On Descriptive Complexity, Language Complexity, and GB
James Rogers (Institute for Research in Cognitive Science, University, of Pennsylvania)

TL;DR
This paper introduces a new logical language to analyze the complexity of linguistic structures, demonstrating its ability to characterize certain grammatical frameworks and revealing limitations related to linguistic principles.
Contribution
It presents $L^2_{K,P}$, a monadic second-order language that characterizes strongly context-free languages and applies it to analyze Government and Binding Theory.
Findings
$L^2_{K,P}$ characterizes strongly context-free languages.
Free-indexation is not definable in $L^2_{K,P}$, thus not CFG-enforceable.
A comprehensive GB account of English can be defined in $L^2_{K,P}$.
Abstract
We introduce , a monadic second-order language for reasoning about trees which characterizes the strongly Context-Free Languages in the sense that a set of finite trees is definable in iff it is (modulo a projection) a Local Set---the set of derivation trees generated by a CFG. This provides a flexible approach to establishing language-theoretic complexity results for formalisms that are based on systems of well-formedness constraints on trees. We demonstrate this technique by sketching two such results for Government and Binding Theory. First, we show that {\em free-indexation\/}, the mechanism assumed to mediate a variety of agreement and binding relationships in GB, is not definable in and therefore not enforcible by CFGs. Second, we show how, in spite of this limitation, a reasonably complete GB account of English can be defined in .…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
Topicssemigroups and automata theory · Advanced Algebra and Logic
