<?xml version="1.0"?>
<?xml:stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="/dita/ss/pop.xsl"?>
<!DOCTYPE topic SYSTEM "../dita/dtd/topic.dtd">
<topic product="nobyline" output="other">
	<title>Hierarchical Trees: Relations of Dominance and Dependence</title>
	<prolog output="html" product="xd" audience="cc">
		<switchescc locn1="Linguistics" locn1url="/linguistics/index.html#section-Phonology" locname="Hierarchical Trees" pglength="2" useadsdir="no" adsdir="ads" php="yes"/><docmeta>
			
			<meta name="description" content="Examples and analysis of linguistic ambiguity in newspaper headlines."/><meta name="author" content="Steve Hoenisch"/></docmeta>
		<objdesc objname="hierarchical-trees.xml" objdir="linguistics" transclude="apply" slideshow="no" product="xd" output="pdf" version="October 25, 2005" id="hierarchical-trees" type="Phonology"/>
	</prolog>
	<body>







<!--from phonTreeRecurrentFeatureGroupings.xml -->




</body>
<topic><title>Trees Can Express Recurrent Feature Groupings</title><body><p>In generative phonology, the hierarchical feature tree
provides a natural formalism to
express recurrent feature groupings. Mentioning a particular node
implies all the information dominated by that node. An
essential property of the feature tree and the segments it
generates is this relation of dominance or dependence, or both.

</p><p>This relation provides a simple formalism to explain several
additional phonological processes. Here's why: As (2)
illustrates<required-cleanup>THIS NEEDS THE SIMPLE FEATURE TREE EXAMPLE FROM HALLE. </required-cleanup>, two or more features can be expected to co-occur in
rules or constraints only if they share a common node in the
tree. In other words, defining phonological rules over nodes in
the tree graph makes certain feature groupings simple to express
and others more complex. In (2), for instance, {a} and {b} can be
simply isolated by mentioning {f}; on the other hand, {b} and {c}
can be grouped only by also including {a}, {d} and {e}, which
would be an instance of complete assimilation.
</p>
<p>By establishing relations of dominance and dependence, the
feature tree depicted in (1) explains why [high], [low] and
[back] group together -- because they are all daughters of the
dorsal node. On the other hand, [high] and [nasal] should not
join up in a rule or constraint because there is no single node
that dominates only these features. 
</p><p>Hierarchical trees are also frequently used to express relationships in syntax. The following example, marked up in <link href="/dita/" role="external">XML</link>, reveals the hierarchical structure 
of the atomic syntactic elements that make up a sample sentence:</p><p><pre><![CDATA[
<s>
  <np><det>The</det><n>woman</n></np>   
  <vp><v>saw</v> 
    <np><det>the</det><n>man</n>
      <pp><p>in</p>
        <np><det>the</det><n>park</n></np>
      </pp>
    </np>
  </vp>
</s>
]]></pre></p><p>As a hierarchical tree, the sentence looks like this:</p><p><mmobj href="../images/tree_representation.gif"/></p>
</body></topic><topic><title>Related</title><body><p><img src="../images/docblue.gif" align="absmiddle"/>&nbsp;<link href="abstract-abney.php">Abstract: Abney's Memory Requirements and Lexical
Ambiguities of Parsing Strategies</link></p><p><img src="../images/docblue.gif" align="absmiddle"/>&nbsp;<link href="../amaz/cl1.html" role="external">Books on Computational Linguistics</link></p></body></topic></topic>
