Cross-serial dependencies

Last updated
A schematic showing cross-serial dependencies. Notice that the w's and v's, which represent words, each form respective series. Notice also that the lines representing the dependency relations mutually overlap. Schematic of cross-serial dependency.png
A schematic showing cross-serial dependencies. Notice that the w's and v's, which represent words, each form respective series. Notice also that the lines representing the dependency relations mutually overlap.

In linguistics, cross-serial dependencies (also called crossing dependencies by some authors [1] ) occur when the lines representing the dependency relations between two series of words cross over each other. [2] They are of particular interest to linguists who wish to determine the syntactic structure of natural language; languages containing an arbitrary number of them are non-context-free. By this fact, Dutch [3] and Swiss-German [4] have been proven to be non-context-free.

Contents

Example

Cross-serial dependencies.png
A Swiss-German sentence containing cross-serial dependencies (shown as lines between the verbs and their objects). The English translation with its dependencies, which do not cross, is shown for comparison.
Cross-serial dependencies 2.png
A more complicated example.

As Swiss-German allows verbs and their arguments to be ordered cross-serially, we have the following example, taken from Shieber: [4]

...merem Hanseshuushälfedaastriiche.
...weHans ( dat )thehouse ( acc )helppaint.

That is, "we help Hans paint the house."

Notice that the sequential noun phrases em Hans (Hans) and es huus (the house), and the sequential verbs hälfed (help) and aastriiche (paint) both form two separate series of constituents. Notice also that the dative verb hälfed and the accusative verb aastriiche take the dative em Hans and accusative es huus as their arguments, respectively.

Non-context-freeness

Let to be the set of all Swiss-German sentences. We will prove mathematically that is not context-free.

In Swiss-German sentences, the number of verbs of a grammatical case (dative or accusative) must match the number of objects of that case. Additionally, a sentence containing an arbitrary number of such objects is admissible (in principle). Hence, we can define the following formal language, a subset of :

Thus, we have , where is the regular language defined by

where the superscript plus symbol means "one or more copies". Since the set of context-free languages is closed under intersection with regular languages, we need only prove that is not context-free (, [5] pp 130–135).

After a word substitution, is of the form . Since can be mapped to by the following map: , and since the context-free languages are closed under mappings from terminal symbols to terminal strings (that is, a homomorphism) (, [5] pp 130–135), we need only prove that is not context-free.

is a standard example of non-context-free language (, [5] p. 128). This can be shown by Ogden's lemma.

Suppose the language is generated by a context-free grammar, then let be the length required in Ogden's lemma, then consider the word in the language, and mark the letters . Then the three conditions implied by Ogden's lemma cannot all be satisfied.

All known spoken languages which contain cross-serial dependencies can be similarly proved to be not context-free. [2] This led to the abandonment of Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar once cross-serial dependencies were identified in natural languages in the 1980s. [6]

Treatment

Research in mildly context-sensitive language has attempted to identify a narrower and more computationally tractable subclass of context-sensitive languages that can capture context sensitivity as found in natural languages. For example, cross-serial dependencies can be expressed in linear context-free rewriting systems (LCFRS); one can write a LCFRS grammar for {anbncndn | n ≥ 1} for example. [7] [8] [9]

Related Research Articles

A context-sensitive grammar (CSG) is a formal grammar in which the left-hand sides and right-hand sides of any production rules may be surrounded by a context of terminal and nonterminal symbols. Context-sensitive grammars are more general than context-free grammars, in the sense that there are languages that can be described by a CSG but not by a context-free grammar. Context-sensitive grammars are less general than unrestricted grammars. Thus, CSGs are positioned between context-free and unrestricted grammars in the Chomsky hierarchy.

In formal language theory, a context-sensitive language is a language that can be defined by a context-sensitive grammar. Context-sensitive is one of the four types of grammars in the Chomsky hierarchy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Context-free grammar</span> Type of formal grammar

In formal language theory, a context-free grammar (CFG) is a formal grammar whose production rules can be applied to a nonterminal symbol regardless of its context. In particular, in a context-free grammar, each production rule is of the form

In formal language theory, a context-free language (CFL) is a language generated by a context-free grammar (CFG).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Concentration</span> Ratio of part of a mixture to the whole

In chemistry, concentration is the abundance of a constituent divided by the total volume of a mixture. Several types of mathematical description can be distinguished: mass concentration, molar concentration, number concentration, and volume concentration. The concentration can refer to any kind of chemical mixture, but most frequently refers to solutes and solvents in solutions. The molar (amount) concentration has variants, such as normal concentration and osmotic concentration. Dilution is reduction of concentration, e.g. by adding solvent to a solution. The verb to concentrate means to increase concentration, the opposite of dilute.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Parse tree</span> Tree in formal language theory

A parse tree or parsing tree or derivation tree or concrete syntax tree is an ordered, rooted tree that represents the syntactic structure of a string according to some context-free grammar. The term parse tree itself is used primarily in computational linguistics; in theoretical syntax, the term syntax tree is more common.

In mathematics, a symplectic matrix is a matrix with real entries that satisfies the condition

In mathematics, the determinant of an m×m skew-symmetric matrix can always be written as the square of a polynomial in the matrix entries, a polynomial with integer coefficients that only depends on m. When m is odd, the polynomial is zero. When m is even, it is a nonzero polynomial of degree m/2, and is unique up to multiplication by ±1. The convention on skew-symmetric tridiagonal matrices, given below in the examples, then determines one specific polynomial, called the Pfaffian polynomial. The value of this polynomial, when applied to the entries of a skew-symmetric matrix, is called the Pfaffian of that matrix. The term Pfaffian was introduced by Cayley (1852), who indirectly named them after Johann Friedrich Pfaff.

Tree-adjoining grammar (TAG) is a grammar formalism defined by Aravind Joshi. Tree-adjoining grammars are somewhat similar to context-free grammars, but the elementary unit of rewriting is the tree rather than the symbol. Whereas context-free grammars have rules for rewriting symbols as strings of other symbols, tree-adjoining grammars have rules for rewriting the nodes of trees as other trees.

Categorial grammar is a family of formalisms in natural language syntax that share the central assumption that syntactic constituents combine as functions and arguments. Categorial grammar posits a close relationship between the syntax and semantic composition, since it typically treats syntactic categories as corresponding to semantic types. Categorial grammars were developed in the 1930s by Kazimierz Ajdukiewicz and in the 1950s by Yehoshua Bar-Hillel and Joachim Lambek. It saw a surge of interest in the 1970s following the work of Richard Montague, whose Montague grammar assumed a similar view of syntax. It continues to be a major paradigm, particularly within formal semantics.

In computer science, a Van Wijngaarden grammar is a formalism for defining formal languages. The name derives from the formalism invented by Adriaan van Wijngaarden for the purpose of defining the ALGOL 68 programming language. The resulting specification remains its most notable application.

Indexed languages are a class of formal languages discovered by Alfred Aho; they are described by indexed grammars and can be recognized by nested stack automata.

In probability theory, a random measure is a measure-valued random element. Random measures are for example used in the theory of random processes, where they form many important point processes such as Poisson point processes and Cox processes.

An embedded pushdown automaton or EPDA is a computational model for parsing languages generated by tree-adjoining grammars (TAGs). It is similar to the context-free grammar-parsing pushdown automaton, but instead of using a plain stack to store symbols, it has a stack of iterated stacks that store symbols, giving TAGs a generative capacity between context-free and context-sensitive grammars, or a subset of mildly context-sensitive grammars. Embedded pushdown automata should not be confused with nested stack automata which have more computational power.

Combinatory categorial grammar (CCG) is an efficiently parsable, yet linguistically expressive grammar formalism. It has a transparent interface between surface syntax and underlying semantic representation, including predicate–argument structure, quantification and information structure. The formalism generates constituency-based structures and is therefore a type of phrase structure grammar.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Formal grammar</span> Structure of a formal language

A formal grammar describes how to form strings from an alphabet of a formal language that are valid according to the language's syntax. A grammar does not describe the meaning of the strings or what can be done with them in whatever context—only their form. A formal grammar is defined as a set of production rules for such strings in a formal language.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lagrangian mechanics</span> Formulation of classical mechanics

In physics, Lagrangian mechanics is a formulation of classical mechanics founded on the stationary-action principle. It was introduced by the Italian-French mathematician and astronomer Joseph-Louis Lagrange in his presentation to the Turin Academy of Science in 1760 culminating in his 1788 grand opus, Mécanique analytique.

In computer science, more specifically in automata and formal language theory, nested words are a concept proposed by Alur and Madhusudan as a joint generalization of words, as traditionally used for modelling linearly ordered structures, and of ordered unranked trees, as traditionally used for modelling hierarchical structures. Finite-state acceptors for nested words, so-called nested word automata, then give a more expressive generalization of finite automata on words. The linear encodings of languages accepted by finite nested word automata gives the class of visibly pushdown languages. The latter language class lies properly between the regular languages and the deterministic context-free languages. Since their introduction in 2004, these concepts have triggered much research in that area.

Generalized context-free grammar (GCFG) is a grammar formalism that expands on context-free grammars by adding potentially non-context-free composition functions to rewrite rules. Head grammar is an instance of such a GCFG which is known to be especially adept at handling a wide variety of non-CF properties of natural language.

In computational linguistics, the term mildly context-sensitive grammar formalisms refers to several grammar formalisms that have been developed in an effort to provide adequate descriptions of the syntactic structure of natural language.

References

  1. Stabler, Edward (2004), "Varieties of crossing dependencies: structure dependence and mild context sensitivity" (PDF), Cognitive Science, 28 (5): 699–720, doi: 10.1016/j.cogsci.2004.05.002 .
  2. 1 2 Jurafsky, Daniel; Martin, James H. (2000). Speech and Language Processing (1st ed.). Prentice Hall. pp. 473–495. ISBN   978-0-13-095069-7..
  3. Bresnan, Joan; M. Kaplan, Ronald (1982), "Cross-serial dependencies in Dutch", Linguistic Inquiry, 13 (4): 613–635.
  4. 1 2 Shieber, Stuart (1985), "Evidence against the context-freeness of natural language" (PDF), Linguistics and Philosophy, 8 (3): 333–343, doi:10.1007/BF00630917, S2CID   222277837 .
  5. 1 2 3 John E. Hopcroft, Jeffrey D. Ullman (1979). Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation (1st ed.). Pearson Education. ISBN   978-0-201-44124-6..
  6. Gazdar, Gerald (1988). "Applicability of Indexed Grammars to Natural Languages". Natural Language Parsing and Linguistic Theories. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy. Vol. 35. pp. 69–94. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-1337-0_3. ISBN   978-1-55608-056-2.
  7. http://user.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/~kallmeyer/GrammarFormalisms/4nl-cfg.pdf [ bare URL PDF ]
  8. http://user.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/~kallmeyer/GrammarFormalisms/4lcfrs-intro.pdf [ bare URL PDF ]
  9. Laura Kallmeyer (2010). Parsing Beyond Context-Free Grammars. Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 1–5. ISBN   978-3-642-14846-0.