Comparing linguistic information in treebank annotations

Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC 2006

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 1770-1775

  Bosco, Cristina ^a   Lombardo, Vincenzo ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TURIN   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LINGUISTICS;

INFORMATION ENCODING; LINGUISTIC INFORMATION; LINGUISTIC KNOWLEDGE; TOOLS AND METHODS; TREEBANKS;

FORESTRY;

EID: 84962734364     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (23)

1. G. Boella and L. Lesmo. 1998. Automatic refinement of linguistic rules for tagging. In Proceedings of the LREC'98.
2. Alena Böhmova, Jan Hajic, Eva Hajicová, and Barbora Hladká. 2003. The Prague Dependency Treebank: A three level annotation scenario. In Anne Abeille, editor, Building and using syntactically annotated corpora. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
3. C. Bosco and V. Lombardo. 2003. A relation-schema for treebank annotation. In A. Cappelli and F. Turini, editors, Advances in Artificial Intelligence, LNCS 2829.
4. C. Bosco and V. Lombardo. 2004. Dependency and relational structure in treebank annotation. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Recent Advances in Dependency Grammar at COLING'04.
5. C. Bosco. 2004. A grammatical relation system for tree-bank annotation. Ph.D. thesis, University of Torino.
6. M.J. Collins, J. Hajic, L. Ramshaw, and C. Tillmann. 1999. A statistical parser of Czech. In Proceedings of the ACL'99.
7. M.J. Collins. 1999. Head-driven statistical models for natural language parsing. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania.
8. A. Corazza, A. Lavelli, G. Satta, and R. Zanoli. 2004. Analyzing an Italian treebank with state-of-the-art statistical parser. In Proceedings of TLT-2004.
9. A. Dubey and F. Keller. 2003. Probabilistic parsing for German using sister-head dependencies. In Proceedings of the ACL'03.
10. D. Gildea and Palmer M. 2002. The necessity of syntactic parsing for predicate argument recognition. In Proceedings of the ACL '02.
11. Richard Hudson. 1984. Word Grammar. Basil Blackwell, Oxford and New York.
12. R. Levy and C. Manning. 2003. Is it harder to parse Chinese, or the Chinese treebank? In Proceedings of the ACL'03.
13. G. Musillo and K. Sima'an. 2002. Towards comparing parsers from different linguistic frameworks. an information theoretic approach. In Proceedings of Workshop Beyond PARSEVAL - Towards improved evaluation measures for parsing systems at the LREC'02.
14. M. Palmer, Rosenzwieg J., and Cotton S. 2001. Automatic predicate argument structure analysis of the Penn Tree-bank. In Proceedings of the Human Language Technology (HLT) 2001.
15. M. Palmer, D. Gildea, and P. Kinsbury. 2005. The Proposition Bank: and annotated corpus of semantic roles. Computational Linguistics, 31(1).
16. A. Radford. 1997. Syntactic theory and the structure of English. A minimalist approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
17. Sabatini and Coletti. 1997. Disc compact Dizionario Italiano Sabatini Coletti. CD-ROM edition.
18. B. Santorini. 2000. The syntax of natural language: an online introduction using the Trees program. http://www.ling.upenn.edu/beatrice/syntax-textbook/index.html.
19. M. Surdeanu, S. Harabagiu, J. Williams, and P. Aarseth. 2003. Using predicate-argument structures for information extraction. In Proceedings of the ACL '03.
20. F. Xia. 2001. Automatic grammar generation from two different perspectives. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania.
21. N. Xue and S. Kulick. 2003. Automatic predicate argument structure analysis of the Penn Chinese Treebank. In Proceedings of the Machine Translation Summit IX (MTIX) 2003.
22. Z. Zabokrtsky and I. Kucerova. 2002. Transforming Penn Treebank phrase trees into (Praguian) tectogrammatical dependency trees. 78. http://ckl.mff.cuni.cz/zabokrt-sky/wsj2tgts/.
23. Z. Zabokrtsky and O. Smrz. 2003. Arabic syntactic trees: from constituency to dependency. In Proceedings of the EACL'03.