Anti Dependency Distance Minimization in Short Sequences. A Graph Theoretic Approach

References

• Bresnan, J. (2000). Lexical-functional syntax. Chichester, UK: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Conover, W. J. (1999). Practical nonparametric statistics (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 87–185.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Marneffe, M.-C., Dozat, T., Silveira, N., Haverinen, K., Ginter, F., Nivre, J., & Manning, C. D. (2014, May). Universal Stanford dependencies: A cross-linguistic typology. In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, T. Declerck, H. Loftsson, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, A. Moreno, J. Odijk, & S. Piperidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the ninth international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC’14). Reykjavik, Iceland: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).
   Google Scholar
• de Marneffe, M.-C., & Manning, C. D. (2008). The Stanford typed dependencies representation. In COLING 2008: Proceedings of the workshop on cross-framework and cross- domain parser evaluation (pp. 1–8). COLING 2008 Organizing Committee. Retrieved from http://aclweb.org/anthology/W08-1301
   Google Scholar
• Esteban, J. L., Ferrer-i-Cancho, R., & Gómez-Rodríguez, C. (2016). The scaling of the minimum sum of edge lengths in uniformly random trees. Journal of Statistical Mechanics, 2016, 063401.
   Google Scholar
• Ferrer-i-Cancho, R. (2004). Euclidean distance between syntactically linked words. Physical Review E, 70, 056135.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferrer-i-Cancho, R. (2008). Some word order biases from limited brain resources. A mathematical approach. Advances in Complex Systems, 11(3), 393–414.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferrer-i-Cancho, R. (2013). Hubiness, length, crossings and their relationships in dependency trees. Glottometrics, 25, 1–21.
   Google Scholar
• Ferrer-i-Cancho, R. (2014, April 14–17). Why might SOV be initially preferred and then lost or recovered? A theoretical framework. In E. A. Cartmill, S. Roberts, H. Lyn, & H. Cornish (Eds.), The evolution of language - Proceedings of the 10th international conference (EVOLANG10) (pp. 66–73). Vienna, Austria: Wiley. (Evolution of Language Conference (Evolang 2014)).
   Google Scholar
• Ferrer-i-Cancho, R. (2015). Reply to the commentary “Be careful when assuming the obvious”, by P. M. Alday. Language Dynamics and Change, 5, 147–155.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferrer-i-Cancho, R. (2016). Non-crossing dependencies: Least effort, not grammar. In A. Mehler, A. Lücking, S. Banisch, P. Blanchard, & B. Job (Eds.), Towards a theoretical framework for analyzing complex linguistic networks (pp. 203–234). Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Ferrer-i-Cancho, R. (2017a). A commentary on “The now-or-never bottleneck: A fundamental constraint on language”, by Christiansen and Chater (2016). Glottometrics, 38, 107–111.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferrer-i-Cancho, R. (2017b). The placement of the head that maximizes predictability. An information theoretic approach. Glottometrics, 39, 38–71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferrer-i-Cancho, R. (2017c). Random crossings in dependency trees. Glottometrics, 37, 1–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferrer-i-Cancho, R. (2017d). Towards a theory of word order. Comment on “Dependency distance: A new perspective on syntactic patterns in natural language” by Haitao Liu et al. Physics of Life Reviews, 21, 218–220.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferrer-i-Cancho, R. (2019). The sum of edge lengths in random linear arrangements. Journal of Statistical Mechanics, 053401.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferrer-i-Cancho, R., & Gómez-Rodríguez, C. (2016). Liberating language research from dogmas of the 20th century. Glottometrics, 33, 33–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferrer-i-Cancho, R., Gómez-Rodríguez, C., & Esteban, J. L. (2018). Are crossing dependencies really scarce? Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 493, 311–329.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferrer-i-Cancho, R., & Liu, H. (2014). The risks of mixing dependency lengths from sequences of different length. Glottotheory, 5, 143–155.
   Google Scholar
• Futrell, R., Mahowald, K., & Gibson, E. (2015). Large-scale evidence of dependency length minimization in 37 languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(33), 10336–10341.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goeman, J. J., & Solari, A. (2014). Multiple hypothesis testing in genomics. Statistics in Medicine, 33, 1946–1978.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldin-Meadow, S., So, W. C., Özyürek, A., & Mylander, C. (2008). The natural order of events: How speakers of different languages represent events nonverbally. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(27), 9163–9168.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gómez-Rodríguez, C., & Ferrer-i-Cancho, R. (2017). Scarcity of crossing dependencies: A direct outcome of a specific constraint? Physical Review E, 96, 062304.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. In Proceedings of the 53rd annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics and the 7th international joint conference on natural language processing (volume 2: Short papers) (pp. 477–482). Beijing, China: Association for Computational Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Hajič, J., Panevová, J., Hajičová, E., Sgall, P., Pajas, P., Štěpánek, J., … Urešová, Z. (2006). Prague dependency treebank 2.0. CDROM CAT: LDC2006T01. Philadelphia, PA, USA: Linguistic Data Consortium. ISBN 1-58563-370-4.
   Google Scholar
• Hajicova, E. (1995). Prague school syntax and semantics. In E. Koerner & R. Asher (Eds.), Concise history of the language sciences (pp. 253–262). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
   Google Scholar
• Hawkins, J. A. (2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jiang, J., & Liu, H. (2015). The effects of sentence length on dependency distance, dependency direction and the implications-based on a parallel English-Chinese dependency treebank. Language Sciences, 50, 93–104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jing, Y., & Liu, H. (2015). Mean hierarchical distance. Augmenting mean dependency distance. In Proceedings of the third international conference on dependency linguistics (pp. 161–170). Uppsala, Sweden.
   Google Scholar
• Kesavan, H. K. (2009). Jaynes’ maximum entropy principle. In C. A. Floudas & P. M. Pardalos (Eds.), Encyclopedia of optimization (pp. 1779–1782). Boston, MA: Springer US.
   Google Scholar
• Langus, A., & Nespor, M. (2010). Cognitive systems struggling for word order. Cognitive Psychology, 60(4), 291–318.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106, 1126–1177.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, H. (2008). Dependency distance as a metric of language comprehension difficulty. Journal of Cognitive Science, 9, 159–191.
   Google Scholar
• Liu, H., Xu, C., & Liang, J. (2017). Dependency distance: A new perspective on syntactic patterns in natural languages. Physics of Life Reviews, 21, 171–193.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Longani, V. (2008). A formula for the number of labelled trees. Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 56(11), 2786–2788.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mel’čuk, I. (1988). Dependency syntax: Theory and practice. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Naroll, R. (1965). Galton’s problem: The logic of cross cultural research. Social Research, 32, 428–451.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nivre, J., Abrams, M., Agić, Ž., Ahrenberg, L., Antonsen, L., Aplonova, K., … Zhu, H. (2018). Universal dependencies 2.3. LINDAT/CLARIN digital library at the Institute of Formal and Applied Linguistics (ÚFAL), Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11234/1-2895
   Google Scholar
• Passarotti, M. C. (2016). How far is Stanford from Prague (and vice versa)? Comparing two dependency-based annotation schemes by network analysis. L’analisi Linguistica e Letteraria, 1, 21–46.
   Google Scholar
• R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [ Computer software manual]. Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/
   Google Scholar
• Rajkumara, R., van Schijndel, M., White, M., & Schuler, W. (2016). Investigating locality effects and surprisal in written English syntactic choice phenomena. Cognition, 155, 204–232.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts, S., & Winters, J. (2013). Linguistic diversity and traffic accidents: Lessons from statistical studies of cultural traits. Plos One, 8, 1–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosa, R., Mašek, J., Mareček, D., Popel, M., Zeman, D., & Žabokrtský, Z. (2014, may). HamleDT 2.0: Thirty dependency treebanks stanfordized. In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, T. Declerck, H. Loftsson, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, A. Moreno, J. Odijk, & S. Piperidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the ninth international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC’14). Reykjavik, Iceland: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).
   Google Scholar
• Sgall, P. (1969). A functional approach to syntax in generative description of language. New York, NY: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Vasishth, S., & Lewis, R. (2006). Argument-head distance and processing complexity: Explaining both locality and anti-locality effects. Language, 82, 767–794.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar