Syntactic Formalisms

  • Pierre M. Nugues
Part of the Cognitive Technologies book series (COGTECH)


Studies on syntax have been the core of linguistics for most of the twentieth century. While the goals of traditional grammars had been mostly to prescribe what the correct usage of a language is, the then-emerging syntactic theories aimed at an impartial description of language structures. These ideas revolutionized the field. Research activity was particularly intense in the years 1940–1970, and the focus on syntax was so great that, for a time, it nearly eclipsed phonetics, morphology, semantics, and other disciplines of linguistics.


Noun Phrase Relative Clause Dependency Graph Parse Tree Prepositional Phrase 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Abeillé, A. (1993). Les nouvelles syntaxes: Grammaires d’unification et analyse du français. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
  2. Boyer, M. (1988). Towards functional logic grammars. In V. Dahl & P. Saint-Dizier (Eds.), Natural language understanding and logic programming, II (pp. 45–61). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  3. Brants, S., Dipper, S., Hansen, S., Lezius, W., & Smith, G. (2002). The TIGER treebank. In Proceedings of the first workshop on treebanks and linguistic theories, Sozopol.Google Scholar
  4. Bröker, N. (1998). How to define a context-free backbone for DGs: Implementing a DG in the LFG formalism. In S. Kahane & A. Polguère (Eds.), Processing of dependency-based grammars. Proceedings of the workshop COLING-ACL, Montréal (pp. 29–38).Google Scholar
  5. Buchholz, S., & Marsi, E. (2006). CoNLL-X shared task on multilingual dependency parsing. In Proceedings of the tenth conference on computational natural language learning (CoNLL-X), New York City (pp. 149–164). Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
  6. Chervel, A. (1979). Rhétorique et grammaire: Petite histoire du circonstanciel. Langue française, 41, 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  8. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  9. Collins, M. J. (1996). A new statistical parser based on bigram lexical dependencies. In Proceedings of the 34th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics, Santa Cruz (pp. 184–191).Google Scholar
  10. Collins, M. J. (1999). Head-driven statistical models for natural language parsing. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  11. Colmerauer, A. (1970). Les systèmes-Q ou un formalisme pour analyser et synthétiser des phrases sur ordinateur. Publication interne 43, Département d’informatique, Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
  12. Colmerauer, A. (1978). Metamorphosis grammars. In L. Bolc (Ed.), Natural language communication with computers (Lecture notes in computer science, Vol. 63, pp. 133–189). Berlin/ Heidelberg/New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Colmerauer, A., Kanoui, H., Pasero, R., & Roussel, P. (1972). Un système de communication en français. Rapport préliminaire de fin de contrat IRIA, Groupe Intelligence Artificielle, Faculté des Sciences de Luminy, Université d’Aix-Marseille II.Google Scholar
  14. Colmerauer, A., & Roussel, P. (1996). The birth of Prolog. In T. J. Bergin & R. G. Gibson (Eds.), History of programming languages II. New York: ACM/Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  15. Covington, M. A. (1990). Parsing discontinuous constituents in dependency grammar. Computational Linguistics, 16(4), 234–236.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. Cull, R. (1840). Garrick’s mode of reading the liturgy of the church of England. London: John W. Parker.Google Scholar
  17. Domergue, U. (1782). Grammaire française simplifiée, Nouvelle édition. Paris: Durand.Google Scholar
  18. Einarsson, J. (1976). Talbankens skriftspråkskonkordans. Technical report, Lund University, Institutionen för nordiska språk, Lund.Google Scholar
  19. Ejerhed, E., Källgren, G., Wennstedt, O., & Åström, M. (1992). The linguistic annotation system of the Stockholm-Umeå corpus project. Technical report 33, Department of General Linguistics, University of Umeå.Google Scholar
  20. Haegeman, L., & Gueron, J. (1999). English grammar: A generative perspective (Number 14 in Blackwell textbooks in linguistics). Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  21. Hays, D. G. (1964). Dependency theory: A formalism and some observations. Language, 40(4), 511–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hellwig, P. (1980). PLAIN – a program system for dependency analysis and for simulating natural language inference. In L. Bolc (Ed.), Representation and processing of natural language (pp. 271–376). München: Hanser.Google Scholar
  23. Hellwig, P. (1986). Dependency unification grammar (DUG). In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on computational linguistics (COLING 86), Bonn (pp. 195–198).Google Scholar
  24. Heringer, H.-J. (1993). Dependency syntax – basic ideas and the classical model. In J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld, & T. Venneman (Eds.), Syntax – an international handbook of contemporary research (Vol. 1, chapter 12, pp. 298–316). Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  25. Hjelmslev, L. (1935–1937). La catégorie des cas. Étude de grammaire générale: Volume VII(1), IX(2) of Acta Jutlandica. Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget i Aarhus.Google Scholar
  26. Järvinen, T., & Tapanainen, P. (1997). A dependency parser for English. Technical report TR-1, Department of General Linguistics, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
  27. Jensen, K., Heidorn, G., & Richardson, S. (Eds.). (1993). Natural language processing: The PLNLP approach. Boston: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  28. Johansson, R., & Nugues, P. (2007a). Extended constituent-to-dependency conversion for English. In J. Nivre, H.-J. Kaalep, K. Muischnek, & M. Koit (Eds.), NODALIDA 2007 conference proceedings, Tartu (pp. 105–112).Google Scholar
  29. Kaplan, R. M., & Bresnan, J. (1982). Lexical-functional grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation. In J. Bresnan (Ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations (pp. 173–281). Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  30. Kunze, J. (1967). Die Behandlung nicht-projektiver Strukturen bei der syntaktischen Analyse und Synthese des englischen und des deutschen. In MASPEREVOD-67: Internationales Symposium der Mitgliedsländer des RGW, Budapest (pp. 2–15).Google Scholar
  31. Kunze, J. (1975). Abhängigkeitsgrammatik. Berlin: Akademieverlag.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. Lasnik, H., Depiante, M. A., & Stepanov, A. (2000). Syntactic structures revisited: Contemporary lectures on classic transformational theory (Current studies in linguistics, Vol. 33). Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  33. Lecerf, Y. (1960a). Programme de conflits, modèles de conflits. Traduction automatique, 1(4), 11–18.Google Scholar
  34. Lecerf, Y. (1960b). Programme de conflits, modèles de conflits. Traduction automatique, 1(5), 17–36.Google Scholar
  35. Lecerf, Y., & Ihm, P. (1960). Éléments pour une grammaire générale des langues projectives. Technical report 1, Communauté européenne de l’énergie atomique, Groupe de recherches sur l’information scientifique automatique.Google Scholar
  36. Lin, D. (1995). A dependency-based method for evaluating broad-coverage parsers. In Proceedings of IJCAI-95, Montreal (pp. 1420–1427).Google Scholar
  37. Magerman, D. M. (1994). Natural language parsing as statistical pattern recognition. PhD thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  38. Marcus, M., Kim, G., Marcinkiewicz, M. A., MacIntyre, R., Bies, A., Ferguson, M., Katz, K., & Schasberger, B. (1994). The Penn Treebank: Annotating predicate argument structure. In ARPA human language technology workshop, Plainsboro.Google Scholar
  39. Marcus, M., Marcinkiewicz, M. A., & Santorini, B. (1993). Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics, 19(2), 313–330.Google Scholar
  40. Maxwell, D. (1995). Unification dependency grammar. Draft. Cited October 28, 2005.
  41. Mel’čuk, I. A. (1988). Dependency syntax: Theory and practice. Albany: State University Press of New York.Google Scholar
  42. Montemagni, S., Barsotti, F., Battista, M., Calzolari, N., Corazzari, O., Lenci, A., Zampolli, A., Fanciulli, F., Massetani, M., Raffaelli, R., Basili, R., Pazienza, M. T., Saracino, D., Zanzotto, F., Mana, N., Pianesi, F., & Delmonte, R. (2003). Building the Italian syntactic-semantic treebank. In A. Abeillé (Ed.), Treebanks: Building and using parsed corpora (Language and speech series, Vol. 20, pp. 189–210). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  43. Müller, S. (1999). Deutsche Syntax deklarativ. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar für das Deutsche (Linguistische Arbeiten, Vol. 394). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
  44. Nilsson, J., Hall, J., & Nivre, J. (2005). MAMBA meets TIGER: Reconstructing a Swedish treebank from antiquity. In Proceedings of the NODALIDA special session on treebanks, Joensuu.Google Scholar
  45. Nivre, J., & Nilsson, J. (2005). Pseudo-projective dependency parsing. In Proceedings of the 43rd annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (ACL’05), Ann Arbor (pp. 99–106).Google Scholar
  46. Pereira, F. C. N. (1981). Extraposition grammars. Computational Linguistics, 7(4), 243–256.Google Scholar
  47. Pereira, F. C. N., & Shieber, S. M. (1987). Prolog and natural-language analysis (CSLI lecture notes, Vol. 10). Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
  48. Pereira, F. C. N., & Warren, D. H. D. (1980). Definite clause grammar for language analysis–a survey of the formalism and a comparison with augmented transition networks. Artificial Intelligence, 13(3), 231–278.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  49. Pollard, C., & Sag, I. A. (1994). Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  50. Radford, A. (1988). Transformational grammar: A first course (Cambridge textbooks in linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Ruwet, N. (1970). Introduction à la grammaire générative (2nd ed.). Paris: Plon.Google Scholar
  52. TAUM (1971). Taum 71. Rapport annuel du projet de traduction automatique de l’université de Montréal, Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
  53. Tesnière, L. (1966). Éléments de syntaxe structurale (2nd ed.). Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pierre M. Nugues
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceLund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations