Dependency parsing

Synthesis Lectures on Human Language Technologies

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 1-127

  Kübler, Sandra ^a   McDonald, Ryan ^b   Nivre, Joakim ^c,d  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b GOOGLE INC   (United States)

^c UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^d LINNAEUS UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Dependency grammar; Dependency parsing; Parsing; Syntax

Indexed keywords

FORMAL LANGUAGES; GRAPHIC METHODS; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMS;

BASIC CONCEPTS; DEPENDENCY GRAMMAR; DEPENDENCY PARSING; FUTURE PROSPECTS; PARSING; PARSING METHODS; SYNTACTIC PARSING; SYNTAX;

SYNTACTICS;

EID: 84899792858     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19474040     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.2200/S00169ED1V01Y200901HLT002     Document Type: Article

References (166)

1. Abney, Steven (1991). Parsing by chunks, in R. Berwick, S. Abney and C. Tenny (eds), Principle-Based Parsing, Kluwer, pp. 257-278.
2. Afonso, Susana, Bick, Eckhard, Haber, Renato and Santos, Diana (2002). Floresta sintá(c)tica: A treebank for Portuguese, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), Las Palmas, Gran Canaria, pp. 1698-1703.
3. Attardi, Giuseppe (2006). Experiments with a multilanguage non-projective dependency parser, Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL), New York, NY, pp. 166-170.
4. Bangalore, Srinivas and Joshi, Aravind K. (1999). Supertagging: An approach to almost parsing, Computational Linguistics 25(2): 237-267.
5. Bodirsky, Manuel, Kuhlmann, Marco and Möhl, Mathias (2005). Well-nested drawings as models of syntactic structure, 10th Conference on Formal Grammar and 9th Meeting on Mathematics of Language, Edinburgh, Scotland.
6. Briscoe, Edward and Carroll, John (1993). Generalised probabilistic LR parsing of natural language (corpora) with unification-based grammars, Computational Linguistics 19: 25-59.
7. Buch-Kromann, Matthias (2005). Discontinuous Grammar. A Model of Human Parsing and Language Acquisition, PhD thesis, Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, Denmark.
8. Buchholz, Sabine and Marsi, Erwin (2006). CoNLL-X shared task on multilingual dependency parsing, Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL), New York, NY, pp. 149-164.
9. Camerini, Paolo M., Fratta, Luigi and Maffioli, Francesco (1980).The k best spanning arborescences of a network, Networks 10(2): 91-110. DOI: 10.1002/net.3230100202
10. Carreras, Xavier (2007). Experiments with a higher-order projective dependency parser, Proceedings of the CoNLL Shared Task of EMNLP-CoNLL 2007, Prague, Czech Republic, pp. 957-961.
11. Carroll, John, Briscoe, Edward and Sanfilippo, Antonio (1998). Parser evaluation: A survey and a new proposal, Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), Granada, Spain, pp. 447-454.
12. Carroll, John (ed.) (2002). LREC 2002Workshop Proceedings: Beyond parseval -Towards Improved Evaluation Measures for Parsing Systems, Las Palmas, Gran Canaria.
13. Charniak, Eugene (2000). A maximum-entropy-inspired parser, Proceedings of the First Meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL), Seattle, WA, pp. 132-139.
14. Chelba, Ciprian, Engle, David, Jelinek, Frederick, Jimenez, Victor, Khudanpur, Sanjeev, Mangu, Lidia, Printz, Harry, Ristad, Eric, Rosenfeld, Ronald, Stolcke, Andreas and Wu, Dekai (1997). Structure and performance of a dependency language model, Proceedings of Eurospeech, Vol. 5, Rhodes, Greece, pp. 2775-2778.
15. Cheng, Yuchang, Asahara, Masayuki and Matsumoto, Yuji (2005). Machine learning-based dependency analyzer for Chinese, Proceedings of International Conference on Chinese Computing (ICCC), Bangkok, Thailand, pp. 66-73.
16. Chomsky, Noam (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris.
17. Chu, Y. J. and Liu, T. H. (1965). On the shortest arborescence of a directed graph, Science Sinica 14: 1396-1400.
18. Collins, Michael (1999). Head-Driven Statistical Models for Natural Language Parsing, PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.
19. Collins, Michael (2002). Discriminative training methods for hidden Markov models: Theory and experiments with perceptron algorithms, Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), Philadelphia, PA. DOI: 10.3115/1118693.1118694
20. Collins, Michael, Hajič, Jan, Ramshaw, Lance and Tillmann, Christoph (1999). A statistical parser for Czech, Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), Collge Park, MD, pp. 505-512. DOI: 10.3115/1034678.1034754
21. Corston-Oliver, Simon, Aue, Antony, Duh, Kevin and Ringger, Eric (2006). Multilingual dependency parsing using Bayes point machines, Proceedings of the Human Language Technology Conference of the NAACL, Main Conference, New York, NY, pp. 160-167.
22. Covington, Michael A. (2001). A fundamental algorithm for dependency parsing, Proceedings of the 39th Annual ACMSoutheast Conference, Athens, GA, pp. 95-102.
23. Crouch, Richard, Kaplan, Ronald M., King, Tracy H. and Riezler, Stefan (2002). A comparison of evaluation metrics for a broad coverage stochastic parser, Proceedings of the LRECWorkshop on the Evaluation of Parsing Systems, Las Palmas, Gran Canaria, pp. 67-74.
24. Culotta, Aron and Sorensen, Jeffery (2004). Dependency tree kernels for relation extraction, Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), Barcelona, Spain, pp. 423-429. DOI: 10.3115/1218955.1219009
25. Daelemans, Walter and Van den Bosch, Antal (2005). Memory-Based Language Processing, Cambridge University Press.
26. Debusmann, Ralph, Duchier, Denys and Kruijff, Geert-Jan M. (2004). Extensible dependency grammar: A new methodology, Proceedings of the COLING Workshop on Recent Advances in Dependency Grammar, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 78-85.
27. Ding, Yuan and Palmer, Martha (2004). Synchronous dependency insertion grammars: A grammar formalism for syntax based statistical MT, Proceedings of the COLINGWorkshop on Recent Advances in Dependency Grammar, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 90-97.
28. Dreyer, Markus, Smith, David A. and Smith, Noah A. (2006). Vine parsing and minimum risk reranking for speed and precision, Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL), New York, NY, pp. 201-205.
29. Duan, Xiangyu, Zhao, Jun and Xu, Bo (2007). Probabilistic parsing action models for multi-lingual dependency parsing, Proceedings of the CoNLL Shared Task of EMNLP-CoNLL 2007, Prague, Czech Republic, pp. 940-946.
30. Duchier, Denys (1999). Axiomatizing dependency parsing using set constraints, Proceedings of the Sixth Meeting on Mathematics of Language, Orlando, FL, pp. 115-126.
31. Duchier, Denys and Debusmann, Ralph (2001). Topological dependency trees: A constraint-based account of linear precedence, Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) and the 10th Conference of the European Chapter of the ACL (EACL), Toulouse, France, pp. 180-187.
32. Earley, Jay (1970). An efficient context-free parsing algorithm, Communications of the ACM13: 94-102. DOI: 10.1145/362007.362035
33. Edmonds, Jack (1967). Optimum branchings, Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards 71B: 233-240.
34. Eisner, Jason and Blatz, John (2007).Program transformations for optimization of parsing algorithms and other weighted logic programs, Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Formal Grammar, Dublin, Ireland, pp. 45-85.
35. Eisner, JasonM. (1996a). An empirical comparison of probability models for dependency grammar, Technical Report IRCS-96-11, Institute for Research in Cognitive Science, University of Pennsylvania.
36. Eisner, Jason M. (1996b). Three new probabilistic models for dependency parsing: An exploration, Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING), Copenhagen, Denmark, pp. 340-345. DOI: 10.3115/992628.992688
37. Eisner, Jason M. (2000). Bilexical grammars and their cubic-time parsing algorithms, in H. Bunt and A. Nijholt (eds), Advances in Probabilistic and Other Parsing Technologies, Kluwer, pp. 29-62.
38. Eisner, Jason and Satta, Giorgio (1999). Efficient parsing for bilexical context-free grammars and head-automaton grammars, Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), College Park, MD, pp. 457-464. DOI: 10.3115/1034678.1034748
39. Eisner, Jason and Smith, Noah (2005). Parsing with soft and hard constraints on dependency length, Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Parsing Technologies (IWPT), Vancouver, Canada, pp. 30-41.
40. Foth, Kilian (1999). Tranformationsbasiertes Constraint-Parsing. Diplomarbeit, Universität Hamburg.
41. Foth, Kilian (2007). Hybrid Methods of Natural Language Analysis, Shaker.
42. Foth, Kilian, Daum, Michael and Menzel, Wolfgang (2004). A broad-coverage parser for German based on defeasible constraints, Proceedings of KONVENS 2004, Vienna, Austria, pp. 45-52.
43. Foth, Kilian, Daum, Michael and Menzel, Wolfgang (2005). Parsing unrestricted German text with defeasible constraints, in H. Christiansen, P. R. Skadhauge and J.Villadsen (eds), Constraint Solving and Language Processing, Springer, pp. 140-157.
44. Foth, Kilian and Menzel, Wolfgang (2005). Robust parsing with weighted constraints, Natural Language Engineering 11(1): 1-25. DOI: 10.1017/S1351324903003267
45. Foth, Kilian, Schröder, Ingo and Menzel, Wolfgang (2000). A transformation-based parsing technique with anytime properties, Proceedings of the 6th InternationalWorkshop on ParsingTechnologies (IWPT), Trento, Italy, pp. 89-100.
46. Gaifman, Haim (1965). Dependency systems and phrase-structure systems, Information and Control 8: 304-337. DOI: 10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90232-9
47. Georgiadis, Leonidas (2003). Arborescence optimization problems solvable by Edmonds' algorithm, Theoretical Computer Science 301: 427-437. DOI: 10.1016/S0304-3975(02)00888-5
48. Glover, Fred and Laguna, Manuel (1977). Tabu Search, Kluwer.
49. Haghighi, Aria, Ng, Andrew and Manning, Christopher (2005). Robust textual inference via graph matching, Proceedings of the Human Language Technology Conference and the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (HLT/EMNLP), Vancouver, Canada, pp. 387-394. DOI: 10.3115/1220575.1220624
50. Hajič, Jan, Böhmová, Alena, Hajičová, Eva and Vidová-Hladká, Barbora (2000). The Prague DependencyTreebank: A three-level annotation scenario, in A. Abeillé (ed.), Treebanks: Building and Using Parsed Corpora, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
51. Hajič, Jan, Smrž, Otakar, Zemánek, Petr, Šnaidauf, Jan and Beška, Emanuel (2004). Prague Arabic Dependency Treebank: Development in data and tools, Proceedings of the NEMLAR 2004 International Conference on Arabic Language Resources and Tools, Cairo, Egypt.
52. Hall, Johan, Nivre, Joakim and Nilsson, Jens (2006). Discriminative classifiers for deterministic dependency parsing, Proceedings of theCOLING/ACL2006 Main ConferencePoster Sessions, Sydney, Australia, pp. 316-323.
53. Hall, Keith (2007). k-best spanning tree parsing, Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), Prague, Czech Republic, pp. 392-399.
54. Hall, Keith, Havelka, Jiři and Smith, David A. (2007). Log-linear models of non-projective trees, kbest MST parsing and tree-ranking, Proceedings of the 2007 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods inNatural Language Processing and ComputationalNatural Language Learning (EMNLP-CoNLL), Prague, Czech Republic, pp. 962-966.
55. Hall, Keith and Novák, Vaclav (2005). Corrective modeling for non-projective dependency parsing, Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Parsing Technologies (IWPT), Vancouver, Canada, pp. 42-52.
56. Harper, Mary P. and Helzerman, Randall A. (1995). Extensions to constraint dependency parsing for spoken language processing, Computer Speech and Language 9: 187-234. DOI: 10.1006/csla.1995.0011
57. Harper, Mary P., Helzermann, Randall A., Zoltowski, Carla B., Yeo, Boon-Lock, Chan, Yin, Steward, Todd andPellom, Bryan L.(1995). Implementation issues in the development of thePARSEC parser, Software: Practice and Experience 25: 831-862. DOI: 10.1002/spe.4380250802
58. Havelka, Jiři (2007). Beyond projectivity: Multilingual evaluation of constraints and measures on non-projective structures, Proceedings of the 45thAnnual Meeting of theAssociation for Computational Linguistics (ACL), Prague, Czech Republic, pp. 608-615.
59. Hays, David G. (1964). Dependency theory:Aformalism and some observations, Language 40: 511-525. DOI: 10.2307/411934
60. Hellwig, Peter (1986). Dependency unification grammar, Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING), Bonn, Germany, pp. 195-198.
61. Hellwig, Peter (2003). Dependency unification grammar, in V. Agel, L. M. Eichinger, H.-W. Eroms, P. Hellwig, H. J. Heringer and H.Lobin (eds), Dependency and Valency, Walter de Gruyter, pp. 593-635.
62. Hirakawa, Hideki (2006). Graph branch algorithm: an optimum tree search method for scored dependency graph with arc co-occurrence constraints, Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Computational Linguistics and the 44th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Sydney, Australia, pp. 361-368.
63. Hudson, Richard A. (1984). Word Grammar, Blackwell.
64. Hudson, Richard A. (1990). EnglishWord Grammar, Blackwell.
65. Hudson, Richard A. (2007). Language Networks: The NewWord Grammar, Oxford University Press.
66. Järvinen, Timo andTapanainen, Pasi (1998).Towards an implementable dependency grammar, Proceedings of the Workshop on Processing of Dependency-Based Grammars (ACL-COLING), Montreal, Canada, pp. 1-10.
67. Johansson, Richard and Nugues, Pierre (2006). Investigating multilingual dependency parsing, Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL), New York, NY, pp. 206-210.
68. Johansson, Richard and Nugues, Pierre (2007a). Extended constituent-to-dependency conversion for English, Proceedings of NODALIDA 2007, Tartu, Estonia.
69. Johansson, Richard and Nugues, Pierre (2007b). Incremental dependency parsing using online learning, Proceedings of the CoNLL SharedTask of EMNLP-CoNLL 2007, Prague, Czech Republic, pp. 1134-1138.
70. Johnson, Mark (2007). Transforming projective bilexical dependency grammars into efficientlyparseable CFGs with unfold-fold, Proceeding of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics, Prague, Czech Republic, pp. 168-175.
71. Kahane, Sylvain, Nasr, Alexis and Rambow, Owen (1998). Pseudo-projectivity: A polynomially parsable non-projective dependency grammar, Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) and the 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING), Montreal, Canada, pp. 646-652.
72. Karlsson, Fred (1990). Constraint grammar as a framework for parsing running text, Papers Presented to the 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING), Helsinki, Finland, pp. 168-173.
73. Karlsson, Fred, Voutilainen, Atro, Heikkilä, Juha and Anttila, Arto (eds) (1995). ConstraintGrammar: A language-independent system for parsing unrestricted text, Mouton de Gruyter.
74. Klein, Dan (2005). The Unsupervised Learning of Natural Language Structure, PhD thesis, Stanford University.
75. Klein, Dan and Manning, ChristopherD. (2002). Fast exact natural language parsing with a factored model, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), Cambridge, MA, pp. 3-10.
76. Klein, Dan and Manning, Christopher D. (2003). Accurate unlexicalized parsing, Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), pp. 423-430. DOI: 10.3115/1075096.1075150
77. Koo, Terry, Globerson, Amir, Carreras, Xavier and Collins, Michael (2007). Structured prediction models via the matrix-tree theorem, Proceedings of the 2007 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods inNatural Language Processing and ComputationalNatural Language Learning (EMNLP-CoNLL), Prague, Czech Republic, pp. 141-150.
78. Kromann, Matthias Trautner (2003). The Danish Dependency Treebank and the DTAG treebank tool, Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories (TLT), Växjö, Sweden, pp. 217-220.
79. Kudo, Taku and Matsumoto, Yuji (2000). Japanese dependency structure analysis based on support vector machines, Proceedings of the Joint SIGDAT Conference on Empirical Methods in NLP and Very Large Corpora, Hong Kong, pp. 18-25.
80. Kudo, Taku and Matsumoto, Yuji (2002). Japanese dependency analysis using cascaded chunking, Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Computational Language Learning (CoNLL), Taipei, Taiwan, pp. 63-69.
81. Kuhlmann, Marco and Möhl, Mathias (2007). Mildly context-sensitive dependency languages, Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), Prague, Czech Republic, pp. 160-167.
82. Kuhlmann, Marco andNivre, Joakim (2006). Mildly non-projective dependency structures, Proceedings of the COLING/ACL 2006 Main Conference Poster Sessions, Sydney, Australia, pp. 507-514.
83. Kulick, Seth, Bies, Ann, Liberman, Mark, Mandel, Mark, McDonald, Ryan, Palmer, Martha, Schein, Andrew, Ungar, Lyle, Winters, Scott andWhite, Pete (2004). Integrated annotation for biomedical information extraction, Proceedings of theWorkshop on Linking Biological Literature, Ontologies, and Databases (HLT-NAACL), Boston, MA, pp. 61-68.
84. Lafferty, John, Sleator, Daniel and Temperley, Davy (1992). Grammatical trigrams: A probabilistic model of link grammar, Proceedings of the AAAI Fall Symposium on Probabilistic Approaches to Natural Language, Cambridge, MA, pp. 89-97.
85. Lari, Karim and Young, Steve J. (1990). The estimation of stochastic context-free grammars using the inside-outside algorithm, Computer Speech and Language 4(1): 35-56. DOI: 10.1016/0885-2308(90)90022-X
86. Lin, Dekang (1994). PRINCIPAR-an efficient, borad-coverage, principle-based parser, Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING), Kyoto, Japan, pp. 482-488.
87. Lin, Dekang (1995).Adependency-based method for evaluating broad-coverage parsers, Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), Montreal, Canada, pp. 1420-1425.
88. Lin, Dekang (1996). Evaluation of PRINCIPAR with the SUSANNE corpus, Robust Parsing Workshop at ESSLLI, Prague, Czech Republic, pp. 54-69.
89. Lin, Dekang (1998a). Dependency-based evaluation of MINIPAR, Proceedings of the LRECWorkshop on the Evaluation of Parsing Systems, Granada, Spain.
90. Lin, Dekang (1998b). A dependency-based method for evaluating broad-coverage parsers, Journal of Natural Language Engineering 4: 97-114.
91. MacWhinney, Brian (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk, Lawrence Erlbaum.
92. Magerman, David M. (1995). Statistical decision-tree models for parsing, Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), Cambridge, MA, pp. 276-283. DOI: 10.3115/981658.981695
93. Manning, Christopher D. and Schütze, Hinrichs (2000). Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing, MIT Press.
94. Marcus, Mitchell P., Santorini, Beatrice and Marcinkiewicz, Mary Ann (1993). Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank, Computational Linguistics 19(2): 313-330.
95. Marcus, Solomon (1965). Sur la notion de projectivité, Zeitschrift für mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik 11: 181-192. DOI: 10.1002/malq.19650110212
96. Martins, André F.T., Das, Dipanjan, Smith, Noah A. and Xing, Eric P. (2008). Stacking dependency parsers, Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), Honolulu, Hawaii.
97. Maruyama, Hiroshi (1990). Structural disambiguation with constraint propagation, Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 31-38. DOI: 10.3115/981823.981828
98. McDonald, Ryan (2006). Discriminative Learning and Spanning Tree Algorithms for Dependency Parsing, PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.
99. McDonald, Ryan, Crammer, Koby and Pereira, Fernando (2005). Online large-margin training of dependency parsers, Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 91-98. DOI: 10.3115/1219840.1219852
100. McDonald, Ryan, Lerman, Kevin and Pereira, Fernando (2006). Multilingual dependency analysis with a two-stage discriminative parser, Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL), New York, NY, pp. 216-220.
101. McDonald, Ryan and Nivre, Joakim (2007). Characterizing the errors of data-driven dependency parsing models, Proceedings of the 2007 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning (EMNLP-CoNLL), Prague, Czech Republic, pp. 122-131.
102. McDonald, Ryan and Pereira, Fernando (2006). Online learning of approximate dependency parsing algorithms, Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL), Trento, Italy, pp. 81-88.
103. McDonald, Ryan, Pereira, Fernando, Ribarov, Kiril and Hajič, Jan (2005). Non-projective dependency parsing using spanning tree algorithms, Proceedings of theHuman LanguageTechnology Conference and the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (HLT/EMNLP), Vancouver, Canada, pp. 523-530. DOI: 10.3115/1220575.1220641
104. McDonald, Ryan and Satta, Giorgio (2007). On the complexity of non-projective data-driven dependency parsing, Proceedings of the 10th International Conference onParsingTechnologies (IWPT), Prague, Czech Republic, pp. 121-132.
105. Mel'čuk, Igor (1988). Dependency Syntax: Theory and Practice, State University of New York Press.
106. Menzel, Wolfgang and Schröder, Ingo (1998). Decision procedures for dependency parsing using graded constraints, Proceedings of theWorkshop on Processing of Dependency-Based Grammars (ACLCOLING), Montreal, Canada, pp. 78-87.
107. Milicevic, Jasmina (2006). A short guide to the Meaning-Text linguistic theory, Journal of Koralex 8: 187-233.
108. Nakagawa, Tetsuji (2007). Multilingual dependency parsing using global features, Proceedings of the CoNLL Shared Task of EMNLP-CoNLL 2007, Prague, Czech Republic, pp. 952-956.
109. Neuhaus, Peter and Bröker, Norbert (1997). The complexity of recognition of linguistically adequate dependency grammars, Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) and the 8th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL), Madrid, Spain, pp. 337-343.
110. Nikula, Henrik (1986). Dependensgrammatik, Liber.
111. Nivre, Joakim (2002).Two models of stochastic dependency grammar, Technical Report 02118, Växjö University, School of Mathematics and Systems Engineering.
112. Nivre, Joakim (2003). An efficient algorithm for projective dependency parsing, Proceedings of the 8th InternationalWorkshop on Parsing Technologies (IWPT), Nancy, France, pp. 149-160.
113. Nivre, Joakim (2006a). Constraints on non-projective dependency graphs, Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL), Trento, Italy, pp. 73-80.
114. Nivre, Joakim (2006b). Inductive Dependency Parsing, Springer.
115. Nivre, Joakim (2007). Incremental non-projective dependency parsing, Proceedings of Human Language Technologies: The Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL HLT), Rochester, NY, pp. 396-403.
116. Nivre, Joakim (2008). Algorithms for deterministic incremental dependency parsing, Computational Linguistics 34(4): 513-553. DOI: 10.1162/coli.07-056-R1-07-027
117. Nivre, Joakim, Hall, Johan, Kübler, Sandra, McDonald, Ryan, Nilsson, Jens, Riedel, Sebastian and Yuret, Deniz (2007). The CoNLL 2007 shared task on dependency parsing, Proceedings of the CoNLL Shared Task of EMNLP-CoNLL 2007, Prague, Czech Republic, pp. 915-932.
118. Nivre, Joakim, Hall, Johan andNilsson, Jens (2004). Memory-based dependency parsing, Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL), Boston, MA, pp. 49-56.
119. Nivre, Joakim, Hall, Johan, Nilsson, Jens, Chanev, Atanas, Eryiǧit, Gülşen, Kübler, Sandra, Marinov, Svetoslav and Marsi, Erwin (2007). MaltParser: A language-independent system for data-driven dependency parsing, Natural Language Engineering 13: 95-135.
120. Nivre, Joakim, Hall, Johan, Nilsson, Jens, Eryiǧit, Gülşen and Marinov, Svetoslav (2006). Labeled pseudo-projective dependency parsing with support vector machines, Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL), New York, NY, pp. 221-225.
121. Nivre, Joakim and McDonald, Ryan (2008). Integrating graph-based and transition-based dependency parsers, Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), Columbus, OH.
122. Nivre, Joakim andNilsson, Jens (2005). Pseudo-projective dependency parsing, Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 99-106. DOI: 10.3115/1219840.1219853
123. Nivre, Joakim and Scholz, Mario (2004). Deterministic dependency parsing of English text, Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING), Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 64-70. DOI: 10.3115/1220355.1220365
124. Oflazer, Kemal, Say, Bilge, Hakkani-Tür, Dilek Zeynep and Tür, Gökhan (2003). Building a Turkish treebank, in A. Abeillé (ed.), Treebanks: Building and Using Parsed Corpora, Kluwer, pp. 261-277.
125. Paskin, Mark A. (2001). Cubic-time parsing and learning algorithms for grammatical bigram models, Technical Report UCB/CSD-01-1148, Computer Science Division, University of California Berkeley.
126. Paskin, Mark A. (2002). Grammatical bigrams, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), Vancouver, Canada.
127. Quirk, Chris, Menezes, Arul and Cherry, Colin (2005). Dependency treelet translation: syntactically informed phrasal SMT, Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 271-279. DOI: 10.3115/1219840.1219874
128. Rabiner, Lawrence R. (1989). A tutorial on hidden Markov models and selected applications in speech recognition, Proceedings of the IEEE 77(2): 257-285. DOI: 10.1109/5.18626
129. Ribarov, Kiril (2004). Automatic Building of a Dependency Tree, PhD thesis, Charles University.
130. Riedel, Sebastian and Clarke, James (2006). Incremental integer linear programming for nonprojective dependency parsing, Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), Sydney, Australia, pp. 129-137.
131. Sagae, Kenji and Lavie, Alon (2006). Parser combination by reparsing, Proceedings of the Human Language Technology Conference of the NAACL, Main Conference, New York, NY, pp. 125-132.
132. Schneider, Gerold (2004). Combining shallow and deep processing for a robust, fast, deep-linguistic dependency parser, Proceedings of the ESSLLIWorkshop on Combining Shallow and Deep Processing in NLP, Nancy, France.
133. Schneider, Gerold, Dowdall, James and Rinaldi, Fabio (2004). A robust and hybrid deep-linguistic theory applied to large-scale parsing, Proceedings of the COLING Worskhop on Robust Methods in the Analysis of NL Data (ROMAND), Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 14-23.
134. Schröder, Ingo (2002). Natural Language Parsing with Graded Constraints, PhD thesis, Hamburg University.
135. Schröder, Ingo, Menzel, Wolfgang, Foth, Kilian and Schulz, Michael (2000). Modeling dependency grammar with restricted constraints, Traitement Automatique des Langues 41(1): 113-144.
136. Schröder, Ingo, Pop, Horia, Menzel, Wolfgang and Foth, Kilian (2001). Learning grammar weights using genetic algorithms, Proceedings of the International Conference on Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing (RANLP), Tzigov Chark, Bulgaria.
137. Schröder, Ingo, Pop, Horia, Menzel, Wolfgang and Foth, Kilian (2002). Learning the constraints weights of a dependency grammar using genetic algorithms, Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Domain Decomposition Methods (CIMNE), Barcelona, Spain.
138. Sgall, Petr, Hajičová, Eva and Panevová, Jarmila (1986). The Meaning of the Sentence in Its Pragmatic Aspects, Reidel.
139. Sleator, Daniel and Temperley, Davy (1991). Parsing English with a link grammar, Technical Report CMU-CS-91-196, Carnegie Mellon University, Computer Science.
140. Sleator, Daniel and Temperley, Davy (1993). Parsing English with a link grammar, Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Parsing Technologies (IWPT), Tilburg, The Netherlands, pp. 277-292.
141. Smith, David A. and Eisner, Jason (2008). Dependency parsing by belief propagation, Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), Honolulu, Hawaii.
142. Smith, David A.and Smith, Noah A.(2007). Probabilistic models of nonprojective dependency trees, Proceedings of the 2007 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning (EMNLP-CoNLL), Prague, Czech Republic, pp. 132-140.
143. Smith, Noah A. (2006). Novel Estimation Methods for Unsupervised Discovery of Latent Structure in Natural Language Text, PhD thesis, Johns Hopkins University.
144. Snow, Rion, Jurafsky, Dan and Ng, Andrew Y. (2005). Learning syntactic patterns for automatic hypernymdiscovery, Advances inNeural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), Vancouver, Canada.
145. Starosta, Stanley (1988). The Case for Lexicase: An Outline of Lexicase Grammatical Theory, Pinter Publishers.
146. Surdeanu, Mihai, Johansson, Richard, Meyers, Adam, Màrquez, Lluís andNivre, Joakim (2008).The CoNLL 2008 shared task on joint parsing of syntactic and semantic dependencies, CoNLL 2008: Proceedings of the Twelfth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, Manchester, England, pp. 159-177.
147. Tapanainen, Pasi and Järvinen, Timo (1997). A non-projective dependency parser, Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing (ANLP), Washington, D.C., pp. 64-71.
148. Tarjan, Robert E. (1977). Finding optimum branchings, Networks 7: 25-35. DOI: 10.1002/net.3230070103
149. Tarvainen, Kalevi (1982). Einführung in die Dependenzgrammatik, Niemeyer.
150. Tesnière, Lucien (1959). Éléments de syntaxe structurale, Editions Klincksieck.
151. Titov, Ivan and Henderson, James (2007a). Fast and robust multilingual dependency parsing with a generative latent variable model, Proceedings of the CoNLL Shared Task of EMNLP-CoNLL 2007, Prague, Czech Republic, pp. 947-951.
152. Titov, Ivan and Henderson, James (2007b). A latent variable model for generative dependency parsing, Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Parsing Technologies (IWPT), Prague, Czech Republic, pp. 144-155.
153. Tutte, William T. (1984). Graph Theory, Cambridge University Press.
154. Vapnik, Vladimir N. (1995). The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory, Springer.
155. Viterbi, Andrew J. (1967). Error bounds for convolutional codes and an asymptotically optimum decoding algorithm, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 13(2): 260-269. DOI: 10.1109/TIT.1967.1054010
156. Wallach, Hann, Sutton, Charles and McCallum, Andrew (2008). Bayesian modeling of dependency trees using hierarchical Pitman-Yor priors, Workshop on Prior Knowledge for Text and Language Processing, Helsinki, Finland.
157. Wang, Mengqiu, Smith, Noah A. and Mitamura, Teruko (2007). What is the Jeopardy Model? A quasi-synchronous grammar for QA, Proceedings of the 2007 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods inNatural Language Processing and ComputationalNatural Language Learning (EMNLP-CoNLL), Prague, Czech Republic, pp. 22-32.
158. Wang, Wen and Harper, Mary (2002). The SuperARV language model: Investigating the effectiveness of tightly integrating multiple knowledge sources, Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), Philadelphia, PA, pp. 238-247. DOI: 10.3115/1118693.1118724
159. Wang, Wen and Harper, Mary P. (2004). A statistical constraint dependency grammar (CDG) parser, Proceedings of the Workshop on Incremental Parsing: Bringing Engineering and Cognition Together (ACL), Barcelona, Spain, pp. 42-29.
160. Weber, H. J. (1997). Dependenzgrammatik. Ein interaktives Arbeitsbuch, Günter Narr.
161. Yamada, Hiroyasu and Matsumoto, Yuji (2003). Statistical dependency analysis with support vector machines, Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Parsing Technologies (IWPT), Nancy, France, pp. 195-206.
162. Younger, Daniel H.(1967). Recognition and parsing of context-free languages in time n3, Information and Control 10: 189-208. DOI: 10.1016/S0019-9958(67)80007-X
163. Yuret, Deniz (1998). Discovery of Linguistic Relations Using Lexical Attraction, PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
164. Zeman, Daniel (2004). Parsing with a Statistical Dependency Model, PhD thesis, Charles University.
165. Zeman, Daniel and Žabokrtský, Zdeněk (2005). Improving parsing accuracy by combining diverse dependency parsers, Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Parsing Technologies (IWPT), Vancouver, Canada, pp. 171-178.
166. Zhang, Yue and Clark, Stephen (2008). A tale of two parsers: investigating and combining graphbased and transition-based dependency parsing using beam-search, Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), Honolulu, Hawaii