Relative Clauses in Hindi and Arabic:
A Paninian Dependency Grammar Analysis
Mark Pedersen * †
† School of Information Technology &
Electrical Engineering
University of Queensland
St. Lucia 4072, Australia
markp@itee.uq.edu.au
Domenyk Eades ‡
‡ Department of English,
Faculty of Arts,
Sultan Qaboos University,
Muscat, PC 123 Oman
domenyk@squ.edu.om
Samir K. Amin and
Lakshmi Prakash ∗
∗Faculty of Applied Science,
Sohar University,
Sohar, PC 311 Oman
s.amin@soharuni.edu.om,
l.prakash@soharuni.edu.om
Abstract
We present a comparative analysis of relative
clauses in Hindi and Arabic in the tradition
of the Paninian Grammar Framework (Bharati
et al., 1996b) which leads to deriving a com-
mon logical form for equivalent sentences. Par-
allels are drawn between the Hindi co-relative
construction and resumptive pronouns in Ara-
bic. The analysis arises from the development
of lexicalised dependency grammars for Hindi
and Arabic that have application for machine
translation.
1 Introduction
(Kruijﬀ, 2002) notes that Dependency Gram-
mar has its roots in Panini’s grammar of San-
skrit (350/250 BC) and also the work of early
Arabic grammarians (Kitab al-Usul of Ibn al-
Sarraj, d. 928). Among the recent activities in
Dependency Grammar, (Bharati et al., 1996b)
have established a computational approach to
Indian languages which they call the Paninian
Grammar Framework (PGF).
Bharati et. al. (ibid) suggest that PGF is ex-
tensible to other languages, including fixed word
order languages such as English. In considering
a Machine Translation system for Hindi-Arabic,
and given the availability of a PGF-style parser
for Hindi (Pedersen, 2001), we have sought to
establish the suitability of PGF for Arabic.
In the following sections we will briefly de-
scribe the general PGF-inspired parsing frame-
work, and then contrast the analysis of Hindi
and Arabic relative clauses within this frame-
work. In particular, we examine parallels be-
tween the Hindi co-relative construction and re-
sumptive pronouns in Arabic, and demonstrate
how a common logical interpretation can be
given to syntactic variations of relative clauses
in both languages.
2 Dependency Grammar in The
Paninian Grammar Framework
2.1 Background
The modern formulation of Dependency Struc-
ture is frequently attributed to (Tesni`ere, 1959).
It is interesting to note that among contem-
porary proponents of dependency structure,
there are those, such as (Hudson, 1984), who
maintain a general principle of projectivity for
their dependency structures, and devise addi-
tional means of coping with discontinuity when
it arises. Others, such as (Mel’˘cuk, 1988),
(Bharati et al., 1996b) and (Covington, 1990)
allow non-projective dependency structures and
rely upon a separate means of linearisation.
Most recently, (Debusmann and Duchier, 2003)
have presented a new formulation of depen-
dency grammar which generalises multi-stratal
approaches to an n-dimensional formalism of in-
teracting dependency graphs.
The Paninian Grammar Framework proposed
by (Bharati et al., 1996b) is particularly aimed
at treating heavily inflected free word order
languages such as Hindi and other Indian lan-
guages. Like Hindi, Arabic is heavily inflected
with overt case marking of nouns, noun-verb
agreement, as well as incorporation of pronom-
inals into verb forms. Although Arabic has a
word order (VSO) that is more fixed compared
to Hindi (canonically SOV but with significant
word order freedom), there is also significant
word order variation found in nominal and top-
icalised sentences, thus making alternate word
orders such as SVO quite common.
2.2 The Paninian Grammar Framework
PGF has two levels of representation that medi-
ate between an utterance and its meaning: the
vibhakti level and the karaka level. Figure 1
shows the relationship between the levels of rep-
resentation in Paninian Grammar.
Let us take the surface level of of Figure 1
to represent the level of tokenised and morpho-
Semantic Level
Karaka Level
Vibhakti Level
Surface Level
Figure 1: Levels of representation in PGF
logically analysed input to a syntactic-semantic
parsing process. Vibhakti is a Sanskrit gram-
matical term that encompasses postpositionals
and case endings for nouns, as well as inflec-
tion and auxiliaries for verbs. The vibhakti level
groups words together according to explicit case
endings and other inflectional markers. Vib-
hakti word groups are necessarily contiguous
and typically have a fixed word order, but vib-
hakti groups can generally appear in any or-
der without aﬀecting the karaka relations which
connect them.
The karaka level serves to relate the lexical el-
ements of a sentence according to their syntactic
functions, as derivable from their vibhakti. In
terms of more familiar linguistic theory, we can
generally equate the vibhakti level with mor-
photactics and the karaka level with syntactico-
semantic functions (e.g. theta relations). The
semantic level shown in figure 1 is indicative of a
purely semantic representation or logical form,
the details of which are beyond the scope of this
paper.
Panini recognises six type of karaka relations
(Kiparsky and Staal, 1969):
• karta (agent)
• karma (patient)
• karan (instrument)
• sampradan (recipient)
• apaadaan (point of departure, or cause)
• adhikaran (locality)
It is important to note that karaka rela-
tions diﬀer from typical theta relations in that
they tend to have more fluid definitions rather
than fixed syntactico-semantic roles. For in-
stance, the karta relation, which may generally
be equated to the agent theta role, is more pre-
cisely defined as “the most independent of all
participants” (Bharati et al., 1996b, p. 187).
The karta relation can equally be applied to
the subject of all of the following sentences, al-
though karta should not be confused with the
purely syntactic role of subject:
(1) (a) Mohan opened the lock.
(b) The key opened the lock.
(c) The lock opened.
Karaka relations under consideration here are
karta, as described, and karma, the principle
goal of the karta (roughly, patient). Karaka
relations do not map exactly on to the typi-
cal semantic relation categories common in con-
temporary Western linguistic theory, largely be-
cause of the diﬀering conceptions of semantic
roles underpinning Paninian logical form
1
.
A further diﬀerence between karaka relations
and typical theta roles is that, traditionally, vib-
hakti is the primary means of identifying which
karaka relations may apply
2
. This character-
istic lends itself well to heavily inflected lan-
guages with free word order. A simple de-
fault karaka chart (adapted from (Bharati et al.,
1996b)) showing the mapping between vibhakti
and karaka is given in Table 1.
Karaka Vibhakti Presence
karta NOM (∅) mandatory
num & gen agr.
karma ACC (ko or ∅) mandatory
Table 1: Default Karaka chart
PGF elegantly handles active-passive trans-
formations and compound sentences through a
system of karaka transformations, which change
the default vibhakti required by a diﬀerently
conjugated verb for a given karaka. If we were
to use the passive form of khaataa - khayaa ,the
vibhakti required for the karta karaka becomes
ne, as illustrated in (2).
1
Paninian semantics makes use of the Indian systems
of philosophy and logic. Among these, Navya Nyaya
logic was of particular significance. For more detail on
Navya Nyaya, see (Ingalls, 1951) and (Matilal, 1968).
2
Panini’s grammar of Sanskrit asserted that every
karaka relation in an utterance must have a phonetic re-
alisation (Bharati et al., 1996b, p. 187), rather than via
an intermediate syntactic role or sentential position. In
this sense, there is a tighter binding between karaka re-
lations and the surface-level syntax than would normally
be seen in a typical theta role analysis.
Despite its orientation toward inflected lan-
guages, some work has been done on gener-
alising the notion of vibhakti to include lin-
ear position where this has syntactic signifi-
cance (Bharati et al., 1996a). The generalisa-
tion of vibhakti to account for word order essen-
tially introduces a facility analogous to topolog-
ical fields (as found in Topological Dependency
Grammar (Duchier and Debusmann, 2001) and
DACHS (Br¨oker, 1998)) to PGF. It is impor-
tant to note however that these word order con-
straints are treated in the same way as other
vibhakti (morphological constraints), and do
not use a separate representation. In this sense,
PGF does not attempt to separate linear prece-
dence from immediate dominance at a formal
level.
In the following sections we explore how both
morphology and word order constraints in Ara-
bic can be captured through a mapping of vib-
hakti to karaka relations.
3 Relative Clauses in Hindi and
Arabic
To briefly summarise salient features of Hindi
and Arabic:
• Hindi word order is relatively free
• Arabic word order is more fixed, but top-
icalisation and nominal sentence forms ef-
fectively license significant permutations in
word order
• both have complex morphology, but
• most case marking in Hindi uses both in-
flection and post positions
• whereas Arabic generally uses inflection
only
3.1 Data
In comparing relative clauses, let us consider
the data shown in (2) and (3)
3
. The sentences
given are intended to represent the same seman-
tic content, but give diﬀerent emphases through
3
In 3(a) and (c), the resumptive pronouns -hu and
-ha are glossed as -3.M and -3.F, meaning third person
pronoun masculine and third person pronoun feminine,
respectively. Throughout the examples, gender marking
on verbs indicates agreement with the relevant argument.
topicalisation
4
. It should be noted that some
utterances, such as 2(b), would only be used in
specific context and don’t represent the normal
speech pattern. Nevertheless all are considered
to be grammatical by native speakers and fol-
low in the same pattern as data presented by
(Dwivedi, 1994).
3.2 PGF analysis
The immediately observable diﬀerence between
the Hindi and Arabic is that the Hindi data per-
mits topicalisation primarily through changes in
word order and a limited number of changes in
vibhakti. The syntactic structure of 2(b) and
(c) are isomorphous modulo word order. In
2(a), machli is internal to the relative clause,
and hence vo is pronominal rather than demon-
strative. This requires two changes at the vib-
hakti level: khayi thi agrees in gender with the
explicitly present female object, rather than the
male subject, because of the ergative construc-
tion
5
; and because of its position as a syntac-
tic object, the ergative marking on machli is
dropped.
In contrast, topicalisation in Arabic requires
a variety of diﬀerent syntactic constructions and
associated changes in vibhakti, since the word
order is not as free. In 3(a) we find the equiv-
alent Arabic sentence to 2(a) preposes the sub-
ject of the main verb, which is a permissible
variation on the standard VSO word order.
However in 3(b), the sentence must be recon-
structed to allow Zayd to occupy a topic po-
sition. We can neither extract Zayd from the
relative clause, nor have the relative clause as
the topic, as it appears in 2(b). Therefore, Zay-
dun arrowhookrightakala arrowhookrightal-samakah becomes the main clause
of the sentence.
For the final topicalisation, Arabic takes on
the nominal sentence form, in which there is
no main verb. Instead, arrowhookrightal-d
.
ifdaarrowhookleft acts as the
predicate, to which nested relative clauses are
attached. Analyses for the Hindi and Arabic
samples are shown in 4(a)-(c) and 5(a)-(c) re-
spectively.
For the purposes of this analysis, we bor-
4
For the purposes of this paper we use the term top-
icalisation broadly to refer to the phenomenon of lexical
“movement” to a sentence initial position without distin-
guishing between various types of such movement, such
as those discussed by (Gambhir, 1981), (Dwivedi, 1994)
and (Butt and Holloway-King, 1997).
5
In the other example sentences, the agreement re-
verts to the default male gender, since the direct object
has been extracted.
(2) (a) jo
REL
machli
fish.F
Zayd ne
Zayd-ERG
khayi thi
eat-PAST.F
vo
CO-REL
maindek ko
frog.M-ACC
khayaa tha
eat-PAST.M
The fish that was eaten by Zayd had eaten a frog.
(b) jo
REL
Zayd ne
Zayd-ERG
khayaa tha
eat-PAST.M
vo
CO-REL
machli ne
fish.F-ERG
maindek ko
frog.M-ACC
khayaa tha
eat-PAST.M
The fish that was eaten by Zayd had eaten a frog.
(c) maindek ko
frog.M-ACC
vo
CO-REL
machli ne
fish.F-ERG
khayaa tha
eat-PAST.M
jo
REL
Zayd ne
Zayd-ERG
khayaa tha
eat-PAST.M
The fish that was eaten by Zayd had eaten afrog.
(3) (a) arrowhookrightal-samakah
DEF-fish.F
allaty
REL.F
arrowhookrightakala-h¯a
ate.M-3.F
Zayd-un
Zayd-NOM
arrowhookrightakalat
ate.F
arrowhookrightal-d
.
ifdaarrowhookleft
DEF-frog.M
The fish that was eaten by Zayd, had eaten a frog.
(b) Zayd-un
Zayd-NOM
arrowhookrightakala
ate.M
arrowhookrightal-samakah
DEF-fish.F
allaty
REL.F
arrowhookrightakalat
ate.F
arrowhookrightal-d
.
ifdaarrowhookleft
DEF-frog.M
Zayd ate the fish that had eaten the frog.
(c) arrowhookrightal-d
.
ifdaarrowhookleft
DEF-frog.M
arrowhookrightalladhy
REL.M
arrowhookrightakalat-hu
ate.F-3.M
arrowhookrightal-samakah
DEf-fish.F
allaty
REL.F
arrowhookrightakala-h¯a
ate.M-3.F
Zayd-un
Zayd-NOM
The frog had been eaten by the fish that Zayd ate.
row the term avachchedak (limiter) from Navya
Nyaya logic to express the relationship between
the relative clause and the noun being modi-
fied, which is the avachchinna - “the limited”.
From a PGF perspective, the data is explained
as follows.
3.3 Discussion
3.3.1 Hindi Analysis
In Hindi, ergative marking of the subject is re-
quired by the yaa form of the verb, as shown ear-
lier, except in the case of pronominal vo which is
not explicitly marked with ne. The subject for
both clauses is thus clearly identified (either it
is marked with ne or it is the pronominal vo). If
word order were completely free, both the main
verb and the complement would be candidate
heads for the ergatively marked verbs. For 2(a)
and 2(b), the co-relative vo introduces a projec-
tivity constraint which removes the ambiguity.
In 2(a), the pronominal co-relative vo takes the
place of the object of the relative clause machli.
In 2(b), the object of the relative clause is ab-
sent (the typical constituency analysis would
say that it leaves a trace), but is marked by the
demonstrative co-relative vo in the main clause,
establishing the connection to the relativiser jo.
Both of these represent the left-adjoined form
of the relative clause.
The relationship between the relativiser jo
and the co-relative vo is implicit, since the direct
relationship between jo and the modified noun
merely marks the noun, in the case of 2(a), as
the avachchinna - the item limited by the rel-
ative clause. In practical terms, the presence
of an argument marked as avachchinna is prop-
agated up to the head of the relative clause,
marking it as the avachchedak limiter, meaning
that the verb cannot take anything other than
the co-relative vo as its head. This analysis is in
keeping with the requirement that jo must have
amatchingvo in the sentence.
The same analysis applies when the modi-
fied noun is not explicitly present in the relative
clause. In this case, jo still signifies the presence
of an avachchinna argument, but it is pronom-
inal, and the property of being avachchinna is
conferred upon the modified noun by vo.In
this way, there is a pleasing symmetry between
vo and jo in that when they depend on a noun,
they act as demonstratives, marking the noun
as avachchinna, and when appearing indepen-
dently, they act as pronouns in place of the
avachchinna noun.
In 2(c), we have the right adjoined form of the
relative clause. Additionally, the typical SOV
word order of the main clause has been altered
to OSV through topicalising the object, main-
dek. The co-relative vo continues to assert a
projectivity constraint on the relative clause.
A further constraint on right-adjoined rela-
tive clauses is that they may not contain the
explicit subject. This constraint is enforced via
the karaka relation between the avachchedak-
marked verb and the pronominal co-relative vo
6
6
The demonstrative co-relative vo marks an explicit
(4) (a)
jo
Rel
machli
Karma
Zayd ne
Karta
kaya thi
Avachchedak
vo
Karta
maindek ko
Karma
kaya tha
(b)
jo
Karma
Zayd ne
Karta
kaya thi
Avachchedak
vo
CoRel
machli
Karta
maindek ko
Karma
kaya tha
(c)
maindek ko
Karma
vo
CoRel
machli
Karta
kaya tha
jo
Karma
Zayd ne
Karta
kaya thi
Avachchedak
(5) (a)
'al-samakah
Karta
allaty
Rel
'akala
Avachchedak
-ha
Karma
Zaydun
Karta
'akalat
'al-difda'
Karma
(b)
Zaydun
Karta
'akala
'al-samakah
Karma
allaty
Rel
'akalat
Avachchedak
'al-difda'
Karta
(c)
'al-difda
alladhy
Rel
'akalat
Avachchedak
-hu
Karma
'al-samakah
Karta
allaty
Rel
'akala
Avachchedak
-ha
Karma
Zaydun
Karta
requiring jo to always precede vo
7
, thus ensur-
ing that the pronominal vo never precedes its
referent.
noun, while the pronominal vo does not, and hence we
treat these separate lexical entries.
7
This is an example of a generalisation of the karaka
chart to include word order constraints.
3.3.2 Arabic Analysis
To account for the Arabic data, we first must es-
tablish the relevant vibhakti to karaka mapping.
The syntactic role of inflection in Arabic is well
defined (cf. (Fischer, 2002)), and the relevant
rules (for the examples under consideration) can
be summarised as follows:
• Nominative case: (-un or -u)marksthe
subject
• Verbs agree in number and gender with the
subject
• Where a verbal argument is absent, a
pronominal aﬃx (e.g. -h¯a) is attached to
the verb, which will agree in number and
gender with the missing item.
• Relativisers (e.g. allaty) agree in gender
with the noun being modified.
Given that the karta relation does not neces-
sarily require an explicit subject, in absence of
explicit marking of the subject, the relationship
can still be derived from gender agreement
8
.
Furthermore, the subject will always precede
the object. In the sense that vibhakti can be
generalised to include word order (Bharati et
al., 1996a), we may also include this condition
as part of the karaka chart (see Table 2). As
in Hindi, the relativisers impose projectivity on
their dependents.
Karaka Vibhakti Presence
karta (NOM (-uN/-u) mandatory
or gen agr).
and precedes object
(if present)
karma ACC (-aN/-a) optional
Table 2: Default Karaka chart for Arabic
This set of rules is suﬃcient to account for
the grammaticality of the data given here, but
does not account for the semantic relationship
between the three sentences. In this respect,
the karaka relations have so far only illustrated
their connection to the purely syntactic level of
analysis. While we do not wish to regress to
some kind of transformational account of the
surface forms, it is desirable to illustrate that
the karaka relations provide suﬃcient abstrac-
tion to permit the formulation of a common se-
mantic representation.
One way to approach this is to argue that
relativisers ‘mediate’ the appropriate karaka re-
lation from the complement to the noun be-
ing modified. This is essentially a process of
unifying the embedded resumptive pronoun in
8
This is also true in Hindi.
the complement with the relevant external argu-
ment. Tomakethismoreexplicit,wehavesepa-
rated the resumptive pronoun from the comple-
ment in the PGF analysis and shown the karaka
relation that exists between them.
Thus in 3(a), allaty mediates a karma relation
between al-samakah and arrowhookrightakala-h¯a. In 3(c), this
connection is repeated in the relative clause, and
arrowhookrightalladhy mediates a karma relationship between
al-d
.
ifdaarrowhookright and arrowhookrightakalat-hu. In 3(b), there is no ex-
plicit resumptive pronoun, since this feature is
only used for a missing object. Instead, gender
and number agreement between al-samakah and
akalat means that the karta relationship is ob-
tained via allaty. This mediation of karaka rela-
tions is illustrated by a typical feature structure
unification diagram shown in (6).
Even though the feature structures diﬀer in
terms of argument structure, they can be given
an equivalent semantic interpretation in terms
of lambda abstraction:
• We can represent 6(a) as:
ate(Zayd,λx[fish
prime
(x) ∧ ate(x,frog)]
• Likewise, 6(b) is represented by:
ate(λx[fish
prime
(x) ∧ (Zayd,x)],frog)
• Both of these can be reduced to:
λx[fish
prime
(x) ∧ ate(Zayd,x) ∧ ate(x,frog)]
• 6(c) merely asserts an additional variable,
λy[ate(Zayd,λx[fish
prime
(x)∧ate(x,frog
prime
(y))])],
which can be factored out, since it is the
identity function of frog, thus leaving 6(c)
with the same interpretation as 6(a).
The same mediation process can be applied to
the Hindi data, using the same argument. Here,
the relative and (pronominal) co-relative guide
the unification. The karaka relation between the
(pronominal) relativiser jo and the avachchedak
verb is mapped onto the avachchinna noun
marked by vo or directly onto the pronominal
co-relative vo, as the case may be. In this sense,
the pronominal relative or co-relative operates
in the same was the resumptive pronouns in
Arabic.
After unification, all three Hindi sentences
share the same feature structure, shown in 7,
and hence further analysis to demonstrate their
semantic equivalence is not needed.
(6) (a)












PRED akala〈KARTA〉〈KARMA〉
KARTA






PRED samakah
AVACHCH



PRED akala〈KARTA〉〈KARMA〉
KARTA [Zayd]
KARMA [samakah]









KARMA
bracketleftBig
PRED d
.
ifdaarrowhookleft
bracketrightBig












(b)












PRED akala〈KARTA〉〈KARMA〉
KARMA
bracketleftBig
PRED Zayd
bracketrightBig
KARMA






PRED samakah
AVACHCH
bracketleftBigg
PRED akala〈KARTA〉〈KARMA〉
KARMA [samakah]
bracketrightBigg
KARMA [d
.
ifdaarrowhookleft]


















(c)















PRED d
.
ifdaarrowhookleft〈AVACHCH〉
AVACHCH












PRED akala〈KARTA〉〈KARMA〉
KARTA






PRED samakah
AVACHCH



PRED akala〈KARTA〉〈KARMA〉
KARTA [Zayd]
KARMA [samakah]









KARMA
bracketleftBig
PRED d
.
ifdaarrowhookleft
bracketrightBig



























(7) (a)












PRED kaya〈KARTA〉〈KARMA〉
KARTA






PRED machli
AVACHCH



PRED kaya〈KARTA〉〈KARMA〉
KARTA [Zayd]
KARMA [machli]









KARMA
bracketleftBig
PRED maindek
bracketrightBig












4 Conclusions and Future Work
We have sketched an application of the Paninian
Grammar Framework to Arabic, and outlined
an approach to deriving a common logical form
for equivalent sentences in Hindi and Arabic. In
particular, the PGF analysis given here high-
lights the similarity of resumptive pronoun aﬃx
in Arabic to the co-relative in Hindi.
This is a first step toward developing com-
prehensive Paninian dependency grammars of
Arabic and Hindi, with a view to applying the
grammars to machine translation. Further de-
velopment of the grammar is necessary before it
is clear that PGF is capable of handling all the
requirements of a MT system. In particular, the
suitability of PGF for generation needs to be ex-
plored, particularly with respect to generating
appropriate word orders in the target language.
In terms of on-going development of PGF as a
theory for computational linguistics, (Bharati et
al., 1996b) and (Pedersen, 2001) have compared
PGF to Lexical Functional Grammar (Bresnan
and Kaplan, 1982) and Lexicalised Tree Adjoin-
ing Grammar (Joshi, 1987) with encouraging
results. However a systematic comparison of
PGF to more recent dependency grammar for-
malisms, such as DACHS and TDG, has not yet
been done. Given the strong parallels with re-
cent work in these formalisms (cf. (Kruijﬀ and
Duchier, 2003)), such an investigation is now
essential.
5Acknowledgements
Our thanks go to Professor Rajeev Sangal and
the Language Technology Research Centre staﬀ
at the International Institute of Information
Technology, Hyderabad, for their ongoing sup-
port of our eﬀorts in applying the Paninian
GrammarFramework,PetrPajasforassistance
with the TrEd diagramming tool used for lay-
ing out the dependency diagrams, and to Pro-
fessor Joachim Diederich and the workshop re-
view panel for their helpful comments during
the preparation of this paper.

References
A. Bharati, M. Bhatia, V. Chaitanya, and
R. Sangal. 1996a. Paninian Grammar Frame-
work Applied to English. Technical Report
TRCS-96-238, CSE, IIT Kanpur.
A. Bharati, V. Chaitanya, and R. Sangal.
1996b. Natural Language Processing - A
Paninian Perspective. Prentice Hall of India,
New Delhi.
J. Bresnan and R. Kaplan. 1982. Lexical-
functional grammar: A formal system for
grammatical representation. In J. Bresnan,
editor, The Mental Representation of Gram-
matical Relations. MIT Press.
N. Br¨oker. 1998. Separating surface order and
syntactic relations in a dependency grammar.
In Proceedings of COLING-ACL ’98, pages
174–180.
Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway-King. 1997.
Null elements in discourse structure. In K. V.
Subbarao, editor, Papers from the NULLS
Seminar. Motilal Banarasidas, Delhi.
M. Covington. 1990. Parsing Discontinu-
ous Constituents in Dependency Grammar.
Computational Linguistics, 16(4), December.
Ralph Debusmann and Denys Duchier. 2003. A
meta-grammatical framework for dependency
grammar. Technical report, Universit¨at des
Saarlande, Saarbr¨ucken, Germany.
Denys Duchier and Ralph Debusmann. 2001.
Topological dependency trees: A constraint-
based account of linear precedence. In Meet-
ing of the Association for Computational Lin-
guistics, pages 180–187.
V. Dwivedi. 1994. Topicalization in Hindi and
the correlative construction. In Miriam Butt,
Tracy Holloway King, and Gillian Ramchand,
editors, Theoretical Perspectives on word or-
der in South Asian languages. CSLI Publica-
tions, Stanford, CA.
Wolfdietrich Fischer. 2002. A Grammar of
Classical Arabic. Yale University Press, New
haven and London.
V. Gambhir. 1981. Syntactic Restrictions and
Discourse Functions of Word Order in Stan-
dard Hindi. PhD Thesis, University of Penn-
sylvania, Philadelphia.
R. Hudson. 1984. Word Grammar. Basil Black-
well, 108 Cowley Rd, Oxford OX4 1JF, Eng-
land.
D. Ingalls. 1951. Materials for the Study
of Navya-Nyaya Logic.HarvardUniversity
Press, Cambridge.
A. K. Joshi. 1987. An Introduction to Tree
Ajoining Grammars. In A. Manaster-Ramer,
editor, Mathematics of Language.JohnBen-
jamins, Amsterdam.
P. Kiparsky and J. F. Staal. 1969. Syntactic
and Semantic Relations in Panini. Founda-
tions of Language, 5:84–117.
Geert-Jan M. Kruijﬀ and Denys Duchier. 2003.
Information structure in topological depen-
dency grammar. In EACL 2003, 11th Con-
ference of the European Chapter of the Asso-
ciation for Computational Linguistics, pages
219–226.
Geert-Jan M. Kruijﬀ. 2002. Formal and com-
putational aspects of dependency grammar:
History and development of dg. Technical re-
port, ESSLI2002.
B.K. Matilal. 1968. The Navya-Nyaya Doctrine
of Negation. Harvard University Press, Cam-
bridge.
I. A. Mel’˘cuk. 1988. Dependency Syntax: The-
ory and Practice. State University Press of
New York.
M. Pedersen. 2001. Usability Evaluation of
Grammar Formalisms for Free Word Order
Natural Language Processing.PhDthesis,
School of Computer Science and Electrical
Engineering, University of Queensland, Bris-
bane, Australia.
L. Tesni`ere. 1959. El´ements de syntaxe struc-
turale. Klincksieck, Paris.
