Minimizing Syntactic Dependency Lengths: Typological/Cognitive Universal?

Literature Cited

1. Abeillé A, Rambow O. 2001. Tree Adjoining Grammars: Formalisms, Linguistic Analysis and Processing Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf.
2. Abney SP. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect PhD thesis, MIT Cambridge, MA:
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
6. Bresnan J. 1982. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
7. Chomsky N. 1988. Language and Problems of Knowledge: The Managua Lectures Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
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.
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
28. Hawkins J. 2004. Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
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
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
41. Munn AB. 1993. Topics in the syntax and semantics of coordinate structures PhD thesis, Univ. Md., College Park:
42. Oehrle RT, Bach E, Wheeler D. 1988. Categorial Grammars and Natural Language Structures Dordrecht, Neth: Reidel
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.
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
46. Radford A. 1997. Syntactic Theory and the Structure of English: A Minimalist Approach Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
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]