Minimal-length linearizations for mildly context-sensitive dependency trees

NAACL HLT 2009 - Human Language Technologies: The 2009 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Proceedings of the Conference

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 335-343

  Park, Y Albert ^a   Levy, Roger ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b Department of Linguistics ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL GRAMMARS; FORESTRY; LINGUISTICS; TREES (MATHEMATICS);

CONTEXT SENSITIVE; CONTEXT SENSITIVITY; DEPENDENCY TREES; MINIMAL LENGTHS; NATURAL LANGUAGE GRAMMARS; NATURALLY OCCURRING; SENTENCE LENGTH;

LINEARIZATION;

EID: 84863367659     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.3115/1620754.1620803     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (21)

1. Chung, F. R. K. (1984). On optimal linear arrangements of trees. Computers and Mathematics with Applications, 10:43-60.
2. Collins, M. (1999). Head-Driven Statistical Models for Natural Language Parsing. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.
3. Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68:1-76. (Pubitemid 128424124)
4. Gildea, D. and Temperley, D. (2007). Optimizing grammars for minimum dependency length. In Proceedings of ACL.
5. Hawkins, J. A. (1994). A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge.
6. Hawkins, J. A. (2004). Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford University Press.
7. Jaeger, T. F. (2006). Redundancy and Syntactic Reduction in Spontaneous Speech. PhD thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
8. Joshi, A. K. (1985). How much context-sensitivity is necessary for characterizing structural descriptions - Tree Adjoining Grammars. In Dowty, D., Karttunen, L., and Zwicky, A., editors, Natural Language Processing - Theoretical, Computational, and Psychological Perspectives. Cambridge.
9. Joshi, A. K., Levy, L. S., and Takahashi, M. (1975). Tree adjunct grammars. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 10(1).
10. Kobele, G. M. (2006). Generating Copies: An investigation into Structural Identity in Language and Grammar. PhD thesis, UCLA.
11. Konieczny, L. (2000). Locality and parsing complexity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(6):627-645.
12. Kruijff, G.-J. M. and Vasishth, S. (2003). Quantifying word order freedom in natural language: Implications for sentence processing. Proceedings of the Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing conference.
13. Kuhlmann, M. (2007). Dependency Structures and Lexicalized Grammars. PhD thesis, Saarland University.
14. Kuhlmann, M. and Möhl, M. (2007). Mildly context-sensitive dependency languages. In Proceedings of ACL.
15. Kuhlmann, M. and Nivre, J. (2006). Mildly non-projective dependency structures. In Proceedings of COLING/ACL.
16. Levy, R. and Manning, C. (2004). Deep dependencies from context-free statistical parsers: correcting the surface dependency approximation. In Proceedings of ACL.
17. McDonald, R., Crammer, K., and Pereira, F. (2005a). Online large-margin training of dependency parsers. In Proceedings of ACL.
18. McDonald, R., Pereira, F., Ribarov, K., and Hajič, J. (2005b). Non-projective dependency parsing using spanning tree algorithms. In Proceedings of ACL.
19. Miller, P. (2000). Strong Generative Capacity: The Semantics of Linguistic Formalism. Cambridge.
20. Pollard, C. (1984). Generalized Phrase Structure Grammars, Head Grammars, and Natural Languages. PhD thesis, Stanford.
21. Vijay-Shanker, K., Weir, D. J., and Joshi, A. K. (1987). Characterizing structural descriptions produced by various grammatical formalisms. In Proceedings of ACL.