Universal stanford dependencies: A cross-linguistic typology

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

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 4585-4592

  De Marneffe, Marie Catherine ^a   Dozat, Timothy ^b   Silveira, Natalia ^b   Haverinen, Katri ^c   Ginter, Filip ^c   Nivre, Joakim ^d   Manning, Christopher D ^a,b  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Stanford University   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TURKU   (Finland)

^d UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Dependency grammar; Grammatical taxonomy; Stanford dependencies

Indexed keywords

DE FACTO STANDARD; DEPENDENCY GRAMMAR; GRAMMATICAL RELATIONS; STANFORD;

TAXONOMIES;

EID: 85028704077     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (30)

1. Aronoff, M. (2007). In the beginning was the word. Language, 83:803-830.
2. Bosco, C., Montemagni, S., and Simi, M. (2013). Converting Italian treebanks: Towards an Italian Stanford dependency treebank. In Seventh Linguistic Annotation Workshop & Interoperability with Discourse.
3. Bresnan, J. and Mchombo, S. A. (1995). The lexical integrity principle: Evidence from Bantu. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 13:181-254.
4. Bresnan, J. (2001). Lexical-Functional Syntax. Blackwell, Oxford.
5. Chang, P.-C., Tseng, H., Jurafsky, D., and Manning, C. D. (2009). Discriminative reordering with Chinese grammatical relations features. In Third Workshop on Syntax and Structure in Statistical Translation, pages 51-59.
6. Chomsky, N. (1970). Remarks on nominalization. In Jacobs, R. A. and Rosenbaum, P. S., editors, Readings in English transformational grammar, pages 184-221. Ginn, Waltham, MA.
7. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris, Dordrecht.
8. Collins, M. (2003). Head-driven statistical models for natural language parsing. Computational Linguistics, 29:589-637.
9. de Marneffe, M.-C. and Manning, C. D. (2008). The Stanford typed dependencies representation. In Workshop on Cross-framework and Cross-domain Parser Evaluation.
10. de Marneffe, M.-C., MacCartney, B., and Manning, C. D. (2006). Generating typed dependency parses from phrase structure parses. In LREC.
11. 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 DepLing 2013.
12. Elming, J., Johannsen, A., Klerke, S., Lapponi, E., Martinez, H., and Søgaard, A. (2013). Down-stream effects of tree-to-dependency conversions. In NAACL HLT 2013.
13. Finkel, J. R., Kleeman, A., and Manning, C. D. (2008). Efficient, feature-based, conditional random field parsing. In ACL 46, pages 959-967.
14. 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.
15. Klein, D. and Manning, C. D. (2003). Accurate unlexical-ized parsing. In ACL 41, pages 423-430.
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 51.
17. Nilsson, J., Nivre, J., and Hall, J. (2006). Graph transformations in data-driven dependency parsing. In COLING 21 and ACL 44, pages 257-264.
18. Nilsson, J., Nivre, J., and Hall, J. (2007). Tree transformations for inductive dependency parsing. In ACL 45.
19. Nivre, J. and Nilsson, J. (2005). Pseudo-projective dependency parsing. In ACL 43, pages 99-106.
20. Nivre, J., Hall, J., Nilsson, J., Chanev, A., Eryigit, G., Kübler, S., Marinov, S., and Marsi, E. (2007). Malt-Parser: A language-independent system for data-driven dependency parsing. Natural Language Engineering, 13:95-135.
21. Palmer, M., Gildea, D., and Kingsbury, P. (2005). The proposition bank: An annotated corpus of semantic roles. Computational Linguistics, 31:71-105.
22. Petrov, S., Barrett, L., Thibaux, R., and Klein, D. (2006). Learning accurate, compact, and interpretable tree annotation. In COLING 21 and ACL 44, pages 433-440.
23. Petrov, S., Das, D., and McDonald, R. (2012). A universal part-of-speech tagset. In LREC.
24. Radford, A. (1988). Transformational Grammar. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
25. Schwartz, R., Abend, O., and Rappoport, A. (2012). Learnability-based syntactic annotation design. In COLING 24, pages 2405-2422.
26. Seraji, M., Jahani, C., Megyesi, B., and Nivre, J. (2013). Uppsala Persian dependency treebank annotation guidelines. Technical report, Uppsala University.
27. Taylor, A., Marcus, M., and Santorini, B. (2003). The Penn treebank: An overview. In Abeillé, A., editor, Building and Using Parsed Corpora, Volume 20 of Text, Speech and Language Technology. Springer.
28. Tsarfaty, R. (2013). A unified morpho-syntactic scheme of Stanford dependencies. In ACL 51.
29. Xue, N., Xia, F., Chiou, F.-D., and Palmer, M. (2005). The Penn Chinese treebank: Phrase structure annotation of a large corpus. Natural Language Engineering, 11:207-238.
30. Zwicky, A. M. and Pullum, G. K. (1983). Cliticization vs. inflection: English n't. Language, 59:502-513.