<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="W98-0505">
  <Title>t Types of syntagmatic grammatical relations and their representation</Title>
  <Section position="1" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="abstr">
    <SectionTitle>
Abstract
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> The paper reviews the kinds of representation of syntagmatic grammatical relations typically empl~'ed in grammar models used in computational linguistics. Exemplars of dependencyonly, constituency-only and hybrid constituencydependency approaches will be considered. In a move away fi'om the much discussed question 'Constituency or dependency?', the purpose of the paper is to ask more radically: 'Are constituency and dependency sufficient at all to represent the kinds of syntagmatic patterning we find in language?' Discussing three problem cases for representation with constituency/dependency - coordinate structure, information structure and agreement, I argue for a more diversified view of syntagmatic structure.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> 1 Introduction: the goals of this paper The paper reviews the kinds of syntagmatic grammatical relations typically acknowledged in grammar models used in computational linguistics and the kinds of means employed for their representation. The kinds of representation of syntagmatic structure can be broadly classified into three types: dependency, constituency and hybrid constituency/dependency approaches. Here, the following are considered in particular as representatives of these three types: Word Grammar (Hudson, 1984) (henceforth w(;) as an example of dependency approaches, Categorial Grammar (co) (e.g., (Steedman, 1985; Steedman, 1987; Uszkoreit, 1986) as an example of constituency approaches, and Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HI'SO) (Pollard and Sag, 1987; Pollard and Sag, 1994) as an example of hybrid approaches.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> Moving away from the much discussed question 'Constituency or dependency?', the purpose of the paper is to ask more radically: 'Are constituency and dependency sufficient for representing all the kinds of syntagmatic patterning we find in language?' Focusing on three problem cases for representation with constituency/dependency -- coordinate structure, information structure and syntactic agreement, I argue for a more diversified view of syntagmatic structure.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews some of the main issues in the 'constituency or dependency' debate based on the two positions brought forward in (Zwicky, 1985) and (Hudson, 1987). Section 3 then asks more generally about tile limits of dependency, constituency and hybrid models, discussing coordinate structure as a problem case for dependency approaches and information structure as a problem case for traditional constituency approaches, and presenting agreement as yet another kind of problem case. Section 4 introduces the view on representating syntagmatic relations subscribed to Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG; cf. (Halliday, 1979; Halliday, 1985; Matthiessen, 1995)), reflected in the 'modes of expression' hypothesis. I will show that with a functionally diversified model of syntagmatic relations such as the one employed in SFG some of the representational problems of dependency and constituency approaches do not arise. Section 5 concludes the paper with a summary and some implications for computational representation and processing. null</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>