LTAG-spinal and the Treebank: A new resource for incremental, dependency and semantic parsing

Language Resources and Evaluation

Volumn 42, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 1-19

  Shen, Libin ^a   Champollion, Lucas ^b   Joshi, Aravind K ^c  

^a BBN TECHNOLOGIES   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Dependency parsing; LTAG spinal; Tree adjoining grammar; Treebank

Indexed keywords

EID: 41249085178     PISSN: 1574020X     EISSN: 15728412     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10579-007-9043-7     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Abeillé, A., & Rambow, O. (Eds.) (2001). Tree Adjoining Grammars: Formalisms, linguistic analysis and processing. Center for the Study of Language and Information.
2. Babko-Malaya, O., Bies, A., Taylor, A., Yi, S., Palmer, M., Marcus, M., Kulick, S., & Shen, L. (2006). Issues in synchronizing the English Treebank and PropBank. In Frontiers in Linguistically Annotated Corpora (ACL Workshop).
3. Charniak, E. (1997). Statistical parsing with a context-free grammar and word statistics. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
4. Charniak, E., & Johnson, M. (2005). Coarse-to-fine n-best parsing and MaxEnt discriminative reranking. In Proceedings of the 43th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL).
5. Chen, J., Bangalore, S., & Vijay-Shanker, K. (2006). Automated extraction of Tree Adjoining Grammars from treebanks. Natural Language Engineering, 12(3), 251-299.
6. Chen, J., & Rambow, O. (2003). Use of deep linguistic features for the recognition and labeling of semantic arguments. In Proceedings of the 2003 Conference of Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing.
7. Chiang, D. (2000). Statistical parsing with an automatically-extracted Tree Adjoining Grammar. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL).
8. Collins, M. (1999). Head-driven statistical models for natural language parsing. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.
9. Frank, R. (2002). Phrase structure composition and syntactic dependencies. The MIT Press.
10. Hockenmaier, J., & Steedman, M. (2002). Generative models for statistical parsing with combinatory categorial grammar. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL).
11. Joshi, A. K., Levy, L. S., & Takahashi, M. (1975). Tree adjunct grammars. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 10(1), 136-163.
12. Joshi, A. K., & Schabes, Y. (1997). Tree-Adjoining Grammars. In G. Rozenberg & A. Salomaa (Eds.), Handbook of formal languages (Vol. 3, pp. 69-124). Springer-Verlag.
13. Joshi, A. K., & Srinivas, B. (1994). Disambiguation of super parts of speech (or Supertags): Almost parsing. In Proceedings of COLING '94: The 15th Int. Conf. on Computational Linguistics.
14. Kroch, A., & Joshi, A. K. (1985). The linguistic relevance of Tree Adjoining Grammar. Report MS-CIS-85-16. CIS Department, University of Pennsylvania.
15. Magerman, D. (1995). Statistical decision-tree models for parsing. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics.
16. Marcus, M. P., Santorini, B., & Marcinkiewicz, M. A. (1994). Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics, 19(2), 313-330.
17. Palmer, M., Gildea, D., & Kingsbury, P. (2005). The proposition bank: An annotated corpus of semantic roles. Computational Linguistics, 31(1), 71-106.
18. Pradhan, S., Hacioglu, K., Krugler, V., Ward, W., Martin, J., & Jurafsky, D. (2005). Support vector learning for semantic argument classification. Machine Learning, 60(1-3), 11-39.
19. Rambow, O., Weir, D., & Vijay-Shanker, K. (2001). D-Tree substitution grammars. Computational Linguistics, 27(1), 89-121.
20. Sarkar, A., & Joshi, A. K. (1996). Coordination in Tree Adjoining Grammars: Formalization and implementation. In Proceedings of COLING '96: The 16th Int. Conf. on Computational Linguistics.
21. Schabes, Y., & Waters, R. C. (1995). A cubic-time, parsable formalism that lexicalizes context-free grammar without changing the trees produced. Computational Linguistics, 21(4), 479-513.
22. Shen, L. (2006). Statistical LTAG parsing. PhD Thesis, University of Pennsylvania.
23. Shen, L., & Joshi, A. K. (2005). Incremental LTAG parsing. In Proceedings of Human Language Technology Conference and Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing.
24. Shen, L., & Joshi, A. K. (2007). Bidirectional LTAG dependency parsing. Technical Report 07-02, IRCS, University of Pennsylvania.
25. Steedman, M. (2000). The syntactic process. The MIT Press.
26. Sturt, P., & Lombardo, V. (2005). Processing coordinated structures: Incrementality and connectedness. Cognitive Science, 29(2), 291-305.
27. Vadas, D., & Curran, J. (2007). Adding noun phrase structure to the Penn Treebank. In Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL).
28. Xia, F. (2001). Automatic grammar generation from two different perspectives. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.
29. XTAG-Group (2001). A lexicalized tree adjoining grammar for English. Technical Report 01-03, IRCS, University of Pennsylvania.
30. Yi, S. (2007). Robust semantic role labeling using parsing variations and semantic classes. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.