Universal dependencies v1: A multilingual treebank collection

Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC 2016

Volumn , Issue , 2016, Pages 1659-1666

  Nivre, Joakim ^a   De Marneffe, Marie Catherine ^b   Ginter, Filip ^c   Goldberg, Yoav ^d   Hajič, Jan ^e   Manning, Christopher D ^f   McDonald, Ryan ^g   Petrov, Slav ^g   Pyysalo, Sampo ^h   Silveira, Natalia ^f   Tsarfaty, Reut ⁱ   Zeman, Daniel ^e  

^a UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TURKU   (Finland)

^d BAR ILAN UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

^e CHARLES UNIVERSITY   (Czech Republic)

^f STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^g GOOGLE INC   (United States)

^h UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

ⁱ OPEN UNIVERSITY OF ISRAEL   (Israel)

Author keywords

Annotation; Cross linguistic; Dependency; Multilingual; Treebanks; Universal

Indexed keywords

LINGUISTICS;

ANNOTATION; DEPENDENCY; MULTILINGUAL; TREEBANKS; UNIVERSAL;

FORESTRY;

EID: 84989325037     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (30)

1. Bosco, C., Montemagni, S., and Simi, M. (2013). Converting Italian treebanks: Towards an Italian Stanford dependency treebank. In LAW & Interoperability with Discourse.
2. Bresnan, J. (2001). Lexical-Functional Syntax. Blackwell, Oxford.
3. Laura Brugé, et al., editors. (2012). Functional Heads. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume 7. Oxford University Press.
4. Buchholz, S. and Marsi, E. (2006). CoNLL-X shared task on multilingual dependency parsing. In CoNLL, pages 149-164.
5. Chang, P.-C., Tseng, H., Jurafsky, D., and Manning, C. D. (2009). Discriminative reordering with Chinese grammatical relations features. In SSST, pages 51-59.
6. Das, D. and Petrov, S. (2011). Unsupervised part-ofspeech tagging with bilingual graph-based projections. In ACL, pages 600-609.
7. de Marneffe, M.-C. and Manning, C. D. (2008). The Stanford typed dependencies representation. In Workshop on Cross-framework and Cross-domain Parser Evaluation.
8. de Marneffe, M.-C., MacCartney, B., and Manning, C. D. (2006). Generating typed dependency parses from phrase structure parses. In LREC.
9. 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 LREC, pages 4585-4592.
10. Dixon, R. M. (2009). Basic Linguistic Theory. Volume 1: Methodology. Oxford University Press.
11. Haverinen, K., Nyblom, J., Viljanen, T., Laippala, V., Kohonen, S., Missilä, A., Ojala, S., Salakoski, T., and Ginter, F. (2013). Building the essential resources for Finnish: the Turku dependency treebank. Language Resources and Evaluation. In press. Available online.
12. Kromann, M. T. (2003). The Danish Dependency Treebank and the DTAG treebank tool. In TLT, pages 217-220.
13. Lipenkova, J. and Souček, M. (2014). Converting Russian dependency treebank to Stanford typed dependencies representation. In EACL.
14. Luotolahti, J., Kanerva, J., Pyysalo, S., and Ginter, F. (2015). SETS: scalable and efficient tree search in dependency graphs. In NAACL Demo, pages 51-55.
15. McDonald, R. and Nivre, J. (2007). Characterizing the errors of data-driven dependency parsing models. In Proceedings of EMNLP-CoNLL, pages 122-131.
16. McDonald, R., Nivre, J., Quirmbach-Brundage, Y., Goldberg, Y., Das, D., Ganchev, K., Hall, K., Petrov, S., Zhang, H., Täckström, O., Bedini, C., Bertomeu Castelló, N., and Lee, J. (2013). Universal dependency annotation for multilingual parsing. In ACL.
17. Nivre, J. and Megyesi, B. (2007). Bootstrapping a Swedish treeebank using cross-corpus harmonization and annotation projection. In TLT, pages 97-102.
18. Osborne, T. and Maxwell, D. (2015). A historical overview of the status of function words in dependency grammar. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Dependency Linguistics (Depling 2015), pages 241-250.
19. Petrov, S., Das, D., and McDonald, R. (2012). A universal part-of-speech tagset. In LREC.
20. Pyysalo, S. and Ginter, F. (2014). Collaborative development of annotation guidelines with application to Universal Dependencies. In SLTC.
21. Rosa, R., Mašek, J., Mareček, D., Popel, M., Zeman, D., and Žabokrtský, Z. (2014). HamleDT 2.0: Thirty dependency treebanks stanfordized. In LREC, pages 2334-2341.
22. Schuster, S. and Manning, C. D. (2016). Enhanced english universal dependencies: An improved representation for natural language understanding tasks. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation.
23. Seraji, M., Jahani, C., Megyesi, B., and Nivre, J. (2013). Uppsala Persian dependency treebank annotation guidelines. Technical report, Uppsala University.
24. Stenetorp, P., Pyysalo, S., Topić, G., Ohta, T., Ananiadou, S., and Tsujii, J. (2012). Brat: a web-based tool for NLP-assisted text annotation. In ACL Demo, pages 102-107.
25. Štěpánek, J. and Pajas, P. (2010). Querying diverse treebanks in a uniform way. In LREC.
26. Tesnière, L. (1959). Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Editions Klincksieck.
27. Tsarfaty, R. (2013). A unified morpho-syntactic scheme of Stanford dependencies. In ACL.
28. Zeman, D. and Resnik, P. (2008). Cross-language parser adaptation between related languages. In IJCNLP-08 Workshop on NLP for Less Privileged Languages, pages 35-42.
29. Zeman, D., Mareček, D., Popel, M., Ramasamy, L., Štěpánek, J., Žabokrtský, Z., and Hajič, J. (2012). HamleDT: To parse or not to parse? In LREC, pages 2735-2741.
30. Zeman, D. (2008). Reusable tagset conversion using tagset drivers. In LREC, pages 213-218.