40 research outputs found
CoTAGs and ACGs
No full textKobele GM, Michaelis J. CoTAGs and ACGs. In: Béchet D, Dikovsky A, eds. Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics (LACL 2012). Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol 7351. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2012: 119-134
On Pregroups, Freedom and (Virtual) Conceptual Necessity
No full textKobele G, Kracht M. On Pregroups, Freedom and (Virtual) Conceptual Necessity. In: Eilam A, Scheffler T, Tauberer J, eds. Proceedings of the 29th Annual Penn Linguistics Conference. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics. 2006: 189-198
On the Form-Meaning Relations Definable by CoTAGs
No full textKobele GM, Michaelis J. On the Form-Meaning Relations Definable by CoTAGs. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Tree Adjoining Grammars and Related Formalisms (TAG+11). Paris; 2012: 207-213
Lexical Semantics and Model Theory: Together at Last?
No full textKornai A, Kracht M. Lexical Semantics and Model Theory: Together at Last? In: Kuhlmann M, Kanazawa M, Kobele GM, eds. Proceedings of the 14th Meeting on the Mathematics of Language (MoL 14). Association for Computational Linguistics; 2015: 51-61
LF-copying without LF
No full textAbstractA copying approach to ellipsis is presented, whereby the locus of copying is not a level of derived syntactic structure (LF), but rather the derivation itself. The ban on preposition stranding in sprouting follows without further stipulation, and other, seemingly structure sensitive, empirical generalizations about elliptical constructions, including the preposition stranding generalization, follow naturally as well. Destructive operations which ‘repair’ non-identical antecedents are recast in terms of exact identity of derivations with parameters. In the context of a compositional semantic interpretation scheme, the derivational copying approach to ellipsis presented here is revealed to be a particular instance of a proform theory, thus showing that the distinctions between, and arguments about, syntactic and semantic theories of ellipsis need to be revisited
Disentangling Notions of Specifier Impenetrability: Late Adjunction, Islands, and Expressive Power
No full textKobele GM, Michaelis J. Disentangling Notions of Specifier Impenetrability: Late Adjunction, Islands, and Expressive Power. In: Kanazawa M, Kornai A, Kracht M, Seki H, eds. 12th Meeting on Mathematics of Language (MOL 12). Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol 6878. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2011: 126-142
Two Type 0-Variants of Minimalist Grammars
No full textKobele GM, Michaelis J. Two Type 0-Variants of Minimalist Grammars. In: Rogers J, ed. Proceedings of FG-MoL 2005. The 10th conference on Formal Grammar and The 9th Meeting on Mathematics of Language. FG Online Proceedings. Stanford: CSLI Publications; 2009: 81-91
A formal foundation for A and A-bar movement
No full textAbstract. It seems a fact that movement dependencies come in two flavours: “A ” and “A-bar”. Over the years, a number of apparently in-dependent properties have been shown to cluster together around this distinction. However, the basic structural property relating these two kinds of movement, the ban on improper movement (‘once you go bar, you never go back’), has never been given a satisfactory explanation. Here, I propose a timing-based account of the A/A-bar distinction, which derives the ban on improper movement, and allows for a simple and elegant account of some of their differences. In this account, “A ” de-pendencies are those which are entered into before an expression is first merged into a structure, and “A-bar ” dependencies are those an expres-sion enters into after having been merged. The resulting system is mildly context-sensitive, providing therefore a restrictive account of possible hu-man grammars, while remaining expressive enough to be able to describe the kinds of dependencies which are thought to be manifest
Eliding the derivation: A minimalist formalization of ellipsis
No full textAbstract In this paper I use the formal framework of minimalist grammars to implement a version of the traditional approach to ellipsis as 'deletion under syntactic (derivational) identity', which, in conjunction with canonical analyses of voice phenomena, immediately allows for voice mismatches in verb phrase ellipsis, but not in sluicing. This approach to ellipsis is naturally implemented in a parser by means of threading a state encoding a set of possible antecedent derivation contexts through the derivation tree. Similarities between ellipsis and pronominal resolution are easily stated in these terms. In the context of this implementation, two approaches to ellipsis in the transformational community are naturally seen as equivalent descriptions at different levels: the LF-copying approach to ellipsis resolution is best seen as a description of the parser, whereas the phonological deletion approach a description of the underlying relation between form and meaning
