Skip to main content

Gradience, Constructions and Constraint Systems

  • Conference paper
Constraint Solving and Language Processing (CSLP 2004)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 3438))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 311 Accesses

Abstract

This paper is concerned with the question of quantifying gradient degrees of acceptability by introducing the notion of Density in the context of constructional constraint language processing. We first present here our framework for language processing, where all linguistic knowledge is represented by means of constraints. The grammar itself is a constraint system. A constraint is a relation among categories, which encodes a linguistic property. But in contrast to more traditional constraint-based approaches, a constraint can hold and be assessed independently from the structure. In this context, we then introduce the notion of density, based on proportions of satisfied and violated linguistic properties. Our intuition is that density can be used as a means to measure fuzzy notions such as syntactic complexity or as a criterion to identify gradient levels of acceptability. We present and discuss early experimental results concerning density.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gibson, E.: The Dependency Locality Theory: A Distance-Based Theory of Linguistic Complexity. In: Marantz, A., Miyashita, Y., ONeil, W. (eds.) Image, Language, Brain, pp. 95–126. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bolinger, D.: Generality, Gradience and the All–or–None, Mouton. The Hague (1961)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Aarts, B.: Modelling Linguistic Gradience. Studies in Language 28, 1–49 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Bresnan, J., Nikitina, T.: On the Gradience of the Dative Alternation. Draft (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Keller, F.: Gradience in Grammar - Experimental and Computational Aspects of Degrees of Grammaticality. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Sorace, A., Keller, F.: Gradience in Linguistic Data. Lingua (2004) (in press)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Prince, A., Smolensky, P.: Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generatire Grammar. Technical report, TR-2, Rutgers University Cognitive Science Center, New Brunswick, NJ (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Pullum, G., Scholz, B.: On the Distinction Between Model-Theoretic and Generative-Enumerative Syntactic Frameworks. In: de Groote, P., Morrill, G., Retoré, C. (eds.) LACL 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2099, pp. 17–43. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Fillmore, C.: Inversion and Constructional Inheritance. In: Lexical and Constructional Aspects of Linguistic Explanation. Stanford University, Stanford (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Goldberg, A.: Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago University Press, Chicago (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Keller, F.: A Probabilistic Parser as a Model of Global Processing Difficulty. In: Proceedings of ACCSS 2003 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kay, P., Fillmore, C.: Grammatical Constructions and Linguistic Generalizations: the what’s x doing y? Construction. Language (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Blache, P.: Constraints, Linguistic Theories and Natural Language Processing. In: Christodoulakis, D.N. (ed.) NLP 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1835, p. 221. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Mertens, P.: Accentuation, intonation et morphosyntaxe. Travaux de Linguistique 26 (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Sag, I., Wasow, T.: Syntactic Theory. A Formal Introduction. CSLI (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Maruyama, H.: Structural Disambiguation with Constraint Propagation. In: Proceedings 28th Annual Meeting of the ACL, Pittburgh, PA, pp. 31–38 (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Duchier, D.: Axiomatizing Dependency Parsing Using Set Parsing. In: Proceedings 6th Meeting on the Mathematics of Language, Orlando, FL (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Heinecke, J., Kunze, J., Menzel, W., Shröder, I.: Eliminative Parsing with Graded Constraints. In: Proceedings 7th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, 36th Annual Meeting of the ACL, Montreal, Canada. Coling–ACL 1998, pp. 526–530 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Christiansen, H.: CHR Grammars. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming. Special issue on Constraint Handling Rules (2005) (to appear)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Frühwirth, T.: Constraint Handling Rules. In: Podelski, A. (ed.) Constraint Programming: Basics and Trends. LNCS, vol. 910. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Blache, P.: Les Grammaires de Propriétés: des contraintes pour le traitement automatique des langues naturelles. Hermès Sciences (2001)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2005 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Blache, P., Prost, JP. (2005). Gradience, Constructions and Constraint Systems. In: Christiansen, H., Skadhauge, P.R., Villadsen, J. (eds) Constraint Solving and Language Processing. CSLP 2004. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 3438. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11424574_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11424574_5

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-26165-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-31928-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics