More Constructions, More Genres: Extending Stanford Dependencies

The Stanford dependency scheme aims to provide a simple and intuitive but linguistically sound way of annotating the dependencies between words in a sentence. In this paper, we address two limitations the scheme has suffered from: First, despite providing good coverage of core grammatical relations, the scheme has not offered explicit analyses of more difficult syntactic constructions; second, because the scheme was initially developed primarily on newswire data, it did not focus on constructions that are rare in newswire but very frequent in more informal texts, such as casual speech and current web texts. Here, we propose dependency analyses for several linguistically interesting constructions and extend the scheme to provide better coverage of modern web data.

[1]  Lucien Tesnière Éléments de syntaxe structurale , 1959 .

[2]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Conditions on transformations , 1971 .

[3]  Joan Bresnan,et al.  Syntax of the Comparative Clause Construction in English , 1973 .

[4]  Brian D. Joseph,et al.  Studies in relational grammar , 1984 .

[5]  M. Baltin,et al.  The Mental representation of grammatical relations , 1985 .

[6]  Petr Sgall,et al.  The Meaning Of The Sentence In Its Semantic And Pragmatic Aspects , 1986 .

[7]  Igor Mel’čuk,et al.  Dependency Syntax: Theory and Practice , 1987 .

[8]  R. Borsley Syntactic Theory: A Unified Approach , 1991 .

[9]  Ivan A. Sag,et al.  Book Reviews: Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar and German in Head-driven Phrase-structure Grammar , 1996, CL.

[10]  Ann Bies,et al.  Bracketing Guidelines For Treebank II Style Penn Treebank Project , 1995 .

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

[12]  H. Hughes The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language , 2003 .

[13]  Sabine Buchholz,et al.  CoNLL-X Shared Task on Multilingual Dependency Parsing , 2006, CoNLL.

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

[15]  Peter Matthews Syntactic Relations: A Critical Survey , 2007 .

[16]  Tapio Salakoski,et al.  On the unification of syntactic annotations under the Stanford dependency scheme: A case study on BioInfer and GENIA , 2007, BioNLP@ACL.

[17]  Richard Johansson,et al.  Extended Constituent-to-Dependency Conversion for English , 2007, NODALIDA.

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

[19]  Mark Steedman,et al.  Unbounded Dependency Recovery for Parser Evaluation , 2009, EMNLP.

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

[21]  Richard Hudson,et al.  An Introduction to Word Grammar , 2010 .

[22]  Noah A. Smith,et al.  Dependency Parsing , 2009, Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence.

[23]  Emily M. Bender,et al.  Parser Evaluation over Local and Non-Local Deep Dependencies in a Large Corpus , 2011, EMNLP.

[24]  Slav Petrov,et al.  Overview of the 2012 Shared Task on Parsing the Web , 2012 .