Learnability-based syntactic annotation design

24th International Conference on Computational Linguistics - Proceedings of COLING 2012: Technical Papers

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 2405-2422

  Schwartz, Roy ^a   Abend, Omri ^a   Rappoport, Ari ^a  

^a HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM   (Israel)

Author keywords

Learnability; Parsing; Syntactic annotation design

Indexed keywords

ANNOTATION SCHEME; DEPENDENCY STRUCTURES; LEARNABILITY; PARSING; STATISTICAL PARSER; SYNTACTIC ANNOTATION; SYNTACTIC REPRESENTATION; SYNTACTIC STRUCTURE;

COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS;

SYNTACTICS;

EID: 84876792750     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (51)

1. Abdi, H. (2007). Kendall rank correlation. In Salkind, N. J., editor, Encyclopedia ofMeasurement and Statistics, pages 508-510. SAGE. 10.
2. Aston, G. and Burnard, L. (1998). The BNC handbook. Exploring the British National Corpus with SARA. Edinburgh University Press. 13.
3. Blunsom, P. and Cohn, T. (2010). Unsupervised induction of tree substitution grammars for dependency parsing. In Proc. of EMNLP. 7.
4. Bosco, C. and Lombardo, V. (2004). Dependency and relational structure in treebank annotation. In Proc. of the Coling Workshop on Recent Advances in Dependency Grammar. 6.
5. Brody, S. and Kantor, P. (2011). Automatic assessment of coverage quality in intelligence reports. In Proc. of ACL-HLT. 10.
6. Chater, N. and Vitányi, P. (2003). Simplicity: A unifying principle in cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7:19-22. 14.
7. Choi, J. D. and Nicolov, N. (2009). K-best, locally pruned, transition-based dependency parsing using robust risk minimization. In Nicolov, N., Angelova, G., and Mitkov, R., editors, Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing V, volume 309 of Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, pages 205-216. John Benjamins, Amsterdam & Philadelphia. 7, 9.
8. Chomsky, N. (2006). Language and Mind. Cambridge University Press, third edition. 3, 14.
9. Clark, A. (2010). Three learnable models for the description of language. In LATA, pages 16-31. 14.
10. Cohen, S. B. and Smith, N. A. (2009). Shared logistic normal distributions for soft parameter tying. In Proc. of HLT-NAACL. 7.
11. Collins, M. J. (1999). Head-driven statistical models for natural language parsing. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 2, 6, 10.
12. Crammer, K. and Singer, Y. (2003). Ultraconservative online algorithms for multiclass problems. JMLR, 3:951-991. 7.
13. de Marneffe, M. C., Maccartney, B., and Manning, C. D. (2006). Generating typed dependency parses from phrase structure parses. In Proc. of LREC. 13.
14. Dredze, M., Blitzer, J., Talukdar, P. P., Ganchev, K., Graça, J. V., and Pereira, F. (2007). Frustratingly hard domain adaptation for dependency parsing. In Proc. of the CoNLL 2007 Shared Task. EMNLP-CoNLL. 6.
15. Francis, W. (1964). A standard sample of present-day English for use with digital computers. Brown University. 12.
16. Goldberg, Y. and Elhadad, M. (2010). An efficient algorithm for easy-first non-directional dependency parsing. In Proc. of HLT-NAACL. 7, 9.
17. Hale, J. (2001). A probabilistic earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. In Proc. of NAACL. 14.
18. Hale, J. (2006). Uncertainty about the rest of the sentence. Cognitive Science, 30:643-672. 14.
19. Headden III, W. P., Johnson, M., and McClosky, D. (2009). Improving unsupervised dependency parsing with richer contexts and smoothing. In Proc. of HLT-NAACL. 7.
20. Ide, N. and Bunt, H. (2010). Anatomy of annotation schemes: mapping to GrAF. In Proc. of the Fourth Linguistic Annotation Workshop (LAW). 13.
21. Ivanova, A., Oepen, S., Øvrelid, L., and Flickinger, D. (2012). Who did what to whom? a contrastive study of syntacto-semantic dependencies. In Proc. of the Sixth Linguistic Annotation Workshop (LAW). 13.
22. Jiang, W. and Liu, Q. (2009). Automatic adaptation of annotation standards for dependency parsing: using projected treebank as source corpus. In Proc. of IWPT. 13.
23. Johansson, R. and Nugues, P. (2007). Extended constituent-to-dependency conversion for English. In Proc. of NODALIDA. 2, 6, 8, 13.
24. Kendall, M. G. (1938). A new measure of rank correlation. Biometrika, 30:81-93. 10.
25. Kim, J.-D., Ohta, T., Tateisi, Y., and ichi Tsujii, J. (2003). GENIA corpus - a semantically annotated corpus for bio-textmining. In ISMB (Supplement of Bioinformatics). 13.
26. Klein, D. and Manning, C. (2004). Corpus-based induction of syntactic structure: Models of dependency and constituency. In Proc. of ACL. 7, 9.
27. Kübler, S. (2005). How do treebank annotation schemes influence parsing results? or how not to compare apples and oranges. In Proc. of RANLP. 13.
28. Kübler, S., McDonald, R., and Nivre, J. (2009). Dependency Parsing. Morgan And Claypool Publishers. 5, 8.
29. Lapata, M. (2006). Automatic evaluation of information ordering: Kendall's tau. Computational Linguistics, 32(4):471-484. 10.
30. Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106(3):1126-1177. 14.
31. Maier, W. (2006). Annotation schemes and their influence on parsing results. In Proc. of the ACL Student Research Workshop. 13.
32. Marcus, M., Santorini, B., and Marcinkiewicz, M. A. (1993). Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics, 19:313-330. 2, 8, 12, 13.
33. McDonald, R., Pereira, F., Ribarov, K., and Hajič, J. (2005). Non-projective dependency parsing using spanning tree algorithms. In Proc. of HLT-EMNLP. 2, 7, 9.
34. Moldovan, D., Badulescu, A., Tatu, M., Antohe, D., and Girju, R. (2004). Models for the semantic classification of noun phrases. In Proc. of the HLT-NAACL Workshop on Computational Lexical Semantics. 13.
35. Nastase, V. and Szpakowicz, S. (2003). Exploring noun-modifier semantic relations. In Proc. of IWCS. 13.
36. Nelson, G., Wallis, S., and Aarts, B. (2002). Exploring natural language: working with the British component of the international corpus of English. John Benjamins Pub. Co. 2.
37. Nilsson, J., Nivre, J., and Hall, J. (2006). Graph transformations in data-driven dependency parsing. In Proc. of ACL. 6, 13.
38. Nivre, J. (2009). Non-projective dependency parsing in expected linear time. In Proc. of ACLIJCNLP. 7, 9.
39. Nivre, J., Hall, J., and Nilsson, J. (2006). Maltparser: A data-driven parser-generator for dependency parsing. In Proc. of LREC. 7.
40. Perfors, A., Tenenbaum, J. B., and Regier, T. (2011). The learnability of abstract syntactic principles. Cognition, 118(3):306-338. 14.
41. Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and Cognition. MIT Press. 14.
42. Rambow, O., Creswell, C., Szekely, R., Tauber, H., and Walker, M. (2002). A dependency treebank for English. In Proc. of LREC. 2, 6.
43. Sampson, G. (1995). English for the Computer: The Susanne Corpus and Analytic Scheme. Clarendon Press. 2, 13.
44. Schwartz, R., Abend, O., Reichart, R., and Rappoport, A. (2011). Neutralizing linguistically problematic annotations in unsupervised dependency parsing evaluation. In Proc. of ACL-HLT. 2, 13.
45. Spitkovsky, V. I., Alshawi, H., and Jurafsky, D. (2011). Punctuation: Making a point in unsupervised dependency parsing. In Proc. of CoNLL. 7.
46. Tsarfaty, R., Nivre, J., and Andersson, E. (2011). Evaluating dependency parsing: Robust and heuristics-free cross-annotation evaluation. In Proc. of EMNLP. 13.
47. Tsarfaty, R., Nivre, J., and Andersson, E. (2012). Cross-framework evaluation for statistical parsing. In Proc. of EACL. 13.
48. Valiant, L. G. (1984). A theory of the learnable. Communications of the ACM, 27(11):1134-1142. 14.
49. Yamada, H. and Matsumoto, Y. (2003). Statistical dependency analysis with support vector machines. In Proc. of IWPT. 2, 6.
50. Zeman, D., Mareček, D., Popel, M., Ramasamy, L., Štěpánek, J., Žabokrtský, Z., and Hajič, J. (2012). HamleDT: To parse or not to parse? In Proc. of LREC. 13.
51. Zhang, T., Damerau, F., and Johnson, D. (2002). Text chunking based on a generalization of winnow. JMLR, 2:615-637. 7.