Article published In:
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
Vol. 28:3 (2023) ► pp.378406
Agirre, E., Baldwin, T., & Martinez, D.
(2008) Improving parsing and PP attachment performance with sense information. In J. D. Moore, S. Teufel, J. Allan, & S. Furui (Eds.), Proceedings of ACL-08 (pp. 317–325). Association for Computational Linguistics. [URL]
ARCHER-3.2 = A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers version 3.2
1990–1993/2002/2007/2010/2013/2016Originally compiled under the supervision of Douglas Biber and Edward Finegan at Northern Arizona University and University of Southern California; modified and expanded by subsequent members of a consortium of universities. Current member universities are Bamberg, Freiburg, Heidelberg, Helsinki, Lancaster, Leicester, Manchester, Michigan, Northern Arizona, Santiago de Compostela, Southern California, Trier, Uppsala, Zurich.Google Scholar
Baldwin, T., Kordoni, V., & Villavicencio, A.
(2009) Prepositions in applications: A survey and introduction to the special issue. Computational Linguistics, 25 (2), 119–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baugh, A., & Cable, T.
(1993) A History of the English Language. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Finegan, E., & Atkinson, D.
(1994) ARCHER and its challenges: Compiling and exploring A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers. In U. Fries, G. Tottie, & P. Schneider (Eds.), Creating and Using English Language Corpora (pp. 1–14). Rodopi.Google Scholar
Claridge, C.
(2000) Multi-Word Verbs in Early Modern English: A Corpus-Based Study. Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Covington, M.
(1994) An Empirically Motivated Reinterpretation of Dependency Grammar. Technical Report, University of Georgia.Google Scholar
De Kok, D., Ma, J., Dima, C., & Hinrichs, E.
(2017) PP attachment: Where do we stand? In M. Lapata, P. Blunsom, & A. Koller (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Volume 2 (pp. 311–317). Association for Computational Linguistics. [URL]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delecraz, S., Nasr, A., Béchet, F., & Favre, B.
(2017) Correcting prepositional phrase attachments using multimodal corpora. In Y. Miyao & K. Sagae (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Parsing Technologies, September 2017, Pisa, Italy (pp. 72–77). Association for Computational Linguistics. [URL]
Gong, H., Mu, J., Bhat, S., & Viswanath, P.
(2018) Preposition sense disambiguation and representation. In E. Riloff, D. Chiang, J. Hockenmaier, & J. Tsujii (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (pp. 1510–1521). Association for Computational Linguistics. [URL]. DOI logo
Greenbaum, S., & Nelson, G.
(2007) The International Corpus of English (ICE) Project. World Englishes, 15 (1), 3–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hindle, D., & Rooth, M.
(1993) Structural ambiguity and lexical relations. Computational Linguistics, 19 (1), 103–120.Google Scholar
Huang, G., Wang, J., Tang, H., & Ye, X.
(2020) BERT-based contextual semantic analysis for English preposition error correction. Journal of Physics: Conf. Ser, 1693 1, 012115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroch, A., Taylor, A., & Santorini, B.
(2000) The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English (PPCME2). Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania, second edition, release 4. [URL]
Kroch, A., Santorini, B., & Delfs, L.
(2004) Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English (PPCEME). Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania, first edition, release 3. [URL]
Kroch, A., Santorini, B., & Diertani, A.
(2016) The Penn Parsed Corpus of Modern British English (PPCMBE2). Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania, second edition, release 1. [URL]
Kulick, S., Bies, A., Mott, J., Kroch, A., Liberman, M., & Santorini, B.
(2014) Parser evaluation using derivation trees: A Complement to evalb. In K. Toutanova & H. Wu (Eds.), Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 668–673). Association for Computational Linguistics. [URL]. DOI logo
Levy, R., & Andrew, G.
(2006) Tregex and Tsurgeon: Tools for querying and manipulating tree data structures. In 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2006).Google Scholar
Merlo, P., & Esteve Ferrer, E.
(2005) The notion of argument in prepositional phrase attachment. Computational Linguistics, 32 (3), 341–378. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mollá, D., & Hutchinson, B.
(2003) Intrinsic versus extrinsic evaluations of parsing systems. In K. Pastra (Ed.), Proceedings of the EACL 2003 Workshop on Evaluation Initiatives in Natural Language Processing: Are evaluation methods, metrics and resources reusable? Budapest, Hungary, April 14, 2003 (pp. 43–50). Association for Computational Linguistics. [URL]. DOI logo
Rayson, P., Archer, D., & Smith, N.
(2005) VARD versus WORD: A comparison of the UCREL variant detector and modern spellcheckers on English historical corpora. In Proceedings of Corpus Linguistics 2005, Birmingham University, July 14–17. [URL]
Rodríguez-Puente, P.
(2019) The English Phrasal verb: History, Stylistic Drifts and lLexicalisation. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Roh, Y.-H., Lee, K.-Y., & Kim, Y.-G.
(2011) Improving PP attachment disambiguation in a rule-based parser. In H. H. Gao & M. Dong (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation (pp. 559–566). Institute of Digital Enhancement of Cognitive Processing, Waseda University. [URL]
Santorini, B.
(2016) Annotation manual for the Penn Historical Corpora and the York-Helsinki Corpus of Early English Correspondence. [URL]
Schneider, G.
(2008) Hybrid Long-Distance Functional Dependency Parsing [Doctoral dissertation, University of Zurich]. Zurich Open Repository and Archive. [URL]
(2012) Using semantic resources to improve a syntactic dependency parser. In V. Barbu Mititelu, O. Popescu, & V. Pekar (Eds.), Proceedings of the LREC 2012 Conference Workshop ‘Semantic Relations II’, Istanbul, Turkey, 22 May 2012 – 22 May 2012 (pp. 67–76). University of Istanbul. [URL]
Schneider, G., Lehmann, H. M., & Schneider, P.
(2015) Parsing Early Modern English corpora. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 30 (3), 423–439. [URL]. DOI logo
Schneider, G., Pettersson, E., & Percillier, M.
(2017) Comparing rule-based and SMT-based spelling normalisation for English historical texts. In G. Bouma & Y. Adesam (Eds.), Proceedings of the NoDaLiDa 2017 Workshop on Processing Historical Language (pp. 40–46). Linköping University Electronic Press. [URL]
Schneider, G.
(2022) Syntactic changes in verbal clauses and noun phrases from 1500 onwards. In Los, B., Cowie, C., & Honeybone, P. (Eds.), English Historical Linguistics: Change in Structure and Meaning (pp. 163–200). Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schütze, C.
(1995) PP attachment and argumenthood. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 26 1, 95–151.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B.
(2012) Analyticity and syntheticity in the history of English. In T. Nevalainen & E. Traugott (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of English (pp. 654–665). Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thim, S.
(2012) Phrasal Verbs: The English Verb-Particle Construction and its History. De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E.
(1992) Syntax. In R. Hogg (Ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language (pp. 168–289). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vadas, D., & Curran, J.
(2011) Parsing noun phrases in the Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics, 37 (4), 753–809. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Volk, M.
(2001) Exploiting the WWW as a corpus to resolve PP attachment ambiguities. In P. Rayson, A. Wilson, T. McEnery, A. Hardie, & S. Khoja. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics 2001 Conference, Lancaster University, 29 March – 2 April 2001. (pp. 601–606). Lancaster University.Google Scholar
Zehentner, E., & Hundt, M.
(2022) Prepositions in Early Modern English argument structure. In B. Los, C. Cowie, P. Honeybone, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), English Historical Linguistics: Change in structure and meaning (pp. 202–224). Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar