Linguistic Typology meets Universal Dependencies

Current work on universal dependency schemes in NLP does not make reference to the extensive typological research on language universals, but could benefit since many principles are shared between the two enterprises. We propose a revision of the syntactic dependencies in the Universal Dependencies scheme (Nivre et al. [16, 17]) based on four principles derived from contemporary typological theory: dependencies should be based primarily on universal construction types over language-specific strategies; syntactic dependency labels should match lexical feature names for the same function; dependencies should be based on the information packaging function of constructions, not lexical semantic types; and dependencies should keep distinct the “ranks” of the functional dependency tree.

[1]  Timothy Baldwin,et al.  Multiword Expressions: A Pain in the Neck for NLP , 2002, CICLing.

[2]  John Haiman,et al.  Natural Syntax: Iconicity and Erosion , 1985 .

[3]  Leonard Talmy,et al.  Figure and Ground in Complex Sentences , 1975 .

[4]  Ondrej Dusek,et al.  HamleDT: Harmonized multi-language dependency treebank , 2014, Lang. Resour. Evaluation.

[5]  Anna Wierzbicka,et al.  Lingua Mentalis: The Semantics of Natural Language , 1980 .

[6]  M. Haspelmath,et al.  Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies , 2010 .

[7]  Robert Carlson,et al.  A Grammar of Supyire , 1994 .

[8]  Eva Schultze-Berndt,et al.  Secondary predication and adverbial modification : the typology of depictives , 2005 .

[9]  Joseph H. Greenberg,et al.  Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements , 1990, On Language.

[10]  Ineke Smeets,et al.  A Grammar of Mapuche , 2007 .

[11]  Joakim Nivre,et al.  Universal Stanford dependencies: A cross-linguistic typology , 2014, LREC.

[12]  Andrej Malchukov,et al.  A semantic map for depictive adjectivals , 2005 .

[13]  Emily M. Bender Linguistically Naïve != Language Independent: Why NLP Needs Linguistic Typology , 2009 .

[14]  Annemarie Verkerk A semantic map of secondary predication , 2009 .

[15]  Joakim Nivre,et al.  Towards a Universal Grammar for Natural Language Processing , 2015, CICLing.

[16]  W. Bruce Croft,et al.  Comparative concepts and language-specific categories: Theory and practice , 2016 .

[17]  W. Bruce Croft Typology and Universals , 1990 .

[18]  William Croft,et al.  Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective , 2001 .

[19]  John Haiman,et al.  Switch-reference and Universal Grammar: Proceedings of a Symposium on Switch Reference and Universal Grammar, Winnipeg, May 1981 , 1983 .

[20]  F. Loeb-Diehl,et al.  The typology of manner expressions , 2005 .

[21]  Tianqiao Lu A Grammar of Maonan , 2008 .

[22]  E. Keenan,et al.  Noun Phrase Accessibility and Universal Grammar , 2008 .

[23]  Sampo Pyysalo,et al.  Universal Dependencies v1: A Multilingual Treebank Collection , 2016, LREC.

[24]  W. Bruce Croft,et al.  Comparing categories and constructions crosslinguistically (again): The diversity of ditransitives , 2014 .

[25]  Tanya RElNHART,et al.  Principles of gestalt perception in the temporal organization of narrative texts , 1984 .

[26]  Leon Stassen,et al.  Comparison and universal grammar , 1987 .

[27]  Daniel Zeman,et al.  Reusable Tagset Conversion Using Tagset Drivers , 2008, LREC.

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