Advertisement

Empty Categories, Chain Binding, and Parsing

  • Nelson Correa
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 44)

Abstract

In Government-Binding (GB) theory, the chief empirical effect of the principle Move-α is the definition of coindexing relations between nodes in phrase structure trees. This situation is explained by the extreme generality of the base component and several substantive constraints on transformations. The constraints on transformations, in particular Emonds’ (1976) Structure Preserving Hypothesis, imply that the base may generate all S-structures of the core constructions of the language in question. The two conditions combine with a shift away from a grammatical model with both conditions on derivations, such as transformational rule ordering, and conditions on representations, such as the Subjacency condition on adjacent chain elements, to a grammatical model that favors representations.1 It follows that the principal function of Move-α in the grammar is not reordering or otherwise rewriting of an input phrase marker for the derivation of S-structure, but rather the above noted establishment of coindexing relations between the nodes in the output representation. The relations in question are trace-antecedent relations. This trend in the role of Move-α in the grammar has been noted in the literature, especially by Koster (1978), Chomsky (1982), and Barss (1983).

Keywords

Noun Phrase Chain Rule Functional Type Phrase Structure Derivation Tree 
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 Abney, S. and J. Cole: 1986, ‘A Government-Binding Parser’, unpublished manuscript, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  2. Aoun, J.: 1985, A Grammar of Anaphora, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  3. Barss, A.: 1983, ‘Chain Binding’, unpublished manuscript, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  4. Berwick, R. and A. Weinberg: 1984, The Grammatical Basis of Linguistic Performance, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  5. Chomsky, N.: 1959, ‘On Certain Formal Properties of Grammar’, Information and Control 2, 137–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chomsky, N.: 1970, ‘Remarks on Nominalization’, in R. Jacobs and P. Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, Ginn and Co., Waltham, Massachusetts, pp. 184–221.Google Scholar
  7. Chomsky, N.: 1980, Rules and Representations, Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Chomsky, N.: 1981, Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures, Foris, Dordrecht, Holland.Google Scholar
  9. Chomsky, N.: 1982, Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  10. Chomsky, N.: 1986, Barriers, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  11. Clocksin, W. and C. Mellish: 1981, Programming in Prolog, Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Correa, N.: 1987, ‘An Attribute Grammar Implementation of Government-Binding Theory’, Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Stanford University, Stanford, California, pp. 45–51.Google Scholar
  13. Emonds, J.: 1976, A Transformational Approach to Syntax, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Heidorn, G.: 1972, Natural Language Inputs to a Simulation System, Naval Postgraduate School, Technical Report No. NPS-55HD72101A, Alexandria, Virginia.Google Scholar
  15. Hoare, C.: 1962, ‘Quicksort’, Computer Journal 5, 10–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Irons, E.: 1961, ‘A Syntax-directed Compiler for ALGOL 60’, Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery 4, 51–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jackendoff, R.: 1977, \( \bar{X} \) Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  18. Jensen, K.: 1986, ‘Binary Rules and Non-binary Trees: Breaking down the Concept of Phrase Structure’, in A. Manaster-Ramer (ed.), Mathematics of Language, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 65–86.Google Scholar
  19. Johnson, M.: this volume, ‘Parsing as Deduction: The Use of Knowledge of Language’, pp. 39–64.Google Scholar
  20. Jones, C.: 1980, Software Development: A Rigorous Approach, Prentice-Hall International, Series in Computer Science, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  21. Kastens, U., B. Hutt, and E. Zimmermann: 1982, GAG: A Practical Compiler Generator, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  22. Knuth, D.: 1968, ‘Semantics of Context-free Languages’, Mathematical Systems Theory 2, 127–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kornai, A.: 1983, \( \bar{X} \) Grammars’, in J. Demetrovics, G. Katrona, and A. Salomaa (eds.), Algebra, Combinatorics, and Logic in Computer Science, vol. 2, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 523–536.Google Scholar
  24. Koster, C.: 1971, ‘Affix Grammars’, in IFIP Working Conference on Algol 68 Implementation, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 95–109.Google Scholar
  25. Koster, J.: 1978, ‘Conditions, Empty Nodes, and Markedness’, Linguistic Inquiry 9, 551–593.Google Scholar
  26. Lasnik, H. and J. Uriagereka: 1988, A Course in GB Syntax: Lectures on Binding and Empty Categories, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  27. Lasnik, H. and M. Saito: 1984, ‘On the Nature of Proper Government’, Linguistic Inquiry 15, 235–289.Google Scholar
  28. Marr, D.: 1977, ‘Artificial Intelligence: A Personal View’, Artificial Intelligence 9, 37–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pesetsky, D.: 1982, Paths and Categories, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  30. Petrick, S.: 1965, A Recognition Procedure for Transformational Grammars, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Linguistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  31. Pullum, G.: 1985, Assuming Some Version of the \( \bar{X} \) Theory, Syntax Research Center, University of California at Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California.Google Scholar
  32. Rizzi, L.: 1986, ‘On Chain Formation’, in H. Borer (ed.), The Grammar of Pronominal Clitics—Syntax and Semantics, vol. 19, Academic Press, New York, pp. 65–95.Google Scholar
  33. Robinson, A.: 1965, ‘A Machine-oriented Logic Based on the Resolution Principle’, Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery 12, 23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sharp, R.: 1985, A Model of Grammar Based on Principles of Government and Binding, M.S. dissertation, Department of Computer Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia.Google Scholar
  35. Shieber, S.: 1986, An Introduction to Unification-based Approaches to Grammar, CSLI Lecture Notes No. 4, University of Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford, California.Google Scholar
  36. Stabler, E. P. Jr.: 1987, ‘Restricting Logic Grammars with Government-Binding Theory’, Computational Linguistics, 13, 1–10.Google Scholar
  37. Steele, S.: 1981, An Encyclopedia of AUX: A Study in Cross-linguistic Equivalence, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  38. Stowell, T.: 1981, Origins of Phrase Structure, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  39. Tamaki, H. and T. Sato: 1984, ‘Fold/Unfold Transformation of Logic Programs’, Proceedings of the Second International Logic Programming Conference, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden, pp. 127–138.Google Scholar
  40. Van Riemsdijk, H. and E. Williams: 1986, An Introduction to the Theory of Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  41. Van Wijngaarden, A. (ed.): 1969, ‘Report on the Algorithmic Language ALGOL 68’, Numerical Mathematics 14, 79–218.Google Scholar
  42. Waite, W. and G. Goos: 1984, Compiler Construction, Springer-Verlag, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Watt, D. and O. Madsen: 1983, ‘Extended Attribute Grammars’, The Computer Journal 26, 142–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nelson Correa
    • 1
  1. 1.Departamento de Ingeníeria EléctricaUniversidad de los AndesBogotá, D.E.Colombia

Personalised recommendations