Skip to main content

Polarized Non-projective Dependency Grammars

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics (LACL 2001)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 2099))

Abstract

Dependency tree grammars are proposed in which unbounded discontinuity is resolved through the first available valency saturation. In general, they are expressive enough to generate non-semilinear context sensitive languages, but in the practical situation where the number of non saturated valencies is bounded by a constant, they are weakly equivalent to cf-grammars, are parsable in cubic time, and are stronger than non-projective dependency grammars without long dependencies.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Y. Bar-Hillel, H. Gaifman, and E. Shamir. On categorial and phrase structure grammars. Bull. Res. Council Israel, 9F:1–16, 1960.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. N. Bröker. Separating surface order and syntactic relations in a dependency grammar. In Proc. COLING-ACL, pages 174–180, Montreal, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  3. A.Ja. Dikovsky and L.S. Modina. Dependencies on the other side of the curtain. Traitement Automatique des Langues (TAL), 41(1):79–111, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  4. H. Gaifman. Dependency systems and phrase structure systems. Report p-2315, RAND Corp. Santa Monica (CA), 1961. Published in: Information and Control, 1965, v. 8, n. 3, pp. 304-337.

    Google Scholar 

  5. M. Hepple. A dependency-based approach to bounded & unbounded movement. In T. Becker and H.-U. Krieger, editors, Proc. of the 5th Meeting on Math. and Language, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  6. R.A. Hudson. Word Grammar. Basil Blackwell, Oxford-New York, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  7. A.K. Joshi, L.S. Levy, and M. Takahashi. Tree adjunct grammars. Journ. of Comput. and Syst. Sci., 10(1):136–163, 1975.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. S. Kahane, A. Nasr, and O. Rambow. Pseudo-projectivity: A polynomially parsable non-projective dependency grammar. In Proc. COLING-ACL, pages 646–652, Montreal, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  9. A. Lecomte. Proof nets and dependencies. In Proc. of COLING-92, pages 394–401, Nantes, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  10. V. Lombardo and L. Lesmo. An earley-type recognizer for dependency grammar. In Proc. 16th COLING, pages 723–728, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  11. V. Lombardo and L. Lesmo. Formal aspects and parsing issues of dependency theory. In Proc. COLING-ACL, pages 787–793, Montreal, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  12. I. Mel’čuk. Dependency Syntax. SUNY Press, Albany, NY, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  13. L.S. Modina. On Some Formal Grammars Generating Dependency Trees. In Proc. of the MFCS’75, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, number 32, pages 326–329, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  14. M. Moortgat. La grammaire catégorielle généralisée: le calcul de lambek-gentzen. In Ph. Miller and Th. Torris, editors, Structure of languages and its mathematical aspects, pages 127–182. Hermes, Paris, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  15. M. Moortgat and R. Oehrle. Adjacency, dependency and order. In Proc. of Ninth Amsterdam Colloquium, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  16. A. Nasr. A formalism and a parser for lexicalized dependency grammars. In Proc. Int. Workshop on Parsing Technology, pages 186–195, Prague, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  17. P. Neuhaus and N. Bröker. The Complexity of Recognition of Linguistically Adequate Dependency Grammars. In Proc. of 35th ACL Annual Meeting and 8th Conf. of the ECACL, pages 337–343, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Jane J. Robinson. Dependency structures and transformational rules. Language, 46(2):259–285, 1970.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. D. D. Sleator and D. Temperly. Parsing English with a Link Grammar. In Proc. IWPT’93, pages 277–291, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  20. E. Stabler. Derivational minimalism. In Ch. Retoré, editor, Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics, number 1328 in LNAI, pages 68–95, Nancy, 1996. Springer Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2001 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Dikovsky, A. (2001). Polarized Non-projective Dependency Grammars. In: de Groote, P., Morrill, G., Retoré, C. (eds) Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics. LACL 2001. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 2099. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48199-0_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48199-0_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-42273-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-48199-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics