Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On Relations of Constituency and Dependency Grammars

  • Published:
Research on Language and Computation

Abstract

This paper looks at integrating dependency and constituency into acommon framework, using the TAG formalism and a differentperspective on the meta-level grammar of Dras (1999a) in which themeta level models dependencies and the object level modelsconstituency. This framework gives consistent dependency analysesof raising verbs interacting with bridge verbs, additionally givinga solution to a problem in Synchronous TAG, and gives appropriateanalyses of subject-auxiliary inversion. This and other evidencesuggests the integration of dependency and constituency is a usefulavenue to explore.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abney S. (1995) Chunks and Dependencies: Bringing Processing Evidence to Bear on Syntax. In Computational Linguistics and the Foundations of Linguistic Theory, CSLI.

  • Aho A. V., Ullman J. D. (1969) Syntax Directed Translations and the Pushdown Assembler. J. Comp. Syst. Sci., 3/1, pp. 37-56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson J. (1971) The Grammar of Case: Towards a Localistic Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer L. (1979) Some Thoughts on Dependency Grammar. Linguistics, 17, pp. 301-315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker T., Joshi A., Rambow, O. (1991) Long Distance Scrambling and Tree Adjoining Grammars. In Fifth Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL'91), pp. 21-26.

  • Candito M.-H., Kahane S. (1998) Defining dtg Derivations to Get Semantic Graphs. In Proceedings of the TAG+4 Workshop, University of Pennsylvania, August, pp. 25-28.

  • Chiang D., Schuler W., Dras M. (2000) Some Remarks on an Extension of Synchronous TAG. In Proceedings of TAG+5, Paris, France, pp. 61-66.

  • Chomsky N. (1986) Knowledge of Language. Praeger, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins M. (1997) Three Generative, Lexicalised Models for Statistical Parsing. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL '97).

  • Covington M. (1984) Syntactic Theory in the High Middle Ages. Cambridge University Press, London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dras M. (1999a) A Meta-Level Grammar: Redefining Synchronous TAG for Translation and Paraphrase. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL '99), pp. 80-87.

  • Dras M. (1999b) Tree Adjoining Grammar and the Reluctant Paraphrasing of Text. PhD thesis, Department of Computing, Macquarie University.

  • Dras M., Bleam T. (2000) How Problematic are Clitics for S-Tag Translation? In Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Tree Adjoining Grammars and Related Formalisms (TAG+5), Paris, France, pp. 241-244.

  • Frank R. (1992) Syntactic Locality and Tree Adjoining Grammar: Grammatical Acquisition and Processing Perspectives. PhD thesis, Computer Science Department, University of Pennsylvania.

  • Frank R. (2000) Phrase Structure Composition and Syntactic Dependencies, unpublished manuscript, Johns Hopkins University, October.

  • Gaifman H. (1965) Dependency Systems and Phrase-Structure Systems. Information and Control, 8, pp. 304-337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gladkij A. (1980) Opisanie sintaksičeskoj struktury preloženija s pomošč'ju sistem sintaksičeskix grupp. Slavica, 17, pp. 5-38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorn S. (1962) Processors for Infinite Codes of Shannon-Fano Type. In Symp. Math. Theory of Automata.

  • Hays D. (1964) Dependency Theory: A Formalism and Some Observations. Language, 40, pp. 511-525.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudson R. (1976) Arguments for a Non-Transformational Grammar. Chicago University Press, Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudson R. (1984) Word Grammar. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iordanskaja L., Kim M., Kittredge R., Lavoie B., Polguhre A. (1992) Generation of Extended Bilingual Statistical Reports. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Nantes, France, pp. 1019-1023.

  • Joshi A. (2000) Relationship between Strong and Weak Generative Power of Formal Systems. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Tree Adjoining Grammars and Related Formalisms (TAG+5), Paris, France, pp. 107-114.

  • Joshi A., Becker T., Rambow O. (2000) Complexity of Scrambling: A New Twist to the Competence-Performance Distinction. In Tree Adjoining Grammars: Formalisms, Linguistic Analysis and Processing, CSLI Publications, Stanford, California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joshi A., Vijay-Shanker K. (1999) Compositional Semantics with Lexicalized Tree-Adjoining Grammar (LTAG): How Much Underspecification is Necessary? In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Computational Semantics.

  • Kahane S., Nasr A., Rambow O. (1998) Pseudo-Projectivity: A Polynomially Parsable Non-Projective Dependency Grammar. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL '98), Montreal, Canada.

  • Kasper R., Kiefer B., Netter K., Vijay-Shanker K. (1995) Compilation of hpsg to Tag. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL '95).

  • Kayne R. S. (1994) The Antisymmetry of Syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroch A. S., Joshi A. K. (1987) Analyzing Extraposition in a Tree Adjoining Grammar. In Huck G., Ojeda A. (eds.), Discontinuous Constituents, Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 20, Academic Press.

  • Kulick S. (2000) A Uniform Account of Locality Constraints for Clitic Climbing and Long Scrambling. In Proceedings of the Penn Linguistics Colloquium.

  • Lecerf Y. (1960) Programme des conflits, modéle des conflits. Bulletin bimestrial de l'ATALA, 4.

  • Magerman D. (1995) Statistical Decision-Tree Models for Parsing. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL'95).

  • Mel'čuk I. (1979) Studies in Dependency Syntax. Karoma Publishers, Ann Arbor, MI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mel'čuk I. (1988) Dependency Syntax: Theory and Practice. State University of NY Press, Albany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mel'čuk I., Pertsov N. (1987) Surface Syntax of English: A Formal Model within the Meaning-Text Framework. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer M., Rosenzweig J., Schuler W. (1998) Capturing Motion Verb Generalizations with Synchronous TAG. In Dizier P.S. (ed.), Predicative Forms in NLP, Kluwer Press.

  • Peters P., Ritchie R. (1973) On the Generative Power of Transformational Grammars. Information Sciences, 6, pp. 49-83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rambow O. (1994) Formal and Computational Aspects of Natural Language Syntax. PhD thesis, Computer Science Department, University of Pennsylvania.

  • Rambow O., Joshi A. (1997) A Formal Look at Dependency Grammars and Phrase-Structure Grammars, with Special Consideration of Word-Order Phenomena. In Wanner L. (ed.), Current Issues in Meaning-Text Theory, Pinter, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rambow O., Satta G. (1996) Synchronous Models of Language. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL '96).

  • Rambow O., Weir D., Vijay-Shanker K. (1995) D-Tree Grammars. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL '95).

  • Robinson J. (1970) Dependency Structures and Transformational Rules. Language, 46/2, pp. 259-285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers J. (1994) Capturing CFLs with Tree Adjoining Grammars. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL '94).

  • Rogers J. (1997) A Unified Notion of Derived and Derivation Structures in Tag. In Proceedings of the Fifth Meeting on Mathematics of Language (MOL5), Dagstuhl, Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schabes Y., Shieber S. M. (1994) An Alternative Conception of Tree-Adjoining Derivation. Computational Linguistics, 20/1, pp. 91-124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuler W. (1999) Preserving Semantic Dependencies in Synchronous Tree Adjoining Grammar. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL '99).

  • Sgall P., Hajičová E., Panevová J., Mey J. L. (eds.) (1986) The Meaning of the Sentence in its Semantic and Pragmatic Aspects. Academia, Prague.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shieber S. (1985) Evidence Against the Context-Freeness of Natural Language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 8, pp. 333-343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shieber S. M. (1994) Restricting the Weak-Generative Capability of Synchronous Tree Adjoining Grammars. Computational Intelligence, 10/4.

  • Srinivas B. (1997) Complexity of Lexical Descriptions and its Relevance to Partial Parsing. PhD thesis, Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania.

  • Tesnière L. (1959) Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Librarie Klincksieck, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vater H. (1975) Toward a Generative Dependency Theory. Lingua, 36, pp. 121-145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vijay-Shanker K. (1987) A Study of Tree Adjoining Grammars. PhD thesis, Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania.

  • Vijay-Shanker K., Weir D. (1993) The Use of Shared Forests in Tree Adjoining Grammar Parsing. In Proceedings of EACL '93, pp. 384-393.

  • Weir D. (1988) Characterizing Mildly Context-Sensitive Grammar Formalisms. PhD thesis, Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania.

  • XTAG Research Group (1998) A Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammar for English. Technical report, University of Pennsylvania.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Research in Cognitive Science, University of Pennsylvania, Suite 400A, 3401 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104-6228, (E-mail

    Mark Dras

  2. Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 19104 (E-mail

    David Chiang & William Schuler

Authors
  1. Mark Dras
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Chiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. William Schuler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

About this article

Cite this article

Dras, M., Chiang, D. & Schuler, W. On Relations of Constituency and Dependency Grammars. Research on Language and Computation 2, 281–305 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ROLC.0000016735.20481.3f

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ROLC.0000016735.20481.3f

Search

Navigation