Gradience, Constructions and Constraint Systems

This paper is concerned with the question of quantifying gradient degrees of acceptability by introducing the notion of Density in the context of constructional constraint language processing. We first present here our framework for language processing, where all linguistic knowledge is represented by means of constraints. The grammar itself is a constraint system. A constraint is a relation among categories, which encodes a linguistic property. But in contrast to more traditional constraint-based approaches, a constraint can hold and be assessed independently from the structure. In this context, we then introduce the notion of density, based on proportions of satisfied and violated linguistic properties. Our intuition is that density can be used as a means to measure fuzzy notions such as syntactic complexity or as a criterion to identify gradient levels of acceptability. We present and discuss early experimental results concerning density.

[1]  Arabellastrasse,et al.  Constraint Handling Rules ? , 1995 .

[2]  Antonella Sorace,et al.  Gradience in Linguistic Data , 2005 .

[3]  Philippe Blache,et al.  Constraints, Linguistic Theories and Natural Language Processing , 2000, Natural Language Processing.

[4]  Dimitris N. Christodoulakis Natural Language Processing - NLP 2000 , 2000 .

[5]  Frank Keller,et al.  A Probabilistic Parser as a Model of Global Processing Difficulty , 2003 .

[6]  B. Aarts Modelling linguistic gradience , 2004 .

[7]  Hiroshi Maruyama,et al.  Structural Disambiguation With Constraint Propagation , 1990, ACL.

[8]  E. Gibson The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. , 2000 .

[9]  A. Goldberg Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure , 1995 .

[10]  P. Smolensky,et al.  Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar , 2004 .

[11]  Johannes Heinecke,et al.  Eliminative Parsing with Graded Constraints , 1998, COLING-ACL.

[12]  Philippe Blache,et al.  Property Grammars: a Flexible Constraint-Based Approach to Parsing , 2001, IWPT.

[13]  Ivan A. Sag,et al.  Syntactic Theory: A Formal Introduction , 1999, Computational Linguistics.

[14]  Geoffrey K. Pullum,et al.  On the Distinction between Model-Theoretic and Generative-Enumerative Syntactic Frameworks , 2001, LACL.

[15]  Andreas Podelski,et al.  Constraint Programming: Basics and Trends , 1995, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[16]  Jean-Pierre Koenig,et al.  Lexical and Constructional Aspects of Linguistic Explanation , 1998 .

[17]  Frank Keller,et al.  Gradience in Grammar: Experimental and Computational Aspects of Degrees of Grammaticality , 2001 .

[18]  Y. Miyashita,et al.  Image, language, brain , 2000 .

[19]  D. Bolinger Generality, gradience, and the all-or-none , 1961 .

[20]  P. Mertens,et al.  Accentuation, intonation et morphosyntaxe , 1993 .

[21]  C. Fillmore,et al.  Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What's X doing Y? construction , 1999 .

[22]  Henning Christiansen,et al.  CHR grammars , 2004, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming.