Article | Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Dependency Linguistics (Depling 2017), September 18-20, 2017, UniversitĂ  di Pisa, Italy | Understanding Constraints on Non-projectivity Using Novel Measures
Göm menyn

Title:
Understanding Constraints on Non-projectivity Using Novel Measures
Author:
Himanshu Yadav: Jawaharlal Nehru University, Center for Linguistics, New Delhi, India Ashwini Vaidya: IIT Delhi, Department of Electrical Engineering, India Samar Husain: IIT Delhi, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, India
Download:
Full text (pdf)
Year:
2017
Conference:
Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Dependency Linguistics (Depling 2017), September 18-20, 2017, UniversitĂ  di Pisa, Italy
Issue:
139
Article no.:
031
Pages:
276-286
No. of pages:
11
Publication type:
Abstract and Fulltext
Published:
2017-09-13
ISBN:
978-91-7685-467-9
Series:
Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings
ISSN (print):
1650-3686
ISSN (online):
1650-3740
Publisher:
Linköping University Electronic Press, Linköpings universitet


Export in BibTex, RIS or text

In this work we propose certain novel measures to understand non-projectivity in various syntactic phenomena in Hindi. This is an attempt to go beyond the analysis of non-projectivity in terms of certain graphical measures such as edge degree, planarity etc. Our measures are motivated by the findings in the processing literature that have investigated the interaction between working-memory constraints and syntactic complexity. Our analysis shows that the measures pat-tern differently for distinct phenomena and therefore could prove to be beneficial in understanding non-projectivity in a language. We also find some interesting differences in non-projectivity between conversation and news genre.

Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Dependency Linguistics (Depling 2017), September 18-20, 2017, UniversitĂ  di Pisa, Italy

Author:
Himanshu Yadav, Ashwini Vaidya, Samar Husain
Title:
Understanding Constraints on Non-projectivity Using Novel Measures
References:

JE Arnold. 2011. Ordering choices in production: For the speaker or for the listener. Language from a cognitive perspective: Grammar, usage, and processing, pages 199–222.


Riyaz Ahmad Bhat and Dipti Misra Sharma. 2012. Non-projective structures in indian language treebanks. In Proceedings of TLT11, pages 25–30.


Rajesh Bhatt, Bhuvana Narasimhan, Martha Palmer, Owen Rambow, Dipti Misra Sharma, and Fei Xia. 2009. A multi-representational and multi-layered treebank for hindi/urdu. In Proceedings of the Third LAW, pages 186–189.


Manuel Bodirsky, Marco Kuhlmann, and Mathias M¨ohl. 2005. Well-nested drawings as models of syntactic structure. In In Tenth Conference on Formal Grammar and Ninth Meeting on Mathematics of Language, pages 88–1. University Press.


M. Butt and T. C. King. 1996. Structural topic and focus without movement. In M. Butt and T. H. King, eds., The First LFG Conference. CSLI Publications.


N. Chomsky and G. A. Miller. 1963. Introduction to the formal analysis of natural languages. In R. D. Luce, R. R. Bush, E. Galanter (Eds.), Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, volume 2, pages 269–321. Wiley, New York.


N. Chomsky. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.


L. Frazier. 1985. Syntactic complexity. In D. Dowty, L. Karttunen, A. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural Language Processing: Psychological, Computational and Theoretical Perspectives, volume 37, pages 129–189. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKWiley Online Library.


R. Futrell, K. Mahowald, and E. Gibson. 2015. Large-scale evidence of dependency length minimization in 37 languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(33):10336–10341.


Edward Gibson and James Thomas. 1999. Memory limitations and structural forgetting: The perception of complex ungrammatical sentences as grammatical. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14(3):225–248.


Edward Gibson. 2000. Dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Alec Marantz, Yasushi Miyashita, and Wayne O’Neil, editors, Image, Language, brain: Papers from the First Mind Articulation Project Symposium. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.


Carlos GĂłmez-RodrĂ­guez. 2017. On the relation between dependency distance, crossing dependencies, and parsing: Comment on dependency distance: a new perspective on syntactic patterns in natural languages by haitao liu et al. Physics of Life Reviews.


R. Hudson. 2010. An introduction to Word Grammar. Cambridge University Press.


S. Husain and S. Vasishth. 2015. Non-projectivity and processing constraints: Insights from hindi. In Proceedings of the Third Depling, pages 141–150.


Aravind K. Joshi. 1985. Tree adjoining grammars: how much context-sensitivity is required to provide reasonable structural descriptions? In David R. Dowty, Lauri Karttunen, and Arnold Zwicky, editors, Natural Language Parsing, pages 206–250. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.


Aravind K. Joshi. 1990. Processing crossed and nested dependencies: An automaton perspective on the psycholinguistic results. Language and Cognitive Processes, 5:1–27.


A. Kidwai. 2000. XP-Adjunction in universal grammar: Scrambling and binding in Hindi- Urdu. Oxford University Press, New York.


A. Kothari. 2010. Processing Constraints And Word Order Variation In Hindi Relative Clauses. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.


Marco Kuhlmann and Joakim Nivre. 2006. Mildly non-projective dependency structures. In Proceedings of COLING-ACL, pages 507–514.


Marco Kuhlmann. 2007. Dependency Structures and Lexicalized Grammars. Ph.D. thesis, Saarland University. Roger Levy and Frank Keller. 2013. Expectation and Locality Effects in German Verb-final Structures. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(2):199–222.


R. Levy, E. Fedorenko, M. Breen, and E. Gibson. 2012. The processing of extraposed structures in English. Cognition, 122(1):12–36.


R. L. Lewis and S. Vasishth. 2005. An activationbased model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science, 29:1–45.


Haitao Liu, Chunshan Xu, and Junying Liang. 2017. Dependency distance: a new perspective on syntactic patterns in natural languages. Physics of Life Reviews.


Maryellen MacDonald. 2013. How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 4:226.


P. Mannem, H. Chaudhry, and A. Bharati. 2009. Insights into non-projectivity in hindi. In Proceedings of ACL-IJCNLP 2009 SRW, pages 10–17.


Joakim Nivre. 2006. Constraints on non-projective dependency parsing. In EACL. Joakim Nivre. 2009. Non-projective dependency parsing in expected linear time. In Proceedings of ACL and IJCNLP, ACL ’09, pages 351–359.


O. Rambow. 2010. The simple truth about dependency and phrase structure representations: An opinion piece. In Proceedings of ACL, pages 337–340.


Molood S. Safavi, Samar Husain, and Shravan Vasishth. 2016. Dependency resolution difficulty increases with distance in persian separable complex predicates: Evidence for expectation and memorybased accounts. Frontiers in Psychology, 7:403.


S.M. Shieber. 1985. Evidence against the contextfreeness of natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 8:333–343.


M. Steedman. 2000. The Syntactic Process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.


T. Wasow. 1997. Remarks on grammtical weight. Language Variation and Change, 9:81–105.


Victor H Yngve. 1960. A model and an hypothesis for language structure. Proceedings of the American philosophical society, 104(5):444–466.

Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Dependency Linguistics (Depling 2017), September 18-20, 2017, UniversitĂ  di Pisa, Italy

Author:
Himanshu Yadav, Ashwini Vaidya, Samar Husain
Title:
Understanding Constraints on Non-projectivity Using Novel Measures
Note: the following are taken directly from CrossRef
Citations:
No citations available at the moment


Responsible for this page: Peter Berkesand
Last updated: 2017-02-21