Acquiring Languages with Movement

A simple kind of “minimalist” transformational grammar is defined to study the problem of learning a language in which pronounced constituents may have moved arbitrarily far from their original sites. In these grammars, all linguistic variation is lexical: constituent order is determined by lexical functional elements, and structure building operations are universal. Given universal constraints on the category system, these grammars can be identified in the limit from a positive text of derived structures, where these structures contain no features except the pronounced, phonetic elements. Identification from pronounced strings alone is shown to be impossible. In the light of this last negative result and related problems, rather than assuming that the learner somehow determines constituent structure from prosodic and semantic cues, an alternative approach to the learning problem is proposed.

[1]  Z. Harris,et al.  Methods in structural linguistics. , 1952 .

[2]  Zellig S. Harris,et al.  Methods in structural linguistics. , 1952 .

[3]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  वाक्यविन्यास का सैद्धान्तिक पक्ष = Aspects of the theory of syntax , 1965 .

[4]  George R. Kiss,et al.  Grammatical Word Classes: A Learning Process and its Simulation , 1973 .

[5]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Lectures on Government and Binding , 1981 .

[6]  Tim Stowell,et al.  Origins of phrase structure , 1981 .

[7]  Robert C. Berwick,et al.  Locality principles and the acquisition of syntactic knowledge , 1982 .

[8]  Joseph E. Emonds,et al.  A unified theory of syntactic categories , 1985 .

[9]  L. Rizzi Null objects in Italian and the theory of 'pro' , 1986 .

[10]  Robin Clark On the Relationship between the Input Data and Parameter Setting , 1987 .

[11]  Luigi Rizzi,et al.  On the format for parameters , 1989, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[12]  Jean-Yves Pollock Verb movement, universal grammar and the structure of IP , 1989 .

[13]  Yasubumi Sakakibara,et al.  Efficient Learning of Context-Free Grammars from Positive Structural Examples , 1992, Inf. Comput..

[14]  Barbara B. Levin,et al.  English verb classes and alternations , 1993 .

[15]  S. J. Keyser,et al.  The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger , 1993 .

[16]  Ken Hale,et al.  On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations , 1993 .

[17]  J. Elman Learning and development in neural networks: the importance of starting small , 1993, Cognition.

[18]  Richard S. Kayne The Antisymmetry of Syntax , 1994 .

[19]  Hilda Koopman,et al.  On verbs that fail to undergo V-second , 1995 .

[20]  Mark C. Baker,et al.  The Polysynthesis Parameter , 1995 .

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

[22]  P. Niyogi,et al.  Learning from triggers , 1996 .

[23]  S. Kapur,et al.  On the use of triggers in parameter setting , 1996 .

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

[25]  Jonathan David Bobaljik,et al.  Interarboreal operations : Head movement and the extension requirement , 1997 .

[26]  T. A. Cartwright,et al.  Syntactic categorization in early language acquisition: formalizing the role of distributional analysis , 1997, Cognition.

[27]  Anoop Mahajan,et al.  Universal Grammar and the Typology of Ergative Languages , 1997 .

[28]  Edward P. Stabler,et al.  Syntactic Invariants , 1997 .

[29]  J. Zwart The Minimalist Program , 1998, Journal of Linguistics.

[30]  Hiroyuki Ura,et al.  Multiple Feature-Checking: A Theory of Grammatical Function Splitting , 1998 .

[31]  Makoto Kanazawa Learnable Classes of Categorial Grammars , 1998 .

[32]  Jeff MacSwan,et al.  A Minimalist Approach to Intrasentential Code Switching , 1999 .

[33]  Peter B. Henderson,et al.  Inductive reasoning , 2003, SGCS.