Advertisement

Word Ordering as a Graph Rewriting Process

  • Sylvain Kahane
  • François Lareau
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9804)

Abstract

This paper shows how the correspondence between a unordered dependency tree and a sentence that expresses it can be achieved by transforming the tree into a string where each linear precedence link corresponds to one specific syntactic relation. We propose a formal grammar with a distributed architecture that can be used for both synthesis and analysis. We argue for the introduction of a topological tree as an intermediate step between dependency syntax and word order.

Keywords

Dependency grammar Linearization Syntax Polarized unification grammar 

References

  1. 1.
    Gazdar, G.: Unbounded dependencies and coordinate structure. Linguist. Inquiry 12(1), 155–184 (1981)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gazdar, G., Klein, E., Pullum, G., Sag, I.: Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1985)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Candito, M.-H.: A principle-based hierarchical representation of LTAG. In: Proceedings of COLING, Copenhagen (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kaplan, R., Bresnan, J.: Lexical-functional grammar: a formal system for grammatical representation. In: Bresnan, J. (ed.) The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, pp. 173–281. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1982)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bresnan, J.: Lexical-Functional Syntax. Blackwell, Malden (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kathol, A.: Linerarization-based German syntax. Ph.D. thesis, Ohio State University (1995)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Richter, F., Sailer, M.: Remarks on linearization. reflections on the treatment of LP-rules in HPSG in a typed feature logic. Master’s dissertation, Eberhard-Karls-Universität, Tübingen (1995)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Müller, S., Kasper, W.: HPSG analysis of German. In: Wahlster, W. (ed.) Verbmobil: Foundations of Speech-to-Speech Translation, pp. 238–253. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tesnière, L.: Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Klincksieck, Paris (1959). English translation: Elements of structural syntax. John Benjamins (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kahane, S., Nasr, A., Rambow, O.: Pseudo-projectivity: a polynomially parsable non-projective dependency grammar. In: Proceedings of COLING-ACL, Montreal, pp. 646–652 (1998)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Duchier, D., Debusmann, R.: Topological dependency trees: a constraint-based account of linear precedence. In: Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, Toulouse, pp. 180–187 (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gerdes, K., Kahane, S.: Word order in German: a formal dependency grammar using a topological hierarchy. In: Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2001), Toulouse, pp. 220–227 (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kuhlman, M.: Mildly non-projective dependency grammar. Comput. Linguist. 30(2), 355–387 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kuhlmann, M., Nivre, J.: Transition-based techniques for non-projective dependency parsing. Northern Eur. J. Lang. Technol. 2(1), 1–19 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mel’čuk, I.: Dependency Syntax: Theory and Practice. State University of New York Press, Albany (1988)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mel’čuk, I., Pertsov, N.: Surface Syntax of English: A Formal Model Within the Meaning-Text Framework. John Benjamins, Amsterdam (1987)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Iordanskaja, L., Mel’čuk, I.: Ordering of Simple Clauses in an English Complex Sentence. Rhema 4, 17–59 (2015)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mel’čuk, I.: Semantics: From Meaning to Text, vol. 1. John Benjamins, Amsterdam (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mel’čuk, I.: Actants in semantics and syntax I: actants in semantics. Linguistics 42(1), 1–66 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kahane, S.: Dependency and Valency: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Copestake, A.: Slacker semantics: why superficiality, dependency and avoidance of commitment can be the right way to go. In: Proceedings of the 12th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Athens, pp. 1–9 (2009)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kahane, S., Mel’čuk, I.: Synthèse des phrases à extraction en français contemporain (du réseau sémantique à l’arbre syntaxique). Traitement Automatique des Langues 40(2), 25–85 (1999)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kahane, S., Lareau, F.: Meaning-Text Unification Grammar: modularity and polarization. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Meaning-Text Theory, Moscow, pp. 163–173 (2005)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lareau, F.: Vers une grammaire d’unification Sens-Texte du français: le temps verbal dans l’interface sémantique-syntaxe. Ph.D. thesis, Université de Montréal/Université Paris 7 (2008)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lareau, F.: Le temps verbal dans l’interface sémantique-syntaxe du français. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Meaning-Text Theory, Barcelona (2009)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kahane, S.: Predicative Adjunction in a Modular Dependency Grammar. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Dependency Linguistics (DepLing), Prague, pp. 137–146 (2013)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kahane, S.: Grammaires d’Unification Polarisées. In: Actes de la 11ème conférence sur le Traitement Automatique des Langues Naturelles, Fès, pp. 233–242 (2004)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kahane, S.: Polarized unification grammars. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 44th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Sydney, pp. 137–144 (2006)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nasr, A.: A formalism and a parser for lexicalized dependency grammars. In: 4th International Workshop on Parsing Technologies, Prague, pp. 186–195 (1995)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Perrier, G.: Interaction grammars. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Saarbrücken, pp. 600–606 (2000)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Duchier, D., Thater, S.: Parsing with tree descriptions: a constraint-based approach. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Natural Language Understanding and Logic Programming (NLULP), Las Cruces, NM, pp. 17–32 (1999)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kahane, S.: A fully lexicalized grammar for french based on meaning-text theory. In: Gelbukh, A. (ed.) CICLing 2001. LNCS, vol. 2004, pp. 18–31. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kahane, S.: Des grammaires formelles pour définir une correspondance. In: Actes de la 7e conférence annuelle sur le Traitement Automatique des Langues Naturelles (TALN), Lausanne (2000)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lecerf, Y.: Une représentation algébrique de la structure des phrases dans diverses langues natuelles. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences de Paris 252, 232–234 (1961)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Chomsky, N.: The Minimalist Program. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pollard, C., Sag, I.: Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. CSLI, Stanford (1994)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kaplan, R., Zaenen, A.: Long-distance dependencies, constituent structure, and functional uncertainty. In: Baltin, M., Kroch, A. (eds.) Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure, pp. 17–42. Chicago University Press, Chicago (1989)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bröker, N.: Unordered and non-projective dependency grammars. Traitement Automatique des Langues 41(1), 245–272 (2000)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hudson, R.: Discontinuity. Traitement Automatique des Langues 41(1), 15–56 (2000)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ross, J.: Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph.D. thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA (1967)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Graf, T.: Movement-generalized minimalist grammars. In: Béchet, D., Dikovsky, A. (eds.) Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics. LNCS, vol. 7351, pp. 58–73. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kahane, S., Mazziotta, N.: Syntactic polygraphs: a formalism extending both constituency and dependency. In: Proceedings of the 14th Meeting on the Mathematics of Language, Chicago, pp. 152–164 (2015)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lareau, F.: Vers une formalisation des décompositions sémantiques dans la Grammaire d’Unification Sens-Texte. In: Actes de la 14ème conférence sur le Traitement Automatique des Langues Naturelles, Toulouse, pp. 163–172 (2007) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ModycoUniversité Paris Ouest NanterreNanterreFrance
  2. 2.OLSTUniversité de MontréalMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations