DOCSLIB.ORG

Word Order in German: a Formal Dependency Grammar Using a Topological Hierarchy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Word Order in German: a Formal Dependency Grammar Using a Topological Hierarchy Word Order in German: A Formal Dependency Grammar Using a Topological Hierarchy Kim Gerdes Sylvain Kahane Lattice, Université Paris 7 Lattice, Université Paris 7 75251 Paris Cedex 05 75251 Paris Cedex 05 France France [email protected] [email protected] pursue this problem any further, but have Abstract limited our description to the link between This paper proposes a description of dependency and topology. Note that it is fun- German word order including phe- damental to our approach that syntactic nomena considered as complex, structure does not include word order. such as scrambling, (partial) VP To get the words in order, we group them in a fronting and verbal pied piping. Our hierarchy of phrases. The nature and the posi- description relates a syntactic de- tion of these phrases are constrained by our pendency structure directly to a topological model. For instance, a non-finite topological hierarchy without re- verb can open two kinds of topological sorting to movement or similar phrases, either a phrase, which we call domain, mechanisms.1 with positions for all of its dependents, or a restricted phrase, which forms the verb cluster, with no positions for dependents other than 1 Introduction predicative elements. These two kinds of phrases must be placed in very different The aim of this article is to describe the word topological positions. order of German verbs and their comple- The fact that we pass through a (topological) ments. German word order is not free, but phrase structure in order to relate dependency based on fairly simple rules, forming what is and word order distinguishes our approach usually called topological model, which sub- from usual dependency grammars (Mel'cuk & divides the sentence into a hierarchy of topo- Pertsov, 1987; Bröker, 1998; Kahane et al., logical domains that are themselves composed 1998; Duchier & Debusmann, 2001). The of fields (Vorfeld, Mittelfeld, right bracket…) description of German word order closest to (Drach, 1937; Bech, 1955). our analysis is the HPSG grammar of Kathol We start from a syntactic dependency tree, i.e. (1995; see also Reape 1994), who proposes an unordered tree whose nodes are labeled linearization rules exclusively based on a for- with the words of the sentence, and whose malization of the topological structure. How- branches are labeled with syntactic relations ever, as required by the formalism he uses, a among the words (subject, direct object…). regular phrase structure, which we do not need The syntactic dependency structure only en- in our analysis, still underlies the structures codes subcategorization and modification and obtained. must be completed by the communicative Our work constitutes a syntactic module which structure (partition into theme/rheme, focus…), links (unordered) syntactic structures with which plays a fundamental role in word order. topological phrase structures. Syntactic struc- It permits us to choose among all the different tures are related to semantic structures, possible orders corresponding to a given de- whereas topological phrase structures are re- pendency structure. In this paper we do not lated to phonological structures. In other words, our work lies within the scope of the 1 We would like to thank Werner Abraham, Tilman general framework of Meaning-Text-Theory Becker, Ralph Debusmann, Denys Duchier, and (Mel'cuk 1988), which considers the modeling Stefan Müller for fruitful discussions. Particular of a language as a modular (bi-directional) thanks to Igor Mel'cuk for the inspiration of the correspondence between meaning and text. It particular status we give to the phrase structure. must be clear that, in contrast to X-bar syntax, our topological phrase structure does not rep- resent the syntactic structure of the sentence. 2.2 Topological model Although the dependency information is es- sential in its construction, the phrase structure The internal structure of a domain is a se- only represents topology, i.e. the surface quence of fields. For example, the main do- grouping of the words. Topological phrases main is the underlying pattern of a declarative can be directly related to prosodic groups, and sentence, and it consists of the following se- topology represents an intermediate level be- quence of five fields: [Vorfeld, left bracket, tween dependency and phonology. Mittelfeld, right bracket, Nachfeld]. A domain In Section 2, the results of our findings are resembles a box whose ordered compartments, presented, without recourse to any mathemati- called fields, can themselves accommodate cal formalism, in the usual terminology of new boxes. In addition to the rules listing the traditional German grammars. In Section 3, a fields of each type of box, we propose two mathematical formalism is proposed to state further types of rules: the rules and the grammar fragment described • rules that indicate into which field a word in Section 2. can go–depending on the position of its governor; • 2 Description rules that indicate which type of box a word can create when it is placed into a given field. Word order in German is much freer than in The hierarchy of boxes forms the phrase English. The dependency tree of Fig. 1, which structure we construct. will be our reference example, has a few dozen linearizations: 2.3 Word order rules (1) a. Niemand hat diesem Mann das Buch zu lesen versprochen We have established the following rules for the b. Diesem Mann hat das Buch niemand linear order of verbs and their dependents: zu lesen versprochen • The finite verb takes the second position c. Das Buch zu lesen hat diesem Mann of the main domain, the left bracket. This niemand versprochen verb is also called V2. • A non-finite verb depending on V2 can d. Diesem Mann hat niemand verspro- 2 chen, das Buch zu lesen go into the right bracket. As a result, it e. Diesem Mann hat, das Buch zu lesen, opens a reduced phrase with only one po- niemand versprochen sition for a verbal dependent (see Section f. Zu lesen hat diesem Mann das Buch 2.8 for another possibility). If a subse- niemand versprochen quent third verb joins the verb already in g. Das Buch hat niemand diesem Mann the right bracket, it will again open a versprochen zu lesen phrase with a position to its left, and so on. ‘Nobody promised this man to read the The verbal constituent occupying the right book.’ bracket is called the verb cluster. • Some non-verbal dependents, such as hat ‘has’ separable verbal prefixes (for example the subj aux an of anfangen ‘begin’), predicative ad- versprochen jectives, and nouns governed by a copular ‘promised’ verb or a support verb, can go into the niemand right bracket (the prefix even forms one ‘noboby’-NOM iobj inf zu lesen word with its following governor). In con- diesem Mann ‘to read’ trast to verbs, these elements do not usu- ‘this man’-DAT dobj ally open up a new position for their de- pendents, which consequently have to be placed somewhere else.3 das Buch ‘the book’-ACC 2 We consider that in a compound verb form such as Fig. 1. Dependency tree of the sentences in (1) hat gelesen ‘has read’ the past participle depends syntactically on the auxiliary, which is the finite verb In this paper, we do not attempt to characterize form (cf. Tesnière 1959, Mel'cuk 1988). The V2 is well-formed German dependency trees al- thus always the root of the syntactic dependency tree. though we recognize that such a characteriza- 3 In examples such as (i), the separable verbal prefix tion is essential if we attempt to describe the an behaves like a subordinated verb intervening be- acceptable sentences of German. tween the ‘main’ verb and its dependent: • One dependent (verbal or non-verbal) of are restrictions that weigh more heavily than any of the verbs of the main domain (V2, the hierarchical position: pronominalization, any verb in the right bracket or even an focus, new information, weight, etc. embedded verb) has to occupy the first position, called the Vorfeld (VF, pre- hat ‘has’ field). • aux All the other non-verbal dependents of the subj versprochen verbs in the domain (V2 or part of the ‘promised’ verbal cluster) can go in the Mittelfeld niemand (MF, middle-field). ‘noboby’ iobj inf • zu lesen Some phrases, in particular sentential ‘to read’ complements (complementizer and rela- diesem Mann ‘to this man’ tive clauses), prepositional phrases, and dobj even some sufficiently heavy noun das Buch phrases, can be positioned in a field right ‘the book’ of the right bracket, the Nachfeld (NF, af- ter-field). Like the Mittelfeld, the Nachfeld can accommodate several dependents. Fig. 2. A phrase structure without embedded do- • When a verb is placed in any of the Major mains for (1a,b) Fields (Vor-, Mittel-, Nachfeld), it opens a The fact that a verbal projection (i.e. the verb new embedded domain. and all of its direct and indirect dependents) In the following section we illustrate our rules does not in general form a continuous phrase, with the dependency tree of Fig. 1 and show unlike in English and French, is called scram- how we describe phenomena such as scram- bling (Ross, 1967). This terminology is based bling and (partial) VP fronting. on an erroneous conception of syntax that supposes that word order is always an immedi- 2.4 Non-embedded construction and ate reflection of the syntactic hierarchy (i.e. every projection of a given element forms a “scrambling” phrase) and that any deviation from this con- Let us start with cases without embedding, i.e. stitutes a problem. In fact, it makes little sense where the subordinated verbs versprochen to form a phrase for each verb and its depend- ‘promised’ and zu lesen ‘to read’ will go into ents.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Intermediate German: a Grammar and Workbook / by 2 Anna Miell & Heiner Schenke 3 P
    111 INTERMEDIATE GERMAN: 2 3 A GRAMMAR AND WORKBOOK 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 1 2 13 4111 5 Intermediate German is designed for learners who have achieved basic 6 proficiency and wish to progress to more complex language. Its 24 units 7 present a broad range of grammatical topics, illustrated by examples which 8 serve as models for varied exercises that follow. These exercises enable 9 the student to master the relevant grammar points. 2011 1 Features include: 2 3 • authentic German, from a range of media, used throughout the book to 4 reflect German culture, life and society 5 6 • illustrations of grammar points in English as well as German 7 • checklists at the end of each unit for consolidation 8 9 • cross-referencing to other grammar units in the book 3011 • glossary of grammatical terminology 1 2 • full answer key to all exercises 3 4 Suitable for independent learners and students on taught courses, 5 Intermediate German, together with its sister volume, Basic German, forms 6 a structured course in the essentials of German. 7 8 Anna Miell is University Lecturer in German at the University of Westminster 9 and at Trinity College of Music in Greenwich and works as a language 4011 consultant in London. Heiner Schenke is Senior Lecturer of German at the 1 University of Westminster and has published a number of language books. 2 3 41111 111 Other titles available in the Grammar Workbook series are: 2 3 Basic Cantonese 4 Intermediate Cantonese 5 Basic German 6 7 Basic Italian 8111 Basic Polish 9 Intermediate Polish 1011 1 Basic Russian 2 Intermediate
    [Show full text]
  • When Linearity Prevails Over Hierarchy in Syntax
    When linearity prevails over hierarchy in syntax Jana Willer Golda, Boban Arsenijevic´b, Mia Batinic´c, Michael Beckerd, Nermina Cordalijaˇ e, Marijana Kresic´c, Nedzadˇ Lekoe, Franc Lanko Marusiˇ cˇf, Tanja Milicev´ g, Natasaˇ Milicevi´ c´g, Ivana Mitic´b, Anita Peti-Stantic´h, Branimir Stankovic´b, Tina Suligojˇ f, Jelena Tusekˇ h, and Andrew Nevinsa,1 aDivision of Psychology and Language Sciences, University College London, London WC1N 1PF, United Kingdom; bDepartment for Serbian language, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Nis,ˇ Nisˇ 18000, Serbia; cDepartment of Linguistics, University of Zadar, Zadar 23000, Croatia; dDepartment of Linguistics, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794-4376; eDepartment of English, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Sarajevo, Sarajevo 71000, Bosnia and Herzegovina; fCenter for Cognitive Science of Language, University of Nova Gorica, Nova Gorica 5000, Slovenia; gDepartment of English Studies, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad 21000, Serbia; hDepartment of South Slavic languages and literatures, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb, Zagreb 10000, Croatia Edited by Barbara H. Partee, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Amherst, MA, and approved November 27, 2017 (received for review July 21, 2017) Hierarchical structure has been cherished as a grammatical univer- show cases of agreement based on linear order, called “attrac- sal. We use experimental methods to show where linear order is tion,” with the plural complement of noun phrases (e.g., the key also a relevant syntactic relation. An identical methodology and to the cabinets are missing), a set of findings later replicated in design were used across six research sites on South Slavic lan- comprehension and across a variety of other languages and con- guages.
    [Show full text]
  • Pronouns and Prosody in Irish&Sast;
    PRONOUNS AND PROSODY IN IRISH* RYAN BENNETT Yale University EMILY ELFNER University of British Columbia JAMES MCCLOSKEY University of California, Santa Cruz 1. BACKGROUND One of the stranger properties of human language is the way in which it creates a bridge between two worlds which ought not be linked, and which seem not to be linked in any other species—a bridge linking the world of concepts, ideas and propositions with the world of muscular gestures whose outputs are perceivable. Because this link is made in us we can do what no other creature can do: we can externalize our internal and subjective mental states in ways that expose them to scrutiny by others and by ourselves. The existence of this bridge depends in turn on a system or systems which can take the complex structures used in cognition (hierarchical and recursive) and translate them step by step into the kinds of representations that our motor system knows how to deal with. In the largest sense, our goal in the research reported on here is to help better understand those systems and in particular the processes of serialization and flattening that make it possible to span the divide between the two worlds. In doing this, we study something which is of central importance to the question of what language is and how it might have emerged in our species. Establishing sequential order is, obviously, a key part of the process of serialization. And given the overall perspective just suggested, it is *Four of the examples cited in this paper (examples (35), (38a), (38b), and (38c)) have sound-files associated with them.
    [Show full text]
  • Cohesion, Coherence and Temporal Reference from an Experimental Corpus Pragmatics Perspective Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics
    Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics Cristina Grisot Cohesion, Coherence and Temporal Reference from an Experimental Corpus Pragmatics Perspective Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics Editor-in-Chief Jesús Romero-Trillo, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain Reviews Editor Dawn Knight, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK Advisory Editorial Board Karin Aijmer, University of Gothenburg, Sweden Belén Díez-Bedmar, Universidad de Jaén, Spain Ronald Geluykens, University of Oldenburg, Germany Anna Gladkova, University of Sussex and University of Brighton, UK Stefan Gries: University of California, Santa Barbara, USA Leo Francis Hoye, University of Hong Kong, China Jingyang Jiang, Zhejiang University, China Anne O’Keefe, Mary Immaculate College, Limerick, Ireland Silvia Riesco-Bernier, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen, University of Ghent, Belgium Esther Vázquez y del Árbol, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain Anne Wichmann, University of Central Lancashire, UK More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/11559 Cristina Grisot Cohesion, Coherence and Temporal Reference from an Experimental Corpus Pragmatics Perspective Cristina Grisot Department of Linguistics University of Geneva Geneva 4, Switzerland Published with the support of the Swiss National Science Foundation ISSN 2213-6819 ISSN 2213-6827 (electronic) Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics ISBN 978-3-319-96751-6 ISBN 978-3-319-96752-3 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96752-3 Library of Congress
    [Show full text]
  • Graph-Based Syntactic Word Embeddings
    Graph-based Syntactic Word Embeddings Ragheb Al-Ghezi Mikko Kurimo Aalto University Aalto University [email protected] [email protected] Abstract We propose a simple and efficient framework to learn syntactic embeddings based on information derived from constituency parse trees. Using biased random walk methods, our embeddings not only encode syntactic information about words, but they also capture contextual information. We also propose a method to train the embeddings on multiple constituency parse trees to ensure the encoding of global syntactic representation. Quantitative evaluation of the embeddings shows competitive performance on POS tagging task when compared to other types of embeddings, and qualitative evaluation reveals interesting facts about the syntactic typology learned by these embeddings. 1 Introduction Distributional similarity methods have been the standard learning representation in NLP. Word represen- tations methods such as Word2vec, GloVe, and FastText [1, 2, 3] aim to create vector representation to words from other words or characters that mutually appear in the same context. The underlying premise is that ”a word can be defined by its company” [4]. For example, in the sentences, ”I eat an apple every day” and ”I eat an orange every day”, the words ’orange’ and ’apple’ are similar as they share similar contexts. Recent approaches have proposed a syntax-based extension to distributional word embeddings to in- clude functional similarity in the word vectors by leveraging the power of dependency parsing[5] [6]. Syntactic word embeddings have been shown to be advantageous in specific NLP tasks such as ques- tion type classification[7], semantic role labeling[8], part-of-speech tagging[6], biomedical event trigger identification[9], and predicting brain activation patterns [10].
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 14: Dependency Parsing
    Speech and Language Processing. Daniel Jurafsky & James H. Martin. Copyright © 2021. All rights reserved. Draft of September 21, 2021. CHAPTER 14 Dependency Parsing The focus of the two previous chapters has been on context-free grammars and constituent-based representations. Here we present another important family of dependency grammars grammar formalisms called dependency grammars. In dependency formalisms, phrasal constituents and phrase-structure rules do not play a direct role. Instead, the syntactic structure of a sentence is described solely in terms of directed binary grammatical relations between the words, as in the following dependency parse: root dobj det nmod (14.1) nsubj nmod case I prefer the morning flight through Denver Relations among the words are illustrated above the sentence with directed, labeled typed dependency arcs from heads to dependents. We call this a typed dependency structure because the labels are drawn from a fixed inventory of grammatical relations. A root node explicitly marks the root of the tree, the head of the entire structure. Figure 14.1 shows the same dependency analysis as a tree alongside its corre- sponding phrase-structure analysis of the kind given in Chapter 12. Note the ab- sence of nodes corresponding to phrasal constituents or lexical categories in the dependency parse; the internal structure of the dependency parse consists solely of directed relations between lexical items in the sentence. These head-dependent re- lationships directly encode important information that is often buried in the more complex phrase-structure parses. For example, the arguments to the verb prefer are directly linked to it in the dependency structure, while their connection to the main verb is more distant in the phrase-structure tree.
    [Show full text]
  • Rules and Exercises: German Textbooks for Teaching and Learning English Around 1800 87
    Anglistentag 1993 Eichstätt Proceedings edited by Günther Blaicher and Brigitte Glaser MAX NIEMEYER VERLAG TÜBINGEN 1994 Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnahme Anglistentag <1993, Eichstätts Proceedings / Anglistentag 1993 Eichstätt / ed. by Günther Blaicher and Brigitte Glaser. - Tübingen : Niemeyer, 1994 (Proceedings of the conference of the German Association of University Teachers of English; Vol. 15) NE: Blaicher, Günther [Hrsg.]; Anglistentag: Proceedings of the ... ISBN 3-484-40128-1 © Max Niemeyer Verlag GmbH & Co. KG, Tübingen 1994 Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Printed in Germany. Gedruckt auf alterungsbeständigem Papier. Druck und Einband: Weihert-Druck GmbH, Darmstadt Proceedings of the Conference of the German Association of University Teachers of English Volume XV CONTENTS SECTION 1: THE HISTORY OF LINGUISTIC IDEAS Werner Hüllen: Introduction 17 R. H. Robins: William Bullokar's Bref Grammar for English: Text and Context (Plenary Lecture) 19 Werner Hüllen: A Great Chain of Words: The Onomasiological Tradition in English Lexicography 32 Michael Cahn: The Printing Press as an Agent in the History of Linguistic Ideas? 47 David Cram: Collection and Classification: Universal Language Schemes and the Development
    [Show full text]
  • The Non-Hierarchical Nature of the Chomsky Hierarchy-Driven Artificial-Grammar Learning
    The Non-Hierarchical Nature of the Chomsky Hierarchy-Driven Artificial-Grammar Learning Shiro Ojima & Kazuo Okanoya Recent artificial-grammar learning (AGL) paradigms driven by the Choms- ky hierarchy paved the way for direct comparisons between humans and animals in the learning of center embedding ([A[AB]B]). The AnBn grammars used by the first generation of such research lacked a crucial property of center embedding, where the pairs of elements are explicitly matched ([A1 [A2 B2] B1]). This type of indexing is implemented in the second-generation AnBn grammars. This paper reviews recent studies using such grammars. Against the premises of these studies, we argue that even those newer AnBn grammars cannot test the learning of syntactic hierarchy. These studies nonetheless provide detailed information about the conditions under which human adults can learn an AnBn grammar with indexing. This knowledge serves to interpret recent animal studies, which make surprising claims about animals’ ability to handle center embedding. Keywords: language evolution; animal cognition; syntactic hierarchy; arti- ficial grammar; center embedding 1. Center Embedding and AnBn Grammars One of the properties that make humans unique among animals is language, which has several components including phonology, lexicon, and syntax. It has been debated how much of each of these components is shared between humans and non-human animals (Markman & Abelev 2004, Yip 2006). The component of syntax, which has been receiving much attention in the field of comparative cognition, instantiates linguistic knowledge describable in terms of a finite set of rules. That set of rules is called a grammar. Fitch & Hauser’s (2004) seminal work tried to test which type of grammar non-human primates can learn.
    [Show full text]
  • Functional Categories and Syntactic Theory 141 LI02CH08-Rizzi ARI 5 December 2015 12:12
    LI02CH08-Rizzi ARI 5 December 2015 12:12 ANNUAL REVIEWS Further Click here to view this article's online features: • Download figures as PPT slides • Navigate linked references • Download citations Functional Categories • Explore related articles • Search keywords and Syntactic Theory Luigi Rizzi1,2 and Guglielmo Cinque3 1Departement´ de Linguistique, UniversitedeGen´ eve,` CH-1211 Geneve,` Switzerland 2Centro Interdipartimentale di Studi Cognitivi sul Linguaggio–Dipartimento di Scienze Sociali, Politiche e Cognitive (CISCL-DISPOC), Universita` di Siena, Siena 53100, Italy 3Dipartimento di Studi Linguistici, Ca’ Foscari University, Venice 30123, Italy Annu. Rev. Linguist. 2016. 2:139–63 Keywords The Annual Review of Linguistics is online at functional heads, Universal Grammar, syntactic variation, cartography, linguist.annualreviews.org lexicon This article’s doi: by Mr. Guglielmo Cinque on 01/27/16. For personal use only. 10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011415-040827 Abstract Copyright c 2016 by Annual Reviews. The distinction between lexical and functional elements plays a major role in All rights reserved Annu. Rev. Linguist. 2016.2:139-163. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org current research in syntax and neighboring aspects of the study of language. In this article, we review the motivations of a progressive shift of emphasis from lexical to functional elements in syntactic research: the identification of the functional lexicon as the locus of the triggering of syntactic actions and of syntactic variation, and the description and analysis of the complexity of functional structures in cartographic studies. The latter point leads us to illustrate current cartographic research and to present the maps created in the study of clauses and phrases. The maps of CP, IP, and other phrasal categories all involve a richly articulated functional sequence.
    [Show full text]
  • Dependency Grammars and Parsers
    Dependency Grammars and Parsers Deep Processing for NLP Ling571 January 30, 2017 Roadmap Dependency Grammars Definition Motivation: Limitations of Context-Free Grammars Dependency Parsing By conversion to CFG By Graph-based models By transition-based parsing Dependency Grammar CFGs: Phrase-structure grammars Focus on modeling constituent structure Dependency grammars: Syntactic structure described in terms of Words Syntactic/Semantic relations between words Dependency Parse A dependency parse is a tree, where Nodes correspond to words in utterance Edges between nodes represent dependency relations Relations may be labeled (or not) Dependency Relations Speech and Language Processing - 1/29/17 Jurafsky and Martin 5 Dependency Parse Example They hid the letter on the shelf Why Dependency Grammar? More natural representation for many tasks Clear encapsulation of predicate-argument structure Phrase structure may obscure, e.g. wh-movement Good match for question-answering, relation extraction Who did what to whom Build on parallelism of relations between question/relation specifications and answer sentences Why Dependency Grammar? Easier handling of flexible or free word order How does CFG handle variations in word order? Adds extra phrases structure rules for alternatives Minor issue in English, explosive in other langs What about dependency grammar? No difference: link represents relation Abstracts away from surface word order Why Dependency Grammar? Natural efficiencies: CFG: Must derive full trees of many
    [Show full text]
  • Dependency Grammar and the Parsing of Chinese Sentences*
    Dependency Grammar and the Parsing of Chinese Sentences* LAI Bong Yeung Tom Department of Chinese, Translation and Linguistics City University of Hong Kong Department of Computer Science and Technology Tsinghua University, Beijing E-mail: [email protected] HUANG Changning Department of Computer Science and Technology Tsinghua University, Beijing Abstract Dependency Grammar has been used by linguists as the basis of the syntactic components of their grammar formalisms. It has also been used in natural langauge parsing. In China, attempts have been made to use this grammar formalism to parse Chinese sentences using corpus-based techniques. This paper reviews the properties of Dependency Grammar as embodied in four axioms for the well-formedness conditions for dependency structures. It is shown that allowing multiple governors as done by some followers of this formalism is unnecessary. The practice of augmenting Dependency Grammar with functional labels is discussed in the light of building functional structures when the sentence is parsed. This will also facilitate semantic interpretion. 1 Introduction Dependency Grammar (DG) is a grammatical theory proposed by the French linguist Tesniere.[1] Its formal properties were then studied by Gaifman [2] and his results were brought to the attention of the linguistic community by Hayes.[3] Robinson [4] considered the possiblity of using this grammar within a transformation-generative framework and formulated four axioms for the well-formedness of dependency structures. Hudson [5] adopted Dependency Grammar as the basis of the syntactic component of his Word Grammar, though he allowed dependency relations outlawed by Robinson's axioms. Dependency Grammar is concerned directly with individual words.
    [Show full text]
  • Dependency Grammar
    Dependency Grammar Introduc)on Christopher Manning Dependency Grammar and Dependency Structure Dependency syntax postulates that syntac)c structure consists of relaons between lexical items, normally binary asymmetric relaons (“arrows”) called dependencies submitted Bills were by on Brownback ports Senator Republican and immigration of Kansas Christopher Manning Dependency Grammar and Dependency Structure Dependency syntax postulates that syntac)c structure consists of relaons between lexical items, normally binary asymmetric relaons (“arrows”) called dependencies submitted nsubjpass auxpass prep The arrows are Bills were by commonly typed prep pobj with the name of on Brownback pobj nn appos grammacal ports Senator Republican relaons (subject, cc conj prep preposi)onal object, and immigration of apposi)on, etc.) pobj Kansas Christopher Manning Dependency Grammar and Dependency Structure Dependency syntax postulates that syntac)c structure consists of relaons between lexical items, normally binary asymmetric relaons (“arrows”) called dependencies submitted The arrow connects a nsubjpass auxpass prep head (governor, Bills were by superior, regent) with a prep pobj dependent (modifier, on inferior, subordinate) Brownback pobj nn appos ports Senator Republican Usually, dependencies cc conj prep form a tree (connected, and immigration of acyclic, single-head) pobj Kansas Christopher Manning Dependency Grammar and Dependency Structure ROOT Discussion of the outstanding issues was completed . • Some people draw the arrows one way; some the other way! • Tesnière had them point from head to dependent… • Usually add a fake ROOT so every word is a dependent of precisely 1 other node Christopher Manning Dependency Grammar/Parsing History • The idea of dependency structure goes back a long way • To Pāṇini’s grammar (c.
    [Show full text]