Predicting conjunct propagation and other extended Stanford Dependencies

DepLing 2013 - Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Dependency Linguistics

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 252-261

  Nyblom, Jenna ^a   Kohonen, Samuel ^a   Haverinen, Katri ^a,b   Salakoski, Tapio ^a,b   Ginter, Filip ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TURKU   (Finland)

^b TURKU CENTRE FOR COMPUTER SCIENCE   (Finland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS; SYNTACTICS;

DATA-DRIVEN METHODS; FINNISH; HYBRID METHOD; PERFORMANCE; RULE-BASED APPROACH; STANFORD; SYNTAX TREE; TREEBANKS;

TREES (MATHEMATICS);

EID: 84946473230     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (28)

1. Rajeev Agarwal and Lois Boggess. 1992. A simple but useful approach to conjunct identification. In Proceedings of ACL'92, pages 15-21.
2. Bernd Bohnet. 2010. Top accuracy and fast dependency parsing is not a contradiction. In Proceedings of COLING'10, pages 89-97.
3. Joan Bresnan. 2001. Lexical-functional syntax, volume 16 of Blackwell Textbooks in Linguistics. Blackwell.
4. Richard Campbell. 2004. Using linguistic principles to recover empty categories. In Proceedings of ACL, pages 646-653.
5. Francis Chantree, Adam Kilgarriff, Anne de Roeck, and Alistair Willis. 2005. Disambiguating coordinations using word distribution information. In Proceedings of RANLP'05.
6. Andrew B. Clegg and Adrian Shepherd. 2007. Benchmarking natural-language parsers for biological applications using dependency graphs. BMC Bioinformatics, 8(1):24.
7. Miriam Goldberg. 1999. An unsupervised model for statistically determining coordinate phrase attachment. In Proceedings of ACL'99, pages 610-614.
8. Jan Hajič et al. 2009. The conll-2009 shared task: syntactic and semantic dependencies in multiple languages. In Proceedings of CoNLL'09, pages 1-18.
9. Péter Halácsy, András Kornai, and Csaba Oravecz. 2007. HunPos - an open source trigram tagger. In Proceedings of ACL'07, Companion Volume, pages 209-212.
10. Katri Haverinen, Filip Ginter, Veronika Laippala, Timo Viljanen, and Tapio Salakoski. 2010. Dependency-based propbanking of clinical Finnish. In Proceedings of LAW IV, pages 137-141.
11. Katri Haverinen, Filip Ginter, Veronika Laippala, Samuel Kohonen, Timo Viljanen, Jenna Nyblom, and Tapio Salakoski. 2011. A dependency-based analysis of treebank annotation errors. In Proceedings of Depling'11, pages 115-124.
12. Katri Haverinen. 2012. Syntax annotation guidelines for the Turku Dependency Treebank. Technical Report 1034, Turku Centre for Computer Science, January.
13. Thorsten Joachims. 1999. Making large-scale SVM learning practical. In Advances in Kernel Methods - Support Vector Learning, pages 169-184. MIT Press.
14. Daisuke Kawahara and Sadao Kurohashi. 2007. Probabilistic coordination disambiguation in a fully-lexicalized Japanese parser. In Proceedings of EMNLP-CoNLL'07, pages 306-314.
15. Daisuke Kawahara and Sadao Kurohashi. 2011. Generative modeling of coordination by factoring parallelism and selectional preferences. In Proceedings of IJCNLP'11, pages 456-464.
16. Jin-Dong Kim, Sampo Pyysalo, Tomoko Ohta, Robert Bossy, Ngan Nguyen, and Jun'ichi Tsujii. 2011. Overview of bionlp shared task 2011. In Proceedings of BioNLP Shared Task 2011 Workshop, pages 1-6. Association for Computational Linguistics.
17. Tracy Holloway King, Crouch Richard, Stefan Riezler, Mary Dalrymple, and Ronald M. Kaplan. 2003. The PARC 700 dependency bank. In Proceedings of LINC'03, pages 1-8.
18. Dekang Lin. 1998. A dependency-based method for evaluating broad-coverage parsers. Natural Language Engineering, 4(2):97-114.
19. Marie-Catherine de Marneffe and Christopher Manning. 2008. Stanford typed dependencies manual. Technical report, Stanford University, September.
20. Ryan McDonald and Fernando Pereira. 2006. Online learning of approximate dependency parsing algorithms. In Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL), pages 81-88.
21. Joakim Nivre, Johan Hall, Jens Nilsson, Atanas Chanev, Gülşen Eryiǧit, Sandra Kübler, Svetoslav Marinov, and Erwin Marsi. 2007. MaltParser: A language-independent system for data-driven dependency parsing. Natural Language Engineering, 13(2):95-135.
22. Martha Palmer, Daniel Gildea, and Paul Kingsbury. 2005. The Proposition Bank: An annotated corpus of semantic roles. Computational Linguistics, 31(1):71-106.
23. Philip Resnik. 1999. Semantic similarity in a taxonomy: An information-based measure and its application to problems of ambiguity in natural language. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 11:95-130.
24. Kenji Sagae and Jun'ichi Tsujii. 2008. Shift-reduce dependency dag parsing. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Coling 2008) - Volume 1, pages 753-760.
25. Roy Schwartz, Omri Abend, and Ari Rappoport. 2012. Learnability-based syntactic annotation design. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Coling 2012), pages 2405-2422.
26. Daniel Sleator and Davy Temperley. 1993. Parsing English with a Link Grammar. In Proceedings of IWPT'93, pages 277-291.
27. Gertjan van Noord. 2007. Using-self-trained bilexical preferences to improve disambiguation accuracy. In Proceedings of IWPT'07, pages 1-10.
28. Deniz Yuret, Laura Rimmell, and Aydin Han. 2012. Parser evaluation using textual entailments. Language Resources and Evaluation, pages 1-21.