Universal Stanford dependencies: A cross-linguistic typology

Revisiting the now de facto standard Stanford dependency representation, we propose an improved taxonomy to capture grammatical relations across languages, including morphologically rich ones. We suggest a two-layered taxonomy: a set of broadly attested universal grammatical relations, to which language-specific relations can be added. We emphasize the lexicalist stance of the Stanford Dependencies, which leads to a particular, partially new treatment of compounding, prepositions, and morphology. We show how existing dependency schemes for several languages map onto the universal taxonomy proposed here and close with consideration of practical implications of dependency representation choices for NLP applications, in particular parsing.

[1]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Remarks on Nominalization , 2020, Nominalization.

[2]  References , 1971 .

[3]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Lectures on Government and Binding , 1981 .

[4]  G. Pullum,et al.  CLITICIZATION VS. INFLECTION: ENGLISH N'T , 1983 .

[5]  I. Watson,et al.  In the Beginning Was the Word , 2009 .

[6]  J. Bresnan,et al.  The lexical integrity principle: Evidence from Bantu , 1995 .

[7]  J. Bresnan.  Lexical-Functional Syntax , 2000 .

[8]  Radford,et al.  转换生成语法教程 = Transformational Grammar , 2000 .

[9]  Beatrice Santorini,et al.  The Penn Treebank: An Overview , 2003 .

[10]  Michael Collins,et al.  Head-Driven Statistical Models for Natural Language Parsing , 2003, CL.

[11]  Dan Klein,et al.  Accurate Unlexicalized Parsing , 2003, ACL.

[12]  Yuji Matsumoto.  MaltParser: A language-independent system for data-driven dependency parsing , 2005 .

[13]  M. A. R T A P A L,et al.  The Penn Chinese TreeBank: Phrase structure annotation of a large corpus , 2005, Natural Language Engineering.

[14]  Joakim Nivre,et al.  MaltParser: A Language-Independent System for Data-Driven Dependency Parsing , 2007, Natural Language Engineering.

[15]  Daniel Gildea,et al.  The Proposition Bank: An Annotated Corpus of Semantic Roles , 2005, CL.

[16]  Joakim Nivre,et al.  Pseudo-Projective Dependency Parsing , 2005, ACL.

[17]  Christopher D. Manning,et al.  Generating Typed Dependency Parses from Phrase Structure Parses , 2006, LREC.

[18]  Joakim Nivre,et al.  Graph Transformations in Data-Driven Dependency Parsing , 2006, ACL.

[19]  Dan Klein,et al.  Learning Accurate, Compact, and Interpretable Tree Annotation , 2006, ACL.

[20]  Jens Nilsson.  Tree Transformations in Inductive Dependency Parsing , 2007, ACL 2007.

[21]  Christopher D. Manning,et al.  Efficient, Feature-based, Conditional Random Field Parsing , 2008, ACL.

[22]  Christopher D. Manning,et al.  The Stanford Typed Dependencies Representation , 2008, CF+CDPE@COLING.

[23]  Daniel Jurafsky,et al.  Discriminative Reordering with Chinese Grammatical Relations Features , 2009, SSST@HLT-NAACL.

[24]  Christopher D. Manning,et al.  Stanford typed dependencies manual , 2010 .

[25]  Slav Petrov,et al.  A Universal Part-of-Speech Tagset , 2011, LREC.

[26]  Roy Schwartz,et al.  Learnability-Based Syntactic Annotation Design , 2012, COLING.

[27]  Reut Tsarfaty,et al.  A Unified Morpho-Syntactic Scheme of Stanford Dependencies , 2013, ACL.

[28]  Simonetta Montemagni,et al.  Converting Italian Treebanks: Towards an Italian Stanford Dependency Treebank , 2013, LAW@ACL.

[29]  Mojgan Seraji,et al.  Uppsala Persian Dependency Treebank : Annotation Guidelines , 2013 .

[30]  Joakim Nivre,et al.  Universal Dependency Annotation for Multilingual Parsing , 2013, ACL.

[31]  Samuel R. Bowman,et al.  More Constructions, More Genres: Extending Stanford Dependencies , 2013, DepLing.

[32]  Sigrid Klerke,et al.  Down-stream effects of tree-to-dependency conversions , 2013, HLT-NAACL.

[33]  Tapio Salakoski,et al.  Building the essential resources for Finnish: the Turku Dependency Treebank , 2013, Language Resources and Evaluation.

[34]  Joakim Nivre,et al.  Universal Dependencies : A cross-linguistic typology , 2015 .