Research on Language and Computation

, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp 23–72 | Cite as

Grammar Customization

  • Emily M. Bender
  • Scott Drellishak
  • Antske Fokkens
  • Laurie Poulson
  • Safiyyah Saleem
Article

Abstract

This paper presents the LinGO Grammar Matrix grammar customization system, a web-based service which elicits typological descriptions of languages and outputs customized grammar fragments which are ready for sustained development into broad-coverage grammars. We describe the infrastructure we have developed to support grammar customization as well as the current set of linguistic phenomena addressed, reflect on what we have learned about a methodology for this style of multilingual grammar engineering, and evaluate the typological breadth of the system by using it to create grammars for seven languages from seven different language families.

Keywords

Grammar engineering HPSG Syntax Typology 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abney, S. P. (1996). Statistical methods and linguistics. In J. L. Klavans & Resnik, P. (Eds.), The balancing act: Combining symbolic and statistical approaches to language, speech, and communication (pp. 1–26) London, England/Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press. http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2008/pdf/349_paper.pdf.
  2. Adolphs, P., Oepen, S., Callmeier, U., Crysmann, B., Flickinger, D., & Kiefer, B. (2008). Some fine points of hybrid natural language parsing. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC’08), Marrakech, Morocco (pp. 1380–1387).Google Scholar
  3. Asher R., Kumari T. (1997) Malayalam. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Baldridge, J., Chatterjee, S., Palmer A., & Wing, B. (2007). DotCCG and VisCCG: Wiki and programming paradigms for improved grammar engineering with OpenCCG. In T. H. King & E. M. Bender (Eds.), Proceedings of the GEAF07 workshop (pp. 5–25) (CSLI). http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/GEAF/2007/papers/geaf07baldridgeetal.pdf.
  5. Baldwin T., Beavers J., Bender E. M., Flickinger D., Kim A., Oepen S. (2005) Beauty and the beast: What running a broad-coverage precision grammar over the BNC taught us about the grammar—and the corpus. In: Kepser S., Reis M. (eds) Linguistic evidence: Empirical, theoretical, and computational perspectives. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 49–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bateman J. A., Kruijff-Korbayová I., Kruijff G. (2005) Multilingual resource sharing across both related and unrelated languages: An implemented, open-source framework for practical natural language generation. Research on Language and Computation, Special Issue on Shared Representations in Multilingual Grammar Engineering 3(2): 191–219Google Scholar
  7. Beesley K. R., Karttunen L. (2003) Finite state morphology. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  8. Bender, E. M. (2007). Combining research and pedagogy in the development of a crosslinguistic grammar resource. In T. H. King & E. M. Bender (Eds.), Proceedings of the GEAF 2007 workshop (pp. 26–45). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/GEAF/2007/papers/geaf07bender.pdf.
  9. Bender, E. M. (2008a). Evaluating a crosslinguistic grammar resource: A case study of Wambaya. In Proceedings of ACL08:HLT (pp. 977–985). http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P/P08/P08-1111.pdf.
  10. Bender, E. M. (2008b). Grammar engineering for linguistic hypothesis testing. In N. Gaylord, A. Palmer, & E. Ponvert (Eds.), Proceedings of the Texas Linguistics Society X conference: Computational linguistics for less-studied languages (pp. 16–36). Stanford: CSLI Publications. http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/TLS/TLS10-2006/TLS10_Bender.pdf.
  11. Bender, E. M. (2008c). Radical non-configurationality without shuffle operators. In S. Müller (Ed.), The proceedings of the 15th international conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (pp. 6–24). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications (online). http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/HPSG/9/bender.pdf.
  12. Bender, E. M. (2009). Linguistically naïve != language independent: Why NLP needs linguistic typology. In Proceedings of the EACL 2009 workshop on the interaction between linguistics and computational linguistics: Virtuous, vicious or vacuous? (pp. 26–32). Athens, Greece: Association for Computational Linguistics. http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W09-0106.
  13. Bender, E. M., Drellishak, S., Fokkens, A., Goodman, M. W., Mills, D. P., Poulson, L., et al. (2010). Grammar prototyping and testing with the LinGO Grammar Matrix customization system. In Proceedings of the ACL 2010 system demonstrations (pp. 1–6). Uppsala, Sweden: Association for Computational Linguistics. http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P10-4001.
  14. Bender, E. M., & Flickinger, D. (2005). Rapid prototyping of scalable grammars: Towards modularity in extensions to a language-independent core. In Proceedings of the 2nd international joint conference on natural language processing IJCNLP-05 (Posters/Demos) (pp. 203–208), Jeju Island, Korea. http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/I/I05/I05-2035.pdf.
  15. Bender, E. M., Flickinger, D., & Oepen, S. (2002). The grammar matrix: An open-source starter-kit for the rapid development of cross-linguistically consistent broad-coverage precision grammars. In J. Carroll, N. Oostdijk, & R. Sutcliffe (Eds.), Proceedings of the workshop on grammar engineering and evaluation at the 19th international conference on computational linguistics (pp. 8–14), Taipei, Taiwan. http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W/W02/W02-1502.pdf.
  16. Bender, E. M., & Good, J. (2005). Implementation for discovery: A bipartite lexicon to support morphological and syntactic analysis. In Proceedings from the panels of the 41st meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (Vol. 41-2, pp. 1–15).Google Scholar
  17. Bender, E. M., & Goss-Grubbs, D. (2008). Semantic representations of syntactically marked discourse status in crosslinguistic perspective. In Proceedings of semantics in systems for text processing (STEP 2008) (pp. 17–29) (College Publications). http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W/W08/W08-2203.pdf.
  18. Bender, E. M., Poulson, L., Drellishak, S., & Evans, C. (2007). Validation and regression testing for a cross-linguistic grammar resource. In ACL 2007 workshop on deep linguistic processing (pp. 136–143). Prague, Czech Republic: Association for Computational Linguistics. http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W/W07/W07-1218.pdf.
  19. Bergmair, R. (2008). Monte Carlo semantics: McPIET at RTE4. In Text analysis conference (TAC 2008) workshop-RTE-4 track. National Institute of Standards and Technology. http://www.nist.gov/tac/publications/2008/participant.papers/cambridge.proceedings.pdf.
  20. Bickel B. (2007) Typology in the 21st century: Major current developments. Linguistic Typology 11: 239–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Bierwisch M. (1963) Grammatik des deutschen Verbs, vol. II of Studia Grammatica. Akademie Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  22. Black, C. A. (2004, April). Parser and writer for syntax. Paper presented at the International conference on translation with computer-assisted technology: Changes in research, teaching, evaluation, and practice. University of Rome “La Sapienza”.Google Scholar
  23. Black, C. A., & Black, H. A. (2009). PAWS: Parser and writer for syntax: Drafting syntactic grammars in the third wave. In SIL Forum for language fieldwork (Vol. 2). http://www.sil.org/silepubs/Pubs/51432/SILForum2009-002.pdf.
  24. Blake B. J. (2001) Case (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Blunsom, P., & Baldwin, T. (2006) Multilingual deep lexical acquisition for HPSGs via supertagging. In Proceedings of the 2006 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (pp. 164–171). http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W/W06/W06-1620.pdf.
  26. Borthen K., Haugereid P. (2005) Representing referential properties of nominals. Research on Language and Computation 3(2): 221–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Bouillon, P., Rayner, M., Vall, B. N., Starlander, M., Santaholma, M., Nakao, Y., et al. (2007). Une grammaire partagée multi-tâche pour le traitement de la parole : application aux langues romanes. TAL (Traitement Automatique des Langues), 47(3), 155–173. http://www.atala.org/IMG/pdf/TAL-2006-47-3-08-Bouillon.pdf.
  28. Branco, A., & Costa, F. (2010). A deep linguistic processing grammar for Portuguese. In Computational processing of the Portuguese language, Vol. LNAI6001 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (pp. 86–89). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Butt, M., Dyvik, H., King, T. H., Masuichi, H., & Rohrer, C. (2002). The parallel grammar project. In J. Carroll, N. Oostdijk, & R. Sutcliffe (Eds.), Proceedings of the workshop on grammar engineering and evaluation at the 19th international conference on computational linguistics (pp. 1–7). http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W/W02/W02-1503.pdf.
  30. Callmeier, U., Eisele, A., Schfer, U., & Siegel, M. (2004). The DeepThought core architecture framework. In Proceedings of the 4th international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC’04). Lisbon: Portugal.Google Scholar
  31. Callmeier, U. (2002). Preprocessing and encoding techniques in PET. In Oepen, S., Flickinger, D., Tsujii, J., & Uszkoreit H. (Eds.), Collaborative language engineering. A case study in efficient grammar-based processing. Stanford, CA: CSLI PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  32. Candito, M. (1998). Building parallel LTAG for French and Italian. In Proceedings of the 36th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics and 17th international conference on computational linguistics (Vol. 1, pp. 211–217). Montreal, QC, Canada: Association for Computational Linguistics). doi:10.3115/980845.980880. http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P98-1033.
  33. Carpenter B. (1992) The logic of typed feature structures. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Chirikba V. (2003) Abkhaz. LINCOM, MunichGoogle Scholar
  35. Chomsky N. (1981) Lectures on government and binding. Foris, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  36. Chomsky N. (1986) Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. Praeger, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Copestake, A. (1992). The ACQUILEX LKB: Representation issues in semi-automatic acquisition of large lexicons. In Proceedings of the 3rd conference on applied natural language processing (pp. 88–95) Trento, Italy: Association for Computational Linguistics. doi:10.3115/974499.974515. http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/A92-1012.
  38. Copestake A. (2000) Appendix: Definitions of typed feature structures. Natural Language Engineering 6: 109–112. doi:10.1017/S1351324900002357 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Copestake A. (2002) Implementing typed feature structure grammars. CSLI Publications, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  40. Copestake A., Flickinger D., Pollard C., Sag I. A. (2005) Minimal recursion semantics: An introduction. Research on Language & Computation. 3(4): 281–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Corbett G. G. (1991) Gender. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  42. Corbett G. G. (2000) Number. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  43. Corbett G. G. (2006) Agreement. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  44. Crysmann, B. (2009) Autosegmental representations in an HPSG for Hausa. In Proceedings of the workshop on grammar engineering across frameworks 2009 (pp. 28–36), Singapore. http://140.116.245.248/ACL-IJCNLP-2009/GEAF/pdf/GEAF04.pdf.
  45. Cysouw M. (2003) The paradigmatic structure of person marking. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  46. Dalrymple M., Kaplan R. M. (2000) Feature indeterminacy and feature resolution. Language 76: 759–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. de la Clergerie, É. V. (2005). From metagrammars to factorized TAG/TIG parsers. In Proceedings of the 9th international workshop on parsing technology (pp. 190–191). Vancouver, BC: Association for Computational Linguistics. http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W/W05/W05-1522.
  48. Dixon R. M. W. (1994) Ergativity. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Drellishak, S. (2004). A survey of coordination strategies in the world’s languages. Master’s thesis, University of Washington.Google Scholar
  50. Drellishak, S. (2009). Widespread but not universal: Improving the typological coverage of the grammar matrix. Ph.D. thesis, University of Washington.Google Scholar
  51. Drellishak, S., & Bender, E. M. (2005). A coordination module for a crosslinguistic grammar resource. In S. Müller (Ed.), The proceedings of the 12th international conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (pp. 108–128). Stanford: CSLI Publications. http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/HPSG/6/drellishak-bender.pdf.
  52. Dryer M. S. (1997) On the six-way word order typology. Studies in Language 21: 69–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Evans, N., & Levinson, S. C. (2009). The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(05), 429–448. doi:10.1017/S0140525X0999094X. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6427084&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S0140525X0999094X.
  54. Flickinger D. (2000) On building a more efficient grammar by exploiting types. Natural Language Engineering 6(1): 15–28 (Special issue on efficient processing with HPSG)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Flickinger D., Oepen S., Tsujii J.-i., Uszkoreit H. (2000) Natural language engineering 6(1). Special issue on efficient processing with HPSG: Methods, systems, evaluation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  56. Fokkens A. S. (2010) Documentation for the Grammar Matrix word order library, Technical report. Saarland University, SaarbrückenGoogle Scholar
  57. Fokkens, A., Poulson, L., & Bender, E. M. (2009). Inflectional morphology in Turkish VP-coordination. In S. Müller (Ed.), Proceedings of the 16th international conference on head-driven phrase structure grammar (pp. 110–130). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications (online). http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/HPSG/2009/fokkens-poulson-bender.pdf.
  58. Fortescue M. (2003) West Greenlandic. Croom Helm, LondonGoogle Scholar
  59. Frank A., Krieger H., Xu F., Uszkoreit H., Crysmann B., Jörg B., Schäfer U. (2007) Question answering from structured knowledge sources. Journal of Applied Logic, Special Issue on Questions and Answers: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives 5: 20–48Google Scholar
  60. Greenberg, J. (1963). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Univerals of language (pp. 73–113). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  61. Haeseryn W., Romijn K., Geerts G., de Rooij J., van den Toorn M. C. (1997) Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst (2nd ed.). Martinus Nijhoff uitgevers/Wolters Plantyn, Groningen/DeurneGoogle Scholar
  62. Haspelmath, M. (2007). Coordination. In Language typology and syntactic description, (2nd ed., Vol. II, pp. 1–51). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Haspelmath, M., Dryer, M. S., Gil, D., & Comrie, B. (Eds.) (2008). The world atlas of language structures online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. http://wals.info.
  64. Hellan, L., & Haugereid, P. (2003). NorSource: An exercise in Matrix grammar-building design. In E. M. Bender, D. Flickinger, F. Fouvry, & M. Siegel (Eds.), Proceedings of the workshop on ideas and strategies for multilingual grammar development, ESSLLI 2003 (pp. 41–48), Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
  65. Ingria, R. J. P. (1990). The limits of unification. In Proceedings of the 28th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (pp. 194–204). Pittsburgh, PA, USA: Association for Computational Linguistics. doi:10.3115/981823.981848. http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P/P90/P90-1025.pdf.
  66. Jelinek E. (1995) Quantification in Straits Salish. In: Bach E., Jelinek E., Kratzer A. (eds) Quantification in natural languages. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 487–540Google Scholar
  67. Kim, R., Dalrymple, M., Kaplan, R. M., King, T. H., Masuichi, H., & Ohkuma, T. (2003). Multilingual grammar development via grammar porting. In E. M. Bender, D. Flickinger, F. Fouvry, & M. Siegel (Eds.) Proceedings of the workshop on ideas and strategies for multilingual grammar development, ESSLLI 2003 (pp. 49–56).Google Scholar
  68. King T. H., Forst M., Kuhn J., Butt M. (2005) The feature space in parallel grammar writing. Research on Language and Computation, Special Issue on Shared Representations in Multilingual Grammar Engineering 3(2): 139–163Google Scholar
  69. Kinyon, A., Rambow, O., Scheffler, T., Yoon, S., & Joshi, A. K. (2006). The metagrammar goes multilingual: A cross-linguistic look at the V2-phenomenon. In Proceedings of the 8th international workshop on tree adjoining grammar and related formalisms (pp. 17–24). Sydney, Australia: Association for Computational Linguistics. http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W/W06/W06-1503.
  70. Koenig J., Muansuwan N. (2005) The syntax of aspect in Thai. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23: 335–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Kordoni V., Neu J. (2005) Deep analysis of modern Greek. In: Su K., Tsujii J., Lee J. (eds) Lecture Notes in Computer Science Vol. 3248. Germany: Springer, Berlin, pp 674–683Google Scholar
  72. Krieger, H., & Schäfer, U. (1994). TDL—a type description language for constraint-based grammars. In Proceedings of the 15th international conference on computational linguistics (pp. 893–899), Kyoto, Japan. http://www.aclweb.org/anthology-new/C/C94/C94-2144.pdf.
  73. Lewis, P. M. (Ed.) (2009). Ethnologue: Languages of the world (16th ed.). Dallas, TX: SIL International. http://www.ethnologue.com/.
  74. Marimon, M. (2010). The Spanish resource grammar. In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, J. Odijk, S. Piperidis, M. Rosner, & D. Tapias (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th conference on international language resources and evaluation (LREC’10). Valletta, Malta: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar
  75. McConnel, S. (1995). PC-PATR reference manual. Summer Institute for Linguistics. http://www.sil.org/pcpatr/manual/pcpatr.html.
  76. McShane M., Nirenburg S. (2003) Parameterizing and eliciting text elements across languages for use in natural language processing systems. Machine Translation 18: 129–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Monson, C., Llitjós, A. F., Ambati, V., Levin, L., Lavie, A., Alvarez, A., et al. (2008). Linguistic structure and bilingual informants help induce machine translation of lesser-resourced languages. In Proceedings of the 6th international language resources and evaluation (LREC’08) (pp. 2854–2859), Marrakech, Morocco. http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2008/pdf/725_paper.pdf.
  78. Moravcsik E. (1978) Agreement. In: Greenberg J. H., Ferguson C. A., Moravcsik E. A. (eds) Universals of human language, Vol. 4, Syntax. Stanford University Press, Stanford , pp 331–374Google Scholar
  79. Müller, S. (1999). Deutsche Syntax deklarativ. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar für das Deutsche. Number 394 in Linguistische Arbeiten Tübingen. Germany: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
  80. Müller S. (2007) Head-driven phrase structure grammar: Ein Einführung. Stauffenburg Verlag, TübingenGoogle Scholar
  81. Müller, S. (2009). Towards an HPSG analysis of Maltese. In B. Comrie, R. Fabri, B. Hume, M. Mifsud, T. Stolz, & M. Vanhove (Eds.), Introducing Maltese linguistics. Papers from the 1st international conference on Maltese linguistics (Bremen/Germany, 18–20 October, 2007), Vol. 113 of Studies in Language Companion Series (pp. 83–112). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  82. Müller S. (2010) Persian complex predicates and the limits of inheritance-based analyses. Journal of Linguistics 46(3): 601–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Müller S., Kasper W., Wahlster W. (2000) HPSG analysis of German. In: (eds) Springer, Berlin, pp 238–253Google Scholar
  84. Müller, S., & Lipenkova, J. (2009). Serial verb constructions in Chinese: A HPSG account. In S. Müller (Ed.), Proceedings of the 16th international conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar, University of Göttingen, Germany (pp. 234–254). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/HPSG/2009/mueller-lipenkova.pdf.
  85. Newman P. (2000) The Hausa Language: An encyclopedic reference grammar. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  86. Newmeyer F. J. (2004) Against a parameter-setting approach to typological variation. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 4: 181–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Newmeyer F. J. (2005) Possible and probable languages: A generative perspective on linguistic typology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  88. Nichols J. (2007) What, if anything, is typology?. Linguistic Typology 11: 231–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Nichols, E., Bond, F., Tanaka, T., Fujita, S., & Flickinger, D. (2006). Multilingual ontology acquisition from multiple MRDs. In Proceedings of the 2nd workshop on ontology learning and population: Bridging the gap between text and knowledge (pp. 10–17). Sydney, Australia: Association for Computational Linguistics. http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W/W06/W06-0502.pdf.
  90. Nordlinger R. (1998) A Grammar of Wambaya, Northern Australia. Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian National University, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  91. Oepen, S. (2001). \({{\sf \lbrack incr \,\, tsdb()\rbrack}}\)Competence and performance laboratory. User manual. Technical report, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany.Google Scholar
  92. Oepen, S., Flickinger, D., Ichi Tsujii, J., & Uszkoreit, H. (Eds.) (2002). Collaborative language engineering. A case study in efficient grammar-based processing. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  93. Oepen, S., & Flickinger, D. P. (1998). Towards systematic grammar profiling. Test suite technology ten years after. Journal of Computer Speech and Language, 12(4) (Special Issue on Evaluation), 411–436.Google Scholar
  94. Oepen, S., Velldal, E., Lønning, J. T., Meurer, P., Rosén, V., & Flickinger, D. (2007). Towards hybrid quality-oriented machine translation—on linguistics and probabilities in MT. In Proceedings of the 11th conference on theoretical and methodological issues in machine translation (TMI-07), Skövde, Sweden.Google Scholar
  95. O’Hara, K. (2008). A morphotactic infrastructure for a grammar customization system. Master’s thesis, University of Washington.Google Scholar
  96. Ørsnes, B. (2009). Preposed sentential negation in Danish. In S. Müller (Ed.), Proceedings of the 16th international conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar, University of Göttingen, Germany (pp. 255–275). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/HPSG/2009/oersnes.pdf.
  97. Payne J. R. (1985) Complex phrases and complex sentences. In: Shopen T. (eds) Language typology and syntactic description Vol. 2, Complex constructions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 3–41Google Scholar
  98. Pensalfini R. (2003) A grammar of Jingulu: An aboriginal language of the Northern Territory. Pacific Linguistics, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  99. Pollard, C., & Sag, I. A. (1994). Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Studies in Contemporary Linguistics. Chicago, IL and Stanford, CA: The University of Chicago Press and CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  100. Poulson, L. (2006). Evaluating a cross-linguistic grammar model: Methodology and test-suite resource development. Master’s thesis, University of Washington.Google Scholar
  101. Press M. (1979) Chemehuevi: A grammar and lexicon. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  102. Probst, K., Brown, R., Carbonell, J., Lavie, A., Levin, L., & Peterson, E. (2001). Design and implementation of controlled elicitation for machine translation of low-density languages. In Workshop MT2010 at machine translation summit VIII (pp. 189–192).Google Scholar
  103. Przepiórkowski A. (2000) Long distance genitive of negation in Polish. Journal of Slavic linguistics 8: 151–189Google Scholar
  104. Ranta A. (2007) Modular grammar engineering in GF. Research on Language & Computation 5: 133–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Rijkhoff J., Bakker D. (1998) Language sampling. Linguistic Typology 2: 263–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Ruhlen M. (1987) A guide to the world’s languages. Vol. 1: Classification. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  107. Rupp, C., Copestake, A., Corbett, P., & Waldron, B. (2007). Integrating general-purpose and domain-specific components in the analysis of scientific text. In Proceedings of the UK e-Science programme all hands meeting (AHM2007) (pp. 446–453), Nottingham, UK. http://www.allhands.org.uk/2007/proceedings/proceedings/proceedings.pdf.
  108. Saleem, S., & Bender, E. M. (2010). Argument optionality in the LinGO Grammar Matrix. In Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on computational linguistics (pp. 1068–1076), Beijing, China: COLING 2010 Organizing Committee. http://aclweb.org/anthology-new/C/C10/C10-2123.pdf.
  109. Schäfer, U. (2007). Integrating deep and shallow natural language processing components—representations and hybrid architectures. Ph.D. thesis, Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany. http://www.dfki.de/~uschaefer/diss/.
  110. Sheremetyeva, S., & Nirenburg, S. (2000). Acquisition of a language computational model for NLP. In Proceedings of COLING’2000 (pp. 1111–1115), Saarbrücken, Germany. http://aclweb.org/anthology-new/C/C00/C00-2168.pdf.
  111. Siegel, M., & Bender, E. M. (2002). Efficient deep processing of Japanese. In Proceedings of the 3rd workshop on Asian language resources and international standardization at the 19th international conference on computational linguistics, Taipei, Taiwan.Google Scholar
  112. Siewierska A. (2004) Person. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  113. Smirnova A. M. (1982) The Hausa language: A descriptive grammar. Routledge, BostonGoogle Scholar
  114. Smith C. S. (1997) The parameter of aspect (2nd ed.). Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  115. Sneddon J. N. (1996) Indonesian: A comprehensive grammar. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  116. Song, S., Kim, J., Bond, F., & Yang, J. (2010). Development of the Korean resource grammar: Towards grammar customization. In Proceedings of the 8th workshop on Asian language resources (pp. 144–152). Beijing, China: Coling 2010 Organizing Committee. http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W10-3219.
  117. Stassen L. (2000) And-languages and with-languages. Linguistic Typology 4: 1–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Taylor C. (1985) Nkore-Kiga. Croom Helm, LondonGoogle Scholar
  119. Toutanova K., Manning C. D., Flickinger D., Oepen S. (2005) Stochastic HPSG parse disambiguation using the Redwoods corpus. Research on Language & Computation 3(1): 83–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Velldal, E. (2008). Empirical realization ranking. Ph.D. thesis, University of Oslo, Department of Informatics.Google Scholar
  121. Voegelin C. F., Voegelin F. M. (1977) Classification and index of the world’s languages. Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  122. Zhang, Y., & Kordoni, V. (2006). Automated deep lexical acquisition for robust open texts processing. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC 2006) (pp. 275–280). http://hnk.ffzg.hr/bibl/lrec2006/.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emily M. Bender
    • 1
  • Scott Drellishak
    • 1
  • Antske Fokkens
    • 2
  • Laurie Poulson
    • 1
  • Safiyyah Saleem
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computational LinguisticsSaarland UniversitySaarbrückenGermany

Personalised recommendations