No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Parsing in the Minimalist Program: On SOV Languages andRelativization
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 June 2016
Abstract
I examine computational issues in the processing of SOV languages in theprobe-goal theory of the Minimalist Program. A theory that minimizes search,such as the probe-goal theory, provides a strong linguistic basis for theinvestigation of efficient parsing architecture. For parsing, two main designchallenges are presented: (i) how to limit search while incrementally recoveringstructure from input without the benefit of a pre-determined lexical array, and(ii) how to come up with a system that not only correctly resolves parsingambiguities, but does so with mechanisms that are architecturally justified. Itake as the starting point an existing probe-goal parser with features thatallow it to compute syntactic representation without recourse to derivationhistory search. I extend this parser to handle pre-nominal relative clauses ofthe sort found in SOV languages. I provide a unified computational account offacts on possessor (and non-possessor) relativization and processing preferencesin Turkish, Japanese, and Korean.
Résumé
Je m’adresse ici à des questions d’ordre informatique dansle traitement des langues SOV à l’intérieur de lathéorie sonde-cible (probe-goal) du programmeminimaliste. Une théorie qui minimise l’effort de la fouille,telle que la théorie sonde-cible, donne une forte base linguistique pourl’investigation d’une architecture efficace des analyseurssyntagmatiques des langues naturelles.
Pour cette dernière, deux défis d’ordre conceptuel seprésentent : (i) comment limiter la fouille par incréments tout enrécupérant la structure des données d’entréesans faire appel à un ensemble lexical prédéterminéet (ii) comment développer un système qui peut non seulementrésoudre des ambiguïtés d’analyse, mais qui le faitsur la base de mécanismes qui sont justifiés parl’architecture. Comme point de départ, je prends un analyseursonde-cible préexistant avec des traits qui permettent un calcul de lareprésentation syntaxique sans recours aux étapesdérivationelles antérieures de la fouille. J’étendsl’application de cet analyseur aux relatives prénominales qui setrouvent dans les langues SOV. J’offre une analyse unifiée dutraitement informatique de la relativisation des possesseurs (etnon-possesseurs) et des préférences de traitement en turc, enjaponais et en coréen.
Information
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 53 , Issue 2-3 , November 2008 , pp. 237 - 252
- Copyright
- Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2008
References
Chomsky, Noam. 1998. Minimalist inquines: The
framework. MIT Occasional Papers in
Linguistics
15.Google Scholar
Di Scuillo, Anna Maria. 2002. The asymmetry of
morphology. In Many morphologies, ed. Boucher, Paul, 1–28. Somerville,
MA:
Cascadilla.Google Scholar
Fong, Sandiway. 2005. Computation with probes and goals: A
parsing perspective. In UG and external systems:
Language, brain and computation, ed. DiSciullo, Anna Maria, 311–333.
Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fukui, Naoki, and Takano, Yuji. 1988. Symmetry in syntax: Merge and
demerge. Journal of East Asian Linguistics
7:27–86.Google Scholar
Hasegawa, Nobuko. 2005. EPP materialized first, AGREE later: Subject
positions and mo-phrases in Japanese. Paper read at the MIT
Workshop on Japanese/Korean Linguistics, Cambridge,
MA.Google Scholar
Hirose, Yuki. 2003. Recycling prosodie
boundaries. Journal of Psycholinguistic
Research
32:162–195.Google Scholar
Hsiao, Franny, and Gibson, Edward. 2003. Processing relative clauses in
Chinese. Cognition
90:3–27.Google Scholar
Lin, Chien-Jer Charles, and Bever, Thomas G.. 2006. Subject preference in the processing
of relative clauses in Chinese. In Proceedings of
the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL), ed.
Montero, Donald Baumer David, and Scanlon, Michael, 254–260. Somerville,
MA: Cascadilla Proceedings
Project.Google Scholar
Joshi, Aravind K., and Schabes, Yves. 1997. Tree-adjoining
grammars. In Handbook of formal languages,
Vol. 3, ed. Rozenberg, Grzegorz and Salomaa, Arto, 69–123. New York:
Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Shige-Yuki. 1988. Whether we agree or not: A
comparative syntax of English and Japanese. In
Papers from the Second International Workshop on Japanese
Syntax, ed. Poser, William J., 103–143. Stanford,
CA: Center for the Study of Lanugage and
Information.Google Scholar
Miller, George A., and Chomsky, Noam. 1963. Finitary models of language
users. In Handbook of mathematical
psychology, Vol. 2., ed. Luce, Duncan R., Bush, Robert R., and Galanter, Eugene, 419–491. New York:
John Wiley.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2004. On the EPP.
MIT Working Papers in Linguistics
49: Perspectives on Phases, ed. McGinnis, Martha and Richards, Norvin, 201–236.Google Scholar
Miyamoto, Edson T., and Nakamura, Michiko. 2003. Subject/object asymmetries in the
processing of relative clauses in Japanese. In
Proceedings of the 22nd West Coast Conference on Formal
Linguistics, ed. Garding, Gina and Tsujimura, Mimu, 342–355. Somerville,
MA: Cascadilla Proceedings
Project.Google Scholar
Ozturk, Balkiz. 2004. Agent incorporation. Paper read at
EC05 Syntax Workshop, University of Maryland,
College Park.Google Scholar
Phillips, Colin. 1995. Order and Structure. Doctoral
dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.Google Scholar
Stabler, Ed. 2001. Minimalist grammars and
recognition. In Linguistic form and its
computation, ed. Rohrer, Christian, Rossdeutscher, Antje and Kamp, Hans, 327–352. Stanford,
CA: Center for the Study of Language and
Information.Google Scholar
Woods, W.A.
1970. Transition network grammars for natural
language analysis. Communications of the Association
for Computing Machinery:
13:591–606.Google Scholar
Yamashita, Hiroko. 1994. Processing of Japanese and Korean.
Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State
University.Google Scholar