Cover not available
Part of
Dependency Linguistics: Recent advances in linguistic theory using dependency structures
Edited by Kim Gerdes, Eva Hajičová and Leo Wanner
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 215] 2014
► pp. 99–118

Creating a dependency syntactic treebank

Towards intuitive language modeling

| University of Helsinki
| University of Helsinki

We present a user-centered approach for defining the dependency syntactic specification for a treebank. We show that by collecting information on syntactic interpretations from the future users of the treebank, we can model so far dependency-syntactically undefined syntactic structures in a way that corresponds to the users’ intuition. By consulting the users at the grammar definition phase we aim at better usage of the treebank in the future. We focus on two complex syntactic phenomena: elliptical comparative clauses and participial NPs or NPs with a verb-derived noun as their head. We show how the phenomena can be interpreted in several ways and ask for the users’ intuitive way of modeling them. The results aid in constructing the syntactic specification for the treebank.

Published online: 1 October 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.215.05muh
References
Didriksen, T
2011 Constraint Grammar Manual: 3rd Version of the CG Formalism Variant. GrammarSoft ApS. [URL]Google Scholar
Hakulinen, A., Vilkuna, M., Korhonen, R., Koivisto, V., Heinonen, T.-R. & Alho, I
2004 Iso suomen kielioppi, Helsinki: Suoma laisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
2004 Ison suomen kieliopin verkkoversio: Määritel-mät. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. [URL]Google Scholar
Haverinen, K., Ginter, F., Laippala, V. & Salakoski, T
2009 Clinical Finnish Parser Demo. [URL]
Haverinen, K., Viljanen, T., Laippala, V., Kohonen, S., Ginter, F. & Salakoski, T
2010 Treebanking Finnish. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories (TLT9), M. Dickinson, K. Müürisep & M. Passarotti (eds), 79–90. Tartu: University of Tartu.Google Scholar
Karlsson, F., Voutilainen, A., Heikkilä, J. & Anttila, A
1995 Constraint Grammar: A Language-Independent System for Parsing Running Text [Natural Language Processing Series 4]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kübler, S. & Prokić, J
2006 Why is German dependency parsing more reliable than constituent parsing. In Proceedings of the Fifth Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories (TLT5) , 7–18. Prague.
Marcus, M., Kim, G., Marcinkiewicz, M.A., MacIntyre, R., Bies, A., Ferguson, M., Katz, K. & Schasberger, B
1994 The Penn Treebank: Annotating predicate argument structure. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Human Language Technology, C.J. Weinstein (ed.), 114–119. Burlington MA: Morgan Kaufmann. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Munro, R., Bethard, S., Kuperman, S., Tzuyin Lai, V., Melnick, R., Potts, C., Schnoebelen, T. & Tily, H
2010 Crowdsourcing and language studies: The new generation of linguistic data. In Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010. Workshop on Creating Speech and Language Data with Amazon’s Mechanical Turk , 122–130. Los Angeles CA.
Tesnière, L
1980 Grundzüge der strukturalen Syntax. Stuttgart: Kl-ettCotta.Google Scholar
Voutilainen, A. & Lindén, K
2011 Designing a dependency representation and grammar definition corpus for Finnish. In Proceedings of III Congreso Internacional de Lingüística de Corpus (CILC 2011) . Valencia, Spain.
Voutilainen, A., Purtonen, T., Leisko-Järvinen, S., Kumlander, M. & Muhonen, K
2012 Finnish Grammar Corpus and Dependency Syntax Description, University of Helsinki, Department of Modern Languages. [URL]Google Scholar