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. 75–98

The Copenhagen Dependency Treebank (CDT)

Extending syntactic annotation to other linguistic levels

| Copenhagen Business School
| Copenhagen Business School
The objective of this paper is to provide an overview of the CDT annotation design with special emphasis on the modelling of the interface between the syntactic level and two other linguistic levels, viz. morphology and discourse. In connection with the description of NP annotation we present the fundamentals of how CDT is marked up with semantic relations in accordance with the dependency principles governing the annotation on the other levels of CDT. Specifically, focus will be on how Generative Lexicon (GL) theory has been incorporated into the unitary theoretical dependency framework of CDT. An annotation scheme for lexical semantics has been designed so as to account for the lexico-semantic structure of complex NPs, and the four GL qualia also appear in some of the CDT discourse relation labels as a description of parallel semantic relations at this level.
Published online: 1 October 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.215.04mul
References (38)
References
Böhmová, A., Hajič, J., Hajičová, E. & Hladká, B. 2003. The Prague Dependency Treebank: A three-level annotation scenario. In Treebanks: Building and Using Parsed Corpora, A. Abeillé (ed.). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Buch-Kromann, M. 2006. Discontinuous Grammar. A Dependency-based Model of Human Parsing and Language Learning. Doctoral. dissertation, Copenhagen Business School.
Buch-Kromann, M., Gylling, M., Knudsen, L.J., Korzen, I. & Müller, H.H. 2010. The inventory of linguistic relations used in the Copenhagen Dependency Treebanks. Technical report. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School. [URL].Google Scholar
Buch-Kromann, M., Hardt, D. & Korzen, I. 2011. Syntax-centered and semantics-centered views of discourse. Can they be reconciled? In Beyond Semantics. Corpus-based Investigations of Pragmatic and Discourse Phenomena, S. Dipper & H. Zinsmeister (eds), 17–30. Bochum: Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Sprachwissenschaftliches Institut. [Bochumer Linguistische Arbeitsberichte, vol. 3].Google Scholar
Buch-Kromann, M., Korzen, I. & Müller, H.H. 2009. Uncovering the ‘lost’ structure of translations with parallel treebanks. In Methodology, Technology and Innovation in Translation Process Research, I.M. Mees, F. Alves & S. Göpferich (eds), 199–224. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur. [Copenhagen Studies in Language 38].Google Scholar
Carlson, L., Marcu, D. & Okurowski, M.E. 2001. Building a discourse-tagged corpus in the framework of rhetorical structure theory. In Proceedings of the 2nd SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue .
Dinesh, N., Lee, A., Miltsakaki, E., Prasad, R., Joshi, A. & Webber, B. 2005. Attribution and the (non-)alignment of syntactic and discourse arguments of connectives. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Frontiers in Corpus Annotation, II: Pie in the Sky , 29–36.
Hardt, D. 2013. A uniform syntax and discourse structure: The Copenhagen Dependency Treebanks. Dialogue and Discourse 4(2): 53–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hinrichs, E., Kubler, S., Naumann, K., Telljohann, H. & Trushkina, J. 2004. Recent developments in linguistic annotations of the TuBa-D/Z Treebank. In Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories , 51–62. Tübingen, Germany.
Johnston, M. & Busa, F. 1999. The compositional interpretation of compounds. In Breadth and Depth of Semantics Lexicons, E. Viegas (ed.), 167–87. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keson, B. & Norling-Christensen, O. 1998. PAROLE-DK. The Danish Society for Language and Literature.Google Scholar
Korzen, I. 2007. Linguistic typology, text structure and appositions. In Langues d’Europe, l’Europe des langues. Croisements linguistiques, I. Korzen, M. Lambert & H. Vassiliadou (eds). Scolia 22: 21–42.Google Scholar
. 2009. Struttura testuale e anafora evolutiva: tipologia romanza e tipologia germanica. In Lingue, culture e testi istituzionali, I. Korzen & C. Lavinio (eds), 33–60. Firenze: Franco Cesati.Google Scholar
Korzen, I. & Buch-Kromann, M. 2011. Anaphoric relations in the Copenhagen Dependency Treebanks. In Beyond Semantics. Corpus-based Investigations of Pragmatic and Discourse Phenomena, S. Dipper & H. Zinsmeister (eds), 83–98. Bochum: Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Sprachwissenschaftliches Institut. [Bochumer Linguistische Arbeitsberichte, vol. 3].Google Scholar
Kromann, M.T. 2003. The Danish Dependency Treebank and the DTAG treebank tool. In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories (TLT 2003) , 14–15 November, Växjö, 217–220.
Lundquist, L. 1985. Coherence: From structures to processes. In Text Connexity, Text Coherence, E. Sözer (ed.), 151–175. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Mann, W.C. & Thompson, S.A. 1987. Rhetorical Structure Theory. A Theory of Text Organization [RS-87-190], 1–81. Los Angeles CA: ISI.Google Scholar
Marcu, D. 2003. Discourse Structures: Trees or Graphs? [URL].
Marcus, M.P., Marcinkiewicz, M.A. & Santorini, B. 1993. Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics 19(2): 313–330.Google Scholar
Meyers, A., Reeves, R., Macleod, C., Szekely, R., Zielinska, V., Young, B. & Grishman, R. 2004a. The NomBank Project: An interim report. In Proceedings of the HLTNAACL Workshop on Frontiers in Corpus Annotation, 24–31. Boston MA.
Meyers, A. et al. 2004b. Annotating noun argument structure for NomBank. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LCREC 2004) . Lisbon, Portugal.
Mladová, L., Zikánová, Š. & Hajičová, E. 2008. From sentence to discourse: Building an annotation scheme for discourse based on Prague Dependency Treebank. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LCREC 2008) , 2564–2570. Marrakesh, Morocco.
Müller, H.H. 2010. Annotation of morphology and NP structure in the Copenhagen Dependency Treebanks. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories [NEALT Proceedings Series], M. Dickinson, K. Müürisep & M. Passarotti (eds), 151–162. Tartu: University of Tartu.Google Scholar
Palmer, M., Gildea, D. & Kingsbury, P. 2005. The proposition bank: An annotated corpus of semantic roles. Computational Linguistics 31(1): 71–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poesio, M. 2004. Discourse annotation and semantic annotation in the GNOME corpus. In Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Discourse Annotation . Barcelona, Spain.
Prasad, R., Dinesh, N., Lee, A., Joshi, A. & Webber, B. 2006. Attribution and its annotation in the Penn Discourse TreeBank. TAL (Traitement Automatique des Langues) 47(2): 43–64.Google Scholar
Prasad, R., Miltsakaki, E., Dinesh, A., Lee, A., Joshi, A., Robaldo, L. & Webber, B. 2008a. The Penn Discourse Treebank 2.0. Annotation Manual. [IRCS Technical Report IRCS-08-01]. Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania, Institute for Research in Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
Prasad, R., Dinesh, N., Lee, A., Miltsakaki, E., Robaldo, L., Joshi, A. & Webber, B. 2008b. The Penn Discourse TreeBank 2.0. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’08) . Marrakesh, Morocco.
Pustejovsky, J. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2001. Generativity and explanation in semantics: A reply to Fodor and Lepore. In The Language of Word Meaning, P. Bouillon & F. Busa (eds), 51–74. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rainer, F. 1999. La derivación adjectival. In Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, I. Bosque & V. Demonte (eds), 4595–4643. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.Google Scholar
Ramm, W. & Fabricius-Hansen, C. 2005. Coordination and Discourse-structural Salience from a Cross-linguistic Perspective [SPRIKreports 30]. Oslo: Universitetet i Oslo.Google Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M., Johnson, C. & Scheffczyk, J. 2006. FrameNet, II: Extended Theory and Practice. [URL]
Stede, M. 2008. Disambiguating rhetorical structure. Research on Language and Computation 6: 311–332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taboada, M. & Mann, W.C. 2006. Rhetorical structure theory: Looking back and moving ahead. Discourse Studies 8: 423–459. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Varela, S. & Martín García, J. 1999. La prefijación. In Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, I. Bosque & V. Demonte (eds), 4993–5040. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.Google Scholar
Webber, B. 2004. D-LTAG: Extending lexicalized TAG to discourse. Cognitive Science 28: 751–779. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolf, F. & Gibson, E. 2005. Representing discourse coherence: A corpus-based study. Computational Linguistics 31(2): 249–287. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Høeg Müller, Henrik
2016. Metaphorical construction in Spanish pseudo-partitives and PP-adverbials. In À la recherche de la prédication [Lingvisticæ Investigationes Supplementa, 32], ► pp. 89 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.