Configuration vs. Information : An Informational Explanation of Command Relations

Language, Information and Computation(PACLIC 11),1996, 11-20 Configuration vs. information: An informational explanation of command relations Jean-Yves Morin University of Montreal morinjy@iro.umontreal.ca, morinje@ere.umontreal.ca Abstract In this paper, we show that configurational notions follow from inherent properties of informational concepts. First, we analyze the hidden complexity of the central family of configurational relations (command) from which all the others (government, proper government, etc.) are derived. We then examine the different types of grammatical information, their sources and their propagation mode. Finally we show how simple and general constraints on these might make syntactic dependencies appear to be governed by configurational relations such as command, but just like the Stars might appear to be turning around the Earth. 1. Introduction The essential difference between the most widely used syntactic frameworks in linguistics (Principles and Parameters, Minimalist Program) on the one hand and those used in computational linguistics (Generalized Phrase- Structure Grammar, GPSG, Head-Driven Phrase-Structure Grammar, HPSG, Lexical-Functional, LFG, Categorial Unification Grammar, CUG, etc.) on the other hand is that the former crucially make use of configurational notions, while the latter use informational concepts. In this paper, we show that configurational notions follow from inherent properties of informational concepts. First, we analyze the hidden complexity of the central family of configurational relations (command) from which all the others (government, proper government, etc.) are derived. We then examine the different types of grammatical information, their sources and their propagation mode. Finally we show how simple and general constraints on these might make syntactic dependencies appear to be governed by configurational relations such as command, but just like the Stars might appear to be turning around the Earth. 2. Command relations In configurational theories, command relations are part of the central ("hard") kernel. They are ubiquitous and play an essential role. In all variants of Principles and Parameters (GB, Barriers, etc.), each of the sub-theories or so-called "modules" ((proper) government, binding, Case, control, chains, theta-theory, barriers, etc.) is ultimately defined and "explained" in terms of one or the other notion of COMMAND (c-command, max-command, etc.). In other words, all the important (families of) concepts of this family of theories are defined, directly or indirectly, in configurational COMMAND terms. 11 This configurational notion of COMMAND remains central even in the Minimalist Program, as Chomsky (1995) himself notes: " ... the core relations of phrase structure theory, dominate and c-command [---] The core intuition underlying c-command is that (36) X c-commands Y if (i) every Z that dominates X dominates Y and (ii) X and Y are disconnected. For categories, we take X and Y to be disconnected if X ^ Y and neither dominates the other." (Chomsky 1995 : 418-9. The emphasis is present in the original. I have reformatted the text of the definition to make it more readable, JYM.) Classes of syntactic phenomena As for classes of syntactic phenomena, command relations are pervasive in the analysis of short (e.g., selection and subcategorization), as well as medium (e.g., passives, clitics, local agreement) and long (or unbounded …

Content truncated to 500 words