Evaluating syntactic proposals using minimalist grammars and minimum description length

Ermolaeva, Marina

doi:10.15398/jlm.v11i1.334

Artykuł - szczegóły

Tytuł artykułu

Evaluating syntactic proposals using minimalist grammars and minimum description length

Autorzy

Ermolaeva Marina

Treść / Zawartość

Pełne teksty:

Pobierz

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.15398/jlm.v11i1.334

Warianty tytułu

Języki publikacji

Abstrakty

Many patterns found in natural language syntax have multiple pos-sible explanations or structural descriptions. Even within the cur-rently dominant Minimalist framework (Chomsky 1995, 2000), it is not uncommon to encounter multiple types of analyses for the same phenomenon proposed in the literature. A natural question, then, is whether one could evaluate and compare syntactic proposals from a quantitative point of view. In this paper, we show how an evaluation measure inspired by the minimum description length principle (Rissa-nen 1978) can be used to compare accounts of syntactic phenomena implemented as minimalist grammars (Stabler 1997), and how argu-ments for and against this kind of analysis translate into quantitative differences.

Słowa kluczowe

syntax evaluation measure minimum description length minimalist grammars double object construction

Wydawca

Instytut Podstaw Informatyki PAN

Czasopismo

Journal of Language Modelling

Rocznik

2023

Tom

Vol. 11, No. 1

Strony

67--119

Opis fizyczny

Bibliogr. 61 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Ermolaeva Marina

0000-0001-7796-7963

Lomonosov Moscow State University

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7796-7963

Bibliografia

1. Artemis ALEXIADOU and Florian SCHÄFER (2011), There-insertion: An unaccusativity mismatch at the syntax-semantics interface, online proceedings of West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 28.
2. Karlos ARREGI and Asia PIETRASZKO (2018), Generalized head movement, in Patrick FARRELL, editor, Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America, volume 3, pp. 1–15.
3. David BASILICO (1997), The topic is “there”, Studia Linguistica, 51(3):278–316. İsa Kerem BAYıRLı (2018), Does Turkish have adjective ordering restrictions?,
4. IULC Working Papers, 18(2):1–26 Michael BRODY (2000), Mirror theory: Syntactic representation in perfect
5. syntax, Linguistic Inquiry, 31(1):29–56.
6. Nick CHATER, Alexander CLARK, John GOLDSMITH, and Amy PERFORS (2015), Towards a new empiricism for linguistics, in Empiricism and Language Learnability, pp. 58–105, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
7. Noam CHOMSKY (1956), Three models for the description of language, IRE Transactions on Information Theory, 2(3):113–124.
8. Noam CHOMSKY (1957), Syntactic structures, De Gruyter Mouton, The Hague, Netherlands.
9. Noam CHOMSKY (1965), Aspects of the theory of syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
10. Noam CHOMSKY (1986), Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use, Praeger, New York, NY
11. Noam CHOMSKY (1995), The minimalist program, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
12. Noam CHOMSKY (2000), Minimalist Inquiries: the framework, in Roger MARTIN, David MICHAELS, and Juan URIAGEREKA, editors, Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, pp. 89–156, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
13. Noam CHOMSKY and Morris HALLE (1968), The sound pattern of English, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
14. Guglielmo CINQUE (1994), On the evidence for partial N-movement in the Romance DP, in Guglielmo CINQUE, Jan KOSTER, Jean-Yves POLLOCK, and Rafaella ZANUTTINI, editors, Paths towards universal grammar: Studies in Honor of Richard S. Kayne, pp. 85–110, Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC.
15. Guglielmo CINQUE (2010), The syntax of adjectives: A comparative study, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
16. Alexander CLARK (2013), Learning trees from strings: A strong learning algorithm for some context-free grammars, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 14:3537–3559.
17. Alexander CLARK (2015), Canonical context-free grammars and strong learning: two approaches, in Marco KUHLMANN, Makoto KANAZAWA, and Gregory M. KOBELE, editors, Proceedings of the 14th Meeting on the Mathematics of Language (MOL 2015), pp. 99–111, Association for Computational Linguistics, Chicago, IL.
18. Amy Rose DEAL (2009), The origin and content of expletives: Evidence from “selection”, Syntax, 12(4):285–323.
19. Marina ERMOLAEVA (2018), Morphological agreement in minimalist grammars, in Formal Grammar: 22nd International Conference, FG 2017, Toulouse, France, July 22-23, 2017, Revised Selected Papers, pp. 20–36, Springer, Berlin, Germany.
20. Marina ERMOLAEVA (2021), Learning syntax via decomposition, Ph.D. thesis, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
21. Marina ERMOLAEVA and Gregory M. KOBELE (2022), Agree as information transmission over dependencies, Syntax, 25(4):466–507.
22. Meaghan FOWLIE (2013), Order and optionality: Minimalist grammars with adjunction, in Proceedings of the 13th Meeting on the Mathematics of Language (MoL 13), pp. 12–20, Association for Computational Linguistics, Sofia, Bulgaria.
23. John GOLDSMITH (1980), Meaning and mechanism in grammar, Harvard studies in syntax and semantics, 3:423–449.
24. John GOLDSMITH (2001), Unsupervised learning of the morphology of a natural language, Computational Linguistics, 27(2):153–198.
25. John GOLDSMITH (2006), An algorithm for the unsupervised learning of morphology, Natural Language Engineering, 12(4):353–372.
26. John GOLDSMITH (2011), The evaluation metric in generative grammar, presented at 50th Anniversary of the MIT Linguistics Department, Cambridge MA, December 2011.
27. Thomas GRAF (2013), Local and transderivational constraints in syntax and semantics, Ph.D. thesis, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA.
28. Pavel GRASHCHENKOV and Ulyana ISAEVA (2023), Vzaimnoe raspolozhenie atributivnyh prilagatel’nyh po dannym tyurkskih tekstov [Adjectival ordering on the data of Turkic texts], Uralo-altayskie issledovaniya, 48(1):22–32.
29. Peter D. GRÜNWALD (2007), The minimum description length principle, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
30. John T. HALE and Edward P. STABLER (2005), Strict deterministic aspects of minimalist grammars, in Philippe BLACHE, Edward STABLER, Joan BUSQUETS, and Richard MOOT, editors, Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics. LACL 2005. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 162–176, Springer, Berlin, Germany.
31. Heidi HARLEY (2002), Possession and the double object construction, Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 2(1):31–70.
32. Heidi HARLEY (2007), The bipartite structure of verbs cross-linguistically (or: Why Mary can’t exhibit John her paintings), in Thaïs Cristófaro SILVA and Heliana MELLO, editors, Conferências do V Congresso Internacional da Associação Brasileira de Lingüística, pp. 45–84, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
33. Heidi HARLEY and Hyun Kyoung JUNG (2015), In support of the PHAVE analysis of the double object construction, Linguistic Inquiry, 46(4):703–730.
34. Yu HU, Irina MATVEEVA, John GOLDSMITH, and Colin SPRAGUE (2005), Using morphology and syntax together in unsupervised learning, in Proceedings of the Workshop on Psychocomputational Models of Human Language Acquisition, pp. 20–27, Association for Computational Linguistics, Ann Arbor, MI.
35. Mark JOHNSON (2017), Marr’s levels and the minimalist program, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(1):171–174.
36. Roni KATZIR (2014), A cognitively plausible model for grammar induction, Journal of Language Modelling, 2(2):213–248, doi:10.15398/jlm.v2i2.85, https://jlm.ipipan.waw.pl/index.php/JLM/article/view/85.
37. Masahiro KAWAKAMI (2018), Double object constructions: Against the small clause analysis, Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 45:209–226.
38. Richard S. KAYNE (1984), Connectedness and binary branching, Foris Publications, Dordrecht, Netherlands.
39. Richard S. KAYNE (1994), The antisymmetry of syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
40. Gregory M. KOBELE (2002), Formalizing mirror theory, Grammars, 5(3):177–221.
41. Gregory M. KOBELE (2006), Generating copies: An investigation into structural identity in language and grammar, Ph.D. thesis, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA.
42. Gregory M. KOBELE (to appear), Minimalist grammars and decomposition, in Kleanthes K. GROHMANN and Evelina LEIVADA, editors, The Cambridge Handbook of Minimalism, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.
43. Richard K. LARSON (1988), On the double object construction, Linguistic Inquiry, 19(3):335–391.
44. Thomas C.M. LEE (2001), An introduction to coding theory and the two-part minimum description length principle, International Statistical Review, 69(2):169–183.
45. David MARR (1982), Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information, Henry Holt and Co., New York, NY.
46. Jens MICHAELIS (1998), Derivational minimalism is mildly context-sensitive, in Michael MOORTGAT, editor, International Conference on Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics, pp. 179–198, Springer, Berlin, Germany.
47. Richard Thomas OEHRLE (1976), The grammatical status of the English dative alternation, Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
48. Christopher PEACOCKE (1986), Explanation in computational psychology: Language, perception and level 1.5, Mind & Language, 1(2):101–123.
49. David Michael PESETSKY (1996), Zero syntax: Experiencers and cascades, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
50. Ezer RASIN, Iddo BERGER, Nur LAN, and Roni KATZIR (2018), Learning phonological optionality and opacity from distributional evidence, in Sherry HUCKLEBRIDGE and Max NELSON, editors, Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 48 (NELS 48), volume 48, pp. 269–282, Amherst, MA.
51. Ezer RASIN and Roni KATZIR (2016), On evaluation metrics in optimality theory, Linguistic Inquiry, 47(2):235–282.
52. Ezer RASIN and Roni KATZIR (2019), Simplicity-based learning in constraint-based and rule-based phonology, mini-course at the University of Leipzig.
53. Jorma RISSANEN (1978), Modeling by shortest data description, Automatica, 14(5):465–471.
54. Joachim SABEL (2000), Expletives as features, in Roger BILLEREY and Brook Danielle LILLEHAUGEN, editors, Proceedings of the 19th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, pp. 411–424, Cascadilla Press, Somerville, MA.
55. Stuart M. SHIEBER (1985), Evidence against the context-freeness of natural language, Linguistics and Philosophy, 8:333–343.
56. Edward P. STABLER (1997), Derivational minimalism, in Christian RETORÉ, editor, Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics: First International Conference, LACL ’96 Nancy, France, September 23–25, 1996 Selected Papers, pp. 68–95, Springer, Berlin, Germany.
57. Edward P. STABLER (2001), Recognizing head movement, in Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics, LACL ’01, pp. 245–260, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
58. Edward P. STABLER and Edward L. KEENAN (2003), Structural similarity within and among languages, Theoretical Computer Science, 293(2):345–363.
59. John TORR and Edward STABLER (2016), Coordination in minimalist grammars: Excorporation and across the board (head) movement, in David CHIANG and Alexander KOLLER, editors, Proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Tree Adjoining Grammars and Related Formalisms (TAG+ 12), pp. 1–17, Düsseldorf, Germany.
60. Edwin S. WILLIAMS (1975), Small clauses in English, in John P. KIMBALL, editor, Syntax and Semantics, volume 4, pp. 249–273, Brill, Leiden, Netherlands.
61. Aris XANTHOS, Yu HU, and John GOLDSMITH (2006), Exploring variant definitions of pointer length in MDL, in Proceedings of the Eighth Meeting of the ACL Special Interest Group on Computational Phonology and Morphology at HLT-NAACL 2006, pp. 32–40, Association for Computational Linguistics, New York, NY.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MEiN, umowa nr SONP/SP/546092/2022 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2022-2023).

Typ dokumentu

Bibliografia

Identyfikator YADDA

bwmeta1.element.baztech-08cffe22-42ee-4d5e-8cf8-841967d04bc8