Minimal-length linearizations for mildly context-sensitive dependency trees

The extent to which the organization of natural language grammars reflects a drive to minimize dependency length remains little explored. We present the first algorithm polynomial-time in sentence length for obtaining the minimal-length linearization of a dependency tree subject to constraints of mild context sensitivity. For the minimally context-sensitive case of gap-degree 1 dependency trees, we prove several properties of minimal-length linearizations which allow us to improve the efficiency of our algorithm to the point that it can be used on most naturally-occurring sentences. We use the algorithm to compare optimal, observed, and random sentence dependency length for both surface and deep dependencies in English and German. We find in both languages that analyses of surface and deep dependencies yield highly similar results, and that mild context-sensitivity affords very little reduction in minimal dependency length over fully projective linearizations; but that observed linearizations in German are much closer to random and farther from minimal-length linearizations than in English.

[1]  Koby Crammer,et al.  Online Large-Margin Training of Dependency Parsers , 2005, ACL.

[2]  David J. Weir,et al.  Characterizing Structural Descriptions Produced by Various Grammatical Formalisms , 1987, ACL.

[3]  Roger Levy,et al.  Deep Dependencies from Context-Free Statistical Parsers: Correcting the Surface Dependency Approximation , 2004, ACL.

[4]  Joakim Nivre,et al.  Mildly Non-Projective Dependency Structures , 2006, ACL.

[5]  K F.R.,et al.  ON OPTIMAL LINEAR ARRANGEMENTS OF TREES , 1983 .

[6]  Michael Collins,et al.  Head-Driven Statistical Models for Natural Language Parsing , 2003, CL.

[7]  Los Angeles,et al.  Generating Copies: An investigation into structural identity in language and grammar , 2006 .

[8]  Geoffrey K. Pullum,et al.  Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar , 1985 .

[9]  L Konieczny,et al.  Locality and Parsing Complexity , 2000, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[10]  John A. Hawkins,et al.  A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency , 1995 .

[11]  Aravind K. Joshi,et al.  Natural language parsing: Tree adjoining grammars: How much context-sensitivity is required to provide reasonable structural descriptions? , 1985 .

[12]  Philip H. Miller,et al.  Strong generative capacity - the semantics of linguistic formalism , 2000, CSLI lecture notes series.

[13]  Marco Kuhlmann,et al.  Dependency structures and lexicalized grammars , 2007 .

[14]  Daniel Gildea,et al.  Optimizing Grammars for Minimum Dependency Length , 2007, ACL.

[15]  Carl Jesse Pollard,et al.  Generalized phrase structure grammars, head grammars, and natural language , 1984 .

[16]  Fernando Pereira,et al.  Non-Projective Dependency Parsing using Spanning Tree Algorithms , 2005, HLT.

[17]  Aravind K. Joshi,et al.  Tree Adjunct Grammars , 1975, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[18]  J. Hawkins Efficiency and complexity in grammars , 2004 .

[19]  Marco Kuhlmann,et al.  Mildly Context-Sensitive Dependency Languages , 2007, ACL.

[20]  E. Gibson Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies , 1998, Cognition.