1932

Abstract

Syntactic dependencies are head/modifier relations between words in a sentence that organize sentences into a syntactic tree structure. The general principle that languages have a preference to group syntactically related words close together can be made precise as a preference for shorter dependencies. We examine evidence for this principle in the development of languages’ grammars as well as in the choices made by individual speakers where syntactic variation is licensed. We survey evidence from corpus studies, computational simulations, and experiments on comprehension; altogether, this evidence makes a compelling case for dependency length minimization as an important factor in language structure and cognition.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011817-045617
2018-01-14
2024-06-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/4/1/annurev-linguistics-011817-045617.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011817-045617&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abeillé A, Rambow O. 2001. Tree Adjoining Grammars: Formalisms, Linguistic Analysis and Processing Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf. [Google Scholar]
  2. Abney SP. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect PhD thesis, MIT Cambridge, MA: [Google Scholar]
  3. Alexopoulou T, Keller F. 2007. Locality, cyclicity, and resumption: at the interface between the grammar and the human sentence processor. Language 83:110–60 [Google Scholar]
  4. Arnold JE, Wasow T, Losongco T, Ginstrom R. 2000. Heaviness versus newness: the effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language 76:28–55 [Google Scholar]
  5. Behaghel O. 1932. Deutsche Syntax: eine geschichtliche Darstellung Bd. 4 Wortstellung; Periodenbau Heidelberg, Ger.: C. Winter [Google Scholar]
  6. Bresnan J. 1982. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  7. Chomsky N. 1988. Language and Problems of Knowledge: The Managua Lectures Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  8. Chung FRK. 1984. On optimal linear arrangements of trees. Comput. Math. Appl. 10:43–60 [Google Scholar]
  9. Church KW, Patil R. 1982. Coping with syntactic ambiguity. Am. J. Comput. Linguist. 8:139–49 [Google Scholar]
  10. Demberg V, Keller F. 2008. Data from eye-tracking corpora as evidence for theories of syntactic processing complexity. Cognition 109:193–210 [Google Scholar]
  11. Diessel H. 2005. Competing motivations for the ordering of main and adverbial clauses. Linguistics 43:449–70 [Google Scholar]
  12. Dik SC. 1989. The Theory of Functional Grammar, part 1: The Structure of the Clause Dordrecht, Neth.: Foris [Google Scholar]
  13. Dryer M. 1992. The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68:81–138 [Google Scholar]
  14. Ferrer i Cancho R. 2004. Euclidean distance between syntactically linked words. Phys. Rev. E 70:1–5 [Google Scholar]
  15. Ferrer i Cancho R. 2006. Why do syntactic links not cross?. Europhys. Lett. 76:1228–34 [Google Scholar]
  16. Francis EJ. 2010. Grammatical weight and relative clause extraposition in English. Cogn. Linguist. 21:35–74 [Google Scholar]
  17. Frazier L. 1985. Syntactic complexity. Natural Language Parsing: Psychological, Computational, and Theoretical Perspectives DR Dowty, L Karttunen, A Zwicky 129–89 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  18. Futrell R, Mahowald K, Gibson E. 2015. Large-scale evidence of dependency length minimization in 37 languages. PNAS 112:10336–41 [Google Scholar]
  19. Gibson E. 1998. Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68:1–76 [Google Scholar]
  20. Gibson E. 2000. The dependency locality theory: a distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. Image, Language, Brain: Papers from the 1st Mind Articulation Symposium A Marantz, Y Miyashita, W O'Neil 95–126 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  21. Gibson E, Warren T. 2004. Reading-time evidence for intermediate linguistic structure in long-distance dependencies. Syntax 7:55–78 [Google Scholar]
  22. Gildea D, Jaeger TF. 2015. Human languages order information efficiently. arXiv:1510.02823 [cs.CL]
  23. Gildea D, Temperley D. 2007. Optimizing grammars for minimum dependency length. Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics A Zaenen, A van den Bosch 184–91 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist. [Google Scholar]
  24. Gildea D, Temperley D. 2010. Do grammars minimize dependency length?. Cogn. Sci. 34:286–310 [Google Scholar]
  25. Givón T. 1991. Isomorphism in the grammatical code: cognitive and biological considerations. Stud. Lang. 15:85–114 [Google Scholar]
  26. Greenberg JH. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. Universals of Human Language JH Greenberg 73–113 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  27. Hawkins J. 1994. A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  28. Hawkins J. 2004. Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  29. Hsiao F, Gibson E. 2003. Processing relative clauses in Chinese. Cognition 90:3–27 [Google Scholar]
  30. Hudson RA. 1987. Zwicky on heads. J. Linguist. 23:109–32 [Google Scholar]
  31. Hudson RA. 1991. English Word Grammar Oxford, UK: Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  32. Joshi AK. 1985. Tree adjoining grammars: How much context-sensitivity is required to provide reasonable structural descriptions?. Natural Language Parsing: Psychological, Computational, and Theoretical Perspectives DR Dowty, L Karttunen, A Zwicky 206–50 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  33. King J, Just MA. 1991. Individual differences in syntactic processing: the role of working memory. J. Mem. Lang. 30:580–602 [Google Scholar]
  34. Konieczny L. 2000. Locality and parsing complexity. J. Psycholinguist. Res. 29:627–45 [Google Scholar]
  35. Levy R. 2008. Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition 106:1126–77 [Google Scholar]
  36. Levy R, Fedorenko E, Gibson E. 2013. The syntactic complexity of Russian relative clauses. J. Mem. Lang. 69:461–95 [Google Scholar]
  37. Levy RP, Keller F. 2013. Expectation and locality effects in German verb-final structures. J. Mem. Lang. 68:199–222 [Google Scholar]
  38. Lewis RL, Vasishth S. 2005. An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cogn. Sci. 29:375–419 [Google Scholar]
  39. Liu H. 2008. Dependency distance as a metric of language comprehension difficulty. J. Cogn. Sci. 9:159–91 [Google Scholar]
  40. Mel'čuk IA. 1988. Dependency Syntax: Theory and Practice Albany, NY: SUNY Press [Google Scholar]
  41. Munn AB. 1993. Topics in the syntax and semantics of coordinate structures PhD thesis, Univ. Md., College Park: [Google Scholar]
  42. Oehrle RT, Bach E, Wheeler D. 1988. Categorial Grammars and Natural Language Structures Dordrecht, Neth: Reidel [Google Scholar]
  43. Park YA, Levy R. 2009. Minimal-length linearizations for mildly context-sensitive dependency trees. Proceedings of the 2009 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics335–43 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist. [Google Scholar]
  44. Pickering M, Barry G. 1993. Dependency categorial grammar and coordination. Linguistics 31:855–902 [Google Scholar]
  45. Pollard C, Sag IA. 1987. Information-Based Syntax and Semantics 1 Fundamentals Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  46. Radford A. 1997. Syntactic Theory and the Structure of English: A Minimalist Approach Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  47. Rijkhoff J. 1990. Explaining word order in the noun phrase. Linguistics 28:5–42 [Google Scholar]
  48. Temperley D. 2007. Minimization of dependency length in written English. Cognition 105:300–33 [Google Scholar]
  49. Temperley D. 2008. Dependency-length minimization in natural and artificial languages. J. Quant. Linguist. 15:256–82 [Google Scholar]
  50. Vennemann T. 1974. Topics, subjects and word order: from SXV to SVX via TVX. Historical Linguistics I J Andersen, C Jones 339–76 Amsterdam: North Holland [Google Scholar]
  51. Warren T, Gibson E. 2002. The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition 85:79–112 [Google Scholar]
  52. Yamashita H. 2002. Scrambled sentences in Japanese: linguistic properties and motivations for production. Text 22:597–634 [Google Scholar]
  53. Yamashita H, Chang F. 2001. “Long before short” preference in the production of a head-final language. Cognition 81:45–55 [Google Scholar]
  54. Zwicky AM. 1985. Heads. J. Linguist. 21:1–29 [Google Scholar]
  55. Zwicky AM. 1993. Heads, bases and functors. Heads in Grammatical Theory GC Corbett, NM Fraser, S McGlashan 292–315 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011817-045617
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