Skip to main content

A Single Movement Normal Form for Minimalist Grammars

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Formal Grammar (FG 2015, FG 2016)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 9804))

Abstract

Movement is the locus of power in Minimalist grammars (MGs) but also their primary source of complexity. In order to simplify future analysis of the formalism, we prove that every MG can be converted into a strongly equivalent MG where every phrase moves at most once. The translation procedure is implemented via a deterministic linear tree transduction on the derivation tree language and induces at most a linear blow-up in the size of the lexicon.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Strictly speaking the optimal case is for \(\tau \) to reduce the size of the lexicon. But as far as we can tell this only happens with needlessly redundant MGs such as the one below, where the SMNF lexicon contains only 5 instead of 7 entries.

    figure c

    A minor change to the grammar immediately undoes the size benefits of SMNF. All it takes is to replace by . The SMNF lexicon then has 8 entries instead of 7 (1 for b, 2 for m and 5 for c).

References

  1. Abels, K.: Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition stranding. Ph.D. thesis, University of Conneticut (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Baker, B.S.: Composition of top-down and bottom-up tree transductions. Inf. Control 41, 186–213 (1979)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Engelfriet, J.: Bottom-up and top-down tree transformations – a comparison. Math. Syst. Theor. 9, 198–231 (1975)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Graf, T.: Closure properties of minimalist derivation tree languages. In: Pogodalla, S., Prost, J.-P. (eds.) Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics. LNCS, vol. 6736, pp. 96–111. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Graf, T.: Locality and the complexity of minimalist derivation tree languages. In: Groote, P., Nederhof, M.-J. (eds.) Formal Grammar 2010/2011. LNCS, vol. 7395, pp. 208–227. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Graf, T.: Movement-generalized minimalist grammars. In: Béchet, D., Dikovsky, A. (eds.) Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics. LNCS, vol. 7351, pp. 58–73. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Graf, T.: Local and transderivational constraints in syntax and semantics. Ph.D. thesis, UCLA (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Graf, T., Heinz, J.: Commonality in disparity: the computational view of syntax and phonology. In: Slides of a talk given at GLOW 2015, 18 April, Paris, France (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Harkema, H.: A characterization of minimalist languages. In: de Groote, P., Morrill, G., Retoré, C. (eds.) LACL 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2099, pp. 193–211. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Heinz, J., Rawal, C., Tanner, H.G.: Tier-based strictly local constraints in phonology. In: Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 58–64 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kobele, G.M.: Generating copies: an investigation into structural identity in language and grammar. Ph.D. thesis, UCLA (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kobele, G.M.: Without remnant movement, MGs are context-free. In: Ebert, C., Jäger, G., Michaelis, J. (eds.) MOL 10/11. LNCS, vol. 6149, pp. 160–173. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Kobele, G.M.: Minimalist tree languages are closed under intersection with recognizable tree languages. In: Pogodalla, S., Prost, J.-P. (eds.) Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics. LNCS, vol. 6736, pp. 129–144. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Kobele, G.M., Retoré, C., Salvati, S.: An automata-theoretic approach to minimalism. In: Rogers, J., Kepser, S. (eds.) Model Theoretic Syntax at 10, pp. 71–80 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Michaelis, J.: Transforming linear context-free rewriting systems into minimalist grammars. In: de Groote, P., Morrill, G., Retoré, C. (eds.) LACL 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2099, pp. 228–244. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Ristad, E.S.: Computational structure of human languages. Ph.D. thesis, MIT (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Stabler, E.P.: Derivational minimalism. In: Retoré, C. (ed.) LACL 1996. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1328, pp. 68–95. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Stabler, E.P.: Computational perspectives on minimalism. In: Boeckx, C. (ed.) Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism, pp. 617–643. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Stabler, E.P.: Bayesian, minimalist, incremental syntactic analysis. Top. Cogn. Sci. 5, 611–633 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Graf .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

A Specification of SMNF Transducer

A Specification of SMNF Transducer

A bottom-up tree transducer is a 5-tuple \(\tau \mathrel {\mathop :}=\left\langle \varSigma , \varOmega , Q, F, \varDelta \right\rangle \), where \(\varSigma \) and \(\varOmega \) are ranked alphabets, Q is a finite set of states, \(F \subseteq Q\) is the set of final states, and \(\varDelta \) is a finite set of transduction rules. Each transduction rule is of the form \(f(q_1(x_1), \ldots , q_n(x_n)) \rightarrow q(t)\) such that f is an n-ary symbol in \(\varSigma \) (\( n \ge 0\)), \(q, q_1, \ldots , q_n \in Q\), and t is a tree with node labels drawn from \(\varOmega \) and the nullary symbols \(x_1, \ldots , x_n\). The transducer is linear iff each \(x_i\) may occur at most once in t. It is non-deleting iff each \(x_i\) occurs at least once in t. It is non-deterministic iff at least two transduction rules have the same left-hand side.

A \((\varSigma _1, \ldots , \varSigma _n)\)-tree is a tree whose nodes are labeled with symbols from \(\bigcup _{1 \le i \le n} \varSigma _i\). Given \((\varSigma ,Q)\)-tree u and \((\varOmega ,Q)\)-tree v, \(\tau \) immediately derives v from u (\(u \Rightarrow _\tau v\)) iff there is a transduction rule such that u has the shape \(f(q_1(u_1), \ldots , q_n(u_n))\)—where each \(u_i\) is the subtree of u immediately dominated by \(q_i\)—and v is the result of substituting \(u_i\) for \(x_i\) in t. We use \(\Rightarrow ^+_\tau \) to denote the transitive closure of \(\Rightarrow _\tau \). The transduction computed by \(\tau \) is the set \(\tau \mathrel {\mathop :}=\{ \left\langle u,v \right\rangle \mid u \Rightarrow ^+_\tau q_f(v), u\) a \(\varSigma \)-tree, and \(q_f \in F\}\). We furthermore let \(\tau (s) \mathrel {\mathop :}=\left\{ \left\langle s,t \right\rangle \in \tau \right\} \), and \(\tau (L) \mathrel {\mathop :}=\bigcup _{s \in L} \tau (s)\) for L a tree language.

We now define a non-deterministic linear bottom-up tree transducer that brings Minimalist derivation trees into SMNF. The transducer is almost non-deleting as it only deletes intermediate Move nodes. Consequently, it can be regarded as the composition of a non-deterministic relabeling and a deterministic transducer that deletes Move nodes marked for removal. Before moving on, we introduce an additional piece of MG notation. In a standard MG, every useful LI must be of the form \(\gamma c \delta \), where \(\gamma \) is a string of licensor and selector feature, c is a category feature, and \(\delta \) is a string of 0 or more licensee features. Given a feature component s, m(s) is obtained from s by removing all Merge features. We overload m such that for every LI , \(m(l) \mathrel {\mathop :}=m(s)\).

The SMNF transducer has to handle three tasks in parallel: (i) detect and delete intermediate Move nodes, (ii) modify the feature components of LIs, and (iii) ensure that each licensee feature is subscripted with the smallest possible natural number. Consequently, each state has a tripartite structure

figure g

such that \(n \le \mu \) (the upper bound on the grammar’s traffic), \(u_i\) keeps track of the unchecked Move features of some LI l, \(m_i\) records how m(l) was modified, and \(I_i\) stores which required indices have not been encountered yet. More precisely: for each \(u_i\) there is some LI l with \(u_i\) a suffix of m(l); \(m_i\) is a string of indexed Move features and the distinguished symbol \(\Box \) such that removal of indices and \(\Box \) yields a subsequence of m(l) including the final licensee feature; and \(I_i\) is some subset of the closed interval \([0, \mu -1]\) of natural numbers. Among all these states, the only final state is the empty state \(\left\langle \right\rangle \).

While the transducer has a large number of rules, they can easily be compressed into a few templates using algebraic operations. First, we define a non-deterministic relabeling \(\ell \) operating on MG feature strings that preserves all Merge features and either deletes Move features or relabels them:

figure h

We extend \(\ell \) to LIs: if , then \(\ell (l)\) is if \(n = 0\) and otherwise. In addition, h is a homomorphism that replaces the distinguished symbol \(\Box \) by \(\varepsilon \) in every string. The transduction rules for leaf nodes now follow a simple template:

figure i

For Merge we use a binary operator \(\otimes \) that combines all the components of the states.

$$ \left\langle \begin{array}{c} {u_1, \ldots , u_j} \\ {m_1, \ldots , m_j}\\ {I_1, \ldots , I_j}\end{array}\right\rangle \otimes \left\langle \begin{array}{c} {u_{j+1}, \ldots , u_k} \\ {m_{j+1}, \ldots , m_k}\\ {I_{j+1}, \ldots , I_k}\end{array}\right\rangle \mathrel {\mathop :}=\left\langle \begin{array}{c} {u_1, \ldots , u_j, u_{j+1}, \ldots , u_k} \\ {m_1, \ldots , m_j, m_{j+1}, \ldots , m_k}\\ {I_1, \ldots , I_j, I_{j+1}, \ldots , I_k}\end{array}\right\rangle $$

\( \mathbf {Merge.} \bullet ( q(x), q'(y) ) \Rightarrow q \otimes q'(\bullet (x,y)) \)

The Move rules have to handle most of the work in the transducer. First, they have to delete movement features in the top component and use this information to decide whether the Move node is final or intermediate. Licensor features in the second component must also be removed, and the same goes for licensee features if the Move node is final. In the latter case, the index of the checked licensee feature is removed from all other index sets. Checking of a licensee feature, in turn, is only possible if its index set is empty.

As before, we simplify our presentation by using an algebraic operator \(\ominus \), which takes care of updating index sets. Given a state q with index set \(I_j\) at position j, \(I_j \ominus _f k = I_j - \left\{ k \right\} \) if \(m_j\) ends in some subscripted version of \(\mathrm {f^-}\). In all other cases, \(I_j \ominus _f k = I_j\). The transition rules for intermediate and final movement are now captured by four distinct cases. We only give two here, the other two are their mirror image with the order of \(\mathrm {f^+}\delta _j\) and \(\mathrm {f^-}\delta _k\) switched.

figure j

Note that since the transducer is restricted to well-formed derivation trees, at most one component of a state can contain licensor features. Similarly, the SMC prevents any two \(u_i\) from starting with the same licensee feature, so the indices j and k in the template are always uniquely identified.

A few clarifying remarks may be in order. First, note that the transducer always halts if it finds a case of intermediate movement but did not delete the corresponding licensor feature earlier on. This is enforced by \(m_j\) starting with \(\Box \). Second, the index set \(I_j\) is not updated for final movement. That is because the corresponding LI has not started to move yet, so its index set is not active yet. If \(I_j\) were updated, then an LI that licenses \(f_2\) movement would be allowed to undergo \(f_3\) movement even if \(f_2\) movement is possible, too.

To sum up, given an MG with lexicon \( Lex \), the SMNF transducer \(\tau \) has input alphabet \(\varSigma \mathrel {\mathop :}= Lex ^{(0)} \cup \left\{ \circ ^{(1)}, \bullet ^{(2)} \right\} \) and output alphabet \(\varOmega \mathrel {\mathop :}=\bigcup _{l \in Lex } h(\ell (l))^{(0)} \cup \left\{ \circ ^{(1)}, \bullet ^{(2)} \right\} \). Its state set Q consists of all possible tripartite tuples as defined at the beginning of this section. While this set is large, it is guaranteed to be finite. The empty state \(\left\langle \right\rangle \) is the only final state, and the set \(\varDelta \) of transduction rules contains all possible instantiations of the templates above given Q.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Graf, T., Aksënova, A., De Santo, A. (2016). A Single Movement Normal Form for Minimalist Grammars. In: Foret, A., Morrill, G., Muskens, R., Osswald, R., Pogodalla, S. (eds) Formal Grammar. FG FG 2015 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9804. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53042-9_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53042-9_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-53041-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-53042-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics