A gold standard dependency corpus for English

Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC 2014

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 2897-2904

  Silveira, Natalia ^a   Dozat, Timothy ^a   De Marneffe, Marie Catherine ^b   Bowman, Samuel R ^a   Connor, Miriam ^a   Bauer, John ^c   Manning, Christopher D ^a,c  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c Stanford University   (United States)

Author keywords

Dependency grammar; Stanford dependencies; Web treebank

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS; FORESTRY; GOLD;

DEPENDENCY GRAMMAR; DEPENDENCY PARSER; GOLD STANDARDS; STANFORD; SYNTACTIC ANNOTATION; SYNTACTIC DEPENDENCIES; TREEBANKS; WEB DATA;

SYNTACTICS;

EID: 84977556694     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (12)

1. Böhmová, A., Hajič, J., Hajičová, E., and Hladká, B. (2003). The Prague dependency treebank. In Treebanks, pages 103-127. Springer.
2. de Marneffe, M.-C. and Manning, C. D. (2008). Stanford typed dependencies manual. Technical report, Stanford University.
3. de Marneffe, M.-C., MacCartney, B., and Manning, C. D. (2006). Generating typed dependency parses from phrase structure parses. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, pages 449-454.
4. de Marneffe, M.-C., Connor, M., Silveira, N., Bowman, S. R., Dozat, T., and Manning, C. D. (2013). More constructions, more genres: Extending Stanford dependencies. In Proceedings of DepLing 2013.
5. de Marneffe, M.-C., Dozat, T., Silveira, N., Haverinen, K., Ginter, F., Nivre, J., and Manning, C. D. (2014). Universal stanford dependencies: A cross-linguistic typology. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation.
6. Hovy, E., Marcus, M., Palmer, M., Ramshaw, L., and Weischedel, R. (2006). Ontonotes: the 90% solution. In Proceedings of the Human Language Technology Conference of the NAACL, Companion Volume: Short Papers, NAACL-Short'06, pages 57-60, Stroudsburg, PA, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics.
7. Klein, D. and Manning, C. D. (2003). Fast exact inference with a factored model for natural language parsing. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 15 (NIPS), pages 3-10. MIT Press.
8. Levy, R. and Andrew, G. (2006). Tregex and Tsurgeon: Tools for querying and manipulating tree data structures. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, pages 2231-2234. http://www-nlp.stanford.edu/software/tregex.shtml.
9. Nivre, J. (2003). An efficient algorithm for projective dependency parsing. In Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Parsing Technologies (IWPT, pages 149-160.
10. Petrov, S. and McDonald, R. (2012). Overview of the 2012 shared task on parsing the web. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Syntactic Analysis of Non-Canonical Language (SANCL).
11. Pyysalo, S., Ginter, F., Haverinen, K., Heimonen, J., Salakoski, T., and Laippala, V. (2007). On the unification of syntactic annotations under the Stanford dependency scheme: A case study on BioInfer and GENIA. In Proceedings of BioNLP 2007: Biological, translational, and clinical language processing (ACL07).
12. Rimell, L., Clark, S., and Steedman, M. (2009). Unbounded dependency recovery for parser evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 813-821.