1932

Abstract

Dependency grammar is a descriptive and theoretical tradition in linguistics that can be traced back to antiquity. It has long been influential in the European linguistics tradition and has more recently become a mainstream approach to representing syntactic and semantic structure in natural language processing. In this review, we introduce the basic theoretical assumptions of dependency grammar and review some key aspects in which different dependency frameworks agree or disagree. We also discuss advantages and disadvantages of dependency representations and introduce Universal Dependencies, a framework for multilingual dependency-based morphosyntactic annotation that has been applied to more than 60 languages.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-011842
2019-01-14
2024-06-13
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/5/1/annurev-linguistics-011718-011842.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-011842&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Attardi G 2006. Experiments with a multilanguage non-projective dependency parser. Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning166–70 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Behaghel O 1932. Deutsche Syntax: Eine geschichtliche Darstellung. Band IV: Wortstellung-periodenbau Heidelberg, Ger.: Carl Winter
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bharati A, Sangal R 1993. Parsing free word order languages in the Paninian framework. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics105–11 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bouma G, van Noord G, Malouf R 2000. Alpino: wide-coverage computational analysis of Dutch. Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands 2000: Selected Papers from the 11th CLIN Meeting45–59 Leiden, Neth.: Brill
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Chen X, Gerdes K 2017. Classifying languages by dependency structure: typologies of delexicalized Universal Dependency treebanks. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Dependency Linguistics54–63 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Chomsky N 1970. Remarks on nominalization. Readings in English Transformational Grammar RA Jacobs, PS Rosenbaum11–61 Boston: Ginn
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Chomsky N 1998. Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Covington MA 1984. Syntactic Theory in the High Middle Ages Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Covington MA 2001. A fundamental algorithm for dependency parsing. Proceedings of the 39th Annual ACM Southeast Conference95–102 Athens: Univ. Ga.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Croft W 2002. Typology and Universals Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press. 2nd ed.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Croft W, Nordquist D, Looney K, Regan M 2017. Linguistic typology meets Universal Dependencies. Proceedings of the 15th International Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories63–75 Bloomington: Univ. Indiana
    [Google Scholar]
  12. de Lhoneux M, Nivre J 2016. Should have, would have, could have: investigating verb group representations for parsing with Universal Dependencies. Proceedings of the Workshop on Multilingual and Cross-Lingual Methods in NLP10–19 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. de Marneffe MC, Dozat T, Silveira N, Haverinen K, Ginter F et al. 2014. Universal Stanford Dependencies: a cross-linguistic typology. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation26–31 Paris: Eur. Lang. Resour. Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. de Marneffe MC, MacCartney B, Manning CD 2006. Generating typed dependency parses from phrase structure parses. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation449–54 Paris: Eur. Lang. Resour. Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. de Marneffe MC, Manning CD 2008. The Stanford typed dependencies representation. Proceedings of the Workshop on Cross-Framework and Cross-Domain Parser Evaluation (COLING 2008)1–8 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Dowty D 1989. On the semantic content of the notion of ‘thematic role.’. Properties, Types and Meaning, vol. 2: Semantic Issues G Chierchia, BH Partee R Turner69–130 Dordrecht, Neth.: Reidel
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Eisner JM 1996. Three new probabilistic models for dependency parsing: an exploration. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING96)340–45 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Fillmore CJ 1968. The case for case. Universals in Linguistic Theory EW Bach, RT Harms1–88 New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Futrell R, Mahowald K, Gibson E 2015.a Large-scale evidence of dependency length minimization in 37 languages. PNAS 112:10336–41
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Futrell R, Mahowald K, Gibson E 2015.b Quantifying word order freedom in dependency corpora. See Hajičová & Nivre 2015 91–100
  21. Gaifman H 1965. Dependency systems and phrase-structure systems. Inform. Control 8:304–37
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Gerdes K, Hajičová E, Wanner L 2011. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Dependency Linguistics Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Gerdes K, Kahane S 2015. Nonconstituent coordination and other coordinative constructions as dependency graphs. See Hajičová & Nivre 2015 101–10
  24. Gibson E 1998. Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68:1–76
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Gibson E 2000. The dependency locality theory: a distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. Images, Language, Brain: Papers from the 1st Mind Articulation Symposium AP Marantz, Y Miyashita, W O'Neil95–126 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Gómez-Rodríguez C, Nivre J 2010. A transition-based parser for 2-planar dependency structures. Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics1492–501 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Greenberg JH 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. Universals of Human Language JH Greenberg73–113 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Groß T, Osborne T 2015. The dependency status of function words: auxiliaries. See Hajičová & Nivre 2015 111–20
  29. Gulordava K, Merlo P, Crabbé B 2015. Dependency length minimisation effects in short spans: a large-scale analysis of adjective placement in complex noun phrases. Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, vol. 2: Short Papers477–82 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Hajič J, Hladka BV, Panevová J, Hajičová E, Sgall P, Pajas P 2001. Prague Dependency Treebank, version 1.0Czech–English corpus. CD-ROM LDC2001T10
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Hajičová E, Gerdes K, Wanner L 2013. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Dependency Linguistics Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Hajičová E, Mikulová M, Panevová J 2015. Reconstructions of deletions in a dependency-based description of Czech: selected issues. See Hajičová & Nivre 2015 131–40
  33. Hajičová E, Nivre J 2015. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Dependency Linguistics Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Hays DG 1964. Dependency theory: a formalism and some observations. Language 40:511–25
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Hudson RA 1984. Word Grammar Oxford, UK: Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Hudson RA 1990. English Word Grammar Oxford, UK: Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Hudson RA 2007. Language Networks: The New Word Grammar Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Jackendoff R 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Jackendoff R 1977. Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Joshi A 1985. How much context-sensitivity is necessary for characterizing structural descriptions—tree adjoining grammars. Natural Language Processing: Psycholinguistic, Computational and Theoretical Perspectives D Dowty, L Karttunen, A Zwicky206–50 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Kahane S 1997. Bubble trees and syntactic representations. Proceedings of the 5th Meeting of Mathematics of Language70–76 Saarbrücken, Ger.: Dtsch. Forsch. Künstliche Intell.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Kahane S, Mazziotta N 2015. Dependency-based analyses for function words—introducing the polygraphic approach. See Hajičová & Nivre 2015 181–90
  43. Kahane S, Yan C, Botalla MA 2017. What are the limitations on the flux of syntactic dependencies? Evidence from UD treebanks. See Montemagni & Nivre 2017 73–82
  44. Keenan EL, Comrie B 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguist. Inq. 8:63–99
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Koo T, Collins M 2010. Efficient third-order dependency parsers. Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics1–11 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Koo T, Rush AM, Collins M, Jaakkola T, Sontag D 2010. Dual decomposition for parsing with non-projective head automata. Proceedings of the 2010 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP10)1288–98 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Kromann MT 2003. The Danish Dependency Treebank and the DTAG treebank tool. Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories217–22 Väsjö, Swed.: Väsjö Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Kruijff GJM 2002. Formal and computational aspects of dependency grammar: history and development of DG Tech. rep. ESSLLI-2002 Univ. Saarland, Saarbrücken, Ger.:
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Kübler S, McDonald R, Nivre J 2009. Dependency Parsing San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Kuhlmann M, Möhl M 2007. Mildly context-sensitive dependency languages. Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics160–67 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Lecerf Y 1960. Programme des conflits, modèle des conflits. Bull. Bimest. l'ATALA 1:411–18 1:518–36
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Liu H 2008. Dependency distance as a metric of language comprehension difficulty. J. Cogn. Sci. 9:159–91
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Liu H 2010. Dependency direction as a means of word-order typology: a method based on dependency treebanks. Lingua 120:1567–78
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Marcus S 1965. Sur la notion de projectivité. Z. Math. Log. Grundl. Math. 11:181–92
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Martins A, Smith N, Xing E 2009. Concise integer linear programming formulations for dependency parsing. Proceedings of the Joint Conference of the 47th Annual Meeting of the ACL and the 4th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing of the AFNLP342–50 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Matthews PH 1981. Syntax Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  57. McDonald R, Crammer K, Pereira F 2005.a Online large-margin training of dependency parsers. Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics91–98 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. McDonald R, Nivre J, Quirmbach-Brundage Y, Goldberg Y, Das D et al. 2013. Universal dependency annotation for multilingual parsing. Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, vol. 2: Short Papers92–97 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. McDonald R, Pereira F, Ribarov K, Hajič J 2005.b Non-projective dependency parsing using spanning tree algorithms. Proceedings of the Human Language Technology Conference and the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (HLT05)523–30 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Mel'čuk I 1988. Dependency Syntax: Theory and Practice Albany, NY: SUNY Press
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Mel'čuk I 2003. Levels of dependency in linguistic description: concepts and problems. Dependency and Valency: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research V Agel, L Eichinnger, HW Eroms, P Hellwig, H Herringer, H Lobinpp. 188–229 Berlin: Walter de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Milicevic J 2006. A short guide to the Meaning–Text linguistic theory. J. Koralex 8:187–233
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Montemagni S, Nivre J 2017. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Dependency Linguistics Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Nichols J 1986. Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language 62:56–119
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Nivre J 2003. An efficient algorithm for projective dependency parsing. Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Parsing Technologies149–60 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Nivre J 2009. Non-projective dependency parsing in expected linear time. Proceedings of the Joint Conference of the 47th Annual Meeting of the ACL and the 4th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing of the AFNLP351–59 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Nivre J, de Marneffe MC, Ginter F, Goldberg Y, Hajič J et al. 2016. Universal Dependencies v1: a multilingual treebank collection. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation1659–66 Paris: Eur. Lang. Resour. Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Nivre J, Hall J, Kübler S, McDonald R, Nilsson J et al. 2007. The CoNLL 2007 shared task on dependency parsing. Proceedings of the CoNLL Shared Task Session of EMNLP-CoNLL 2007915–32 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Nivre J, Megyesi B 2007. Bootstrapping a Swedish treebank using cross-corpus harmonization and annotation projection. Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories97–102 Bergen, Nor.: North. Eur. Assoc. Lang. Technol.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Nivre J, Nilsson J 2005. Pseudo-projective dependency parsing. Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics99–106 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Oepen S, Kuhlmann M, Miyao Y, Zeman D, Cinkova S et al. 2015. SemEval 2015 task 18: broad-coverage semantic dependency parsing. Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval 2015)915–26 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Oepen S, Kuhlmann M, Miyao Y, Zeman D, Flickinger D et al. 2014. SemEval 2014 task 8: broad-coverage semantic dependency parsing. Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval 2014)63–72 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Oflazer K, Say B, Hakkani-Tür DZ, Tür G 2003. Building a Turkish treebank. Treebanks: Building and Using Parsed Corpora A Abeillé261–77 Dordrecht, Neth.: Kluwer
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Osborne T 2005. Beyond the constituent: a DG analysis of chains. Folia Linguist. 39:251–97
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Osborne T 2015. Diagnostics for constituents: dependency, constituency, and the status of function words. See Hajičová & Nivre 2015 251–60
  76. Osborne T, Maxwell D 2015. A historical overview of the status of function words in dependency grammar. See Hajičová & Nivre 2015 241–50
  77. Osborne T, Putnam M, Groß M 2012. Catenae: introducing a novel unit of syntactic analysis. Syntax 15:354–96
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Petrov S, McDonald R 2012. Overview of the 2012 shared task on parsing the web. Notes of the 1st Workshop on Syntactic Analysis of Non-Canonical Language8 https://sites.google.com/site/sancl2012/home/programme
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Pitler E 2012. Attacking parsing bottlenecks with unlabeled data and relevant factorizations. Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, vol. 1: Long Papers768–76 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Pitler E, Kannan S, Marcus M 2013. Finding optimal 1-endpoint-crossing trees. Trans. Assoc. Comput. Linguist. 1:13–24
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Pollard C, Sag IA 1987. Information-Based Syntax and Semantics Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Pollard C, Sag IA 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Rehbein I, Steen J, Do J, Frank A 2017. Universal dependencies are hard to parse—or are they?. See Montemagni & Nivre 2017 218–28
  84. Robinson JJ 1970. Dependency structures and transformational rules. Language 46:259–85
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Rosa R 2015. Multi-source cross-lingual delexicalized parser transfer: Prague or Stanford?. See Hajičová & Nivre 2015 281–90
  86. Rosa R, Maek J, Mareçek D, Zeman D, abkrtský Z 2014. HamleDT 2.0: thirty dependency treebanks Stanfordized. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation2334–41 Paris: Eur. Lang. Resour. Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Schwartz R, Abend O, Rappoport A 2012. Learnability-based syntactic annotation design. Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 2012)2405–21 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Sgall P, Hajičová E, Panevová J 1986. The Meaning of the Sentence in Its Pragmatic Aspects Dordrecht, Neth.: Reidel
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Silveira N, Manning C 2015. Does Universal Dependencies need a parsing representation? An investigation of English. See Hajičová & Nivre 2015 310–19
  90. Starosta S 1990. Review of H. Somers: Valency and Case in Computational Linguistics. Mach. Transl. 5:79–96
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Stassen L 1985. Comparison and Universal Grammar Oxford, UK: Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Temperley D 2007. Minimization of dependency length in written English. Cognition 105:300–33
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Temperley D, Gildea D 2018. Minimizing syntactic dependency lengths: typological/cognitive universal?. Annu. Rev. Linguist. 4:1–15
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Tesnière L 1959. Éléments de syntaxe structurale Paris: Ed. Klincksieck
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Tesnière L 2015. Elements of Structural Syntax transl. T Osborne, S Kahane. Amsterdam: Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Tsarfaty R 2013. A unified morpho-syntactic scheme of Stanford dependencies. Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, vol. 2: Short Papers578–84 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Uchimoto K, Sekine S, Isahara H 1999. Japanese dependency structure analysis based on maximum entropy models. Proceedings of the 9th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL 99196–203 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Wisniewski G, Lacroix O 2017. A systematic comparison of syntactic representations of dependency parsing. Proceedings of the NoDaLiDa 2017 Workshop on Universal Dependencies146–52 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Yamada H, Matsumoto Y 2003. Statistical dependency analysis with support vector machines. Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Parsing Technologies195–206 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Zeman D 2008. Reusable tagset conversion using tagset drivers. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation213–18 Paris: Eur. Lang. Resour. Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Zeman D, Duek O, Popel M, Ramasamy L, tpánek J et al. 2014. HamleDT: harmonized multi-language dependency treebank. Lang. Resour. Eval. 48:601–37
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Zeman D, Mareček D, Popel M, Ramasamy L, Štěpánek J et al. 2012. HamleDT: to parse or not to parse?. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation2735–41 Paris: Eur. Lang. Resour. Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Zwicky AM 1985. Heads. J. Linguist. 21:1–29
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-011842
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-011842
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error