Non-crossing dependencies: least effort, not grammar

Abstract

The use of null hypotheses (in a statistical sense) is common in hard sciences but not in theoretical linguistics. Here the null hypothesis that the low frequency of syntactic dependency crossings is expected by an arbitrary ordering of words is rejected. It is shown that this would require star dependency structures, which are both unrealistic and too restrictive. The hypothesis of the limited resources of the human brain is revisited. Stronger null hypotheses taking into account actual dependency lengths for the likelihood of crossings are presented. Those hypotheses suggests that crossings are likely to reduce when dependencies are shortened. A hypothesis based on pressure to reduce dependency lengths is more parsimonious than a principle of minimization of crossings or a grammatical ban that is totally dissociated from the general and non-linguistic principle of economy.

Cited by in corpus (10)

• Are crossing dependencies really scarce?
• The scarcity of crossing dependencies: a direct outcome of a specific constraint?
• Anti dependency distance minimization in short sequences. A graph theoretic approach
• The scaling of the minimum sum of edge lengths in uniformly random trees
• The sum of edge lengths in random linear arrangements
• Towards a theory of word order. Comment on "Dependency distance: a new perspective on syntactic patterns in natural language" by Haitao Liu et al
• Bounds of the sum of edge lengths in linear arrangements of trees
• On the relation between dependency distance, crossing dependencies, and parsing. Comment on "Dependency distance: a new perspective on syntactic patterns in natural languages" by Haitao Liu et al
• Edge crossings in random linear arrangements
• Linear-time calculation of the expected sum of edge lengths in random projective linearizations of trees