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

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.

[1]  John Robert Ross,et al.  Constraints on variables in syntax , 1967 .

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

[3]  Pierre Boullier A Proposal for a Natural Lan-guage Processing Syntactic Backbone , 1997 .

[4]  David J. Weir,et al.  Characterizing Structural Descriptions Produced by Various Grammatical Formalisms , 1987, ACL.

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

[6]  Mark Steedman,et al.  Surface structure and interpretation , 1996, Linguistic inquiry.

[7]  Aarne Ranta,et al.  Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics: An Introduction , 1996, LACL.

[8]  Jens Michaelis Some formal implications of a revised perspective on minimalist grammars , 2001 .

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

[10]  Glyn Morrill,et al.  Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics (LACL'01) , 2001 .

[11]  Gerhard Jäger,et al.  On the Generative Capacity of Multi-modal Categorial Grammars , 1998 .

[12]  Jens Michaelis,et al.  Observations on Strict Derivational Minimalism , 2004, Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci..

[13]  J. Lambek How to Program an Infinite Abacus , 1961, Canadian Mathematical Bulletin.

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

[15]  Giorgio Satta,et al.  Independent Parallelism in Finite Copying Parallel Rewriting Systems , 1999, Theor. Comput. Sci..

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

[17]  Gosse Bouma,et al.  Constraints and resources in Natural Language Syntax and Semantics , 1999 .

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

[19]  C. Rudin On multiple questions and multiple WH fronting , 1988 .

[20]  Michael Moortgat,et al.  Multimodal linguistic inference , 1995, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[21]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  On Wh-Movement , 1977 .

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

[23]  Gregory M. Kobele,et al.  Features Moving Madly: A Formal Perspective on Feature Percolation in the Minimalist Program , 2005 .

[24]  Glyn Morrill,et al.  Type Logical Grammar: Categorial Logic of Signs , 1994 .

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

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

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

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