COMPARING 3 PERSPECTIVES ON HEAD MOVEMENT

In the attempt to understand the fundamental properties of human language, in virtue of which it can be acquired and used as it is, the most common strategy is to propose a grammar G that provides a reasonable account of some particular structures of expressions in particular languages. For example, there are proposals in this volume about verbal complexes in German, about agreement on nouns in Maasai, about A-binding in English, and so on. On the basis of these hypotheses, we can use poverty-of-stimulus arguments, cross-linguistic comparisons, etc. to support universal claims of the following form:

[1]  Dana Angluin,et al.  Inference of Reversible Languages , 1982, JACM.

[2]  Jens Michaelis,et al.  Transforming Linear Context-Free Rewriting Systems into Minimalist Grammars , 2001, LACL.

[3]  Jens Michaelis,et al.  Derivational Minimalism Is Mildly Context-Sensitive , 1998, LACL.

[4]  Edward P. Stabler,et al.  Berwick and Weinberg on linguistics and computational psychology , 1984, Cognition.

[5]  Thomas L. Cornell.  Island effects in type logical approaches to the minimalist program , 1998 .

[6]  Makoto Kanazawa,et al.  Identification in the limit of categorial grammars , 1993, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[7]  Henk Harkema,et al.  A Characterization of Minimalist Languages , 2001, LACL.

[8]  Gregory M. Kobele,et al.  Learning Mirror Theory , 2002, TAG+.

[9]  Robert C. Berwick,et al.  Computational Complexity and Lexical Functional Grammar , 1982, Am. J. Comput. Linguistics.

[10]  Jens Michaelis,et al.  On Formal Properties of Minimalist Grammars , 2001 .

[11]  Mark Johnson,et al.  Attribute-value logic and the theory of grammar , 1988 .

[12]  David J. Weir,et al.  Characterizing mildly context-sensitive grammar formalisms , 1988 .

[13]  Gregory M. Kobele.  Formalizing Mirror Theory , 2002, Grammars.

[14]  Edward P. Stabler,et al.  Remnant movement and complexity , 2000 .

[15]  P. Stanley Peters,et al.  On the generative power of transformational grammars , 1973, Inf. Sci..

[16]  Marcus Kracht,et al.  Semilinearity as a Syntactic Invariant , 1996, LACL.

[17]  Charles E. Taylor,et al.  Identifying Minimalist Languages from Dependency Structures , 2002 .

[18]  Mark Steedman,et al.  The syntactic process , 2004, Language, speech, and communication.

[19]  Eric Sven Ristad.  The language complexity game , 1993 .

[20]  Edward P. Stabler,et al.  Derivational Minimalism , 1996, LACL.

[21]  E. Mark Gold,et al.  Language Identification in the Limit , 1967, Inf. Control..

[22]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  The Minimalist Program , 1992 .

[23]  Leen Torenvliet,et al.  A Note on the Complexity of Restricted Attribute-Value Grammars , 1995, ArXiv.

[24]  M. Brody,et al.  Mirror Theory: Syntactic Representation in Perfect Syntax , 2000, Linguistic Inquiry.

[25]  Edward P. Stabler,et al.  Recognizing Head Movement , 2001, LACL.

[26]  Edward P. Stabler,et al.  Parsing minimalist languages , 2001 .

[27]  Alaa A. Kharbouch,et al.  Three models for the description of language , 1956, IRE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[28]  M. Brody,et al.  Projection and Phrase Structure , 1998, Linguistic Inquiry.

[29]  Tadao Kasami,et al.  On Multiple Context-Free Grammars , 1991, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[30]  Hilary Putnam,et al.  Mind, Language and Reality: Some issues in the theory of grammar , 1975 .

[31]  David J. Weir,et al.  The convergence of mildly context-sensitive grammar formalisms , 1990 .

[32]  Owen C. Ranbow,et al.  Formal and computational aspects of natural language syntax , 1994 .

[33]  Luis Alvarez,et al.  Formalization and computational aspects of image analysis , 1994, Acta Numerica.

[34]  David J. Weir,et al.  The equivalence of four extensions of context-free grammars , 1994, Mathematical systems theory.

[35]  Seth Kulick,et al.  Constraining non-local dependencies in tree-adjoining grammar: computational and linguistic perspectives , 2000 .

[36]  Robin Clark,et al.  Kolmogorov Complexity and the Information Content of Parameters , 1994 .