Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dynamic TAG and Lexical Dependencies

  • Published:
Research on Language and Computation

Abstract

Incrementality is a widely held assumption that constrains the language processor to parse the input words from left to right. In this paper we describe the basic features of a constituency-based dynamic grammar based on Tree Adjoining Grammar, which natively fulfills a strict version of incrementality. We focus on the linguistic appeal of the formalism, analyzing a number of linguistic phenomena and exploiting the relation between dynamic constituency analysis and lexical dependencies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abney S.P., Johnson M. (1991). Memory requirements and local ambiguities of parsing strategies. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 20(3): 233–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aoshima S., Phillips C., Weinberg A. (2004). Processing filler-gap dependencies in a head-final language. Journal of Memory and Language 51: 23–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crocker, M. W. (1992). A logical model of competence and performance in the Human sentence processor. Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh, UK.

  • Demers, A. J. (1977). Generalized left corner parsing. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN symposium on Principles of programming languages (pp. 170–182). New York, NY: ACM Press.

  • Doran, C., Hockey, B., Sarkar, A., Srinivas, B., & Xia, F. (2000). Evolution of the XTAG system. In A. Abeillé & O. Rambow (Eds.), Tree Adjoining Grammars (pp. 371–405). Chicago Press.

  • Dras M., Chiang D., Schuler W. (2004). On relations of constituency and dependency grammars. Research on Language and Computation 2(2): 281–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank, A., & van Genabith, J. (2001). Glue TAG: Linear logic based semantics for LTAG. In: Proceedings of the LFG01 conference, Hong Kong.

  • Frank, R. (2002). Phrase structure composition and syntactic dependencies. The MIT Press.

  • Joshi A. (1990). Processing crossed and nested dependencies: An automaton perspective on the psycholinguistic results. Language and Cognitive Processes 5(1): 1–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joshi A. (2004). Starting with complex primitives pays off: Complicate locally, simplify globally. Cognitive Science 28(5): 637–668

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joshi A., Levy L., Takahashi M. (1975). Tree adjunct grammars. Journal of the Computer and System Sciences, 10(1): 136–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, A., & Schabes, Y. (1997). Tree-Adjoining Grammars. In: G. Rozenberg, & A. Salomaa (Eds.), Handbook of formal languages (pp. 69–123). Springer.

  • Kamide Y., Altmann G.T.M., Haywood S.L. (2003). The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language Language 49: 133–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kempson R., Meyer-Viol W., Gabbay D. (2000). Dynamic syntax: The flow of language understanding. Oxford, UK, Blackwell

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroch A. (1989). Asymmetries in long distance extraction in a Tree Adjoining Grammar. In: Baltin M., Kroch A. (eds) Alternative conceptions of phrase structure. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, pp. 66–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroch, A., & Joshi, A. (1985). The linguistic relevance of Tree Adjoining Grammar. Technical Report MS-CIS-85-16, CIS, University of Pennsylvania.

  • Kroch A., Santorini B. (1991). The derived constituent structure of the West Germanic verb-raising construction. In: Freidin R. (ed) Principles and parameters in comparative grammar. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, pp. 269–338

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, D. (1995). A dependency-based method for evaluating broad-coverage parsers. In IJCAI95.

  • Lombardo, V., Mazzei, A., & Sturt, P. (2004). Competence and performance grammar in incremental parsing. In Incremental parsing: Bringing engineering and cognition together, (pp. 1–8) workshop at ACL-2004 Barcelona.

  • Lombardo, V., & Sturt, P. (1997). Incremental parsing and infinite local ambiguity. In XIXth Cognitive Science Society.

  • Lombardo, V., & Sturt, P. (2002a). Incrementality and lexicalism: A treebank study. In S. Stevenson, P. Merlo (Eds.), Lexical representations in sentence processing. John Benjamins.

  • Lombardo, V., & Sturt, P. (2002b). Towards a dynamic version of TAG. In TAG+6. pp. 30–39.

  • Magerman, D. (1995). Statistical decision-tree models for parsing. In: ACL95. pp. 276–283.

  • Marslen-Wilson W. (1973). Linguistic structure and speech shadowing at very short latencies. Nature 244: 522–523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazzei, A. (2005). Formal and empirical issues of applying dynamics to Tree Adjoining Grammars. Ph.D. thesis, Dipartimento di Informatica, Università degli studi di Torino.

  • Mazzei, A., & Lombardo, V. (2005). Building a wide coverage dynamic grammar. In Proc. of IX Congresso Nazionale Associazione Italiana per L’Intelligenza Artificiale (Lectures Notes in Artificial Intelligence 3673) (pp. 303–314). Milano.

  • Mazzei, A., Lombardo, V., & Sturt, P. (2005). Strong connectivity hypothesis and generative power in TAG. In Proc. of The 10th conference on Formal Grammar and the 9th Meeting on Mathematics of Language (pp. 169–184). Edinburgh.

  • Mel’cuk, I. (1987). Dependency syntax: Theory and practice. State University Press of New York.

  • Milward D. (1994). Dynamic dependency grammar. Linguistics and Philosophy 17(6): 561–604

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, C. (1996). Order and structure. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.

  • Phillips C. (2003). Linear order and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry 34(1): 37–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rambow, O., & Joshi, A. (1997). A formal look at dependency grammars and phrase structure grammars, with special consideration of word-order phenomena. In Recent trends in meaning-text theory (pp. 167–190). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Rambow O., Weir D., Vijay-Shanker K. (2001). D-Tree substitution grammars. Computational Linguistics 27(1): 87–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, P. (1992). Left-corner parsing and psychological plausibility. In: COLING92 (pp. 191–197). Nantes.

  • Roark B. (2001). Probabilistic top-down parsing and language modeling. Computational Linguistics 27(2): 249–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schabes Y., Waters R. (1995). Tree insertion grammar: A cubic-time, parsable formalism that lexicalizes context-free grammar without changing the trees produced. Computational Linguistics 21(4): 479–513

    Google Scholar 

  • Shieber S.M., Johnson M. (1993). Variations on incremental interpretation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 22(2): 287–318

    Google Scholar 

  • Stabler E.P. (1994). The finite connectivity of linguistic structure. In: Clifton C., Frazier L., Reyner K. (eds) Perspectives on sentence processing. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 303–336

  • Steedman M.J. (2000). The syntactic process. A Bradford Book, The MIT Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Sturt, P. (1997). Syntactic reanalysis in human language processing. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh, UK.

  • Sturt P., Lombardo V. (2005). Processing coordinated structures: Incrementality and Connectedness. Cognitive Science 29(2): 291–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, H. S., Dixon, M., & Lamping, J. (1991). Compose-reduce parsing. In ACL91 (pp. 87–97).

  • Vijay-Shanker, K. (1987). A study of Tree Adjoining Grammars. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.

  • XTAG Research Group. (2001). A Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammar for English. Technical Report IRCS-01-03, IRCS, University of Pennsylvania.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dip. Informatica, Università di Torino, Torino, Italy

    A. Mazzei & V. Lombardo

  2. Psychology, School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scottland, UK

    P. Sturt

Authors
  1. A. Mazzei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. V. Lombardo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. P. Sturt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Mazzei.

About this article

Cite this article

Mazzei, A., Lombardo, V. & Sturt, P. Dynamic TAG and Lexical Dependencies. Res on Lang and Comput 5, 309–332 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11168-007-9032-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11168-007-9032-4

keywords

Search

Navigation