Cover not available
Article published In:
Formal Language Theory and its Relevance for Linguistic Analysis
Edited by Diego Gabriel Krivochen
[Evolutionary Linguistic Theory 3:2] 2021
► pp. 154–180

The computational unity of Merge and Move

| Stony Brook University

Based on a formal analysis of the operations Merge and Move, I provide a computational answer to the question why Move might be an integral part of language. The answer is rooted in the framework of subregular complexity, which reveals that Merge is most succinctly analyzed in terms of the formal class TSL. Any cognitive device that can handle this level of complexity also possesses sufficient resources for Move. In fact, Merge and Move are remarkably similar instances of TSL. Consequently, Move has little computational or conceptual cost attached to it and comes essentially for free in any grammar that expresses Merge as compactly as possible.

Keywords: computational syntax, Minimalist grammars, subregular complexity, merge, move
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Complexity of Merge
    • 2.1Merge in Minimalist grammars
    • 2.2Merge as a constraint on derivation trees
    • 2.3Merge is strictly local (SL)
  • 3.Merge as a tier-based strictly local dependency
    • 3.1Lexicalizing Single Head and Full Projection
    • 3.2Merge tiers: The intuition
    • 3.3The tier-based strictly local model of Merge
  • 4.Move is tier-based strictly local, too
    • 4.1Move in MGs
    • 4.2Move as an instance of TSL
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 5 November 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/elt.00032.gra
References
Aksënova, A., Graf, T., & Moradi, S.
(2016) Morphotactics as tier-based strictly local dependencies. Proceedings of the 14th SIGMORPHON workshop on computational research in phonetics, phonology, and morphology (pp. 121–130). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N.
(2004) Beyond explanatory adequacy. In A. Belletti (Ed.), Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures volume 3 (pp. 104–131). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Santo, A., & Graf, T.
(2019) Structure sensitive tier projection: Applications and formal properties. In R. Bernardi, G. Kobele, & S. Pogodalla (Eds.), Formal grammar 2019 (pp. 35–50). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Graf, T.
(2012) Locality and the complexity of Minimalist derivation tree languages. In P. de Groot & M. Nederhof (Eds.), Formal grammar 2010/2011, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 7395 (pp. 208–227). Heidelberg: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017) A computational guide to the dichotomy of features and constraints. Glossa, 21, 1–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018) Why movement comes for free once you have adjunction. In D. Edmiston, M. Ermolaeva, E. Hakgüder, J. Lai, K. Montemurro, B. Rhodes, A. Sankhagowit, & M. Tabatowski (Eds.), Proceedings of CLS 531 (pp. 117–136).Google Scholar
(2019) A subregular bound on the complexity of lexical quantifiers. In J. J. Schlöder, D. McHugh, & F. Roelofsen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 455–464).Google Scholar
Graf, T., Aksënova, A., & De Santo, A.
(2016) A single movement normal form for Minimalist grammars. In A. Foret, G. Morrill, R. Muskens, R. Osswald, & S. Pogodalla (Eds.). Formal Grammar: 20th and 21st international conferences, FG 2015, Barcelona, Spain, August 2015, revised selected papers. FG 2016, Bozen, Italy, August 2016 (pp. 200–215). Heidelberg: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Graf, T., & Kostyszyn, K.
(2021) Multiple wh-movement is not special: The subregular complexity of persistent features in Minimalist grammars. Proceedings of the Society for Computation in Linguistics (SCiL) 2021 (pp. 275–285).Google Scholar
Heinz, J.
(2018) The computational nature of phonological generalizations. In L. Hyman & F. Plank (Eds.), Phonological typology (pp. 126–195). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heinz, J., Rawal, C., & Tanner, H. G.
(2011) Tier-based strictly local constraints in phonology. Proceedings of the 49th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (pp. 58–64).Google Scholar
Kobele, G.
(2011) Minimalist tree languages are closed under intersection with recognizable tree languages. In S. Pogodalla and J.-P. Prost (Eds.), LACL 2011, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 6736 (pp. 129–144). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Richards, N.
(2016) Contiguity theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rogers, J., and Pullum, G. K.
(2011) Aural pattern recognition experiments and the subregular hierarchy. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 201, 329–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stabler, E.
(1997) Derivational Minimalism. In Retoré, C. (Ed.), Logical aspects of computational linguistics, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1328 (pp. 68–95). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) Computational perspectives on Minimalism. In Boeckx, C. (Ed.), Oxford handbook of linguistic Minimalism (pp. 617–643). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar