Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-bthnr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-06-01T02:17:08.250Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dependency Locality as an Explanatory Principle for Word Order

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Richard Futrell ,
Roger P. Levy  and
Edward Gibson
Richard Futrell*
Affiliation:
University of California, Irvine
Roger P. Levy*
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Edward Gibson*
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
*
[rfutrell@uci.edu]
[rplevy@mit.edu]
[egibson@mit.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This work focuses on explaining both grammatical universals of word order and quantitative word-order preferences in usage by means of a simple efficiency principle: dependency locality. In its simplest form, dependency locality holds that words linked in a syntactic dependency (any head–dependent relationship) should be close in linear order. We give large-scale corpus evidence that dependency locality predicts word order in both grammar and usage, beyond what would be expected from independently motivated principles, and demonstrate a means for dissociating grammar and usage in corpus studies. Finally, we discuss previously undocumented variation in dependency length and how it correlates with other linguistic features such as head direction, providing a rich set of explananda for future linguistic theories.

Keywords

word-order universalsefficiencycorpus studiesprocessingdependency-length minimization

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 96 , Issue 2 , June 2020 , pp. 371 - 412
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abney, Steven Paul. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Adger, David. 2003. Core syntax: A minimalist approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199243709.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Haegeman, Liliane; and Stavrou, Melita. 2007. Noun phrase in the generative perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110207491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anttila, Arto, Adams, Matthew; and Speriosu, Michael. 2010. The role of prosody in the English dative alternation. Language and Cognitive Processes 25. 946–81. DOI: 10.1080/01690960903525481.10.1080/01690960903525481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 2001. The atoms of language: The mind's hidden rules of grammar. New York: Basic Books.
Barr, Dale J., Levy, Roger, Scheepers, Christoph; and Tily, Harry J.. 2013. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68. 255–78. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001.10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bartek, Brian, Lewis, Richard L., Vasishth, Shravan; and Smith, Mason R.. 2011. In search of on-line locality effects in sentence comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 37. 1178–89. DOI: 10.1037/a0024194.Google ScholarPubMed
Behaghel, Otto. 1909. Beziehungen zwischen Umfang und Reihenfolge von Satzgliedern. Indogermanische Forschungen 25. 110–42. DOI: 10.1515/9783110242652.110.Google Scholar
Behaghel, Otto. 1930. Zur Wortstellung des Deutschen. Curme volume of linguistic studies (Language monograph 7), ed. by Hatfield, James Taft, Leopold, Werner, and Friedrich Zieglschmid, A. J., 29–33. Baltimore: Waverly. DOI: 10.2307/521983.Google Scholar
Benor, Sarah, and Levy, Roger. 2006. The chicken or the egg? A probabilistic analysis of English binomials. Language 82. 233–78. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2006.0077.10.1353/lan.2006.0077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh, and Joshi, Aravind K.. 2004. Semilinearity is a syntactic invariant: A reply to Michaelis and Kracht 1997. Linguistic Inquiry 35. 683–92. DOI: 10.1162/ling.2004.35.4.683.10.1162/ling.2004.35.4.683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
Bock, J. Kathryn. 1982. Toward a cognitive psychology of syntax: Information processing contributions to sentence formulation. Psychological Review 89. 1–47. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.89.1.1.10.1037/0033-295X.89.1.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1982. The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Cueni, Anna, Nikitina, Tatiana; and Baayen, Harald. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. Cognitive foundations of interpretation, ed. by Bouma, Gerlof and Zwarts, Joost, 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2009. Selectional asymmetries between CP and DP suggest that the DP hypothesis is wrong. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 15. 27–35. Online: https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol15/iss1/5.Google Scholar
Chang, Franklin. 2009. Learning to order words: A connectionist model of heavy NP shift and accessibility effects in Japanese and English. Journal of Memory and Language 61. 374–97. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2009.07.006.10.1016/j.jml.2009.07.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1959. On certain formal properties of grammars. Information and Control 2. 137–67. DOI: 10.1016/S0019-9958(59)90362-6.10.1016/S0019-9958(59)90362-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1975. The logical structure of linguistic theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. (Current studies in linguistics 28.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. by Martin, Roger, Michaels, David, and Uriagereka, Juan, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. Structures and beyond, ed. by Belletti, Adriana, 104–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36. 1–61. DOI: 10.1162/0024389052993655.10.1162/0024389052993655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2007. Approaching UG from below. Interfaces + recursion = language?: Chomsky's minimalism and the view from syntax-semantics, ed. by Sauerland, Uli and Gärtner, Hans-Martin, 1–29. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110207552.1.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Lasnik, Howard. 1977. Filters and control. Linguistic Inquiry 8. 425–504. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4177996.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Schützenberger, Marcel P.. 1963. The algebraic theory of context free languages. Computer programming and formal languages, ed. by Braffort, P. and Hirschberg, D., 118–61. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Christiansen, Morten H., and Chater, Nick. 2008. Language as shaped by the brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31. 489–509. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X08004998.10.1017/S0140525X08004998CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chung, Fan-Rong King. 1984. On optimal linear arrangements of trees. Computers & Mathematics with Applications 10. 43–60. DOI: 10.1016/0898-1221(84)90085-3.10.1016/0898-1221(84)90085-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G., Fraser, Norman M.; and McGlashan, Scott (eds.) 1993. Heads in grammatical theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Courtin, Marine, and Yan, Chunxiao. 2019. What can we learn from natural and artificial dependency trees. Proceedings of the First Workshop on Quantitative Syntax, 125–35. DOI: 10.18653/v1/W19-7915.10.18653/v1/W19-7915.10.18653/v1/W19-7915.10.18653/v1/W19-7915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cover, Thomas M., and Thomas, J. A.. 2006. Elements of information theory. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Croft, William A., Nordquist, Dawn, Looney, Katherine; and Regan, Michael. 2017. Linguistic typology meets universal dependencies. Proceedings of the 15th International Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories, 63–75. Online: http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1779/05croft.pdf.Google Scholar
Crutchfield, James P., and Young, Karl. 1989. Inferring statistical complexity. Physical Review Letters 63. 105–8. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.63.105.10.1103/PhysRevLett.63.105CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Culbertson, Jennifer, and Adger, David. 2014. Language learners privilege structured meaning over surface frequency. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111. 5842–24. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1320525111.10.1073/pnas.1320525111CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dębowski, Łukasz. 2011. Excess entropy in natural language: Present state and perspectives. Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 21:037105. DOI: 10.1063/1.3630929.10.1063/1.3630929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derbyshire, Desmond C. 1979. Hixkaryána. (Lingua descriptive series 1.) Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1992. The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68. 81–138. DOI: 10.2307/416370.10.1353/lan.1992.0028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2002. Case distinctions, rich verb agreement, and word order type (Comments on Hawkins' paper). Theoretical Linguistics 28. 151–58. DOI: 10.1515/thli.2002.28.2.151.10.1515/thli.2002.28.2.151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyer, William E. 2017. Minimizing integration cost: A general theory of constituent order. Davis: University of California, Davis dissertation. Online: https://ucdavis.app.box.com/s/h4yk2plex1f4ls7d99zf0myr8ttxlkjv.Google Scholar
Esteban, Juan Luis, Ferrer-i-Cancho, Ramon; and Gómez-Rodríguez, Carlos. 2016. The scaling of the minimum sum of edge lengths in uniformly random trees. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 16:063401. DOI: 10.1088/1742-5468/2016/06/063401.10.1088/1742-5468/2016/06/063401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fedzechkina, Maryia, Chu, Becky; and Jaeger, T. Florian. 2017. Human information processing shapes language change. Psychological Science 29. 72–82. DOI: 10.1177/0956797617728726.10.1177/0956797617728726CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fedzechkina, Maryia, Jaeger, T. Florian; and Newport, Elissa L.. 2012. Language learners restructure their input to facilitate efficient communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109. 17897–902. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1215776109.10.1073/pnas.1215776109CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fenk, August, and Fenk, Gertrud. 1980. Konstanz im Kurzzeitgedächtnis—Konstanz im sprachlichen Informationsfluß. Zeitschrift für experimentelle und angewandte Psychologie 27. 400–414.Google Scholar
Ferrer-i-Cancho, Ramon. 2004. Euclidean distance between syntactically linked words. Physical Review E 70:056135. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.70.056135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferrer-i-Cancho, Ramon. 2006. Why do syntactic links not cross? Europhysics Letters 76:1228. DOI: 10.1209/epl/i2006-10406-0.10.1209/epl/i2006-10406-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrer-i-Cancho, Ramon. 2016. Non-crossing dependencies: Least effort, not grammar. Towards a theoretical framework for analyzing complex linguistic networks, ed. by Mehler, Alexander, Lücking, Andy, Banisch, Sven, Blanchard, Philippe, and Job, Barbara, 203–34. Berlin: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-662-47238-5_10.Google Scholar
Ferrer-i-Cancho, Ramon. 2017. The placement of the head that maximizes predictability: An information theoretic approach. Glottometrics 39. 38–71.Google Scholar
Ferrer-i-Cancho, Ramon, Dębowski, Łukasz; and Martín, Fermín Moscoso del Prado. 2013. Constant conditional entropy and related hypotheses. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2013:L07001. DOI: 10.1088/1742-5468/2013/07/L07001.10.1088/1742-5468/2013/07/L07001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrer-i-Cancho, Ramon, and Gómez-Rodríguez, Carlos. 2016. Crossings as a side effect of dependency lengths. Complexity 21. 320–28. DOI: 10.1002/cplx.21810.10.1002/cplx.21810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrer-i-Cancho, Ramon, Gómez-Rodríguez, Carlos; and Esteban, Juan Luis. 2018. Are crossing dependencies really scarce? Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 493. 311–29. DOI: 10.1016/j.physa.2017.10.048.10.1016/j.physa.2017.10.048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrer-i-Cancho, Ramon, and Liu, Haitao. 2014. The risks of mixing dependency lengths from sequences of different length. Glottotheory 5. 143–55. DOI: 10.1515/glot-2014-0014.10.1515/glot-2014-0014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Futrell, Richard. 2017. Memory and locality in natural language. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/114075.Google Scholar
Futrell, Richard. 2019. Information-theoretic locality properties of natural language. Proceedings of the First Workshop on Quantitative Syntax, 2–15. DOI: 10.18653/v1/W19-7902.10.18653/v1/W19-7902.10.18653/v1/W19-7902.10.18653/v1/W19-7902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Futrell, Richard, and Gibson, Edward. 2015. Experiments with generative models for dependency tree linearization. Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 1978–88. DOI: 10.18653/v1/D15-1231.10.18653/v1/D15-1231.10.18653/v1/D15-1231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Futrell, Richard, Hickey, Tina, Lee, Aldrin, Lim, Eunice, Luchkina, Elena; and Gibson, Edward. 2015. Cross-linguistic gestures reflect typological universals: A subject-initial, verb-final bias in speakers of diverse languages. Cognition 136. 215–21. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.11.022.10.1016/j.cognition.2014.11.022CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Futrell, Richard, and Levy, Roger. 2017. Noisy-context surprisal as a human sentence processing cost model. Proceedings of the 15th conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, vol. 1: Long papers, 688–98. Online: https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/E17-1065.10.18653/v1/E17-1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Futrell, Richard, Mahowald, Kyle; and Gibson, Edward. 2015. Large-scale evidence of dependency length minimization in 37 languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112. 10336–341. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1502134112.10.1073/pnas.1502134112CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Futrell, Richard, Qian, Peng, Gibson, Edward, Fedorenko, Evelina; and Blank, Idan. 2019. Syntactic dependencies correspond to word pairs with high mutual information. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Dependency Linguistics (DepLing 2019), 3–13. DOI: 10.18653/v1/W19-7703.10.18653/v1/W19-7703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, and Hill, Jennifer. 2007. Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511790942.Google Scholar
Gerdes, Kim, Guillaume, Bruno, Kahane, Sylvain; and Perrier, Guy. 2018. SUD or surface-syntactic universal dependencies: An annotation scheme near-isomorphic to UD. Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Universal Dependencies (UDW 2018), 66–74. DOI: 10.18653/v1/W18-6008.10.18653/v1/W18-6008.10.18653/v1/W18-6008.10.18653/v1/W18-6008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerdes, Kim, Guillaume, Bruno, Kahane, Sylvain; and Perrier, Guy. 2019. Improving surface-syntactic universal dependencies (SUD): Surface-syntactic relations and deep syntactic features. Proceedings of the 18th International Workshop on Treebanks & Linguistic Theory, 126–32. DOI: 10.18653/v1/W19-7814.10.18653/v1/W19-7814.10.18653/v1/W19-7814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, Edward. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68. 1–76. DOI: 10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00034-1.10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00034-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, Edward. 2000. The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. Image, language, brain: Papers from the first Mind Articulation Project Symposium, ed. by Marantz, Alec, Miyashita, Yasushi, and O'Neil, Wayne, 95–126. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gibson, Edward, Futrell, Richard, Piantadosi, Steven T., Dautriche, Isabelle, Mahowald, Kyle, Bergen, Leon; and Levy, Roger. 2019. How efficiency shapes human language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 23. 389–407. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2019.02.003.10.1016/j.tics.2019.02.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, Edward, Piantadosi, Steven T., Brink, Kimberly, Bergen, Leon, Lim, Eunice; and Saxe, Rebecca. 2013. A noisy-channel account of crosslinguistic word-order variation. Psychological Science 24. 1079–98. DOI: 10.1177/0956797612463705.10.1177/0956797612463705CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gildea, Daniel, and Jaeger, T. Florian. 2015. Human languages order information efficiently. arXiv:1510.02823 [cs.CL]. Online: http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.02823.Google Scholar
Gildea, Daniel, and Temperley, David. 2007. Optimizing grammars for minimum dependency length. Proceedings of the 45th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 184–91. Online: http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P07-1024.Google Scholar
Gildea, Daniel, and Temperley, David. 2010. Do grammars minimize dependency length? Cognitive Science 34. 286–310. DOI: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01073.x.10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01073.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Givón, Talmy. 1991. Markedness in grammar: Distributional, communicative and cognitive correlates of syntactic structure. Studies in Language 15. 335–70. DOI: 10.1075/sl.15.2.05giv.10.1075/sl.15.2.05givCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gómez-Rodríguez, Carlos, Christiansen, Morten H.; and Ferrer-i-Cancho, Ramon. 2019. Memory limitations are hidden in grammar. arXiv:1908.06629 [cs.CL]. Online: https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.06629.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. Universals of language, ed. by Greenberg, Joseph H., 73–113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grodner, Daniel, and Gibson, Edward. 2005. Consequences of the serial nature of linguistic input for sentential complexity. Cognitive Science 29. 261–90. DOI: 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_7.10.1207/s15516709cog0000_7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gross, Thomas, and Osborne, Timothy. 2009. Toward a practical dependency grammar theory of discontinuities. SKY Journal of Linguistics 22. 43–90. Online: http://www.ling.helsinki.fi/sky/julkaisut/SKY2009/Gross_Osborne_NETTI.pdf.Google Scholar
Gulordava, Kristina, and Merlo, Paola. 2015. Diachronic trends in word order freedom and dependency length in dependency-annotated corpora of Latin and Ancient Greek. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Dependency Linguistics (Depling 2015), 121–30. Online: https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W15-2115.Google Scholar
Gulordava, Kristina, Merlo, Paola; and Crabbé, Benoit, 2015. Dependency length minimisation effects in short spans: A large-scale analysis of adjective placement in complex noun phrases. Proceedings of the 53rd annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, vol. 2: Short papers, 477–82. DOI: 10.3115/v1/P15-2078.10.3115/v1/P15-2078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahn, Michael, Degen, Judith, Goodman, Noah, Jurafsky, Daniel; and Futrell, Richard. 2018. An information-theoretic explanation of adjective ordering preferences. Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2018), 1766–67. Online: https://cogsci.mindmodeling.org/2018/papers/0339/0339.pdf.Google Scholar
Hale, John T. 2001. A probabilistic Earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. Proceedings of the second meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Online: https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/N01-1021.10.3115/1073336.1073357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, Kenneth. 1983. Warlpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1. 5–47. DOI: 10.1007/BF00210374.10.1007/BF00210374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Havelka, Jiří. 2007. Beyond projectivity: Multilingual evaluation of constraints and measures on non-projective structures. Proceedings of the 45th annual meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics, 608–15. Online: https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P07-1077.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1990. A parsing theory of word order universals. Linguistic Inquiry 21. 223–61. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178670.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1998. Some issues in a performance theory of word order. Constituent order in the languages of Europe, ed. by Siewierska, Anna, 729–81. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2014. Cross-linguistic variation and efficiency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199664993.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hays, David G. 1964. Dependency theory: A formalism and some observations. Language 40. 511–25. DOI: 10.2307/411934.10.2307/411934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heringer, Hans Jürgen, Strecker, Bruno; and Wimmer, Rainer. 1980. Syntax: Fragen-Lösungen-Alternativen. Munich: Wilhelm Fink.Google Scholar
Hochberg, Robert A., and Stallmann, Matthias F.. 2003. Optimal one-page tree embeddings in linear time. Information Processing Letters 87. 59–66. DOI: 10.1016/S0020-0190(03)00261-8.10.1016/S0020-0190(03)00261-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1960. The origin of speech. Scientific American 203. 88–96. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24940617.10.1038/scientificamerican0960-88CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hofmeister, Philip, Culicover, Peter; and Winkler, Susanne. 2015. Effects of processing on the acceptability of ‘frozen’ extraposed constituents. Syntax 18. 464–83. DOI: 10.1111/synt.12036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofmeister, Philip, Jaeger, T. Florian, Arnon, Inbal, Sag, Ivan A.; and Snider, Neal. 2013. The source ambiguity problem: Distinguishing the effects of grammar and processing on acceptability judgments. Language and Cognitive Processes 28. 48–87. DOI: 10.1080/01690965.2011.572401.10.1080/01690965.2011.572401CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hofmeister, Philip, Casasanto, Laura Staum; and Sag, Ivan A.. 2014. Processing effects in linguistic judgment data: (Super-) additivity and reading span scores. Language and Cognition 6. 111–45. DOI: 10.1017/langcog.2013.7.10.1017/langcog.2013.7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsu, Anne S., and Chater, Nick. 2010. The logical problem of language acquisition: A probabilistic perspective. Cognitive Science 34. 972–1016. DOI: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01117.x.10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01117.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hudson, Richard A. 1984. Word grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard A. 1990. English word grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard A. 1995. Measuring syntactic difficulty. London: University College London, ms. Online: http://dickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Difficulty.pdf.Google Scholar
Husain, Samar, Vasishth, Shravan; and Srinivasan, Narayanan. 2014. Strong expectations cancel locality effects: Evidence from Hindi. PLOS ONE 9:e100986. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0100986.10.1371/journal.pone.0100986CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Irurtzun, Aritz. 2009. Per què Y? Sobre la centralitat de la sintaxi a l'arquitectura de la gramàtica [Why Y? On the centrality of syntax in the architecture of grammar]. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 8. 141–60. DOI: 10.5565/rev/catjl.145.10.5565/rev/catjl.145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, T. Florian. 2010. Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology 61. 23–62. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.02.002.10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.02.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jaeger, T. Florian, and Tily, Harry J.. 2011. On language ‘utility’: Processing complexity and communicative efficiency. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 2. 323–35. DOI: 10.1002/wcs.126.Google ScholarPubMed
Joshi, Aravind K., Vijay-Shanker, Krishnamurti; and Weir, David J.. 1991. The convergence of mildly context-sensitive grammar formalisms. Foundational issues in natural language processing, ed. by Sells, Peter, Shieber, Stuart, and Wasow, Thomas, 31–81. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Just, M. A., and Carpenter, P. A.. 1992. A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review 99. 122–49. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.122.10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.122CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2008. Universals constrain change; change results in typological generalizations. Linguistic universals and language change, ed. by Good, Jeff, 23–53. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199298495.003.0002.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199298495.003.0002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kobele, Gregory Michael. 2006. Generating copies: An investigation into structural identity in language and grammar. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles dissertation.Google Scholar
Konieczny, Lars. 2000. Locality and parsing complexity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29. 627–45. DOI: 10.1023/A:1026528912821.10.1023/A:1026528912821CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuhlmann, Marco. 2013. Mildly non-projective dependency grammar. Computational Linguistics 39. 355–87. DOI: 10.1162/COLI_a_00125.10.1162/COLI_a_00125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, Roger. 2005. Probabilistic models of word order and syntactic discontinuity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Levy, Roger. 2008. Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition 106. 1126–67. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.006.10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.006CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levy, Roger. 2013. Memory and surprisal in human sentence comprehension. Sentence processing, ed. by van Gompel, Roger P. G., 78–114. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Levy, Roger, and Jaeger, T. Florian. 2007. Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 19. 849–56. Online: https://papers.nips.cc/paper/3129-speakers-optimize-information-density-through-syntactic-reduction.Google Scholar
Liu, Haitao. 2008. Dependency distance as a metric of language comprehension difficulty. Journal of Cognitive Science 9. 159–91. Online: http://cogsci.snu.ac.kr/jcs/index.php/issues/?pageid=14&uid=76&mod=document.Google Scholar
Liu, Haitao. 2010. Dependency direction as a means of word-order typology: A method based on dependency treebanks. Lingua 120. 1567–77. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2009.10.001.10.1016/j.lingua.2009.10.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, Haitao, Xu, Chunshan; and Liang, Junying. 2017. Dependency distance: A new perspective on syntactic patterns in natural languages. Physics of Life Reviews 21. 171–93. DOI: 10.1016/j.plrev.2017.03.002.10.1016/j.plrev.2017.03.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marcus, Solomon. 1965. Sur la notion de projectivité. Mathematical Logic Quarterly 11. 181–92. DOI: 10.1002/malq.19650110212.10.1002/malq.19650110212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, Janet L., Bock, J. Kathryn; and Kelly, Michael H.. 1993. Word and world order: Semantic, phonological, and metrical determinants of serial position. Cognitive Psychology 25. 188–230. DOI: 10.1006/cogp.1993.1005.10.1006/cogp.1993.1005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mel'čuk, Igor A. 1988. Dependency syntax: Theory and practice. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Jens. 1998. Derivational minimalism is mildly context-sensitive. Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics (LACL 1998), 179–98. Berlin: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/3-540-45738-0_11.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Jens. 2001. Transforming linear context-free rewriting systems into minimalist grammars. Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics (LACL 2001), 228–44. Berlin: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/3-540-48199-0_14.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Jens, and Kracht, Marcus. 1997. Semilinearity as a syntactic invariant. Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics (LACL 1996), 329–45. Berlin: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/BFb0052165.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1998. Language form and language function. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/4115.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2014. Where do motivations compete? Competing motivations in grammar & usage, ed. by MacWhinney, Brian, Malchukov, Andrej, and Moravscik, Edith, 299–314. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198709848.003.0018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nivre, Joakim. 2015. Towards a universal grammar for natural language processing. Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing (CICLing 2015), 3–16. Cham: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-18111-0_1.10.1007/978-3-319-18111-0_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nivre, Joakim, Agić, Željko, Ahrenberg, Lars, Antonsen, Lene, Aranzabe, Maria Jesus, Asahara, Masayuki, Ateyah, Luma, Attia, Mohammed, Atutxa, Aitziber, Augustinus, Liesbeth; et al. 2017. Universal dependencies 2.1. LINDAT/CLARIN digital library at the Institute of Formal and Applied Linguistics (ÚFAL), Faculty of Mathematics and Physics. Prague: Charles University. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/11234/1-2515.Google Scholar
Nivre, Joakim, and Nilsson, Jens. 2005. Pseudo-projective dependency parsing. Proceedings of the 43rd annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 99–106. DOI: 10.3115/1219840.1219853.10.3115/1219840.1219853.10.3115/1219840.1219853.10.3115/1219840.1219853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osborne, Timothy, and Gerdes, Kim. 2019. The status of function words in dependency grammar: A critique of Universal Dependencies (UD). Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 4(1):17. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.537.Google Scholar
Park, Y. Albert, and Levy, Roger. 2009. Minimal-length linearizations for mildly context-sensitive dependency trees. Proceedings of Human Language Technologies: The 2009 annual conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 335–43. Online: http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/N/N09/N09-1038.10.3115/1620754.1620803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piantadosi, Steven T., and Fedorenko, Evelina. 2017. Infinitely productive language can arise from chance under communicative pressure. Journal of Language Evolution 2. 141–47. DOI: 10.1093/jole/lzw013.10.1093/jole/lzw013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitler, Emily, Kannan, Sampath; and Marcus, Mitchell. 2013. Finding optimal 1-end-point-crossing trees. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 1. 13–24. DOI: 10.1162/tacl_a_00206.10.1162/tacl_a_00206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollard, Carl, and Sag, Ivan A.. 1987. Information-based syntax and semantics. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Popel, Martin, Mareček, David, Štěpánek, Jan, Zeman, Daniel; and Žabokrtský, Zdeněk, 2013. Coordination structures in dependency treebanks. Proceedings of the 51st annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 517–27. Online: https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P13-1051.Google Scholar
Popp, Earl Y., and Serra, Michael J.. 2016. Adaptive memory: Animacy enhances free recall but impairs cued recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 42. 186–201. DOI: 10.1037/xlm0000174.Google ScholarPubMed
Prince, Ellen F. 1981. Toward a taxonomy of given/new information. Radical pragmatics, ed. by Cole, Peter, 223–55. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rajkumar, Rajakrishnan, van Schijndel, Marten, White, Michael; and Schuler, William. 2016. Investigating locality effects and surprisal in written English syntactic choice phenomena. Cognition 155. 204–32. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.06.008.10.1016/j.cognition.2016.06.008CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rijkhoff, Jan. 1986. Word order universals revisited: The principle of head proximity. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 1. 95–125. DOI: 10.1075/bjl.1.05rij.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rijkhoff, Jan. 1990. Explaining word order in the noun phrase. Linguistics 28. 5–42. DOI: 10.1515/ling.1990.28.1.5.10.1515/ling.1990.28.1.5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ros, Idoia, Santesteban, Mikel, Fukumora, Kumiko; and Laka, Itziar. 2015. Aiming at shorter dependencies: The role of agreement morphology. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 30. 1156–67. DOI: 10.1080/23273798.2014.994009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scontras, Gregory, Degen, Judith; and Goodman, Noah D.. 2019. On the grammatical source of adjective ordering preferences. Semantics and Pragmatics 12:7. DOI: 10.3765/sp.12.7.10.3765/sp.12.7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shalizi, Cosma Rohilla, and Crutchfield, James P.. 2001. Computational mechanics: Pattern and prediction, structure and simplicity. Journal of Statistical Physics 104. 817–79. DOI: 10.1023/A:1010388907793.10.1023/A:1010388907793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shannon, Claude E. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal 27. 623–56. DOI: 10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x.10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shieber, Stuart M. 1985. Evidence against the context-freeness of natural language. The formal complexity of natural language, ed. by Savitch, Walter J., Bach, Emmon, Marsh, William, and Safran-Naveh, Gila, 320–34. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-009-3401-6_12.Google Scholar
Shih, Stephanie, and Grafmiller, Jason. 2011. Weighing in on end weight. Paper presented at the 85th annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
Shih, Stephanie, Grafmiller, Jason, Futrell, Richard; and Bresnan, Joan. 2015. Rhythm's role in the genitive construction choice in spoken English. Rhythm in phonetics, grammar, and cognition, ed. by Vogel, Ralf and van, Reuben Vijver, de, 208–34. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. Grammatical categories in Australian languages, ed. by Dixon, R. M. W., 112–71. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Sleator, Daniel, and Temperley, David. 1991. Parsing English with a link grammar. Computer science technical report CMU-CS-91-196. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University. Online: https://www.link.cs.cmu.edu/link/ftp-site/link-grammar/LG-tech-report.pdf.Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan I. 1973. Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar. Studies of child language development, ed. by Slobin, Dan I. and Ferguson, Charles A., 175–209. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Smith, Nathaniel J., and Levy, Roger. 2013. The effect of word predictability on reading time is logarithmic. Cognition 128. 302–19. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.02.013.10.1016/j.cognition.2013.02.013CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stabler, Edward P. 1997. Derivational minimalism. Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics (LACL 1996), 68–95. Berlin: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/BFb0052152.10.1007/BFb0052152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Temperley, David. 2005. The dependency structure of coordinate phrases: A corpus approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 34. 577–601. DOI: 10.1007/s10936-005-9165-2.10.1007/s10936-005-9165-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Temperley, David. 2007. Minimization of dependency length in written English. Cognition 105. 300–333. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.09.011.10.1016/j.cognition.2006.09.011CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Temperley, David, and Gildea, Daniel. 2018. Minimizing syntactic dependency lengths: Typological/cognitive universal? Annual Review of Linguistics 4. 67–80. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011817-045617.10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011817-045617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien. 1959. Eléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Vasishth, Shravan, Chopin, Nicolas, Ryder, Robin; and Nicenboim, Bruno. 2017. Modelling dependency completion in sentence comprehension as a Bayesian hierarchical mixture process: A case study involving Chinese relative clauses. arXiv:1702.00564 [stat.AP]. Online: https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.00564.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1974. Theoretical word order studies: Results and problems. Papiere zur Linguistik 7. 5–25.Google Scholar
von der Gabelentz, Georg. 1901. Die Sprachwissenschaft: Ihre Aufgaben, Methoden, und bisherigen Ergebnisse. Leipzig: Weigel.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 2002. Postverbal behavior. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Weir, David Jeremy. 1988. Characterizing mildly context-sensitive grammar formalisms. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.Google Scholar
Xu, Chunshan, and Liu, Haitao. 2015. Can familiarity lessen the effect of locality? A case study of Mandarin Chinese subjects and the following adverbials. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 51. 463–85. DOI: 10.1515/psicl-2015-0018.10.1515/psicl-2015-0018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yadav, Himanshu, Husain, Samar; and Futrell, Richard. 2019. Are formal restrictions on crossing dependencies epiphenomenal? Proceedings of the 18th International Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theory, 2–12. DOI: 10.18653/v1/W19-7802.10.18653/v1/W19-7802.10.18653/v1/W19-7802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamashita, Hiroko, and Chang, Franklin. 2001. ‘Long before short’ preference in the production of a head-final language. Cognition 81.B45–B55. DOI: 10.1016/S0010-0277(01)00121-4.10.1016/S0010-0277(01)00121-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yngve, Victor H. 1960. A model and an hypothesis for language structure. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 104. 444–66. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/985230.Google Scholar
Yu, Xiang, Falenska, Agnieszka; and Kuhn, Jonas. 2019. Dependency length minimization vs. word order constraints: An empirical study on 55 treebanks. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Quantitative Syntax. Online: https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W19-7911.pdf.10.18653/v1/W19-7911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zipf, George Kingsley. 1936. The psychobiology of language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Zipf, George Kingsley. 1949. Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Oxford: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Futrell et al. supplementary material

Futrell et al. supplementary material
Download Futrell et al. supplementary material(File)
File 9.6 MB