The Grammar Does the Work: Functional vs. Lexical Dependency Length Minimization Across Universal Dependencies
Abstract
Domain fit: Niche / domain-specific · No strong AI-core implementation/artifact signals were detected from current providers.
Dependency length minimization (DLM) is a well-documented processing universal, but previous studies report a single mean dependency distance (MDD) per language, obscuring variation across syntactic relation types. We analyze 122 languages in UD and SUD (version 2.17), showing that DLM operates on two distinct levels. Grammar-driven optimization targets functional dependencies (det, case, aux), which are universally short (mean 1.71, $σ$ = 0.33) and invariant across typologically diverse languages. Processing-driven optimization operates on lexical dependencies (nsubj, obj, obl), which are longer (mean 2.87), highly variable ($σ$ = 0.63), and constrained by word-order typology. This asymmetry holds in SUD despite reversed head direction (r = 0.92). We conclude that ''the grammar does the work'' of minimization by scaffolding sentences with local functional attachments, leaving processing pressures to determine the ordering of lexical heads.
Results and benchmarks
Dependency length minimization (DLM) is a well-documented processing universal, but previous studies report a single mean dependency distance (MDD) per language, obscuring variation across syntactic relation types.
Benchmark evidence is limited
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 55/100, grounding 58/100, status medium.
Implementation
No direct implementation yet
Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.
Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.
No verified maintained repo yet
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- This is primarily a method paper. Reproduce it within a maintained framework baseline instead of chasing paper-specific repos.
- Start with framework-native implementations (e.g. PyTorch optimizer module, Optax, or Transformers training loops).
- Replicate the paper ablation settings first, then compare against modern baselines.
Time to first repro: a few hours
This is primarily a method paper. Reproduce it within a maintained framework baseline instead of chasing paper-specific repos.
- No maintained paper-verified implementation is currently available
Reproduction readiness
No repo
No verified implementation available
- No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.
Validation caveat
Hugging Face artifacts
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Research context
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPX