Joakim Nivre
ABSTRACT
In order to realize the full potential of dependency-based syntactic parsing, it is desirable to allow non-projective dependency structures. We show how a data-driven deterministic dependency parser, in itself restricted to projective structures, can be combined with graph transformation techniques to produce non-projective structures. Experiments using data from the Prague Dependency Treebank show that the combined system can handle non-projective constructions with a precision sufficient to yield a significant improvement in overall parsing accuracy. This leads to the best reported performance for robust non-projective parsing of Czech.
- Cahill, A., Burke, M., O'Donovan, R., Van Genabith, J. and Way, A. 2004. Long-distance dependency resolution in automatically acquired wide-coverage PCFG-based LFG approximations. In Proceedings of ACL. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Campbell, R. 2004. Using linguistic principles to recover empty categories. In Proceedings of ACL. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Charniak, E. 2000. A maximum-entropy-inspired parser, In Proceedings of NAACL. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Collins, M., Hajič, J., Brill, E., Ramshaw, L. and Tillmann, C. 1999. A statistical parser for Czech. In Proceedings of ACL. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Collins, M. 1999. Head-Driven Statistical Models for Natural Language Parsing. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Covington, M. A. 1990. Parsing discontinuous constituents in dependency grammar. Computational Linguistics, 16:234--236. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Daelemans, W., Zavrel, J., van der Sloot, K. and van den Bosch, A. 2003. TiMBL: Tilburg Memory Based Learner, version 5.0, Reference Guide. Technical Report ILK 03-10, Tilburg University, ILK.Google Scholar
- Dienes, P. and Dubey, A. 2003. Deep syntactic processing by combining shallow methods. In Proceedings of ACL. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Duchier, D. and Debusmann, R. 2001. Topological dependency trees: A constraint-based account of linear precedence. In Proceedings of ACL. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Eisner, J. M. 1996. Three new probabilistic models for dependency parsing: An exploration. In Proceedings of COLING. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Foth, K., Daum, M. and Menzel, W. 2004. A broad-coverage parser for German based on defeasible constraints. In Proceedings of KONVENS.Google Scholar
- Hajič, J., Krbec, P., Oliva, K., Kveton, P. and Petkevic, V. 2001. Serial combination of rules and statistics: A case study in Czech tagging. In Proceedings of ACL. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hajič, J., Vidova Hladka, B., Panevová, J., Hajičová, E., Sgall, P. and Pajas, P. 2001. Prague Dependency Treebank 1.0. LDC, 2001T10.Google Scholar
- Hajič, J. 1998. Building a syntactically annotated corpus: The Prague Dependency Treebank. In Issues of Valency and Meaning, pages 106--132. Karolinum.Google Scholar
- Hellwig, P. 2003. Dependency unification grammar. In Dependency and Valency, pages 593--635. Walter de Gruyter. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Holan, T., Kuboň, V. and Plátek, M. 2001. Word-order relaxations and restrictions within a dependency grammar. In Proceedings of IWPT.Google Scholar
- Holan, T. 2004. Tvorba zavislostniho syntaktickeho analyzatoru. In Proceedings of MIS'2004.Google Scholar
- Jijkoun, V. and de Rijke, M. 2004. Enriching the output of a parser using memory-based learning. In Proceedings of ACL. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Johnson, M. 2002. A simple pattern-matching algorithm for recovering empty nodes and their antecedents. In Proceedings of ACL. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kahane, S., Nasr, A. and Rambow, O. 1998. Pseudo-projectivity: A polynomially parsable non-projective dependency grammar. In Proceedings of ACL-COLING. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kromann, M. T. 2003. The Danish Dependency Treebank and the DTAG treebank tool. In Proceedings of TLT 2003.Google Scholar
- Levy, R. and Manning, C. 2004. Deep dependencies from context-free statistical parsers: Correcting the surface dependency approximation. In Proceedings of ACL. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mel'čuk, I. 1988. Dependency Syntax: Theory and Practice. State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
- Nivre, J. and Scholz, M. 2004. Deterministic dependency parsing of English text. In Proceedings of COLING. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nivre, J., Hall, J. and Nilsson, J. 2004. Memory-based dependency parsing. In Proceedings of CoNLL.Google Scholar
- Nivre, J. 2003. An efficient algorithm for projective dependency parsing. In Proceedings of IWPT.Google Scholar
- Oflazer, K., Say, B., Hakkani-Tür, D. Z. and Tür, G. 2003. Building a Turkish treebank. In Treebanks: Building and Using Parsed Corpora, pages 261--277. Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
- Oflazer, K. 2003. Dependency parsing with an extended finite-state approach. Computational Linguistics, 29:515--544. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sleator, D. and Temperley, D. 1993. Parsing English with a link grammar. In Proceedings of IWPT.Google Scholar
- Tapanainen, P. and Järvinen, T. 1997. A non-projective dependency parser. In Proceedings of ANLP. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Wang, W. and Harper, M. P. 2004. A statistical constraint dependency grammar (CDG) parser. In Proceedings of the Workshop in Incremental Parsing (ACL). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Yamada, H. and Matsumoto, Y. 2003. Statistical dependency analysis with support vector machines. In Proceedings of IWPT.Google Scholar
- Pseudo-projective dependency parsing
Recommendations
Treebank grammar techniques for non-projective dependency parsing
EACL '09: Proceedings of the 12th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational LinguisticsAn open problem in dependency parsing is the accurate and efficient treatment of non-projective structures. We propose to attack this problem using chart-parsing algorithms developed for mildly context-sensitive grammar formalisms. In this paper, we ...
Dependency parsing schemata and mildly non-projective dependency parsing
We introduce dependency parsing schemata, a formal framework based on Sikkel's parsing schemata for constituency parsers, which can be used to describe, analyze, and compare dependency parsing algorithms. We use this framework to describe several well-...
Improve Chinese Semantic Dependency Parsing via Syntactic Dependency Parsing
IALP '12: Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Asian Language ProcessingWe address the problem of Chinese semantic dependency parsing. Dependency parsing is traditionally oriented to syntax analysis, which we denote by syntactic dependency parsing to distinguish it from semantic dependency parsing. In this paper, firstly we ...
Comments