Exploring Morphosyntactic Annotation over a Spanish Corpus for Dependency Parsing PDF
Preview Exploring Morphosyntactic Annotation over a Spanish Corpus for Dependency Parsing
DepLing 2013 Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Dependency Linguistics August 27 – 30, 2013, Prague, Czech Republic edited by Eva Hajičová, Kim Gerdes, Leo Wanner Vilém Mathesius Foundation Prague Editors and program committee co-chairs Kim Gerdes, Université Sorbonne Nouvelle (co-chair, editor) Eva Hajičová, Charles University in Prague (co-chair, editor) Leo Wanner, Universitat Pompeu Fabra (co-chair, editor) Jiří Mírovský (technical editor) Eduard Bejček (technical editor) Reviewers Margarita Alonso-Ramos, Universidade da Henning Lobin, Justus-Liebig-University Giessen Coruña Markéta Lopatková, Charles University in Prague David Beck, University of Alberta Christopher Manning, Stanford University Xavier Blanco, UAB Jasmina Milićević, Dalhousie University Igor Boguslavsky, Universidad Politécnica de Henrik Høeg Müller, Copenhagen Business Madrid School (CBS) Bernd Bohnet, University Stuttgart Alexis Nasr, Université de la Méditerranée Marie Candito, Université Paris 7 / INRIA Laboratoire d'Informatique Fondamentale Silvie Cinková, Charles University in Prague Joakim Nivre, Uppsala University Benoit Crabbé, Paris 7 et INRIA Kemal Oflazer, Carnegie Mellon University in Eric De La Clergerie, INRIA Qatar Denys Duchier, Université d'Orléans Martha Palmer, University of Colorado Dina El Kassas, Minya University Jarmila Panevová, Charles University in Prague Koldo Gojenola, University of the Basque Alain Polguère, Université Nancy 2 Country UPV/EHU Prokopis Prokopidis, Institute for Language and Thomas Gross, Aichi University Speech Processing, Athena Research and Barbora Hladká, Charles University in Prague Innovation Center Richard Hudson, UCL Ines Rehbein, Potsdam University Leonid Iomdin, Russian Academy of Sciences Dipti Sharma, IIIT Sylvain Kahane Modyco, Université Paris Ouest Pavel Straňák, Charles University in Prague & CNRS / Alpage, INRIA Gertjan van Noord, University of Groningen Marco Kuhlmann, Uppsala University Daniel Zeman, Charles University in Prague François Lareau, Macquarie University Zdeněk Žabokrtský, Charles University in Alessandro Lenci, University of Pisa Prague Haitao Liu, Zhejiang University Published by MATFYZPRESS Publishing House of the Faculty of Mathematics and Physics Charles University in Prague Sokolovská 83, 186 75 Praha 8, Czech Republic th as the 434 publication Designed and printed by Reprostředisko UK MFF Sokolovská 83, 186 75 Praha 8, Czech Republic First edition, Praha 2013 © Eva Hajičová, Kim Gerdes, Leo Wanner (editors), 2013 © MATFYZPRESS, Publishing House of the Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University in Prague, 2013 Organized by the Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Institute of Formal and Applied Linguistics (ÚFAL MFF UK). ISBN 978-80-7378-240-5 FOREWORD The DepLing 2013 conference is the second meeting in the newly established series of international conferences on dependency linguistics started in 2011 by the first DepLing in Barcelona. The response to the initiative to organize special meetings devoted to the dependency linguistic theory (which nowadays seems to be in the forefront of interests among both theoretical and computational linguists) was quite supportive. We do hope that the present conference will manage to keep pace with the high standards set at the Barcelona meeting. To make all the accepted contributions available to the linguistic community and beyond, we have decided to publish a full volume of Proceedings of both oral papers and poster presentations. The coverage is rather broad: from the formal point of view, the papers present different theoretical dependency models or compare the dependency approach with the phrase structure based one. Issues pertaining to different language layers range from morphology and morphosyntax to syntax proper and even discourse, and language material is supplied for 10 languages both modern and old or ancient. Several papers describe the application of dependency analysis to the build-up of monolingual and multilingual treebanks. We are proud that the invitation to give a plenary speech was accepted by two prominent scholars, Richard Hudson as one of the main figures in dependency linguistics and father of the Word Grammar, and Aravind Joshi, a prominent representative of formal description of language and the original proponent of the tree-adjoining grammar formalism. Our sincere thanks go to the members of the Scientific Committee, who have undertaken the task to read three papers each and have sent in – at least in majority – detailed comments and suggestions. We are also most grateful to our young colleagues from the Institute of Formal and Applied Linguistics (ÚFAL), Charles University in Prague, who took care of the conference management system (through EasyChair) and prepared the Proceedings volume, first of all Filip Jurčíček, Jiří Mírovský, and Eduard Bejček. Our thanks also go to Mrs. Anna Kotěšovcová, who was our link to the MatfyzPress Publishers. Last but not least, we gratefully acknowledge the financial and moral support given by the ÚFAL Management, by the LINDAT/CLARIN infrastructural project funded by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic, by the 7th framework EC-funded META-NET network and the Khresmoi integrated project, and by the two Czech Grant Agency projects, namely P406/12/0658 (Coreference, discourse relations and information structure in a contrastive perspective) and P406/2010/0875 (Computational Linguistics: Explicit description of language and annotated data focused on Czech). Welcome to DepLing 2013 in Prague and have a good and rewarding time there! Kim Gerdes Eva Hajičová Leo Wanner DepLing 2013 the Second International Conference on Dependency Linguistics August 27 – 30, 2013, Prague, Czech Republic Organized by Institute of Formal and Applied Linguistics (ÚFAL) Faculty of Mathematics and Physics Charles University in Prague Czech Republic (http://ufal.mff.cuni.cz) and CONFORG, s.r.o. Czech Republic (http://www.conforg.cz) in the historic building at Malostranské nám. 25 118 00 Prague 1 Czech Republic Table of Contents Invited talk: Dependency Structure and Cognition Richard Hudson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Invited talk: Dependency Representations, Grammars, Folded Structures, among Other Things! Aravind K. Joshi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Exploring Morphosyntactic Annotation over a Spanish Corpus for Dependency Parsing Miguel Ballesteros, Simon Mille and Alicia Burga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Towards Joint Morphological Analysis and Dependency Parsing of Turkish O¨ zlem C¸ etinog˘lu and Jonas Kuhn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Divergences in English-Hindi Parallel Dependency Treebanks Himani Chaudhry, Himanshu Sharma and Dipti Misra Sharma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Dependency Network Syntax: From Dependency Treebanks to a Classification of Chinese Function Words Xinying Chen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Verb Cluster, Non-Projectivity, and Syntax-Topology Interface in Korean Jihye Chun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Rule-Based Extraction of English Verb Collocates from a Dependency-Parsed Corpus Silvie Cinkova´, Martin Holub, Ema Krejcˇova´ and Lenka Smejkalova´ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 A Method to Generate Simplified Systemic Functional Parses from Dependency Parses Eugeniu Costetchi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Dependency Distance and Bilingual Language Use: Evidence from German/English and Chinese/English Data Eva M. Duran Eppler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Collaborative Dependency Annotation Kim Gerdes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Pragmatic Structures in Aymara Petr Homola and Matt Coler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Towards a Psycholinguistically Motivated Dependency Grammar for Hindi Samar Husain, Rajesh Bhatt and Shravan Vasishth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 The Syntax of Hungarian Auxiliaries: A Dependency Grammar Account Andra´s Imre´nyi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .118 Subordinators with Elaborative Meanings in Czech and English Pavl´ına J´ınova´, Lucie Pola´kova´ and Jirˇ´ı M´ırovsky´ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 v Predicative Adjunction in a Modular Dependency Grammar Sylvain Kahane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 The Representation of Czech Light Verb Constructions in a Valency Lexicon Va´clava Kettnerova´ and Marke´ta Lopatkova´ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 A Deterministic Dependency Parser with Dynamic Programming for Sanskrit Amba Kulkarni . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 Reasoning with Dependency Structures and Lexicographic Definitions Using Unit Graphs Maxime Lefranc¸ois and Fabien Gandon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 Non-Projectivity in the Ancient Greek Dependency Treebank Francesco Mambrini and Marco Passarotti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 More Constructions, More Genres: Extending Stanford Dependencies Marie-Catherine de Marneffe, Miriam Connor, Natalia Silveira, Samuel R. Bowman, Timothy Dozat and Christopher D. Manning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 Why So Many Nodes? Dan Maxwell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 Grammatical Markers and Grammatical Relations in the Simple Clause in Old French Nicolas Mazziotta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 AnCora-UPF: A Multi-Level Annotation of Spanish Simon Mille, Alicia Burga and Leo Wanner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 Towards Building Parallel Dependency Treebanks: Intra-Chunk Expansion and Alignment for English Dependency Treebank Debanka Nandi, Maaz Nomani, Himanshu Sharma, Himani Chaudhary, Sambhav Jain and Dipti Misra Sharma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 Annotators’ Certainty and Disagreements in Coreference and Bridging Annotation in Prague Dependency Treebank Anna Nedoluzhko and Jiˇr´ı M´ırovsky´ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .236 How Dependency Trees and Tectogrammatics Help Annotating Coreference and Bridging Relations in Prague Dependency Treebank Anna Nedoluzhko and Jiˇr´ı M´ırovsky´ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .244 Predicting Conjunct Propagation and Other Extended Stanford Dependencies Jenna Nyblom, Samuel Kohonen, Katri Haverinen, Tapio Salakoski and Filip Ginter . . . . . . . . . . . . 252 ´ A Look at Tesnie`re’s Ele´ments through the Lens of Modern Syntactic Theory Timothy Osborne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262 The Distribution of Floating Quantifiers: A Dependency Grammar Analysis Timothy Osborne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272 vi Dependency and Constituency in Translation Shift Analysis Manuela Sanguinetti, Cristina Bosco and Leonardo Lesmo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282 Managing a Multilingual Treebank Project Milan Soucˇek, Timo Ja¨rvinen and Adam LaMontagne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292 An Empirical Study of Differences between Conversion Schemes and Annotation Guidelines Anders Søgaard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298 vii Dependency Structure and Cognition Invited talk Richard Hudson emeritus professor in the Department of Phonetics and Linguistics University College London Great Britain would be; but we aren’t. We’re studying a part of 1983). Our generative colleagues are free to in the human mind, and any human mind is the vent principles, parameters and structures at will, product of a long and complicated experience; so unconstrained by anything but their basic formal why should we believe that any mind is simple? assumptions and the purely ‘linguistic’ facts. As As cognitive linguists argue, we learn our lan you can guess, I don’t think this is a good way to guage from ‘usage’ (Barlow and Kemmer 2000) study language because I believe that language – from the millions of examples of language that is, in fact, just like the rest of cognition in spite we hear, each embedded in a very specific social of all the attempts to show the contrary. context. And we interpret each example in terms of the examples that went before, using a grow 2 Some things we know about cognition ing system of concepts. Nothing there is simple: We start with four very elementary findings for any given language, thousands or millions of which can be found in introductory textbooks on speakers all follow different routes to a slightly cognitive psychology such as Reisberg (2007), different adult grammar, with numerous false concerning networks, mental relations, complex starts and detours on the way. It’s easy to under ity and classification. stand why linguists welcome the idea of a sim Knowledge is a network of concepts in which ple, perfect and uniform language as a way to es each concept is associated with a number of cape from this buzz of confusion and complexity. other concepts. These ‘associations’ explain why But, like the drunk looking for the keys that he experiences evoke neighbouring memories – has dropped, we have a choice: we can look un memories that share links (in the network) to the der the street lamp, where the light is good; or same concepts; why we make mistakes (includ we can look over in the dark corner, where we ing speech errors) when we choose a neighbour know that we actually dropped the keys – a ing concept in place of the intended target; and choice between esthetics and truth. why an object in a psychological laboratory In short, I believe we have to accept that lan ‘primes’ objects that are its neighbours (as when guage is part of cognition. And with that accep hearing the word doctor makes the word nurse tance comes the principle that our theories of lan easier to retrieve than it would otherwise be). guage structure should be compatible with cogni The notion of networks explains all these famil tive science – in fact, our theories are part of iar facts about cognition. But if knowledge in cognitive science, and arguably a particularly im general is a network, and if language is part of portant part of cognitive science, given the rela knowledge, then language itself must be a net tive clarity and detail of the data found in lan work. And that includes not only the whole of guage. The reality that we are trying to capture in language – the grammar and phonology as well our theories is what is often called ‘psychologi as the lexicon – but also the utterances that we cal reality’. interpret in terms of this network of knowledge. But, you may object, how can we know what But even though the notion of ‘association’ is is psychologically real? It’s true that I can’t even important, we can be sure that the links in our look inside my own mind, let alone inside some mental network are not merely associations, but one else’s mind; but then, psychology has moved relations of many different kinds. Just think of a long way from the bad old days of introspec all the words you know for kinship relations – tion, and has findings which are supported by words such as father, aunt and ancestor, each of very robust experimental methods. The rest of which names a relationship. Then think of all the this paper is an attempt to develop some of the other persontoperson relationships you can consequences of taking these findings seriously name, including ‘fatherinlaw’, ‘neighbour’ and when building models of language. I shall pay ‘boss’? And then think of the prepositions and special attention to their consequences for my nouns you know for nonhuman relationships, own theory, Word Grammar (WG, Hudson such as beneath, opposite and consequence. The 1984, Hudson 1990, Hudson 2007, Hudson 2010, point is that we seem to be able to freely create Gisborne 2010, Eppler 2010). and learn relational concepts, just as we do non But before I go on to consider some of these relational concepts such as ‘bird’ and findings, I must admit that there is a way to ‘Londoner’. This conclusion takes us a long way avoid my arguments. This is to claim that al from theories in which our minds recognise only though language is part of cognition, it is actu a small, innate set of inbuilt relations called ‘syn ally different from everything else – a unique tactic functions’ or ‘semantic roles’. ‘module’ of the mind (Chomsky 1986, Fodor 2
The list of books you might like
