Grammar Size and Quantitative Restrictions on Movement

Recently is has been proved that every Minimalist grammar can be converted into a strongly equivalent single movement normal form such that every phrase moves at most once in every derivation. The normal form conversion greatly simplifies the formalism and reduces the complexity of movement dependencies, but it also runs the risk of greatly increasing the size of the grammar. I show that no such blow-up obtains with linguistically plausible grammars that respect common constraints on movement. This establishes not only the cost-free nature of this normal form for realistic grammars, but also that the known restrictions on movement greatly reduce the range of licit movement configurations relative to what unconstrained Minimalist grammars are capable of. Moreover, this work constitutes a first step towards a quantitatively grounded view of movement

Linguistics and some aspects of its underlying dynamics

In recent years, central components of a new approach to linguistics, the Minimalist Program (MP) have come closer to physics. Features of the Minimalist Program, such as the unconstrained nature of recursive Merge, the operation of the Labeling Algorithm that only operates at the interface of Narrow Syntax with the Conceptual-Intentional and the Sensory-Motor interfaces, the difference between pronounced and un-pronounced copies of elements in a sentence and the build-up of the Fibonacci sequence in the syntactic derivation of sentence structures, are directly accessible to representation in terms of algebraic formalism. Although in our scheme linguistic structures are classical ones, we find that an interesting and productive isomorphism can be established between the MP structure, algebraic structures and many-body field theory opening new avenues of inquiry on the dynamics underlying some central aspects of linguistics.Comment: 17 page

Against inertia

Revised version added 12 March 2012In this paper I challenge the Inertial Theory of language change put forward by Longobardi (2001), which claims that syntactic change does not arise unless caused and that any such change must originate as an ‘interface phenomenon’. It is shown that these two claims and the resulting contention that ‘syntax, by itself, is diachronically completely inert’ (Longobardi 2001: 278), if construed as a substantive, falsifiable theory of diachrony, make predictions that are too strong, and that they cannot be reduced (as seems desirable) to properties of language acquisition. I also express doubt as to the utility and necessity of a methodological/heuristic principle of Inertia, broadly following Lass’s (1980) view of causality.This work was supported by AHRC doctoral award AH/H026924/1

Multiple Wh-Movement is not Special: The Subregular Complexity of Persistent Features in Minimalist Grammars

Minimalist grammars have been criticized for their inability to analyze successive cyclic movement and multiple wh-movement in a manner that is faithful to the Minimalist literature. Persistent features have been proposed in the literature as a potential remedy (Stabler 2011, Laszakovits 2018). We show that not all persistent features are alike. The persistent features involved in multiple wh-movement do not increase subregular complexity, making this phenomenon appear very natural from the perspective of MGs. The persistent features in successive-cyclic movement, on the other hand, change the subregular nature of movement, favoring an alternative treatment along the lines of Kobele (2006

A third structure building operation for Minimalist Grammars

I propose a new structure-building operation for Minimalist Grammars (Stabler 1997) which allows the grammar formalism to grow trees with more than one root. I demonstrate that together with the assumption that this new long-distance dependency holds between nominal arguments and their selectors, one can generate Horn amalgams and parasitic gaps with a number of desired properties

Punctuation in Quoted Speech

Quoted speech is often set off by punctuation marks, in particular quotation marks. Thus, it might seem that the quotation marks would be extremely useful in identifying these structures in texts. Unfortunately, the situation is not quite so clear. In this work, I will argue that quotation marks are not adequate for either identifying or constraining the syntax of quoted speech. More useful information comes from the presence of a quoting verb, which is either a verb of saying or a punctual verb, and the presence of other punctuation marks, usually commas. Using a lexicalized grammar, we can license most quoting clauses as text adjuncts. A distinction will be made not between direct and indirect quoted speech, but rather between adjunct and non-adjunct quoting clauses.Comment: 11 pages, 11 ps figures, Proceedings of SIGPARSE 96 - Punctuation in Computational Linguistic