Publicerad: 2017-05-29
ISBN: 978-91-7685-501-0
ISSN: 1650-3686 (tryckt), 1650-3740 (online)
The goal of this paper is to survey annotation of ellipsis in Universal Dependencies (UD) 2.0 treebanks. In the long term, knowing the types and frequencies of elliptical constructions is important for parsing experiments focused on ellipsis, which was also our original motivation. However, the current state of annotation is still far from perfect, and thus the main outcome of the present study is a description of errors and inconsistencies; we hope that it will help improve the future releases.
Norbert Corver and Marjo van Koppen. 2009. Let’s focus on noun phrase ellipsis. In Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik, volume 48, pages 3–26.
Marie-Catherine de Marneffe, Timothy Dozat, Natalia Silveira, Katri Haverinen, Filip Ginter, Joakim Nivre, and Christopher Manning. 2014. Universal Stanford Dependencies: a cross-linguistic typology. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2014), Reykjavík, Iceland.
Jan Hajic, Eva Hajicová, Marie Mikulová, Jirí Mírovský, Jarmila Panevová, and Daniel Zeman. 2015. Deletions and node reconstructions in a dependency-based multilevel annotation scheme. In 16th International Conference on Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, ISSN 0302-9743, 9041, pages 17–31, Berlin / Heidelberg. Springer.
Jorge Hankamer and Ivan Sag. 1976. Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic inquiry, 7(3):391–428.
Kyle Johnson. 2001. What VP ellipsis can do, and what it can’t, but not why. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.
Kyle Johnson. 2009. Gapping is not (VP) ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry, 40(2):289–328.
Sylvain Kahane. 1997. Bubble trees and syntactic representations. In Proceedings of mathematics of language (mol5) meeting, pages 70–76. Citeseer.
Howard Lasnik, 1999. Pseudogapping puzzles., pages 141–174. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Vincenzo Lombardo and Leonardo Lesmo. 1998. Unit coordination and gapping in dependency theory. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Processing of Dependency-Based Grammars, pages 11–20.
Igor Mel’cuk. 1988. Dependency syntax: Theory and practice, state university of new york press. Arabic Generation in the Framework of the Universal Networking Language, 209.
Jason Merchant. 2001a. The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford University Press on Demand.
Jason Merchant. 2001b. The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford University Press on Demand.
Joakim Nivre and Jens Nilsson. 2005. Pseudoprojective dependency parsing. In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL ’05, pages 99–106, Stroudsburg, PA, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics.
Joakim Nivre, Marie-Catherine de Marneffe, Filip Ginter, Yoav Goldberg, Jan Hajic, Christopher 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 10th International Conference on Language Resources and
Evaluation (LREC 2016), pages 1659–1666, Portorož, Slovenia.
Joakim Nivre, Željko Agic, Lars Ahrenberg, and …. 2017. Universal dependencies 2.0. LINDAT/CLARIN digital library at the Institute of Formal and Applied Linguistics, Charles University, Prague, http://hdl.handle.net/11234/1-1983.
Timothy Osborne, Michael Putnam, and Thomas Groß. 2012. Catenae: Introducing a novel unit of syntactic analysis. Syntax, 15(4):354–396.
Alain Polguère et al. 2009. Dependency in linguistic description, volume 111. John Benjamins Publishing. Carl Pollard and Ivan A. Sag. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Studies in Contemporary Linguistics. University of Chicago Press.
Ivan Sag. 1976. Deletion and Logical Form. MIT. PhD dissertation.
Yakov Testelets. 2011. Ellipsis in Russian: Theory versus description. In Typology of Morphosyntactic Parameters, pages 1–6, Moscow, Russia. MSUH.
