Abstract
Subregular linguistics is a fairly new approach that seeks a deeper understanding of language by combining the rigor of formal grammar with the empirical sophistication of theoretical linguistics. The approach started in phonology but has since branched out to morphology and even syntax, unearthing unexpected parallels between these three domains of language. In this paper, I argue based on these results that subregular linguistics has a lot to offer to both fields. Subregular linguistics may be the ideal conduit for knowledge transfer between these two communities.
Funding source: National Science Foundation
Award Identifier / Grant number: BCS-1845344
Acknowledgement
I thank the editors for their very detailed comments and their tremendous patience during the revision process.
-
Research funding: The work reported in this paper was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. BCS-1845344.
Appendix: String languages in the (refined) Chomsky hierarchy
For the interested reader, I include a brief overview of the classes listed in (1) here. The presentation is deliberately informal and emphasizes general intuitions rather than precise definitions.
REG (regular). In mathematical terms, a string language is regular iff it can be recognized by a finite-state automaton. There are many additional characterizations, a.o. definability in monadic second-order logic with successor, having a Myhill-Nerode relation of finite index, or being a projection of a strictly 2-local string language. Each one of these characterizations has unique advantages—automata provide a way of distinguishing well-formed from ill-formed strings, the Myhill-Nerode characterization makes it easy to show that a given language is not regular, monadic second-order logic offers a very succinct, constraint-based description, and so on. Thanks to the large number of equivalent perspectives, there are many different intuitions for what it means to be regular, but the following is perhaps the most accessible: each string in a regular string language can be correctly built from left-to-right while only memorizing a finitely bounded amount of information about the string built so far. For example, the regular language (aa)* only contains strings over a whose length is even, e.g. aa or aaaa, but not aaa. While building such a string, one does not need to store the exact number of as already built, it suffices to keep track of whether the length of the string built so far is odd or even, and that is a finite amount of information that does not scale with the actual length of the string.
CFL (context-free). A string language is context-free iff it can be generated by a context-free grammar (the mathematical counterpart to the familiar phrase structure grammars). Context-free string languages can exhibit an unbounded number of nested dependencies. The palindrome language, for instance, contains strings that read the same from left to right as from right to left, including aa, abba, aaaa, ababa, abbba, abbcbba, and so on. The string abbab, on the other hand, is not part of the palindrome language because the first symbol does not match the last one (nor does the second symbol match the last but one). Each string of the palindrome language consists of multiple nested dependencies: in a string of length n, the i-th symbol must match the (n − i + 1)-th symbol. Hence in abbba, which has length 5, we have a dependency between the two bs in positions 2 and 5 − 2 + 1 = 4, and this dependency in turn is nested inside another dependency between the two as in positions 1 and 5 − 1 + 1 = 5.
Again there are many equivalent characterizations of the context-free languages, but on an intuitive level the central idea behind context-freeness is the ability to take an assembled object, split it in two pieces, and then wrap those pieces around some other object of bounded size. Hence abbba can be understood as taking aa and breaking it in two pieces a and a, which are then wrapped around bb to yield abba. Then abba is again split into ab and ba and wrapped around b to yield abbba. This view of context-freeness is useful because it can be generalized to yield the mildly context-sensitive classes TAL and MCFL.
TAL (tree-adjoining languages). TALs were originally defined as the string languages that can be generated by Tree Adjoining Grammars, but once again many equivalent definitions have been found, for instance in terms of embedded push-down automata (Vijay-Shanker 1987). One may think of TALs as a generalization of CFLs where a string can be broken into three pieces instead of just two. This makes it possible to generate not only unbounded nested dependencies, but also unbounded crossing dependencies. As a simple example, consider a language where the only available symbols are a, b, and c, and every string exhibits a limited kind of unbounded reduplication: if a string contains a c, then the part before the first c in the string must be the output of reduplication. This means that a well-formed string containing c must be of the form uucv, where u and v are arbitrary strings over a, b, and c. Hence abbabbcb would be well-formed, but abaacb would be ill-formed because abaa does not consist of two identical halves. This kind of reduplication can establish unbounded crossing dependencies because we have two copies, abb and abb, and the i-th symbol of the first copy must match the i-th symbol of the second copy. The bigger the copies, the larger the number of crossing dependencies between them.
A well-formed string like abbabbcb is easy to build as long as we have the ability to break assembled strings into three separate pieces: We start with aacb and split it into the three pieces a, a, and cb. We then take those three pieces and wrap them around b and b to yield ababcb. This is once more broken up into three pieces—ab, ab, and cb—which are again wrapped around b and b to yield the desired abbabbcb.
MCFL (multiple context-free languages). The class MCFL generalizes TAL in two ways. First, there is no longer a universal upper bound on the number of pieces one may have to juggle when building a string. For one language, one may need the ability to split strings into four pieces, for another language the number might be twelve, or a million. Second, pieces can be shuffled around before reassembly, so that the second piece may end up following the fourth piece. This means that MCFLs may exhibit much more complicated crossing dependencies than TALs. However, MCFLs are still fairly similar to TALs, which is why both are considered to be part of the mildly context-sensitive region.
PMCFL (parallel multiple context-free languages). PMCFLs can be regarded as MCFLs with recursive copying. Consider, for instance, the English schm-X construction, where a single noun like rules may be partially copied to yield rules schmules. If this operation could apply recursively, then one could feed it its own output rules schmules and obtain [rules schmules] [schmules schmules], and from that one could build [rules schmules schmules schmules] [schmules schmules schmules schmules]. Now if one considers only the set of strings that this operation can build from rules, one gets the PMCFL rules schmules2n−1 (n ≥ 0), i.e. rules followed by
CSL (context-sensitive) and RE (recursively enumerable). CSL and RE are such powerful classes that it is hard to give them intuitive characterizations. RE is the class of all computable string languages. In linguistic terms, one may think of RE as the class of string languages that can be generated by unrestricted SPE-style rewrite rules of the form
References
Aksënova, Alëna & Sanket Deshmukh. 2018. Formal restrictions on multiple tiers. SCiL 1. 64–73.Search in Google Scholar
Aksënova, Alëna, Thomas Graf & Sedigheh Moradi. 2016. Morphotactics as tier-based strictly local dependencies. SIGMORPHON 14. 121–130. Available at: https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W/W16/W16-2019.pdf.10.18653/v1/W16-2019Search in Google Scholar
Backofen, Rolf, James Rogers & K. Vijay-Shanker. 1995. A first-order axiomatization of the theory of finite trees. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 4. 5–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01048403.Search in Google Scholar
Becker, Michael. 2019. Egyptian Arabic stress is local. Stony Brook University Ms.Search in Google Scholar
van Benthem, Johan. 1986. Semantic automata. In Essays in logical semantics, 151–176. Dordrecht: Reidel.10.1515/9783112420027-002Search in Google Scholar
Blackburn, Patrick. 1993. Modal logic and attribute value structures. In Maarten de Rijke (ed.), Diamonds and defaults, 19–65. Norwell, MA: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-015-8242-1_2Search in Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2002. On multiple wh-fronting. Linguistic Inquiry 33. 351–383. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438902760168536.Search in Google Scholar
Brody, Michael. 2019. Some biolinguistic remarks. Acta Linguistica Academica 66. 335–348. https://doi.org/10.1556/2062.2019.66.3.2.Search in Google Scholar
Carden, Guy. 1983. The non-finite = state-ness of the word formation component. Linguistic Inquiry 14. 537–541.Search in Google Scholar
Chandlee, Jane. 2014. Strictly local phonological processes. University of Delaware Doctoral Dissertation. Available at: http://udspace.udel.edu/handle/19716/13374.Search in Google Scholar
Chandlee, Jane. 2017. Computational locality in morphological maps. Morphology 27. 599–641. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-017-9316-9.Search in Google Scholar
Chandlee, Jane & Jeffrey Heinz. 2018. Strict locality and phonological maps. Linguistic Inquiry 49. 23–60. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00265.Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1956. Three models for the description of language. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 2. 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1109/tit.1956.1056813.Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.10.1515/9783112316009Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1959. On certain formal properties of grammars. Information and Control 2. 137–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0019-9958(59)90362-6.Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.21236/AD0616323Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. Categories and transformations. In The Minimalist program, 219–394. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
De Santo, Aniello & Thomas Graf. 2019. Structure sensitive tier projection: Applications and formal properties. In Raffaella Bernardi, Gregory Kobele & Sylvain Pogodalla (eds.), Formal grammar, 35–50. Heidelberg: Springer.10.1007/978-3-662-59648-7_3Search in Google Scholar
Dolatian, Hossep & Jeffrey Heinz. 2020. Computing and classifying reduplication with 2-way finite-state transducers. Journal of Language Modelling 8. 179–250. https://doi.org/10.15398/jlm.v8i1.245.Search in Google Scholar
Ermolaeva, Marina. 2018. Morphological agreement in Minimalist grammars. In Annie Foret, Reinhard Muskens & Sylvain Pogodalla (eds.), Formal grammar, 20–36. Heidelberg: Springer.10.1007/978-3-662-56343-4_2Search in Google Scholar
Finley, Sara. 2008. Formal and cognitive restrictions on vowel harmony. Johns Hopkins University Doctoral Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Fowlie, Meaghan. 2013. Order and optionality: Minimalist grammars with adjunction. MoL 13. 12–20.Search in Google Scholar
Frank, Robert & Giorgio Satta. 1998. Optimality theory and the generative complexity of constraint violability. Computational Linguistics 24. 307–315.Search in Google Scholar
Frank, Robert & K. Vijay-Shanker. 2001. Primitive c-command. Syntax 4. 164–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00043.Search in Google Scholar
Frey, Werner & Hans-Martin Gärtner. 2002. On the treatment of scrambling and adjunction in Minimalist grammars. In Gerhard Jäger, Paola Monachesi, Gerald Penn & Shuly Wintner (eds.), Proceedings of the conference on formal grammar, 41–52.Search in Google Scholar
Gärtner, Hans-Martin & Jens Michaelis. 2007. Some remarks on locality conditions and Minimalist grammars. In Uli Sauerland & Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds.), Interfaces + recursion = language?, 161–196. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110207552-005Search in Google Scholar
Gärtner, Hans-Martin & Jens Michaelis. 2010. On the treatment of multiple-wh-interrogatives in Minimalist grammars. In Thomas Hanneforth & Gisbert Fanselow (eds.), Language and logos, 339–366. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.10.1524/9783050062365.339Search in Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald, Ewan Klein, Geoffrey K. Pullum & Ivan A. Sag. 1985. Generalized phrase structure grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 1982. Generalized phrase structure grammar: A theoretical synopsis. Cognitive Science Research Paper 007, University of Sussex.Search in Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John. 1976. Autosegmental phonology. MIT Doctoral Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Graf, Thomas. 2010. Comparing incomparable frameworks: A model theoretic approach to phonology. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 16: Article 10. Available at: http://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol16/iss1/10.Search in Google Scholar
Graf, Thomas. 2011. Closure properties of Minimalist derivation tree languages. In Sylvain Pogodalla & Jean-Philippe Prost (eds.), LACL 2011, 96–111. Heidelberg: Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-22221-4_7Search in Google Scholar
Graf, Thomas. 2012a. Locality and the complexity of Minimalist derivation tree languages. In Philippe de Groote & Mark-Jan Nederhof (eds.), Formal grammar, 208–227. Heidelberg: Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-32024-8_14Search in Google Scholar
Graf, Thomas. 2012b. Movement-generalized minimalist grammars. In Denis Béchet & Alexander J. Dikovsky (eds.), LACL 2012, 58–73. Heidelberg: Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-31262-5_4Search in Google Scholar
Graf, Thomas. 2013. Local and transderivational constraints in syntax and semantics. UCLA Doctoral Dissertation. Available at: http://thomasgraf.net/doc/papers/Graf13Thesis.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
Graf, Thomas. 2014a. Late merge as lowering movement in Minimalist grammars. In Nicholas Asher & Sergei Soloviev (eds.), LACL 2014, 107–121. Heidelberg: Springer.10.1007/978-3-662-43742-1_9Search in Google Scholar
Graf, Thomas. 2014b. Models of adjunction in Minimalist grammars. In Glynn Morrill, Reinhard Muskens, Rainer Osswald & Frank Richter (eds.), Formal grammar, 52–68. Heidelberg: Springer.10.1007/978-3-662-44121-3_4Search in Google Scholar
Graf, Thomas. 2017. The power of locality domains in phonology. Phonology 34. 385–405. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0952675717000197.Search in Google Scholar
Graf, Thomas. 2018. Locality domains and phonological c-command over strings. NELS 48. 257–270. Available at: http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004080.10.1002/biuz.201870418Search in Google Scholar
Graf, Thomas. 2019. A subregular bound on the complexity of lexical quantifiers. In Julian J. Schlöder, Dean McHugh & Floris Roelofsen (eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd Amsterdam colloquium, 455–464.Search in Google Scholar
Graf, Thomas. 2022. Typological implications of tier-based strictly local movement. SCiL 5. 184–193.Search in Google Scholar
Graf, Thomas & Natasha Abner. 2012. Is syntactic binding rational? In Proceedings of the 11th international workshop on tree adjoining grammars and related formalisms (TAG+11), 189–197. Available at: http://thomasgraf.net/doc/papers/GrafAbner12TAG.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
Graf, Thomas, Alëna Aksënova & Aniello De Santo. 2016. A single movement normal form for Minimalist grammars. In Annie Foret, Glyn Morrill, Reinhard Muskens, Rainer Osswald & Sylvain Pogodalla (eds.), Formal grammar, 200–215. Heidelberg: Springer.10.1007/978-3-662-53042-9_12Search in Google Scholar
Graf, Thomas & Aniello De Santo. 2019. Sensing tree automata as a model of syntactic dependencies. MoL 16. 12–26. Available at: https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W19-5702.10.18653/v1/W19-5702Search in Google Scholar
Graf, Thomas & Kalina Kostyszyn. 2021. Multiple wh-movement is not special: The subregular complexity of persistent features in Minimalist grammars. SCiL 4. 275–285.Search in Google Scholar
Graf, Thomas & Connor Mayer. 2018. Sanskrit n-retroflexion is input-output tier-based strictly local. SIGMORPHON 15. 151–160.10.18653/v1/W18-5817Search in Google Scholar
Graf, Thomas & Nazila Shafiei. 2019. C-command dependencies as TSL string constraints. SCiL 2. 205–215.Search in Google Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1973. Prolegomena to a theory of word-formation. Linguistic Inquiry 4. 451–464.Search in Google Scholar
Harkema, Henk. 2001. A characterization of Minimalist languages. In Philippe de Groote, Glyn Morrill & Christian Retoré (eds.), Logical aspects of computational linguistics (LACL’01), 193–211. Heidelberg: Springer.10.1007/3-540-48199-0_12Search in Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Metrical stress theory. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1998. Anaphora and semantic interpretation: A reinterpretation of Reinhart’s approach. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 25. 205–246.Search in Google Scholar
Heinz, Jeffrey. 2009. On the role of locality in learning stress patterns. Phonology 26. 303–351. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0952675709990145.Search in Google Scholar
Heinz, Jeffrey. 2010. Learning long-distance phonotactics. Linguistic Inquiry 41. 623–661. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00015.Search in Google Scholar
Heinz, Jeffrey. 2014. Culminativity times harmony equals unbounded stress. In Harry van der Hulst (ed.), Word stress: Theoretical and typological issues, 255–275. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139600408.012Search in Google Scholar
Heinz, Jeffrey, Kasprzik Anna & Timo Kötzing. 2012. Learning in the limit with lattice-structured hypothesis spaces. Theoretical Computer Science 457. 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2012.07.017.Search in Google Scholar
Heinz, Jeffrey & Regine Lai. 2013. Vowel harmony and subsequentiality. MoL 13. 52–63. Available at: http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W13-3006.Search in Google Scholar
Heinz, Jeffrey, Chetan Rawal & Herbert G. Tanner. 2011. Tier-based strictly local constraints in phonology. ACL 49. 58–64. Available at: http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P11-2011.Search in Google Scholar
Hunter, Tim. 2011. Insertion Minimalist grammars: Eliminating redundancies between merge and move. In Makoto Kanazawa, András Kornai, Marcus Kracht & Hiroyuki Seki (eds.), The mathematics of language: 12th Biennial Conference, 90–107. Heidelberg: Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-23211-4_6Search in Google Scholar
Hunter, Tim & Robert Frank. 2021. Comparing methods of tree-construction across mildly context-sensitive formalism. SCiL 4. 355–358.Search in Google Scholar
Huybregts, Riny. 1984. The weak adequacy of context-free phrase structure grammar. In Ger J. de Haan, Mieke Trommelen & Wim Zonneveld (eds.), Van periferie naar kern, 81–99. Dordrecht: Foris.Search in Google Scholar
Jäger, Gerhard. 2002. Gradient constraints in finite state OT: The unidirectional and the bidirectional case. In Ingrid Kaufmann & Barbara Stiebels (eds.), More than words. A festschrift for Dieter Wunderlich, 299–325. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.10.1515/9783050081274-012Search in Google Scholar
Jardine, Adam. 2016. Computationally, tone is different. Phonology 33. 247–283. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0952675716000129.Search in Google Scholar
Jardine, Adam & Kevin McMullin. 2017. Efficient learning of tier-based strictly k-local languages. In Proceedings of language and automata theory and applications, 64–76. Berlin: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-53733-7_4Search in Google Scholar
Joshi, Aravind. 1985. Tree-adjoining grammars: How much context sensitivity is required to provide reasonable structural descriptions? In David Dowty, Lauri Karttunen & Arnold Zwicky (eds.), Natural language parsing, 206–250. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511597855.007Search in Google Scholar
Joshi, Aravind, K. Vijay-Shanker & David Weir. 1991. The convergence of mildly context-sensitive grammar formalisms. In Peter Sells, Stuart M. Shieber & Thomas Wasow (eds.), Foundational issues in natural language processing, 31–81. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kalin, Laura. 2017. Licensing and differential object marking: The view from Neo-Aramaic. Syntax 21. 112–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12153.Search in Google Scholar
Kanazawa, Makoto & Sylvain Salvati. 2012. MIX is not a tree-adjoining language. ACL 50. 666–674.Search in Google Scholar
Kaplan, Ronald M. & Martin Kay. 1994. Regular models of phonological rule systems. Computational Linguistics 20. 331–378.Search in Google Scholar
Kaplan, Ronald M. & Annie Zaenen. 1988. Long-distance dependencies, constituent structure, and functional uncertainty. In Mark, Baltin & Anthony Kroch (eds.), Alternative conceptions of phrase structure. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri. 1998. The proper treatment of optimality in computational phonology. In Proceedings of the international workshop on finite state methods in natural language processing, 1–12. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics. Available at: http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W98-1301.10.3115/1611533.1611534Search in Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri & Kenneth R. Beesley. 2005. Twenty-five years of finite-state morphology. In Antti Arppe, Lauri Carlson, Krister Lindén, Jussi Piitulainen, Mickael Suominen, Martti Vainio, Hanna Westerlund & Anssi Yli-Jyrä (eds.), Inquiries into words, constraints and context. Festschrift for Kimmo Koskenniemi on his 60th birthday, 71–83. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Search in Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri, Ronald M. Kaplan & Annie Zaenen. 1992. Two-level morphology with composition. In COLING’92, 141–148. Availble at: http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/C92-1025.10.3115/992066.992091Search in Google Scholar
Kasper, Robert, Bernd Kiefer, Klaus Netter & K. Vijay-Shanker. 1995. Compilation of HPSG to TAG. ACL 33. 92–99.10.3115/981658.981671Search in Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2002. Disjoint reference and the typology of pronouns. In Ingrid Kaufmann & Barbara Stiebels (eds.), More than words, 179–226. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.10.1515/9783050081274-008Search in Google Scholar
Kobele, Gregory M. 2006. Generating copies: An investigation into structural identity in language and grammar. UCLA Doctoral Dissertation. Available at: https://home.uni-leipzig.de/gkobele/files/unpub/Kobele06GeneratingCopies.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
Kobele, Gregory M. 2008. Across-the-board extraction and Minimalist grammars. In Proceedings of the ninth international workshop on tree adjoining grammars and related frameworks, 113–128. ACL.Search in Google Scholar
Kobele, Gregory M. 2010. Without remnant movement, MGs are context-free. MOL 10–11. 160–173. Heidelberg: Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-14322-9_13Search in Google Scholar
Kobele, Gregory M. 2011. Minimalist tree languages are closed under intersection with recognizable tree languages. In Sylvain Pogodalla & Jean-Philippe Prost (eds.), LACL 2011, 129–144. Heidelberg: Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-22221-4_9Search in Google Scholar
Kobele, Gregory M. 2015. LF-copying without LF. Lingua 166. 236–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.08.006.Search in Google Scholar
Kobele, Gregory M., Christian Retoré & Salvati. Sylvain. 2007. An automata-theoretic approach to Minimalism. In James Rogers & Stephan Kepser (eds.), Model theoretic syntax at 10, 71–80.Search in Google Scholar
Koller, Alexander & Marco Kuhlmann. 2011. A generalized view on parsing and translation. In Proceedings of the 12th international conference on parsing technologies, 2–13. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics. Available at: http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W11-2902.Search in Google Scholar
Kornai, Andras. 1985. Natural language and the Chomsky hierarchy. In Proceedings of the EACL 1985, 1–7.10.3115/976931.976932Search in Google Scholar
Koskenniemi, Kimmo. 1983. Two-level morphology: A general computational model for word-form recognition and production. Publication 11. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of General Linguistics.10.3115/980431.980529Search in Google Scholar
Langendoen, D. Terence. 1981. The generative capacity of word-formation components. Linguistic Inquiry 12. 320–322.Search in Google Scholar
Laszakovits, Sabine. 2018. Case theory in Minimalist grammars. In Annie Foret, Greg Kobele & Sylvain Pogodalla (eds.), Formal Grammar, 37–61. Heidelberg: Springer.10.1007/978-3-662-57784-4_3Search in Google Scholar
McMullin, Kevin, Alëna Aksënova & Aniello De Santo. 2019. Learning phonotactic restrictions on multiple tiers. SCiL 2. 377–378.Search in Google Scholar
McNaughton, Robert. 1974. Algebraic decision procedures for local testability. Mathematical Systems Theory 8. 60–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01761708.Search in Google Scholar
McNaughton, Robert & Seymour Papert. 1971. Counter-free automata. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Michaelis, Jens. 2001. Transforming linear context-free rewriting systems into Minimalist grammars. In LACL‘01: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on logical aspects of computational linguistics, 228–244.10.1007/3-540-48199-0_14Search in Google Scholar
Michaelis, Jens. 2004. Observations on strict derivational minimalism. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 53. 192–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1571-0661(05)82583-6.Search in Google Scholar
Michaelis, Jens. 2009. An additional observation on strict derivational minimalism. In James Rogers (ed.), FG-MOL 2005, 101–111. Heidelberg: Springer.Search in Google Scholar
Michaelis, Jens & Marcus Kracht. 1997. Semilinearity as a syntactic invariant. In Christian Retoré (ed.), Logical aspects of computational linguistics, 329–345. Heidelberg: Springer.10.1007/BFb0052165Search in Google Scholar
Mohri, Mehryar. 1996. On some applications of finite-state automata theory to natural language processing. Journal of Natural Language Engineering 2. 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/s135132499600126x.Search in Google Scholar
Mohri, Mehryar. 1997. Finite-state transducers in language and speech processing. Computational Linguistics 23. 269–311.Search in Google Scholar
Mohri, Mehryar. 2000. Minimization algorithms for sequential transducers. Theoretical Computer Science 234. 177–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-3975(98)00115-7.Search in Google Scholar
Mönnich, Uwe. 1999. On cloning context-freeness. In Hans-Peter Kolb & Uwe Mönnich (eds.), Mathematics of syntactic structure, 195–231. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110806786.195Search in Google Scholar
Moradi, Sedigheh, Alëna Aksënova & Thomas Graf. 2019. The computational cost of generalizations: An example from micromorphology. SCiL 2. 367–368.Search in Google Scholar
Morawietz, Frank. 2003. Two-step approaches to natural language formalisms. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197259Search in Google Scholar
Nevins, Andrew. 2011. Multiple agree with clitics: Person complementarity vs. omnivorous number. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28. 939–971. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-011-9150-4.Search in Google Scholar
Peters, Stanley & Robert W. Ritchie. 1971. On restricting the base component of transformational grammars. Information and Control 18. 483–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0019-9958(71)90510-9.Search in Google Scholar
Peters, Stanley & Robert W. Ritchie. 1973. On the generative power of transformational grammars. Information Sciences 6. 49–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-0255(73)90027-3.Search in Google Scholar
Pin, Jean-Eric. 1997. Syntactic semigroups. In Handbook of language theory, vol. 1, 679–764. Berlin: Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-59136-5_10Search in Google Scholar
Radzinski, Daniel. 1991. Chinese number names, tree adjoining languages, and mild context sensitivity. Computational Linguistics 17. 277–300.Search in Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1996. Interface economy: Focus and markedness. In Chris Wilder, Hans-Martin Gärtner & Manfred Bierwisch (eds.), The role of economy principles in linguistic theory, 146–169. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.10.1515/9783050072173-007Search in Google Scholar
Ristad, Eric Sven. 1993. The language complexity game. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Roark, Brian & Richard Sproat. 2007. Computational approaches to morphology and syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Rogers, James. 1998. A descriptive approach to language-theoretic complexity. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Search in Google Scholar
Rogers, James. 2003. Syntactic structures as multi-dimensional trees. Research on Language and Computation 1. 265–305. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1024695608419.10.1023/A:1024695608419Search in Google Scholar
Rogers, James, Jeffrey Heinz, Gil Bailey, Edlefsen Matt, Molly Vischer, David Wellcome & Sean Wibel. 2010. On languages piecewise testable in the strict sense. In Christan Ebert, Gerhard Jäger & Jens Michaelis (eds.), The mathematics of language, 255–265. Heidelberg: Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-14322-9_19Search in Google Scholar
Rogers, James & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2011. Aural pattern recognition experiments and the subregular hierarchy. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 20. 329–342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10849-011-9140-2.Search in Google Scholar
Ruiz, José, Salvador España & Pedro García. 1998. Locally threshold testable languages in strict sense: Application to the inference problem. In Vasant Honavar & Giora Slutzki (eds.), Grammatical inference: 4th international colloquium, ICGI-98 Ames, Iowa, USA, July 12–14, 1998, 150–161. Berlin: Springer.10.1007/BFb0054072Search in Google Scholar
Salvati, Sylvain. 2011. MIX is a 2-MCFL and the word problem in is captured by the IO and the OI hierarchies. Technical report, France: INRIA Bordeaux.Search in Google Scholar
Schützenberger, Marcel-Paul. 1965. On finite monoids having only trivial subgroups. Information and Control 8. 190–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0019-9958(65)90108-7.Search in Google Scholar
Schützenberger, Marcel-Paul. 1977. Sur une variante des fonctions séquentielles. Theoretical Computer Science 4. 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3975(77)90055-x.Search in Google Scholar
Seki, Hiroyuki, Takashi Matsumura, Mamoru Fujii & Tadao Kasami. 1991. On multiple context-free grammars. Theoretical Computer Science 88. 191–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3975(91)90374-b.Search in Google Scholar
Shafiei, Nazila & Thomas Graf. 2020. The subregular complexity of syntactic islands. SCiL 3. 272–281.Search in Google Scholar
Shieber, Stuart M. 1985. Evidence against the context-freeness of natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 8. 333–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00630917.Search in Google Scholar
Simon, Imre. 1975. Piecewise testable events. In Helmut Brakhage (ed.), Automata theory and formal languages 2nd GI Conference, 214–222. Berlin: Springer.10.1007/3-540-07407-4_23Search in Google Scholar
Stabler, Edward P. 1992. The logical approach to syntax: Foundations, specifications and implementations of theories of government and binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Stabler, Edward P. 1997. Derivational minimalism. In Christian Retoré (ed.), Logical aspects of computational linguistics, 68–95. Berlin: Springer.10.1007/BFb0052152Search in Google Scholar
Stabler, Edward P. 2003. Comparing 3 perspectives on head movement. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 10. 178–198.Search in Google Scholar
Stabler, Edward P. 2006. Sidewards without copying. In Gerald Penn, Giorgio Satta & Shuly Wintner (eds.), Formal grammar, 133–146. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Search in Google Scholar
Stabler, Edward P. 2011. Computational perspectives on Minimalism. In Cedric Boeckx (ed.), Oxford handbook of linguistic Minimalism, 617–643. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199549368.013.0027Search in Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory. 2017. Rule conflation in an inferential realizational theory of morphotactics. Acta Linguistica Academica 64. 79–124. https://doi.org/10.1556/2062.2017.64.1.3.Search in Google Scholar
Torr, John & Edward P. Stabler. 2016. Coordination in Minimalist grammars: Excorporation and across the board (head) movement. In Proceedings of the 12th international workshop on tree Adjoining grammars and related formalisms (TAG+12), 1–17. Düsseldorf, Germany. Available at: https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W16-3301.Search in Google Scholar
Vijay-Shanker, K. 1987. A study of tree adjoining grammars. University of Pennsylvania Doctoral Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 2003. Representation theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
