22nd International Conference on Computational Linguistics Proceedings of the Workshop on Cross-Framework and Cross-Domain

This paper examines the Stanford typed dependencies representation, which was designed to provide a straightforward description of grammatical relations for any user who could benefit from automatic text understanding. For such purposes, we argue that dependency schemes must follow a simple design and provide semantically contentful information, as well as offer an automatic procedure to extract the relations. We consider the underlying design principles of the Stanford scheme from this perspective, and compare it to the GR and PARC representations. Finally, we address the question of the suitability of the Stanford scheme for parser evaluation.

[1]  Patrick Paroubek,et al.  Data, Annotations and Measures in EASY the Evaluation Campaign for Parsers of French. , 2006, LREC.

[2]  Ted Briscoe,et al.  The Second Release of the RASP System , 2006, ACL.

[3]  Bonnie Lynn Webber,et al.  Question Answering based on Semantic Roles , 2007, ACL 2007.

[4]  Jerome A. Feldman,et al.  Scaling Cognitive Linguistics: Formalisms for Language Understanding , 2002 .

[5]  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.

[6]  Nancy Ide,et al.  Standards for Language Resources , 2002, LREC.

[7]  Patrick Paroubek,et al.  PEAS, the first instantiation of a comparative framework for evaluating parsers of French , 2003, EACL.

[8]  Hermann Ney,et al.  Automatic sentence segmentation and punctuation prediction for spoken language translation , 2006, IWSLT.

[9]  Ted Briscoe,et al.  Evaluating the Accuracy of an Unlexicalized Statistical Parser on the PARC DepBank , 2006, ACL.

[10]  Gil Francopoulo,et al.  TagParser: well on the way to ISO-TC37 conformance , 2008 .

[11]  Thierry Declerck,et al.  Data Category Registry: Morpho-syntactic and Syntactic Profiles , 2008 .

[12]  Kurt VanLehn,et al.  A Natural Language Tutorial Dialogue System for Physics , 2006, FLAIRS Conference.

[13]  Beatrice Santorini.  Part-of-speech tagging guidelines for the penn treebank project , 1990 .

[14]  Thierry Declerck.  SynAF: Towards a Standard for Syntactic Annotation , 2006, LREC.

[15]  Jonathan G. Fiscus,et al.  A post-processing system to yield reduced word error rates: Recognizer Output Voting Error Reduction (ROVER) , 1997, 1997 IEEE Workshop on Automatic Speech Recognition and Understanding Proceedings.

[16]  Johanna D. Moore,et al.  Diagnosing Natural Language Answers to Support Adaptive Tutoring , 2008, FLAIRS Conference.

[17]  Jari Björne,et al.  BioInfer: a corpus for information extraction in the biomedical domain , 2007, BMC Bioinformatics.

[18]  Patrick Paroubek,et al.  Large scale production of syntactic annotations for French , 2008 .

[19]  C. Rosé.  The Role of Why Questions in Effective Human Tutoring , 2003 .

[20]  Daniel Jurafsky,et al.  Automatic Labeling of Semantic Roles , 2002, CL.

[21]  Peter Norvig,et al.  Verbmobih A Translation System for Face-to-Face Dialog , 1994 .

[22]  Dan Flickinger,et al.  Minimal Recursion Semantics: An Introduction , 2005 .

[23]  Ivan A. Sag,et al.  Syntactic Theory: A Formal Introduction , 1999, Computational Linguistics.

[24]  Lorna Balkan,et al.  TSNLP - Test Suites for Natural Language Processing , 1996, COLING.

[25]  Jun'ichi Tsujii,et al.  GENIA corpus - a semantically annotated corpus for bio-textmining , 2003, ISMB.

[26]  Judita Preiss.  Using Grammatical Relations to Compare Parsers , 2003, EACL.

[27]  Patrick Paroubek,et al.  The Ongoing Evaluation Campaign of Syntactic Parsing of French: EASY , 2004, LREC.

[28]  Martin Kay,et al.  Syntactic Process , 1979, ACL.

[29]  James F. Allen,et al.  Deep Linguistic Processing for Spoken Dialogue Systems , 2007, ACL 2007.

[30]  Beatrice Santorini,et al.  Building a Large Annotated Corpus of English: The Penn Treebank , 1993, CL.

[31]  Owen Rambow,et al.  Use of Deep Linguistic Features for the Recognition and Labeling of Semantic Arguments , 2003, EMNLP.

[32]  Mary Dalrymple,et al.  The PARC 700 Dependency Bank , 2003, LINC@EACL.

[33]  Yusuke Miyao,et al.  Challenges in Mapping of Syntactic Representations for Framework-Independent Parser Evaluation , 2007 .

[34]  Patrick Paroubek.  Language Resources as by-Product of Evaluation: The MULTITAG Example , 2000, LREC.

[35]  Liliane Haegeman,et al.  Introduction to Government and Binding Theory , 1991 .

[36]  James R. Curran,et al.  Formalism-Independent Parser Evaluation with CCG and DepBank , 2007, ACL.

[37]  Patrick Paroubek,et al.  PASSAGE: from French Parser Evaluation to Large Sized Treebank , 2008, LREC.

[38]  Jean-Luc Gauvain,et al.  Improved ROVER using Language Model Information , 2000 .

[39]  Jun'ichi Tsujii,et al.  GENIA-GR: a Grammatical Relation Corpus for Parser Evaluation in the Biomedical Domain , 2008, LREC.

[40]  Johanna D. Moore,et al.  The Beetle and BeeDiff tutoring systems , 2007, SLaTE.

[41]  Ted Briscoe,et al.  Parser evaluation: a survey and a new proposal , 1998, LREC.

[42]  Ronald M. Kaplan,et al.  Lexical Functional Grammar A Formal System for Grammatical Representation , 2004 .

[43]  Katrin Erk,et al.  HALMANESER – A Toolchain For Shallow Semantic Parsing , 2006 .

[44]  Julia Hockenmaier,et al.  Data and models for statistical parsing with combinatory categorial grammar , 2003 .

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

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

[47]  Dekang Lin,et al.  A dependency-based method for evaluating broad-coverage parsers , 1995, Natural Language Engineering.

[48]  Jun'ichi Tsujii,et al.  Corpus-Oriented Grammar Development for Acquiring a Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar from the Penn Treebank , 2004, IJCNLP.

[49]  Yusuke Miyao,et al.  From Linguistic Theory to Syntactic Analysis : Corpus-Oriented Grammar Development and Feature Forest Model , 2006 .

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

[51]  Ivana Kruijff-Korbayová,et al.  Analysis of Mixed Natural and Symbolic Input in Mathematical Dialogs , 2004, ACL.

[52]  Johan Bos,et al.  An Inference-based Approach to Dialogue System Design , 2002, COLING.

[53]  Kalina Bontcheva,et al.  GATE: an Architecture for Development of Robust HLT applications , 2002, ACL.

[54]  Andy Way,et al.  Long-Distance Dependency Resolution in Automatically Acquired Wide-Coverage PCFG-Based LFG Approximations , 2004, ACL.

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

[56]  Ralph Grishman,et al.  Evaluating syntax performance of parser/grammars , 1991 .

[57]  Sanda M. Harabagiu,et al.  Using Predicate-Argument Structures for Information Extraction , 2003, ACL.

[58]  Georg Heigold,et al.  The RWTH 2007 TC-STAR evaluation system for european English and Spanish , 2007, INTERSPEECH.

[59]  Peter Z. Yeh,et al.  Matching utterances to rich knowledge structures to acquire a model of the speaker's goal , 2005, K-CAP '05.

[60]  James R. Curran,et al.  Log-Linear Models for Wide-Coverage CCG Parsing , 2003, EMNLP.

[61]  Dov M. Gabbay,et al.  Dynamic syntax - the flow of language understanding , 2000 .

[62]  Stephanie Seneff,et al.  TINA: A Natural Language System for Spoken Language Applications , 1992, Comput. Linguistics.

[63]  Yusuke Miyao,et al.  Towards Framework-Independent Evaluation of Deep Linguistic Parsers , 2007 .

[64]  Patrick Paroubek,et al.  EASY, Evaluation of Parsers of French: what are the Results? , 2008, LREC.

[65]  Mark Steedman,et al.  CCGbank: A Corpus of CCG Derivations and Dependency Structures Extracted from the Penn Treebank , 2007, CL.