Skip to main content
Log in

HamleDT: Harmonized multi-language dependency treebank

Language Resources and Evaluation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We present HamleDT—a HArmonized Multi-LanguagE Dependency Treebank. HamleDT is a compilation of existing dependency treebanks (or dependency conversions of other treebanks), transformed so that they all conform to the same annotation style. In the present article, we provide a thorough investigation and discussion of a number of phenomena that are comparable across languages, though their annotation in treebanks often differs. We claim that transformation procedures can be designed to automatically identify most such phenomena and convert them to a unified annotation style. This unification is beneficial both to comparative corpus linguistics and to machine learning of syntactic parsing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24
Fig. 25
Fig. 26
Fig. 27
Fig. 28
Fig. 29
Fig. 30
Fig. 31
Fig. 32

Notes

  1. The initial version has been described in Zeman et al. (2012).

  2. HamleDT v1.5 does not include the harmonization of verbal groups (see Sect. 5.4).

  3. The transformations are not robust to coordination styles.

  4. http://www.ldc.upenn.edu/.

  5. So far, there are only two differences between the PDT style (used in [cs]) and the HamleDT v1.5 style: handling of appositions (see Table 3) and marking of conjuncts (in HamleDT, the root of a conjunct subtree is marked as conjunct even if it is a preposition or subordinating conjunction; in PDT, only content words are marked as conjuncts). By conjunct, we mean a member of coordination (unlike Quirk et al. 1985). By content word, we mean autosemantic word, i.e. a word with a full lexical meaning, as contrasted with auxiliary. Note that PDT also has a more abstract layer of annotation (called tectogrammatical), but in this work, we only use the shallow dependencies (called analytical layer in PDT).

  6. Unless we explicitly say otherwise, we mean by “original” the data source indicated in Table 1. It may actually differ from the really original treebank. For instance, some of the CoNLL data underwent a conversion procedure to the CoNLL format from other formats, and some information may have been lost in the process.

  7. In the Pāṇinian tradition, karta is the agent, doer of the action, and karma is the “deed” or patient. See Bharati et al. (1994).

  8. They are approximately the same as the dependency relation labels in the Czech CoNLL data set. To illustrate the mapping, more details on [bn] and [en] conversion are presented in Tables 4 and 5 in Appendix 2.

  9. Ideally we would also want to distinguish objects (Obj) from adverbials. Unfortunately, this particular source annotation does not provide enough information to make such a distinction.

  10. In Chomskian (constituency-based) approaches, it is the standard analysis that determiners function as the head of a noun phrase.

  11. Note however that numerals governing nouns are not restricted to [da]. Czech has a complex set of rules for numerals (motivated by the morphological agreement), which may result under some circumstances in the numeral serving as the head.

  12. In [ja], the previous token essentially means the main predicate, but if it is followed by a question particle then the punctuation node is attached to the particle.

  13. http://ufal.mff.cuni.cz/treex/.

  14. http://ufal.mff.cuni.cz/tred/ with EasyTreex extension.

  15. We do not attempt at reversibility when unifying dependency relations.

References

  • Aduriz, I., Aranzabe, M. J., Arriola, J. M., Atutxa, A., Díaz de Ilarraza, A., Garmendia, A., & Oronoz, M. (2003). Construction of a Basque dependency treebank. In Proceedings of the 2nd workshop on treebanks and linguistic theories.

  • Afonso, S., Bick, E., Haber, R., & Santos, D. (2002). “Floresta sintá(c)tica”: A treebank for Portuguese. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC) (pp. 1968–1703).

  • Atalay, N. B., Oflazer, K., Say, B., & Inst, I. (2003). The annotation process in the Turkish rreebank. In Proceedings of the 4th international workshop on linguistically interpreteted corpora (LINC).

  • Bamman, D., & Crane, G. (2011). The ancient Greek and Latin dependency treebanks. In C. Sporleder, A. Bosch, & K. Zervanou (Eds.), Language technology for cultural heritage, theory and applications of natural language processing (pp. 79–98). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bengoetxea, K., & Gojenola, K. (2009). Exploring treebank transformations in dependency parsing. In Proceedings of the international conference RANLP-2009. Borovets, Bulgaria (pp. 33–38). Association for Computational Linguistics.

  • Bharati, A., Chaitanya, V., & Sangal, R. (1994). Natural language processing: A paninian perspective. New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bick, E., Uibo, H., & Müürisep, K. (2004). Arborest—A VISL-style treebank derived from an Estonian constraint grammar corpus. In Proceedings of treebanks and linguistic theories.

  • Boguslavsky, I., Grigorieva, S., Grigoriev, N., Kreidlin, L., & Frid, N. (2000). Dependency treebank for Russian: Concept, tools, types of information. In Proceedings of the 18th conference on computational linguistics (Vol. 2, pp. 987–991).

  • Bosco, C., Montemagni, S., Mazzei, A., Lombardo, V., Lenci, A., Lesmo, L., Attardi, G., Simi, M., Lavelli, A., Hall, J., Nilsson, J., & Nivre, J. (2010). Comparing the influence of different treebank annotations on dependency parsing.

  • Brants, S., Dipper, S., Eisenberg, P., Hansen, S., König, E., Lezius, W., et al. (2004). TIGER: Linguistic interpretation of a German corpus. Journal of Language and Computation, 2(4), 597–620. Special Issue.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchholz, S., & Marsi, E. (2006). CoNLL-X shared task on multilingual dependency parsing. In Proceedings of CoNLL (pp. 149–164).

  • Călăcean, M. (2008). Data-driven dependency parsing for Romanian. Master’s thesis, Uppsala University.

  • Civit, M., Martí, M. A., & Bufí, N. (2006). Cat3LB and Cast3LB: From constituents to dependencies. In T. Salakoski, F. Ginter, S. Pyysalo, & T. Pahikkala (Eds.), FinTAL, Vol. 4139 of Lecture notes in computer science (pp. 141–152). Berlin: Springer.

  • Csendes, D., Csirik, J., Gyimóthy, T., & Kocsor, A. (2005). The Szeged treebank. In V. Matoušek, P. Mautner, & T. Pavelka (Eds.), TSD, Vol. 3658 of Lecture notes in computer science (pp. 123–131). Berlin: Springer.

  • de Marneffe, M.-C., & Manning, C. D. (2008). Stanford typed dependencies manual.

  • Džeroski, S., Erjavec, T., Ledinek, N., Pajas, P., Žabokrtský, Z., & Žele, A. (2006). Towards a slovene dependency treebank. In Proceedings of the fifth international language resources and evaluation conference, LREC 2006. Genova, Italy (pp. 1388–1391). European Language Resources Association (ELRA).

  • Hajič, J., Ciaramita, M., Johansson, R., Kawahara, D., Martí, M. A., Màrquez, L., Meyers, A., Nivre, J., Padó, S., Štěpánek, J., Straňák, P., Surdeanu, M., Xue, N., & Zhang, Y. (2009). The CoNLL-2009 shared task: Syntactic and semantic dependencies in multiple languages. In Proceedings of the 13th conference on computational natural language learning (CoNLL-2009), June 4–5. Boulder, Colorado, USA.

  • Hajič, J., Panevová, J., Hajičová, E., Sgall, P., Pajas, P., Štěpánek, J., Havelka, J., Mikulová, M., Žabokrtský, Z., & Ševčíková-Razímová, M. (2006). Prague dependency treebank 2.0. CD-ROM, Linguistic Data Consortium, LDC Catalog No.: LDC2006T01, Philadelphia.

  • Haverinen, K., Viljanen, T., Laippala, V., Kohonen, S., Ginter, F., & Salakoski, T. (2010). Treebanking finnish. In M. Dickinson, K. Müürisep, & M. Passarotti (Eds.), Proceedings of the ninth international workshop on treebanks and linguistic theories (TLT9) (pp. 79–90).

  • Hudson, R. (2004). Are determiners heads? Functions of Language, 11(1).

  • Hudson, R. (2010). An encyclopedia of word grammar and English grammar. London, UK: University College London. http://tinyurl.com/wg-encyc.

  • Husain, S., Mannem, P., Ambati, B., & Gadde, P. (2010). The ICON-2010 tools contest on Indian language dependency parsing. In Proceedings of ICON-2010 tools contest on Indian language dependency parsing. Kharagpur, India.

  • Hwa, R., Resnik, P., Weinberg, A., Cabezas, C. I., & Kolak, O. (2005). Bootstrapping parsers via syntactic projection across parallel texts. Natural Language Engineering, 11(3), 311–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kawata, Y., & Bartels, J. (2000). Stylebook for the Japanese treebank in verbmobil. In Report 240. Tübingen, Germany.

  • Kromann, M. T., Mikkelsen, L., & Lynge, S. K. (2004). Danish dependency treebank.

  • Marcus, M. P., Santorini, B., & Marcinkiewicz, M. A. (1993). Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn treebank. Computational Linguistics, 19(2), 313–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mareček, D., & Žabokrtský, Z. (2012). Exploiting reducibility in unsupervised dependency parsing. In Proceedings of EMNLP-CoNLL’12 (pp. 297–307).

  • McDonald, R., Nivre, J., Quirmbach-Brundage, Y., Goldberg, Y., Das, D., Ganchev, K., Hall, K., Petrov, S., Zhang, H., Täckström, O., Bedini, C., Castelló, N. B., & Lee, J. (2013). Universal dependency annotation for multilingual parsing. In Proceedings of the ACL 2013. Association for Computational Linguistics.

  • McDonald, R., Petrov, S., & Hall, K. (2011a). Multi-source transfer of delexicalized dependency parsers. In Proceedings of the conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (pp. 62–72). Stroudsburg, PA, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics.

  • McDonald, R., Petrov, S., & Hall, K. (2011b). Multi-source transfer of delexicalized dependency parsers. In Proceedings of the 2011 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (pp. 62–72). Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. Association for Computational Linguistics.

  • Mel’čuk, I. A. (1988). Dependency syntax: Theory and practice. New York: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montemagni, S., Barsotti, F., Battista, M., Calzolari, N., Corazzari, O., Lenci, A., et al. (2003). Building the Italian syntactic-semantic treebank. In A. Abeillé (Ed.), Building and using parsed corpora (pp. 189–210). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson, J., Hall, J., & Nivre, J. (2005). MAMBA Meets TIGER: Reconstructing a Swedish treebank from antiquity. In Proceedings of the NODALIDA special session on treebanks.

  • Nilsson, J., Nivre, J., & Hall, J. (2006). Graph transformations in data-driven dependency parsing. In Proceedings of the 21st international conference on computational linguistics and the 44th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (pp. 257–264).

  • Nivre, J., Hall, J., Kübler, S., McDonald, R., Nilsson, J., Riedel, S., & Yuret, D. (2007). The CoNLL 2007 shared task on dependency parsing. In Proceedings of the CoNLL 2007 shared task. Joint conference on empirical methods in natural language processing and computational natural language learning (EMNLP-CoNLL).

  • Popel, M., & Žabokrtský, Z. (2010). TectoMT: Modular NLP framework. In Advances in natural language processing (pp. 293–304).

  • Popel, M., Mareček, D., Štěpánek, J., Zeman, D., & Žabokrtský, Z. (2013). Coordination structures in dependency treebanks’. In Proceedings of the 51st annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (pp. 517–527). Sofia, Bulgaria. Association for Computational Linguistics.

  • Prokopidis, P., Desipri, E., Koutsombogera, M., Papageorgiou, H., & Piperidis, S. (2005). Theoretical and practical issues in the construction of a Greek dependency treebank. In Proceedings of the 4th workshop on treebanks and linguistic theories (TLT) (pp. 149–160).

  • Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., & Leech, G., Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.

  • Ramasamy, L., & Žabokrtský, Z. (2012). Prague dependency style treebank for Tamil. In Proceedings of LREC 2012. İstanbul, Turkey.

  • Rasooli, M. S., Moloodi, A., Kouhestani, M., & Minaei-Bidgoli, B. (2011). A syntactic valency lexicon for persian verbs: The first steps towards Persian dependency treebank. In 5th language and technology conference (LTC): Human language technologies as a challenge for computer science and linguistics (pp. 227–231). Poland: Poznań.

  • Schwartz, R., Abend, O., & Rappoport, A. (2012). Learnability-based syntactic annotation design. In Proceedings of COLING 2012: Technical papers (pp. 2405–2422). India: Mumbai.

  • Seginer, Y. (2007). Learning syntactic structure. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam.

  • Simov, K., & Osenova, P. (2005). Extending the annotation of BulTreeBank: Phase 2. In The fourth workshop on treebanks and linguistic theories (TLT 2005), Barcelona (pp. 173–184).

  • Smrž, O., Bielický, V., Kouřilová, I., Kráčmar, J., Hajič, J., & Zemánek, P. (2008). Prague Arabic dependency treebank: A word on the million words. In Proceedings of the workshop on Arabic and local languages (LREC 2008) (pp. 16–23). Marrakech, Morocco. European Language Resources Association.

  • Surdeanu, M., Johansson, R., Meyers, A., Màrquez, L., & Nivre, J. (2008). The CoNLL-2008 shared task on joint parsing of syntactic and semantic dependencies. In Proceedings of CoNLL.

  • Taulé, M., Martí, M.A., & Recasens, M. (2008). AnCora: Multilevel annotated corpora for Catalan and Spanish. In LREC. European Language Resources Association.

  • Tesnière, L. (1959). Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsarfaty, R., Nivre, J., & Andersson, E. (2011). Evaluating dependency parsing: Robust and heuristics-free cross-annotation evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2011 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (pp. 385–396). Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. Association for Computational Linguistics.

  • van der Beek, L., Bouma, G., Daciuk, J., Gaustad, T., Malouf, R., van Noord, G., Prins, R., & Villada, B. (2002). Chapter 5. The Alpino dependency treebank. In Algorithms for linguistic processing NWO PIONIER progress report. Groningen, The Netherlands.

  • Zeman, D. (2008). Reusable tagset conversion using tagset drivers. In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, B. Maegaard, Mariani J., J. Odijk, S. Piperidis, & D. Tapias (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth international language resources and evaluation conference, LREC 2008 (pp. 28–30). Marrakech, Morocco. European Language Resources Association (ELRA).

  • Zeman, D., Mareček, D., Popel, M., Ramasamy, L., Štěpánek, J., Žabokrtský, Z., & Hajič, J. (2012). HamleDT: To parse or not to parse? In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, T. Declerck, M. U. Doğan, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, J. Odijk, & S. Piperidis (Eds.), In Proceedings of the eight international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC’12). İstanbul, Turkey. European Language Resources Association (ELRA).

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to express their gratitude to all the creators and providers of the respective corpora. The work on this project was supported by the Czech Science Foundation Grant Nos. P406/11/1499 and P406/14/06548P, by the European Union Seventh Framework Programme under Grant Agreement FP7-ICT-2013-10-610516 (QTLeap), and by research resources of the Charles University in Prague (PRVOUK). This work has been using language resources developed and/or stored and/or distributed by the LINDAT/CLARIN project of the Ministry of Education of the Czech Republic (Project LM2010013). Finally, we are very grateful for the numerous valuable comments provided by the anonymous reviewers.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Zeman.

Appendices

Appendix 1: List of included languages and treebanks

Appendix 2: Examples of harmonization of dependency relations

See Tables 4 and 5.

Table 4 The Bengali treebank [bn] uses 42 dependency labels, but we show only 12 most frequent ones
Table 5 The English treebank [en] (from CoNLL 2007) uses 20 dependency labels, but their mapping to HamleDT v1.5 labels is not straightforward

Appendix 3: List of dependency relation labels in figures

Language

Label

Description

Example

 

X

Our meta-label that represents the unknown relation of the depicted subtree to its unshown parent

 

bg

comp

Complement, i.e. argument of non-verbal head, non-finite verbal head, copula

Figure 18

bg

indobj

Child is indirect object of parent

Figure 18

bg

mod

Child is modifier, e.g. of a noun phrase, or a negative particle modifying a verb etc.

Figure 18

bg

prepcomp

Child is noun phrase, parent is preposition

Figure 18

bg

subj

Child is subject of parent

Figure 18

bg

xcomp

Child is clausal complement; this includes complements of modal verbs

Figure 18

ca

CO

Child is coordinating conjunction, parent is the first conjunct

Figure 4

ca

CONJUNCT

Parent is the first conjunct, child is one of the other conjuncts

Figure 4

ca

PUNC

Child is punctuation symbol

Figure 4

cs, sl, la, ta

Adv

Child is adverbial modifier of parent

Figure 2

cs, sl, la, ta

Atr

Parent is noun, child is its attribute

Figure 9

cs, sl, la, ta

AuxC

Child is subordinating conjunction, parent is governing predicate. The relation of the subordinate clause to the parent is labeled at the grandchild

Figure 19

cs, sl, la, ta

AuxP

Child is preposition. The relation of the prepositional phrase to the parent is labeled at the grandchild

Figure 2

cs, sl, la, ta

AuxV

Child is auxiliary verb or negative particle, parent is content verb

Figure 19

cs, sl, la, ta

AuxX

Child is comma and does not serve as coordination root

Figure 2

cs, sl, la, ta

AuxZ

Emphasizing word

Figure 8

cs, sl, la, ta

Coord

Child serves as root of a coordinate structure

Figure 1

cs, sl, la, ta

Obj

Child is object of parent

Figure 2

cs, sl, la, ta

Pred

Child is predicate of a main clause

Figure 2

cs, sl, la, ta

Sb

Child is subject of parent

Figure 19

cs, ta

_M

Suffix to a label, saying that the child is a conjunct. The main label tags its relation to the parent of the coordinate structure

Figure 1

da

appr

Restrictive apposition (no comma)

Figure 28

da

conj

Child is conjunct, parent is first conjunct or coordinating conjunction

Figure 6

da

coord

Parent is conjunct, child is coordinating conjunction

Figure 6

da

dobj

Child is direct object of parent

Figure 28

da

expl

Child is expletive subject of parent

Figure 28

da

mod

Modifier, e.g. attribute of noun, adverbial modifier of verb, adjective attached to determiner etc.

Figure 28

da

nobj

Child is noun phrase or infinitive, parent is e.g. determiner, numeral, preposition etc.

Figure 28

da

pnct

Child is punctuation symbol

Figure 6

da

possd

Child is argument of possessive parent, i.e. child is the thing possessed

Figure 28

de

CD

Child is coordinating conjunction, parent is one conjunct and right sibling is the other conjunct

Figure 3

de

CJ

Parent and child are conjuncts

Figure 3

de

MO

Modifier. In NPs only focus particles are annotated as modifiers

Figure 23

de

NG

Child is negative particle, parent is negated verb

Figure 23

de

NK

Noun Kernel. Child attached within a noun phrase or a prepositional phrase

Figure 10

de

OA

Child is accusative object of parent

Figure 23

de

OC

Clausal object. Also verb tokens building a complex verbal form and modal constructions

Figure 23

de

PUNC

Child is punctuation symbol

Figure 3

de

SB

Child is subject of parent

Figure 23

es

atr

Attribute. E.g. child is adverbial/prepositional phrase, parent is verb

Figure 12

es

cd

Child is direct object of parent

Figure 12

es

conj

Child is subordinating conjunction

Figure 12

es

s.a

Child is adjectival phrase, parent is not verb

Figure 12

es

sn

Child is noun phrase. Parent may be e.g. preposition

Figure 12

es

spec

Specifier. E.g. child is determiner and parent is noun

Figure 12

es

suj

Child is subject of parent

Figure 12

fa

NPREMOD

Child is premodifier of parent noun

Figure 26

fa

NVE

Child is non-verbal element of compound verb. Parent is verbal element

Figure 26

fa

SBJ

Child is subject of parent

Figure 26

hi

lwg_cont

Child is additional node of a complex expression; child and parent together perform certain function

Figure 27

hi

lwg_psp

Child is postposition and modifies a noun

Figure 11

hi

lwg_vaux

Child is auxiliary verb, parent is content verb

Figure 27

hi

pof

Part of relation, e.g. part of conjunct verb

Figure 27

hi

pof_cn

Part of relation

Figure 27

hi, bn, te

adv

Child is adverbial modifier (only adverbs of manner) of parent

Figure 29

hi, bn, te

ccof

Child is conjunct, parent is coordinating conjunction or comma

Figure 29

hi, bn, te

k1

Child is karta (doer/agent/subject) of parent predicate

Figure 27

hi, bn, te

k2

Child is karma (pacient/object) of parent predicate

Figure 27

hi, bn, te

k7p

Child is deshadhikarana (location in space) of the parent predicate

Figure 30

hi, bn, te

k7t

Child is kaalaadhikarana (location in time) of the parent predicate

Figure 31

hi, bn, te

nmod

Parent is noun, child is its attribute

Figure 29

hi, bn, te

nmod_adj

Child is adjective and modifies a noun

Figure 11

hi, bn, te

r6

Shashthi (possessive). Child is possessor in genitive, parent is the possessed noun

Figure 30

hu

ATT

Attribute

Figure 15

hu

CONJ

Child is conjunction (coordinating or subordinating)

Figure 5

hu

DET

Child is determiner, parent is noun

Figure 15

hu

ILL

Child is verbal argument in illative case

Figure 15

hu

OBJ

Child is object of parent

Figure 15

hu

PUNCT

Child is punctuation symbol

Figure 5

hu

SUBJ

Child is subject of parent

Figure 15

it

cong_sub

Parent is subordinating conjunction

Figure 13

it

det

Child is determiner, parent is noun

Figure 13

it

modal

Child is modal (dovere, volere, potere) or aspectual (andare, venire, stare) verb, parent is content verb

Figure 13

it

pred

Parent is verb (often it is copula), child is predicative complement (nominal predicate)

Figure 13

it

sogg

Child is subject of parent

Figure 13

ja

ADJ

Child is adjunct of parent

Figure 25

ja

COMP

Complement, e.g. verb attached to another verb form, noun attached to postposition etc.

Figure 25

ja

SBJ

Child is subject of parent

Figure 25

nl

det

Child is determiner, parent is noun

Figure 21

nl

mod

Child is adverbial modifier (bijwoordelijke bepaling) of parent

Figure 21

nl

obj1

Child is direct object; this includes nouns attached to prepositions!

Figure 21

nl

predm

Child determines state (adverbial modifier), parent is predicate

Figure 22

nl

su

Child is subject of parent

Figure 21

nl

vc

Verbal complement. Example: parent is modal, child is infinitive

Figure 21

pt

>N

Child is left dependent of nominal core

Figure 24

pt

ADVL

Child is adverbial adjunct (adjunto adverbial) of parent

Figure 24

pt

MV

Child is main verb, parent may be e.g. modal verb

Figure 24

pt

N<

Child is right dependent of nominal core

Figure 24

pt

P<

Child is right dependent of preposition

Figure 24

pt

PRT-AUX<

Child is verbal particle (partícula de ligação verbal), e.g. between modal and content verb, parent would be modal

Figure 24

pt

PUNC

Child is punctuation symbol

Figure 24

pt

SC

Child is nominal predicate (predicativo do sujeito), parent is copula

Figure 24

pt

SUBJ

Child is subject of parent

Figure 24

ro

rel.conj.

Parent is coordinating conjunction, child is conjunct

Figure 7

ru

Child is argument other than subject. Also: genitive noun modifier of another noun

Figure 17

ru

Child is agent-object of passive parent

Figure 17

ru

Parent is noun, child is its attribute

Figure 17

ru

Child is passive participle, parent is finite auxiliary verb

Figure 17

ru

Parent is predicate, child is subject

Figure 17

ta

AComp

Child is (obligatory) adverbial complement of parent

Figure 8

tr

OBJECT

Child is object of parent

Figure 16

tr

QUESTION

.PARTICLE

Child is question particle, parent is verb

Figure 16

tr

SUBJECT

Child is subject of parent

Figure 16

tr

VOCATIVE

Child is vocative noun phrase serving as doer (actor) of parent verb

Figure 16

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zeman, D., Dušek, O., Mareček, D. et al. HamleDT: Harmonized multi-language dependency treebank. Lang Resources & Evaluation 48, 601–637 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-014-9275-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-014-9275-2

Keywords

Navigation