Mova0.5 pre-release⌕
☰
home / docs / papers / English / Unified Syntactic Annotation of English in the CGEL Framework

Unified Syntactic Annotation of English in the CGEL Framework

What it is about

The authors test whether the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (CGEL) can serve as a corpus annotation scheme. They write guidelines, list the linguistic points the grammar leaves open, and annotate sentences from the English Web Treebank with constituents and function labels. An inter-annotator study on 50 sentences gives agreement F1 above 90% on all metrics, and 93.9% on the flexible metric that gives partial credit for labelled nodes. The annotation covers complex phenomena such as gapping. The authors argue that CGEL is attractive because its analysis of English is exhaustive and it labels both constituents and functions, and they plan to expand CGELBank and convert existing treebanks.

Ideas

For Mova

The paper is a guideline study, so the useful part is its list of open decisions. Each open decision is a place where Mova's en rules and the mova dialect need a documented choice. Relevant chapters are languages/en/22-phrases, 23-complementation, 24-coordination-subordination and 29-ellipsis-word-order-information-structure. Measure first the gapping recall of en on EWT, which needs no new data.

Topics: Treebanks

Cite

The paper itself, not this card. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.18653/v1/2023.law-1.22

@inproceedings{reynolds2023unified,
  title = {{Unified Syntactic Annotation of English in the CGEL Framework}},
  author = {Reynolds, Brett and Arora, Aryaman and Schneider, Nathan},
  booktitle = {Proceedings of the 17th Linguistic Annotation Workshop (LAW-XVII)},
  year = {2023},
  doi = {10.18653/v1/2023.law-1.22},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.law-1.22}
}

References

47 references, 15 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Steven P. Abney. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. find
  2. ES Atwell. 2008. Development of tag sets for part-of-speech tagging. In Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook, volume 1, pages 501–526. Walter de Gruyter. find
  3. Marie-Catherine de Marneffe, Christopher D. Manning, Joakim Nivre, and Daniel Zeman. 2021. Universal Dependencies. Computational Linguistics, 47(2):255–308. find our card
  4. Ann Bies, Mark Ferguson, Karen Katz, Robert Mac-Intyre, Victoria Tredinnick, Grace Kim, Mary Ann Marcinkiewicz, and Britta Schasberger. 1995. Bracketing guidelines for Treebank II style Penn Treebank project. find
  5. Yanai Elazar and Yoav Goldberg. 2019. Where’s my head? Definition, data set, and models for numeric fused-head identification and resolution. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7:519–535. find
  6. Ann Bies, Justin Mott, Colin Warner, and Seth Kulick. 2012. English Web Treebank. Technical Report LDC2012T13, Linguistic Data Consortium, Philadelphia, PA. find
  7. Martin Emms. 2008. Tree distance and some other variants of evalb. In Proc. of LREC, Marrakech, Morocco. find our card
  8. E. Black, S. Abney, D. Flickenger, C. Gdaniec, R. Grishman, P. Harrison, D. Hindle, R. Ingria, F. Jelinek, J. Klavans, M. Liberman, M. Marcus, S. Roukos, B. Santorini, and T. Strzalkowski. 1991. A procedure for quantitatively comparing the syntactic coverage of English grammars. In Speech and Natural Language: Proceedings of a Workshop Held at Pacific Grove, California, February 19-22, 1991. find
  9. Tatiana Bladier, Andreas van Cranenburgh, Kilian Evang, Laura Kallmeyer, Robin Möllemann, and Rainer Osswald. 2018. RRGbank: a Role and Reference Grammar corpus of syntactic structures extracted from the Penn Treebank. In Proc. of the 17th International Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories (TLT 2018), pages 5–16, Oslo, Norway. find
  10. Sabine Brants, Stefanie Dipper, Peter Eisenberg, Silvia Hansen-Schirra, Esther König, Wolfgang Lezius, Christian Rohrer, George Smith, and Hans Uszkoreit. 2004. TIGER: Linguistic interpretation of a German corpus. Research on Language and Computation, 2(4):597–620. find
  11. Chris Brew. 2003. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey K. Pullum. Computational Linguistics, 29(1):144– 147. find our card
  12. John Chen and K. Vijay-Shanker. 2000. Automated extraction of TAGs from the Penn Treebank. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Parsing Technologies, pages 65–76, Trento, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. find
  13. Martin Čmejrek, Jan Cuřín, Jan Hajič, and Jiří Havelka. 2005. Prague Czech-English Dependency Treebank: resource for structure-based MT. In Proc. of EAMT, pages 73–78, Budapest, Hungary. find
  14. Dan Flickinger, Yi Zhang, and Valia Kordoni. 2012. DeepBank. A dynamically annotated treebank of the Wall Street Journal. In Proc. of the 11th International Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories, pages 85–96. find
  15. Kim Gerdes, Bruno Guillaume, Sylvain Kahane, and Guy Perrier. 2018. SUD or surface-syntactic Universal Dependencies: An annotation scheme near-isomorphic to UD. In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Universal Dependencies (UDW 2018), pages 66–74, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. find
  16. Michael Heilman and Noah A. Smith. 2010. Tree edit models for recognizing textual entailments, paraphrases, and answers to questions. In Proc. of NAACL-HLT, pages 1011–1019, Los Angeles, California. find our card
  17. Julia Hockenmaier and Mark Steedman. 2007. CCGbank: A corpus of CCG derivations and dependency structures extracted from the Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics, 33(3):355–396. find our card
  18. Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. find our card
  19. Rodney Huddleston, Geoffrey K. Pullum, and Brett Reynolds. 2021. A Student’s Introduction to English Grammar, 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press. find
  20. Robert T. Kasper. 1989. A flexible interface for linking applications to Penman’s sentence generator. In Speech and Natural Language: Proceedings of a Workshop Held at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, February 21-23, 1989. ↗
  21. Peter W. Culicover. 2004. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (review). Language, 80(1):127–141. find our card
  22. Wolfgang Maier. 2010. Direct parsing of discontinuous constituents in German. In Proc. of the NAACL HLT 2010 First Workshop on Statistical Parsing of Morphologically-Rich Languages, pages 58–66, Los Angeles, CA, USA. find
  23. Marie-Catherine de Marneffe, Bill MacCartney, and Christopher D. Manning. 2006. Generating typed dependency parses from phrase structure parses. In Proc. of LREC, pages 449–454, Genoa, Italy. find our card
  24. Joan Maling. 2000. A simple argument for subject gaps. In Yosef Grodzinsky, Lewis P. Shapiro, and David Swinney, editors, Language and the Brain. Academic Press, San Diego. find
  25. Mitchell Marcus, Grace Kim, Mary Ann Marcinkiewicz, Robert MacIntyre, Ann Bies, Mark Ferguson, Karen Katz, and Britta Schasberger. 1994. The Penn Treebank: Annotating predicate argument structure. In Human Language Technology: Proceedings of a Workshop held at Plainsboro, New Jersey, March 8-11, 1994. find our card
  26. Mitchell P. Marcus, Beatrice Santorini, and Mary Ann Marcinkiewicz. 1993. Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics, 19(2):313–330. ↗ our card
  27. Yusuke Miyao, Takashi Ninomiya, and Jun’ichi Tsujii. 2004. Corpus-oriented grammar development for acquiring a Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar from the Penn Treebank. In Proc. of IJCNLP, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 684–693, Hainan Island, China. find
  28. Joakim Nivre, Marie-Catherine de Marneffe, Filip Ginter, Yoav Goldberg, Jan Hajič, Christopher D. Manning, Ryan McDonald, Slav Petrov, Sampo Pyysalo, Natalia Silveira, Reut Tsarfaty, and Daniel Zeman. 2016. Universal Dependencies v1: A multilingual treebank collection. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’16), pages 1659–1666, Portorož, Slovenia. European Language Resources Association (ELRA). find our card
  29. Joakim Nivre, Marie-Catherine de Marneffe, Filip Ginter, Jan Hajič, Christopher D. Manning, Sampo Pyysalo, Sebastian Schuster, Francis Tyers, and Daniel Zeman. 2020. Universal Dependencies v2: An evergrowing multilingual treebank collection. In Proc. of LREC, pages 4027–4036, Marseille, France. find our card
  30. Stephan Oepen, Kristina Toutanova, Stuart Shieber, Christopher Manning, Dan Flickinger, and Thorsten Brants. 2002. The LinGO Redwoods Treebank: Motivation and Preliminary Applications. In Proc. of COLING. find our card
  31. Mateusz Pawlik and Nikolaus Augsten. 2011. RTED: A robust algorithm for the tree edit distance. arXiv:1201.0230 [cs.DB]. ↗
  32. Mateusz Pawlik and Nikolaus Augsten. 2016. Tree edit distance: Robust and memory-efficient. Information Systems, 56:157–173. find
  33. John Payne, Rodney Huddleston, and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2007. Fusion of functions: The syntax of once, twice and thrice. Journal of Linguistics, 43(3):565– 603. find
  34. Sameer Pradhan, Alessandro Moschitti, Nianwen Xue, Hwee Tou Ng, Anders Björkelund, Olga Uryupina, Yuchen Zhang, and Zhi Zhong. 2013. Towards robust linguistic analysis using OntoNotes. In Proc. of CoNLL, pages 143–152, Sofia, Bulgaria. find
  35. Geoffrey K. Pullum and Brett Reynolds. 2013. New members of ‘closed classes’ in English. Manuscript. find
  36. Geoffrey K. Pullum and James Rogers. 2008. Expressive power of the syntactic theory implicit in the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. In Annual Meeting of the Linguistics Association of Great Britain. University of Essex. find our card
  37. Vasin Punyakanok, Dan Roth, and Wen-tau Yih. 2004. Mapping dependencies trees: an application to question answering. In Proc. of the International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Mathematics (AIM). find
  38. Brett Reynolds, Aryaman Arora, and Nathan Schneider. 2022. CGELBank: CGEL as a framework for English syntax annotation. arXiv:2210.00394 [cs.CL]. ↗
  39. Brett Reynolds, Nathan Schneider, and Aryaman Arora. 2023. CGELBank annotation manual v1.0. arXiv:2305.17347 [cs.CL]. ↗
  40. Milos Simic. 2022. Tree Edit Distance. Baeldung on Computer Science. Accessed 23 April 2023. find
  41. Sebastian Sulger, Miriam Butt, Tracy Holloway King, Paul Meurer, Tibor Laczkó, György Rákosi, Cheikh Bamba Dione, Helge Dyvik, Victoria Rosén, Koenraad De Smedt, Agnieszka Patejuk, Özlem Çetinoğlu, I Wayan Arka, and Meladel Mistica. 2013. ParGramBank: The ParGram parallel treebank. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 550–560, Sofia, Bulgaria. Association for Computational Linguistics. find
  42. John Torr. 2018. Constraining MGbank: Agreement, L-selection and supertagging in Minimalist Grammars. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 590–600, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. find
  43. Reut Tsarfaty, Joakim Nivre, and Evelina Andersson. 2011. Evaluating dependency parsing: Robust and heuristics-free cross-annotation evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 385–396, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. Association for Computational Linguistics. find our card
  44. Andreas van Cranenburgh. 2018. Active DOP: A constituency treebank annotation tool with online learning. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations, pages 38–42, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Association for Computational Linguistics. find
  45. Andreas van Cranenburgh, Remko Scha, and Rens Bod. 2016. Data-oriented parsing with discontinuous constituents and function tags. Journal of Language Modelling, 4(1):57–111. find
  46. Stephen Wan, Mark Dras, Robert Dale, and Cécile Paris. 2006. Using dependency-based features to take the ‘para-farce’ out of paraphrase. In Proc. of the 2006 Australasian Language Technology Workshop, pages 131–138, Sydney, Australia. find
  47. Kaizhong Zhang and Dennis Shasha. 1989. Simple fast algorithms for the editing distance between trees and related problems. SIAM Journal on Computing, 18(6):1245–1262. find

This page in Markdown → https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/bank-2023-reynolds-unified-syntactic-annotation-english-cgel/