacency and the Minimality Condition’, Proceedings of the New England Linguistic Society 19, pp. 127–141.Google Scholar
  26. Huang, J.: 1982, Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  27. Johnson, M.: this volume, ‘Deductive Parsing: the Use of Knowledge of Language’, pp. 39–64.Google Scholar
  28. Kaplan, R. and A. Zaenen: 1989, ‘Long-Distance Dependencies, Constituent Structure, and Functional Uncertainty’, in M. Baltin and A. Kroch (eds.), Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, pp. 17–42.Google Scholar
  29. Kuno, S. and K. Takami: 1990, ‘Remarks on Barriers’, unpublished manuscript, Department of Linguistics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  30. Larson, R.: 1988, ‘On the Double Object Construction’, Linguistic Inquiry 19, 335–391.Google Scholar
  31. Lasnik, H. and M. Saito: 1984, ‘On the Nature of Proper Government’, Linguistic Inquiry 15, 235–289.Google Scholar
  32. Lasnik, H. and M. Saito: 1990, ‘Move-α’, unpublished manuscript, Department of Linguistics, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut.Google Scholar
  33. Lightfoot, D. and A. Weinberg: 1988, ‘Review of Chomsky’s Barriers’, Language 64, 366–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Marcus, M.: 1980, A Theory of Syntactic Recognition for Natural Language, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  35. McElree, B. and T. Bever: 1989, ‘The Psychological Reality of Linguistically Defined Gaps’, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 18, 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nicol, J. and D. Swinney: 1989, ‘The Role of Structure in Coreference Assignment During Comprehension’, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 18, 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nishigauchi, T.: 1986, Quantification in Syntax, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  38. Pesetsky, D.: 1982, Paths and Categories, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  39. Pesetsky, D.: 1987, ‘Wh-in-Situ: Movement and Unselective Binding’, in E. Reuland and A. ter Meulen (eds.), The Representation of (In)definiteness, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 98–129.Google Scholar
  40. Pritchett, B.: 1987, Garden Path Phenomena and the Grammatical Basis of Language Processing, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Linguistics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts (forthcoming University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois).Google Scholar
  41. Pritchett, B.: 1988a, ‘Garden Path Phenomena and the Grammatical Basis of Language Processing’, Language 64, 539–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pritchett, B.: 1988b, ‘Processing Double Object Constructions’, paper presented at the University of Maryland Conference on Grammar and Language Processing, University of Maryland at College Park, College Park, Maryland.Google Scholar
  43. Pritchett, B.: 1989, ‘Island Violations Are Garden Paths’, paper presented at the Ottawa Psycholinguistics of Island Constraints Conference, Department of Linguistics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.Google Scholar
  44. Rizzi, L.: 1982, Issues in Italian Syntax, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  45. Ross, J.: 1967, Constraints on Variables in Syntax, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Linguistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts (also published 1986 as Infinite Syntax!, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey).Google Scholar
  46. Sportiche, D.: 1988, ‘Conditions on Silent Categories’, unpublished manuscript, Department of Linguistics, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.Google Scholar
  47. Stowe, L.: 1984, Models of Gap-Location in the Human Language Processor, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin at Madison, Madison, Wisconsin.Google Scholar
  48. Stowell, T.: 1981, Origins of Phrase Structure, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  49. Stowell, T.: 1989, ‘Subjects, Specifiers, and \( \bar{X} \) Theory’s, in M. Baltin and A. Kroch (eds.), Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, pp. 232–262.Google Scholar
  50. Taraldsen, K.: 1981, ‘The Theoretical Interpretation of a Class of Marked Extractions’, in A. Beletti, L. Brandi, and L. Rizzi (eds.), The Theory of Markedness in Generative Grammar, Proceedings of the 1979 GLOW Conference, Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa, Italy, pp. 475–516.Google Scholar
  51. Wehrli, E.: 1988, ‘Parsing with a GB-Grammar’, in U. Reyle and C. Rohrer (eds.), Natural Language Parsing and Linguistic Theories, Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland, pp. 177–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Weinberg, A.: 1988, Locality Principles in Syntax and Parsing, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  53. Whitman, J.: 1987, ‘Configurationality Parameters’, in T. Imai and M. Saito (eds.), Issues in Japanese Linguistics, Foris, Dordrecht, Holland, pp. 351–374.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bradley L. Pritchett
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations