Editing Dependency grammar (section)

==Types of dependencies==
The dependency representations above (and further below) show syntactic dependencies. Indeed, most work in dependency grammar focuses on syntactic dependencies. Syntactic dependencies are, however, just one of three or four types of dependencies. [[Meaning–text theory]], for instance, emphasizes the role of semantic and morphological dependencies in addition to syntactic dependencies.<ref>For a discussion of semantic, morphological, and syntactic dependencies in Meaning-Text Theory, see Melʹc̆uk (2003:191ff.) and Osborne 2019: Ch. 5).</ref> A fourth type, prosodic dependencies, can also be acknowledged. Distinguishing between these types of dependencies can be important, in part because if one fails to do so, the likelihood that semantic, morphological, and/or prosodic dependencies will be mistaken for syntactic dependencies is great. The following four subsections briefly sketch each of these dependency types. During the discussion, the existence of syntactic dependencies is taken for granted and used as an orientation point for establishing the nature of the other three dependency types.

===Semantic dependencies===
Semantic dependencies are understood in terms of [[predicate (grammar)|predicate]]s and their [[Argument (linguistics)|argument]]s.<ref>Concerning semantic dependencies, see Melʹc̆uk (2003:192f.).</ref> The arguments of a predicate are semantically dependent on that predicate. Often, semantic dependencies overlap with and point in the same direction as syntactic dependencies. At times, however, semantic dependencies can point in the opposite direction of syntactic dependencies, or they can be entirely independent of syntactic dependencies. The hierarchy of words in the following examples show standard syntactic dependencies, whereas the arrows indicate semantic dependencies:

[[File:Semantic dependencies.png|center|Semantic dependencies]]

The two arguments ''Sam'' and ''Sally'' in tree (a) are dependent on the predicate ''likes'', whereby these arguments are also syntactically dependent on ''likes''. What this means is that the semantic and syntactic dependencies overlap and point in the same direction (down the tree). Attributive adjectives, however, are predicates that take their head noun as their argument, hence ''big'' is a predicate in tree (b) that takes ''bones'' as its one argument; the semantic dependency points up the tree and therefore runs counter to the syntactic dependency. A similar situation obtains in (c), where the preposition predicate ''on'' takes the two arguments ''the picture'' and ''the wall''; one of these semantic dependencies points up the syntactic hierarchy, whereas the other points down it. Finally, the predicate ''to help'' in (d) takes the one argument ''Jim'' but is not directly connected to ''Jim'' in the syntactic hierarchy, which means that semantic dependency is entirely independent of the syntactic dependencies.

===Morphological dependencies===
Morphological dependencies obtain between words or parts of words.<ref>Concerning morphological dependencies, see Melʹc̆uk (2003:193ff.).</ref> When a given word or part of a word influences the form of another word, then the latter is morphologically dependent on the former. Agreement and concord are therefore manifestations of morphological dependencies. Like semantic dependencies, morphological dependencies can overlap with and point in the same direction as syntactic dependencies, overlap with and point in the opposite direction of syntactic dependencies, or be entirely independent of syntactic dependencies. The arrows are now used to indicate morphological dependencies.

[[File:Mophological dependencies 1.png|center|Morphological dependencies 1]]

The plural ''houses'' in (a) demands the plural of the demonstrative determiner, hence ''these'' appears, not ''this'', which means there is a morphological dependency that points down the hierarchy from ''houses'' to ''these''. The situation is reversed in (b), where the singular subject ''Sam'' demands the appearance of the agreement suffix ''-s'' on the finite verb ''works'', which means there is a morphological dependency pointing up the hierarchy from ''Sam'' to ''works''. The type of determiner in the German examples (c) and (d) influences the inflectional suffix that appears on the adjective ''alt''. When the indefinite article ''ein'' is used, the strong masculine ending ''-er'' appears on the adjective. When the definite article ''der'' is used, in contrast, the weak ending ''-e'' appears on the adjective. Thus since the choice of determiner impacts the morphological form of the adjective, there is a morphological dependency pointing from the determiner to the adjective, whereby this morphological dependency is entirely independent of the syntactic dependencies. Consider further the following French sentences:

[[File:Morphological dependencies 2'.png|center|Morphological dependencies 2']]

The masculine subject ''le chien'' in (a) demands the masculine form of the predicative adjective ''blanc'', whereas the feminine subject ''la maison'' demands the feminine form of this adjective. A morphological dependency that is entirely independent of the syntactic dependencies therefore points again across the syntactic hierarchy.

Morphological dependencies play an important role in [[Linguistic typology|typological studies]]. Languages are classified as mostly [[Head-marking language|head-marking]] (''Sam work-s'') or mostly [[Dependent-marking language|dependent-marking]] (''these houses''), whereby most if not all languages contain at least some minor measure of both head and dependent marking.<ref>The distinction between head- and dependent-marking was established by Nichols (1986). Nichols was using a dependency-based understanding of these distinctions.</ref>

===Prosodic dependencies===
Prosodic dependencies are acknowledged in order to accommodate the behavior of [[clitic]]s.<ref>Concerning prosodic dependencies and the analysis of clitics, see Groß (2011).</ref> A clitic is a syntactically autonomous element that is prosodically dependent on a host. A clitic is therefore integrated into the prosody of its host, meaning that it forms a single word with its host. Prosodic dependencies exist entirely in the linear dimension (horizontal dimension), whereas standard syntactic dependencies exist in the hierarchical dimension (vertical dimension). Classic examples of clitics in English are reduced auxiliaries (e.g. ''-ll'', ''-s'', ''-ve'') and the possessive marker ''-s''. The prosodic dependencies in the following examples are indicated with hyphens and the lack of a vertical projection line:

[[File:Prosodic dependencies'.png|center|Prosodic dependencies']]

A hyphen that appears on the left of the clitic indicates that the clitic is prosodically dependent on the word immediately to its left (''He'll'', ''There's''), whereas a hyphen that appears on the right side of the clitic (not shown here) indicates that the clitic is prosodically dependent on the word that appears immediately to its right. A given clitic is often prosodically dependent on its syntactic dependent (''He'll'', ''There's'') or on its head (''would've''). At other times, it can depend prosodically on a word that is neither its head nor its immediate dependent (''Florida's'').

===Syntactic dependencies===
Syntactic dependencies are the focus of most work in DG, as stated above. How the presence and the direction of syntactic dependencies are determined is of course often open to debate. In this regard, it must be acknowledged that the validity of syntactic dependencies in the trees throughout this article is being taken for granted. However, these hierarchies are such that many DGs can largely support them, although there will certainly be points of disagreement. The basic question about how syntactic dependencies are discerned has proven difficult to answer definitively. One should acknowledge in this area, however, that the basic task of identifying and discerning the presence and direction of the syntactic dependencies of DGs is no easier or harder than determining the constituent groupings of phrase structure grammars. A variety of heuristics are employed to this end, basic [[constituent (linguistics)|tests for constituents]] being useful tools; the syntactic dependencies assumed in the trees in this article are grouping words together in a manner that most closely matches the results of standard permutation, substitution, and ellipsis tests for constituents. [[Etymology|Etymological]] considerations also provide helpful clues about the direction of dependencies. A promising principle upon which to base the existence of syntactic dependencies is distribution.<ref>Distribution is primary principle used by Owens (1984:36), Schubert (1988:40), and Melʹc̆uk (2003:200) for discerning syntactic dependencies.</ref> When one is striving to identify the root of a given phrase, the word that is most responsible for determining the distribution of that phrase as a whole is its root.