Base_JSON/prefixC/json/C98/C98-1026.json

{
    "paper_id": "C98-1026",
    "header": {
        "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
        "date_generated": "2023-01-19T12:30:48.871974Z"
    },
    "title": "Separating Surface Order and Syntactic Relations in a Dependency Grammar",
    "authors": [
        {
            "first": "Norbert",
            "middle": [],
            "last": "Brsker",
            "suffix": "",
            "affiliation": {
                "laboratory": "",
                "institution": "Universit/it Stuttgart",
                "location": {
                    "addrLine": "Azenbergstr. 12",
                    "postCode": "D-70174",
                    "settlement": "Stuttgart"
                }
            },
            "email": ""
        }
    ],
    "year": "",
    "venue": null,
    "identifiers": {},
    "abstract": "This paper proposes decoupling the dependency tree fl'om word order, such that surface ordering is not determined by traversing the dependency tree. We develop the notion of a word order domain structure, which is linked but structurally dissimilar to the syntactic dependency tree. The proposal results in a lexicalized, declarative, and formally precise description of word order; features which lack previous proposals for dependency grammars. Contrary to other lexicalized approaches to word order, our proposal does not require lexical ambiguities for ordering alternatives.",
    "pdf_parse": {
        "paper_id": "C98-1026",
        "_pdf_hash": "",
        "abstract": [
            {
                "text": "This paper proposes decoupling the dependency tree fl'om word order, such that surface ordering is not determined by traversing the dependency tree. We develop the notion of a word order domain structure, which is linked but structurally dissimilar to the syntactic dependency tree. The proposal results in a lexicalized, declarative, and formally precise description of word order; features which lack previous proposals for dependency grammars. Contrary to other lexicalized approaches to word order, our proposal does not require lexical ambiguities for ordering alternatives.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Abstract",
                "sec_num": null
            }
        ],
        "body_text": [
            {
                "text": "Recently, the concept of valency has gained considerable attention. Not only do all linguistic theories refer to some reformulation of the traditional notion of valency (in the form of 0grid, subcategorization list, argument list, or extended domain of locality); there is a growing number of parsers based on binary relations between words (Eisner, 1997; Maruyama, 1990) .",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 341,
                        "end": 355,
                        "text": "(Eisner, 1997;",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF6"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 356,
                        "end": 371,
                        "text": "Maruyama, 1990)",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF18"
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Introduction",
                "sec_num": "1"
            },
            {
                "text": "Given this interest in the valency concept, and the fact that word order is one of the main difference between phrase-structure based approaches (henceforth PSG) and dependency grammar (DG), it is valid to ask whether DG can capture word order phenomena without recourse to phrasal nodes, traces, slashed categories, etc. A very early result on the weak generative equivalence of context-free grammars and DGs suggested that DGs are incapable of describing surface word order (Gaifman, 1965) . This result has recently been critizised to apply only to impoverished DGs which do not properly represent formally the expressivity of contemporary DG variants BrSker, 1997) .",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 476,
                        "end": 491,
                        "text": "(Gaifman, 1965)",
                        "ref_id": null
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 655,
                        "end": 668,
                        "text": "BrSker, 1997)",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF10"
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Introduction",
                "sec_num": "1"
            },
            {
                "text": "Our position will be that dependency relations are motivated semantically (Tesni~re, 1959) , and need not be projective (i.e., may cross if projected onto the surface ordering). We argue for so-called word order domains, consisting of partially ordered sets of words and associated with nodes in the dependency tree. These order domains constitute a tree defined by set inclusion, and surface word order is determined by traversing this tree. A syntactic analysis therefor consists of two linked, but dissimilar trees.",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 74,
                        "end": 90,
                        "text": "(Tesni~re, 1959)",
                        "ref_id": null
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Introduction",
                "sec_num": "1"
            },
            {
                "text": "Sec. 2 will briefly review approaches to word order in DG. In Sec. 3, word order domains will be defined, and Sec. 4 introduces a modal logic to describe dependency structures. Sec. 5 applies our approach to the German clause and Sec. 6 relates it to some PSG approaches.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Introduction",
                "sec_num": "1"
            },
            {
                "text": "A very brief characterization of DO is that it recognizes only lexical, not phrasal nodes, which are linked by directed, typed, binary relations to form a dependency tree (TesniOre, 1959; Hudson, 1993) . The following overview of DG flavors shows that various mechanisms (global rules, general graphs, procedural means) are generally employed to lift the limitation of projectivity and discusses some shortcomings of these proposals. (Sgall et al., 1986 ) assumes a language-independent underlying order, which is represented as a projective dependency tree. This abstract representation of the sentence is mapped via ordering rules to the concrete surface realization. Recently, Kruijff (1997) has given a categorialstyle formulation of these ordering rules. He assumes associative categorial operators, permuting the arguments to yield the surface ordering. One difference to our proposal is that we argue for a repro.sentational account of word order (based on valid structures representing word order), eschewing the non-determinism introduced by unary operators; the second difference is the avoidance of an underlying structure, which stratifies the theory and makes incremental processing difficult.",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 171,
                        "end": 187,
                        "text": "(TesniOre, 1959;",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF28"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 188,
                        "end": 201,
                        "text": "Hudson, 1993)",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF14"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 434,
                        "end": 453,
                        "text": "(Sgall et al., 1986",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF27"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 680,
                        "end": 694,
                        "text": "Kruijff (1997)",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF17"
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Word Order in DG",
                "sec_num": "2"
            },
            {
                "text": "Meaning-Text Theory (Melc'hk, 1988) assumes seven .strata of representation. The rules mapping from the unordered dependency trees of surface-syntactic i'el)resentations onto the allnotated lexeme sequen(:es of deet)-nmrl)hoh@eal representations include global ordering rules which allow disesmtinuities. These rules have not yet, been formally specitied (Melc'hk & Pertsov, 19871) . 187f).",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 20,
                        "end": 35,
                        "text": "(Melc'hk, 1988)",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF22"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 355,
                        "end": 381,
                        "text": "(Melc'hk & Pertsov, 19871)",
                        "ref_id": null
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Functional Generative Description",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Word Grammar (WG, ttudson (1990) )is based on geueral graphs instead of trees. Tile ordering of two linked words is specified together with their dependency relation, its ill the t)rot)osition \"object of verb follows it\". Extra(:lion of, e.g,, objects is analyzed 1)3' establishlug an additional del)en(lency (:ailed visitor l)etween the wu'b and tim extractee, which re-(luires the reverse or(ler, as ill \"visitor of verb precedes it\". This results in inconsistencies, since an exti'acted object must follow tile verb (being its object) and at the same tinle precede it (being its visitor). The al)proach (:onlproufises tile semantic nlotiw~tion of dependencies by adding p,arely order-induced dependencies. WG is similar to our proposal in that it also distinguishes a t)ropositional nw, ta language de.scribing the graph-based analysis structures.",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 13,
                        "end": 32,
                        "text": "(WG, ttudson (1990)",
                        "ref_id": null
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Functional Generative Description",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Unification Grammar (DUG, Hellwig (1986) ) defines a tree-like data structure for the representation of syntactic analyses. Using mortfllosyntactic ligatures with special interpretations, a word defines abstract positions into whicll modifiers are mapped.",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 26,
                        "end": 40,
                        "text": "Hellwig (1986)",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF11"
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Dependency",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Partial orderings and even discontinuities (:all thus be described by allowing a nlodifier to occupy a position defined by some transitive head. The approach requires that the parser interpretes several features specially, and it cannot restrict the s(:ope of discontinuities.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Dependency",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "(McCord, 1990) employs a number of rule types, sOille of which are exclusively con(:erned with precedence. So-called head/slot and slot/slot ordering rules des(:rilm the Inecedence in projective trees, referring to arbitrm'y predicates over head and modifiers. Extractions (i.e., discontinuities) are merely handled by a mechanism built into the parser.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Slot Grammar",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Summarizing the previous discussion, we require the following of a word order description for DO:",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Word Order Domains",
                "sec_num": "3"
            },
            {
                "text": ",, not to colnpromise the semantic motivation of dependencies,",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Word Order Domains",
                "sec_num": "3"
            },
            {
                "text": "\u2022 to be able to restrict discontinuities to certain constructions and delimit their scope,",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Word Order Domains",
                "sec_num": "3"
            },
            {
                "text": "\u2022 to be lexicalized without requiring lexical ambiguities for the representation of ordering alternatives,",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Word Order Domains",
                "sec_num": "3"
            },
            {
                "text": "\u2022 to be declarative (i.e., independent of an analysis procedure), and",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Word Order Domains",
                "sec_num": "3"
            },
            {
                "text": "\u2022 to be formally l)recise and consistent.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Word Order Domains",
                "sec_num": "3"
            },
            {
                "text": "The subsequent definition of an order domain structure and its linking to the delmndeney tree satisif:y these requirements.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Word Order Domains",
                "sec_num": "3"
            },
            {
                "text": "The Order Domain Structure A word order domain is a set of words, generalizing the notion of positions in DUG. The cardinality of an order domain may be restricted to at most one elenlent, at least one element, or 1)y (:onjun(:tion to exactly one element. Each word is associated with a se(tuence of order domains, one of wlfieh must contain the word itself, and each of these donmins may require that its elements have certain features. Order domains can be partially ordered based on set inclusion: If an order domain d contains word w (which is not associated with d), ew'.ry word w' contained in a domain d' associated with w is also contained in d; therefor, d' C d for each d' associated with w. This partial ordering induces a tree on order (tomains, which we call the order domain structure.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "3.1",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Take the example of German \"Den Mann/tat der Junge gesehen\" (\"the manAGe -has -the boyNoM seen\"). Its dependency tree is shown in Fig.l , with word order domains indicated by dashed circles. The finite verb, \"hat\", defines a sequence of domains, <dl, d2, da), which roughly correspond to the topological fields ill the German nlain clmlse. Tile nouns \"Mann\"",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 130,
                        "end": 135,
                        "text": "Fig.l",
                        "ref_id": null
                    }
                ],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "3.1",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": ".-, ,-&-t-- ........ 7 ,' dl ',{ ~ vpart \"''. ' ' , ,, subj'~.~_~.', [d3;",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "3.1",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": ",' , '. '. der Junge.' '. gesohen) ,, , and \"Junge\" and the participle \"gesehcn\" each define one order domain (d4,ds,d6, resp.) . Set inclusion gives rise to the domain structure in Fig.2 , where the individual words are attached by clashed lines to their including domains (dl and d4 collapse, being identical). 1",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 110,
                        "end": 127,
                        "text": "(d4,ds,d6, resp.)",
                        "ref_id": null
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 182,
                        "end": 187,
                        "text": "Fig.2",
                        "ref_id": null
                    }
                ],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "3.1",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": ", d \u00a2 . -_ . _ u 6 , '' , '. den Mann , -. - ~ '",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "3.1",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "How is the sm'face order derived fl'om an order domain structure? First of all, the ordering of domains is inherited by their respective elements, i.e., \"Mann\" precedes (any element of) d2, \"hat\" follows (any element of) dl, etc.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Surface Ordering",
                "sec_num": "3.2"
            },
            {
                "text": "Ordering within a domain, e.g., of \"hat\" and d6, or d5 and d6, is based on precedence predicates (adapting the precedence predicates of WG). There are two different types, one ordering a word w.r.t, any other element of the domain it is associated with (e.g., \"hat\" w.r.t, d6), and another ordering two modifiers, referring to the dependency relations they occupy (ds and d6, referring to subj and vpart). A verb like \"hat\" introduces two precedence predicates, requiring other words to follow itself and the participle to follow subject and object, resp.: 2 \"hat\"~ (<. A (vpart) >{subj,obj})",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Surface Ordering",
                "sec_num": "3.2"
            },
            {
                "text": "1Note that in this case, we have not a single rooted tree, but rather an ordered sequence of trees (by virtue of ordering dl, d2, and d3) ms domain structure. In general, we assume the sentence period to govern the finite verb and to introduce a single domain for the complete sentence.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Surface Ordering",
                "sec_num": "3.2"
            },
            {
                "text": "2For details of the notation, please refer to Sec. 4.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Surface Ordering",
                "sec_num": "3.2"
            },
            {
                "text": "Informally, the first conjunct is satisfied by any domain in which no word precedes \"hat\", and the second conjunct is satisfied by any domain in which no subject or object follows a participle. The domain structure in Fig.2 satisfies these restrictions since nothing follows the participle, and because \"den Mann\" is not an element old2, which contains \"hat\". This is an important interaction of order domains and precedence predicates: Order domains define scopes for precedence predicates. In this way, we take into account that dependency trees are flatter than PS-based ones a and avoid the formal inconsistencies noted above for WC.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 218,
                        "end": 223,
                        "text": "Fig.2",
                        "ref_id": null
                    }
                ],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Surface Ordering",
                "sec_num": "3.2"
            },
            {
                "text": "Order domains easily extend to discontinuous dependencies. Consider the non-projective tree in Fig.1 . Assuming that the finite verb governs the t)articiple, no projective dependency between the object \"den Mann\" and the participle \"gesehen\" can be established. We allow nonprojectivity by loosening the linking between dependency tree and domain structure: A moditier (e.g., \"Mann\") may not only be inserted into a domain associated with its direct head (\"gesehen\"), but also into a domain of a transitive head (\"hat\"), which we will call the positional head.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 95,
                        "end": 100,
                        "text": "Fig.1",
                        "ref_id": null
                    }
                ],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Linking Domain Structure and Dependency Tree",
                "sec_num": "3.3"
            },
            {
                "text": "The possibility of inserting a word into a domain of some transitive head raises the ques~ tions of how to require contiguity (as needed in most cases), and how to limit the distance between the governor and the modifier in the case of discontinuity. From a descriptive viewpoint, the syntactic construction is often cited to determine the possibility and scope of discontinuities (Bhatt, 1990; Matthcws, 1981) . In PSbased accounts, the construction is represented by phrasal categories, and extraction is liraited by bounding nodes (e:g., Haegeman (1994 ), Becker et al. (1991 ). In dependency-based accounts, the construction is represented by the dependency relation, which is typed or labelled to indicate constructional distinctions which are configurationally defined in PSG. Given this correspondence, it is natural to employ dependencies in the description of discontiImities as fol-aNote that each phrasal level in PS-based trees defines a scoi)c for linear precedence rules, which only apply to sister nodes. lows: For each modifi(:r of a certain head, a set (>f dependency types is defined wfiieh may link tim direct head and the positional head of the modifier (\"gesehen\" and \"hat\", resp.). If this set is; empty, both he.ads are identical and a contiguous attachment restflts. The inll)Ossil)ility of extra(:tion from, e.g., a finite verb phrase may follow fi'Olll the fact that the dcI)endency embedding finite verbs, propo, may not appear on any path between a direct and a positional head. 4",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 381,
                        "end": 394,
                        "text": "(Bhatt, 1990;",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF1"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 395,
                        "end": 410,
                        "text": "Matthcws, 1981)",
                        "ref_id": null
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 541,
                        "end": 555,
                        "text": "Haegeman (1994",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF9"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 556,
                        "end": 578,
                        "text": "), Becker et al. (1991",
                        "ref_id": null
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Linking Domain Structure and Dependency Tree",
                "sec_num": "3.3"
            },
            {
                "text": "This section sketches a logical language describing the det)enden(:y structure. It is based (m modal logic and owes much to work of Blacklmrn (1994). As he argues, standard Kripke models can 1o(,. regarded as directed graphs with node annotations. We will use this interpr('tation to represent detmndeney strllctm'es. Dep(uMen(:ies and the mat)i)ing from (tel)endency trec to order domain structure are described by nlodal operatots, while simple properties such as word (:lass, features, and cardinality of order domains are des(:ril)ed })y modal In'Oi)t>sitions.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "The Description Language",
                "sec_num": "4"
            },
            {
                "text": "In the following, we assume a set of words, W, ordered 1)y a precede.nee relation, -<, a set of dependency tyl)eS, 20, a set (>f atomic feature values A, and a set of word classes, C. We define a family of dependen(:y re.lalions R. ",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Model Structures",
                "sec_num": "4.1"
            },
            {
                "text": "mr~m' = (~ V m c m' V m' c m.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Model Structures",
                "sec_num": "4.1"
            },
            {
                "text": "4Oil, review ])ointed out that some. verbs may allow extractions, i.e., that this restriction is lexical, not universal. This fact can easily 1)e accomodated because tit(, possil)ility of discontimlity (and the dependency tyl)es across whi(:h the modifier may be extracted) is described in the lexical entry of the verb. In fact, a universal re-strictiol~ could not (!Veil l)(} st,~tted })QC~tltS(} the treatment is completely lexicalized.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Model Structures",
                "sec_num": "4.1"
            },
            {
                "text": "A dependency structure T is a tv, ple (g, w, , R>, VA~ Ve , 3.4 Additionally, we require for a dependency str~mture four more conditions: (1) Each word w is contained in exactly one of the domains fi'om VM(w), (2) all domains ill V~ (w) are pairwise disjoint, (3) each word (except w,.)is contained in at least two domains, one of which is associated with a (transitive) head, and (4) the (partial) orde.ring of domains (as described by I/'M) is (:onsistent with the precedence of the words contained in the donlains (see (BrSker, 1997) for more details). Fig.3 defines the logical language L;r~ used to describe dependency structures. Although they haw~ been presented difl'erently, they can easily be rewritten as (multimodal) Kripke models: q'h(: dell,lid,hey relal;ion H,d is l'epresenl;e(t as modality (d) and tile Inapping fl'oln a word to its ith order domain as modality 0~4.5 All other formulae denote properties of nodes, and tail be formulated as unary predicates nlost evident for word (:lass and feature assigmnent. For the I)recedence predicates <, and <a, there are ii> verses >, and >a. For presentation, the relation places C W x 142 has be.en inlroduced, which holds between two words iff the first argument is the positional h(:ad of the second argument.",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 38,
                        "end": 41,
                        "text": "(g,",
                        "ref_id": null
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 42,
                        "end": 44,
                        "text": "w,",
                        "ref_id": null
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 45,
                        "end": 46,
                        "text": ",",
                        "ref_id": null
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 47,
                        "end": 50,
                        "text": "R>,",
                        "ref_id": null
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 51,
                        "end": 59,
                        "text": "VA~ Ve ,",
                        "ref_id": null
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 60,
                        "end": 63,
                        "text": "3.4",
                        "ref_id": null
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 522,
                        "end": 536,
                        "text": "(BrSker, 1997)",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF10"
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 556,
                        "end": 561,
                        "text": "Fig.3",
                        "ref_id": "FIGREF2"
                    }
                ],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Deft",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "A more elaborate definition of dependency structures and L;~ defines two more dimensions, a feature graph mapped off' the dependency tree much like the proposal of Blackburn (1994) , and a conceptual representation based on termino~ logical logic, linking content words with refer-(;nee objects and dependencies with conceptual roles.",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 164,
                        "end": 180,
                        "text": "Blackburn (1994)",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF2"
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "The Language /2-1)",
                "sec_num": "4.2"
            },
            {
                "text": "\"IYaditionally, the German main clause is described using three topological fields; the initim and middle fields are separated by the finite (auxiliary) verb, and the middle and the SThe modality D~4 can be viewed as an abbreviation of <>~ Kl>a , composed of a Inapping fi'mn a word to its ith order domain and fi'om that domain to all its ehmmnts. Syntax (valid formulae) c6 \u00a3v, VcEC T, aE \u00a3~),Va6A",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "The German Clause",
                "sec_num": "5"
            },
            {
                "text": "T, (d)\u00a2 E \u00a3v, Vd e ~9,\u00a2 E z: : \u00a2~ -,3w', w\", w\"' 6 W : places(w', w) Aplaces(w', w\") A w'\"H,~w A w'\" -< w A o~single A ~ (final A norel)",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 31,
                        "end": 68,
                        "text": "\u00a2~ -,3w', w\", w\"' 6 W : places(w', w)",
                        "ref_id": null
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "The German Clause",
                "sec_num": "5"
            },
            {
                "text": ";v T, <. E \u00a3v, T, <~ E \u00a3v, V5 C iD T, ?a E \u00a3~, V6 C /9 T, o~4single E \u00a3v, Vi E ~V o~filled E \u00a3z~, Vi E ~V E]~a E \u00a3v, ViEW, aeA \u00a2 A ~ E \u00a37), Vq~,t/) E \u00a3/9 ~0 E \u00a3v, V\u00a2 E \u00a3v Semantics (satisfaction relation) w~c",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "The German Clause",
                "sec_num": "5"
            },
            {
                "text": ":\u00a2:~ 3w',w\" E I/V : wRz~wA places(w\", w) A w\"Rjw' o w'E ~}i (V34 (w))A ~ w' -",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "The German Clause",
                "sec_num": "5"
            },
            {
                "text": "A V2 ~=~ (middleA <. ADLnorel )",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "The German Clause",
                "sec_num": "5"
            },
            {
                "text": "[4] A VEnd \u00a2$ (middleA >,)",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "The German Clause",
                "sec_num": "5"
            },
            {
                "text": "[5] AVI <=~ (initial A norel)",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "The German Clause",
                "sec_num": "5"
            },
            {
                "text": "[6] [7] A <subj} (\"Junge\" A ~0)",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "The German Clause",
                "sec_num": "5"
            },
            {
                "text": "[8]",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "The German Clause",
                "sec_num": "5"
            },
            {
                "text": "A(vpart> (\"gesehen\" A 1\"0",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "The German Clause",
                "sec_num": "5"
            },
            {
                "text": "[9] A-~final A >{subj,obj}",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "The German Clause",
                "sec_num": "5"
            },
            {
                "text": "[10] A (obj} (\"Mann\" A ?{vpart})) [11] Figure 5: Hierachicat Structure final fields by infinite verb parts such as separable prefixes or participles. We will generalize this field structure to verb-initial and verb-final clauses as well, without going into the linguistic motivation due to space limits.",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 34,
                        "end": 38,
                        "text": "[11]",
                        "ref_id": null
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "The German Clause",
                "sec_num": "5"
            },
            {
                "text": "The formula in Fig.4 states that all finite verbs (word class Vfin C C) define three order domains, of which the first requires exactly one element with the feature init ial [1], the second allows an unspecified nmnber of elements with features middle and norel 12], and the third allows at most one element with featm'es final and norel I3]. The features initial, middle, and final E A serve to restrict placement of certain phrases in specific fields; e.g., no reflexive pronouns can appear in the final field. The norel 6 .4 featm'e controls placement of a relative NP or PP, which may appear in the initial field only in verb-final clauses. The order types are defined as follows: In a verb-second clause (feature V2), the verb is placed at the beginning (<.) of the middle field (middle), and the element of the initial field cannot be a relative phrase (@~4norel in [41) . In a verb-final clause (VEnd), the verb is placed at the end (>,) of\" the middle field, with no restrictions for the initial field (relative clauses and non-relative verb-final clauses are subordinated to the noun and conjunction, resp.) [5] . in a verb-initial clause (Vl), the verb occupies the initial field [6] .",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 859,
                        "end": 876,
                        "text": "(@~4norel in [41)",
                        "ref_id": null
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 1117,
                        "end": 1120,
                        "text": "[5]",
                        "ref_id": null
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 1190,
                        "end": 1193,
                        "text": "[6]",
                        "ref_id": null
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 15,
                        "end": 20,
                        "text": "Fig.4",
                        "ref_id": "FIGREF3"
                    }
                ],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "The German Clause",
                "sec_num": "5"
            },
            {
                "text": "The fornmla in Fig.5 encodes the hierarchical structure from Fig. 1 and contains lexical restrictions on placement and extraction (the surface is used to identify the word). Given this, the order type of\"h, at\" is determined as follows: The par.ticiple may not be extraposed (-ffinal in [101; a restriction from the lexical entry of \"hat\"), it S must follow \"hat\" in d2. 2hu,, the verb cannot be of order type VEnd, which would require it to be the last element in its domain (>, in [51) . \"Mann\" is not adjacent to \"gesehen\", but may be extracted across the dependency vpart (?{vpart} in 111]), allowing its insertion into a domain defined by \"hat\". It cannot precede \"hat\" in d2, because \"hat\" must either begin d2 (clue to <, in [4]) or itself go into d~. But d~ allows only one phrase (single), leaving only the domain structure from Fig.2 , and thus the order type V2 for \"hat\".",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 287,
                        "end": 292,
                        "text": "[101;",
                        "ref_id": null
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 476,
                        "end": 487,
                        "text": "(>, in [51)",
                        "ref_id": null
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 15,
                        "end": 20,
                        "text": "Fig.5",
                        "ref_id": null
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 61,
                        "end": 67,
                        "text": "Fig. 1",
                        "ref_id": null
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 838,
                        "end": 843,
                        "text": "Fig.2",
                        "ref_id": null
                    }
                ],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "The German Clause",
                "sec_num": "5"
            },
            {
                "text": "to PSG Approaches One feature of word order domains is that they factor ordering alternatives fl'om the syntactic tree, much like feature annotations do for morphological alt(,rnatives. Other lexicalized grammars collapse syntactic and ordering information an(t are fbI'ced to represent ordering alternatives by lexical ambiguity, most notable L-TAG (Schabes et al., 1988) and some versions of CG (Hepple, 1994) . This is not necessary in our approach, which drastically reduces the search space for parsing.",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 350,
                        "end": 372,
                        "text": "(Schabes et al., 1988)",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF26"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 397,
                        "end": 411,
                        "text": "(Hepple, 1994)",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF12"
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Comparison",
                "sec_num": "6"
            },
            {
                "text": "This property is shared by the proposal of Reape (19931) to associate ItPSG signs with se-(luelices of const;itueilts, also called word ord(;r dolnains. Surface ordering is determined by the s('quen(:c of constituents associated with the root node. The order domain of a mother node is the sequence :nlion of the. order domains of the. daughter nodes, which means that the relative ord(~r of elements in an order domain is retained, but material flom several domains may be iilterleaved, resulting in discontinuities. Whether an order domain allows interleaving with other domains is a parameter of the con-,~;tituent. This approach is v(::'y similar to ours in that order (hmiains separate word order fi'om the syntactic tree, but; there is one important diff(:ren(:e: Word order domains in HPSC (lo not completely free the hierarchical structure fl'oin ordering considerations, because discontin, fity is specified per phrase,, not per modifier. For exanlple, two projections are required for an NP, the lower one for the continuous material (de-terminer, adjective, noun, genitival and prepositional attributes) and the higher one for the possibly discontinuous relative elaus(,,. This de,pem]ence of hierm'chic~fi structure on ordering is absent fl'om our prot)osal.",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 43,
                        "end": 56,
                        "text": "Reape (19931)",
                        "ref_id": null
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Comparison",
                "sec_num": "6"
            },
            {
                "text": "We may also compare our al)proach with the l)rojection architecture of LFG (Kaplan & Bresnan, 1982; Kaplan, 1995) . Th(;re is a close similarit, y of the LFG projections (c-structure and f-structure) to the dimensions used here (order domain structure and dependency tree, respectively). C-structure and order doinains represe:rl; surface ordering, whereas fstructure and delmndency tree show the subcategorization or yah;nee requirements. What is more, these projections or dimensions are linked in both ae-~:ounts l)y an eh~unent-wise mapt)ing. The (lit-ferenee between tile two architectures lies ill tile linkage of the projections or dimensions: LFG maps f-structure off c-structure. In contrast, the dependency relation is taken to be prilnitive here, and ordering restrictions are taken to be indicators or consequences of dependency relations (see also Br6ker (1998b, 1998a)).",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 75,
                        "end": 99,
                        "text": "(Kaplan & Bresnan, 1982;",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF16"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 100,
                        "end": 113,
                        "text": "Kaplan, 1995)",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF15"
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Comparison",
                "sec_num": "6"
            },
            {
                "text": "We have presented an approach to word order %r DG which combines traditional notions (semantically motivated dependencies, topological fields) with contemporary techniques (logical description language, model-theoretic semantics). Word order domains are sets of partially ordered words associated with words. A word is contained in an order domain of its head, or may float into an order domain of a transitive head, resulting in a discontinuous dependency tree while retaining a projective order domain structure. Restrictions on the floating are expressed in a lexicalized fashion in terms of dependency relations. An important benefit is that the proposal is lexicalized without reverting to lexical ambiguity to represent order variation, thus 1)rofiting even more from the efficiency considerations discussed by Schabes et 31. (1988) .",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 817,
                        "end": 838,
                        "text": "Schabes et 31. (1988)",
                        "ref_id": null
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Conclusion",
                "sec_num": "7"
            },
            {
                "text": "It is not yet (:lear what the generatiw; capacity of such lexicalized discontilmous ])Gs is, but at least some index languages (such as a'~b~c '~) can be characterized. Neuhaus & Br6ker (1997) have shown that recognition and parsing of such grammars is ArT'-complete. A parser operating ()n the model structures is described in (Hahn et al., 1997) .",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 169,
                        "end": 192,
                        "text": "Neuhaus & Br6ker (1997)",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF24"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 328,
                        "end": 347,
                        "text": "(Hahn et al., 1997)",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF10"
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Conclusion",
                "sec_num": "7"
            }
        ],
        "back_matter": [],
        "bib_entries": {
            "BIBREF0": {
                "ref_id": "b0",
                "title": "Longl)istance s(:ralnbling and tree-adjoining grammar. in Prec",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "T",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Beck(r",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "A",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Joshi",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "& O",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Rainbow",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1991,
                "venue": "haptcr of the ACL",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "21--26",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Beck(r, T., A. Joshi & O. Rainbow (1991). Long- l)istance s(:ralnbling and tree-adjoining gram- mar. in Prec. 5th Co@ of the European (]hap- tcr of the ACL, pp. 21 -26.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF1": {
                "ref_id": "b1",
                "title": "Dic syntaktische Struktur dcr Nominalphrase im De~ttschcn. Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 38",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "C",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Bhatt",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1990,
                "venue": "",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Bhatt, C. (1990). Dic syntaktische Struktur dcr Nominalphrase im De~ttschcn. Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 38. Tiibingen: Nan'.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF2": {
                "ref_id": "b2",
                "title": "Structures, Languages and Translations: The Structural Approach to Feature Logic",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "P",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Blackburn",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1994,
                "venue": "Constraints, Language and Computation, Pt). 1 27. I,ondon",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Blackburn, P. (1994). Structures, Languages and Translations: The Structural Approach to Fea- ture Logic. In C. Rupp, M. Rosner ~ R. John- son (Eds.), Constraints, Language and Compu- tation, Pt). 1 27. I,ondon: Academic Press. Br6ker, N. (1997).",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF3": {
                "ref_id": "b3",
                "title": "Eine Dcpendenzgrammatik z?tr Kopplung heat(regent( Wissenssystemc auf modallogischcr Basis. Dissertation, l)eutsches Seminar, Uniwu'sit/it Freilmrg",
                "authors": [],
                "year": null,
                "venue": "",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Eine Dcpendenzgrammatik z?tr Kopplung heat(regent( Wissenssystemc auf modallogischcr Basis. Dissertation, l)eutsches Seminar, Uniwu'sit/it Freilmrg.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF4": {
                "ref_id": "b4",
                "title": "How to define a context-free backbone for DGs: An experiment in grammar conversion",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "N",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Br5ker",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1998,
                "venue": "Proe. of the COLING-A CL '98 workshop",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Br5ker, N. (1998a). How to define a context-free backbone for DGs: An experiment in gram- mar conversion. In Proe. of the COLING- A CL '98 workshop \"Processing of Dependency- based Grammars\". Montreal/CAN, Aug 15, 1998.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF5": {
                "ref_id": "b5",
                "title": "A Projection Architecture for Dependency Grammar and How it Compares to LFG",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "N",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Brsker",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1998,
                "venue": "Proc. 1998 Int'l Lcxical-Functional Grammar Conference",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "BrSker, N. (1998b). A Projection Architecture for Dependency Grammar and How it Compares to LFG. In Proc. 1998 Int'l Lcxical-Functional Grammar Conference. (accepted as alternate paper) Brisbane/AUS: Jun 30-Jul 2, 1998.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF6": {
                "ref_id": "b6",
                "title": "Bilexical Grammars and a Cubic-Time Probabilistic Parser",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "J",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Eisner",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1997,
                "venue": "Proc. of Int'l Workshop on Parsing Technologies",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "54--65",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Eisner, J. (1997). Bilexical Grammars and a Cubic- Time Probabilistic Parser. In Proc. of Int'l Workshop on Parsing Technologies, pp. 54-65. Boston/MA: MIT.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF8": {
                "ref_id": "b8",
                "title": "Dependency Systems and Phrase Structure Systems. Information and Control",
                "authors": [],
                "year": null,
                "venue": "",
                "volume": "8",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "304--337",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Dependency Systems and Phrase Structure Systems. Information and Control, 8:304-337.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF9": {
                "ref_id": "b9",
                "title": "Intwduction to Government and Binding",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "L",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Haegeman",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1994,
                "venue": "",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Haegeman, L. (1994). Intwduction to Government and Binding. Oxford/UK: Basil Blackwell.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF10": {
                "ref_id": "b10",
                "title": "Message-Passing Protocols for Real-World Parsing -An Object-Oriented Model and its Preliminary Evaluation",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "U",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Hahn",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "P",
                        "middle": [
                            "~5 N"
                        ],
                        "last": "Neuhaus",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Brsker",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1997,
                "venue": "Proc. Int'l Workshop on Parsing Technology",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "101--112",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Hahn, U., P. Neuhaus ~5 N. BrSker (1997). Message- Passing Protocols for Real-World Parsing - An Object-Oriented Model and its Preliminary Evaluation. In Proc. Int'l Workshop on Parsing Technology, pp. 101--112. Boston/MA: MIT, Sep 17-21, 1997.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF11": {
                "ref_id": "b11",
                "title": "Dependency Unification Grammar",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "P",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Hellwig",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1986,
                "venue": "Proc. 11th Int'l Co~\u00a2 on Computational Linguistics",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "195--198",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Hellwig, P. (1986). Dependency Unification Gram- mar. In Proc. 11th Int'l Co~\u00a2 on Computa- tional Linguistics, pp. 195-198.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF12": {
                "ref_id": "b12",
                "title": "Discontinuity and the Lambek Calculus",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "M",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Hepple",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1994,
                "venue": "Proc. 15th Int'l Conf. on Computational Linguistics",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "1235--1239",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Hepple, M. (1994). Discontinuity and the Lambek Calculus. In Proc. 15th Int'l Conf. on Compu- tational Linguistics, pp. 1235-1239. Kyoto/JP.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF13": {
                "ref_id": "b13",
                "title": "English Word Grammar. Oxford/UK: Basil Blackwell",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "R",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Hudson",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1990,
                "venue": "",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Hudson, R. (1990). English Word Grammar. Ox- ford/UK: Basil Blackwell.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF14": {
                "ref_id": "b14",
                "title": "Recent developments in dependency theory",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "R",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Hudson",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1993,
                "venue": "Syntax. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenSssisciter Forschung",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "329--338",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Hudson, R. (1993). Recent developments in depen- dency theory. In J. Jacobs, A. v. Stechow, W. Sternefeld &: T. Vennemann (Eds.), Syn- tax. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenSssis- citer Forschung, pp. 329-338. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF15": {
                "ref_id": "b15",
                "title": "The formal architecture of Lexical-Functional Grammar",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "R",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Kaplan",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1995,
                "venue": "Formal Issues in Lexical-Funetional Grammar",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "7--27",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Kaplan, R. (1995). The formal architecture of Lexical-Functional Grammar. In M. Dalrym- ple, R. Kaplan, J. I. Maxwell ~ A. Zae- nen (Eds.), Formal Issues in Lexical-Funetional Grammar, pp. 7-27. Stanford University.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF16": {
                "ref_id": "b16",
                "title": "Lexical-Functional Grammar: A Formal System for Grammatical Representation",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "R",
                        "middle": [
                            "~ J"
                        ],
                        "last": "Kaplan",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Bresnan",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1982,
                "venue": "",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "173--281",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Kaplan, R. ~ J. Bresnan (1982). Lexical-Functional Grammar: A Formal System for Grammatical Representation. In J. Bresnan 8z R. Kaplan (Eds.), The Mental Representation of Gram- matical Relations, pp. 173 281. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF17": {
                "ref_id": "b17",
                "title": "A Basic Dependency-Based Logical Grammar. Draft Manuscript",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "G.-J",
                        "middle": [
                            "V"
                        ],
                        "last": "Kruijff",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1997,
                "venue": "",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Kruijff, G.-J. v. (1997). A Basic Dependency-Based Logical Grammar. Draft Manuscript. Prague: Charles University.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF18": {
                "ref_id": "b18",
                "title": "Structural Disambiguation with Constraint Propagation",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "H",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Maruyama",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1990,
                "venue": "Proc. 28th",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Maruyama, H. (1990). Structural Disambiguation with Constraint Propagation. In Proc. 28th",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF19": {
                "ref_id": "b19",
                "title": "Annual Meeting of the ACL",
                "authors": [],
                "year": null,
                "venue": "",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "31--38",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Annual Meeting of the ACL, pp. 31 38. Pitts- burgh/PA.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF20": {
                "ref_id": "b20",
                "title": "Syntax. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "P",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Matthews",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1981,
                "venue": "",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Matthews, P. (1981). Syntax. Cambridge Text- books in Linguistics, Cambridge/UK: Cam- bridge Univ. Press.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF21": {
                "ref_id": "b21",
                "title": "Slot Grammar: A System for Simpler Construction of Practical Natural Language Grammars",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "M",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Mccord",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1990,
                "venue": "Natural Language and Logic",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "118--145",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "McCord, M. (1990). Slot Grammar: A System for Simpler Construction of Practical Natural Lan- guage Grammars. In R. Studer (Ed.), Natural Language and Logic, pp. 118-145. Berlin, Hei- delberg: Springer.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF22": {
                "ref_id": "b22",
                "title": "Dependency Syntax: Theory and Practice",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "I",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Melc'hk",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1988,
                "venue": "",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Melc'hk, I. (1988). Dependency Syntax: Theory and Practice. Albany/NY: State Univ. Press of New York.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF23": {
                "ref_id": "b23",
                "title": "Surface Syntax of English: A Formal Model within the MTT Framework",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "I",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Melc'hk",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "N",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Pertsov",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1987,
                "venue": "",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Melc'hk, I. ~z N. Pertsov (1987). Surface Syntax of English: A Formal Model within the MTT Framework. Philadelphia/PA: John Benjamins.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF24": {
                "ref_id": "b24",
                "title": "The Complexity of Recognition of Linguistically Adequate Dependency Grammars",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "P",
                        "middle": [
                            "~ N"
                        ],
                        "last": "Neuhaus",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Br6ker",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1997,
                "venue": "Proe. 35th Annual Meeting of the A CL and 8th Conf. of the EA CL",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "337--343",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Neuhaus, P. ~ N. Br6ker (1997). The Complexity of Recognition of Linguistically Adequate Depen- dency Grammars. In Proe. 35th Annual Meet- ing of the A CL and 8th Conf. of the EA CL, pp. 337-343. Madrid, July 7-12, 1997.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF25": {
                "ref_id": "b25",
                "title": "A Formal Theory of Word Order: A Case Study in West Germanic. Doctoral Dissertation",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "M",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Reape",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1993,
                "venue": "",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Reape, M. (1993). A Formal Theory of Word Order: A Case Study in West Germanic. Doctoral Dis- sertation. Univ. of Edinburg.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF26": {
                "ref_id": "b26",
                "title": "Parsing Strategies with 'Lexicalized' Grammars: Application to TAGs",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "Y",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Schabes",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "A",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Abeille",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "~ A",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Joshi",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1988,
                "venue": "Proc. 12th Int'l Co~\u00a2 on Computational Linguistics",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "578--583",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Schabes, Y., A. Abeille ~ A. Joshi (1988). Parsing Strategies with 'Lexicalized' Grammars: Appli- cation to TAGs. In Proc. 12th Int'l Co~\u00a2 on Computational Linguistics, pp. 578-583.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF27": {
                "ref_id": "b27",
                "title": "The Meaning of the Sentence in its Semantic and Pragmatic Aspects",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "P",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Sgall",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "E",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Hajicova",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "J",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Panevova",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1986,
                "venue": "",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Sgall, P., E. Hajicova 8z J. Panevova (1986). The Meaning of the Sentence in its Semantic and Pragmatic Aspects. Dordrecht/NL: D.Reidel.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF28": {
                "ref_id": "b28",
                "title": "Elemdnts de syntaxe strueturale",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "L",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Tesniore",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1959,
                "venue": "",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "TesniOre, L. (1959). Elemdnts de syntaxe strueturale. Paris: Klincksiek.",
                "links": null
            }
        },
        "ref_entries": {
            "FIGREF0": {
                "uris": null,
                "type_str": "figure",
                "text": "Dependency Tree and Order Domains for \"Den Mann hat der Junge gesehen\" Order Domain Structure for \"Den Mann hat der Junge geschen\"",
                "num": null
            },
            "FIGREF1": {
                "uris": null,
                "type_str": "figure",
                "text": "~=~ 3w' C W : wRdw' A T,w' ~ \u00a2 :** 3m c M :(V~(w) = (... m...> AW' C ,,,: (,,, = ~' v w ~ w'))",
                "num": null
            },
            "FIGREF2": {
                "uris": null,
                "type_str": "figure",
                "text": "Syntax and Semantics of \u00a3v Formulae Vfin ~ o~(single A filled) A ~initial [I] A O L (middle A norel) [2]",
                "num": null
            },
            "FIGREF3": {
                "uris": null,
                "type_str": "figure",
                "text": "Domain Description of finite verbs \"hat\" A Vfin",
                "num": null
            },
            "TABREF1": {
                "html": null,
                "content": "<table/>",
                "type_str": "table",
                "num": null,
                "text": ", VM > where 042, w,., R.D, VA, Vc> is a dependency tree, M is a, order domain ,str,tct'ure over W, and Vz4 : I/V ~\u00f7 3.4 '~ maps words to order\" domain sequences."
            }
        }
    }
}