Dependency Parsing of Turkish

  • Gülşen Eryiğit
  • Joakim Nivre
  • Kemal OflazerEmail author
Part of the Theory and Applications of Natural Language Processing book series (NLP)


Syntactic parsing is the process of taking an input sentence and producing an appropriate syntactic structure for it. It is a crucial stage in that it provides a way to pass from core NLP tasks to the semantic layer and it has been shown to increase the performance of many high-tier NLP applications such as machine translation, sentiment analysis, question answering, and so on. Statistical dependency parsing with its high coverage and easy-to-use outputs has become very popular in recent years for many languages including Turkish. In this chapter, we describe the issues in developing and evaluating a dependency parser for Turkish, which poses interesting issues and many different challenges due to its agglutinative morphology and freeness of its constituent order. Our approach is an adaptation of a language-independent data-driven statistical parsing system to Turkish.


  1. Ambati BR, Reddy S, Kilgarriff A (2012) Word sketches for Turkish. In: Proceedings of LREC, Istanbul, pp 2945–2950Google Scholar
  2. Arısoy E, Saraçlar M, Roark B, Shafran I (2012) Discriminative language modeling with linguistic and statistically derived features. IEEE Trans Audio Speech Lang Process 20(2):540–550Google Scholar
  3. Attardi G (2006) Experiments with a multilanguage non-projective dependency parser. In: Proceedings of CONLL, New York, NY, pp 166–170Google Scholar
  4. Bick E (2006) Lingpars, a linguistically inspired, language-independent machine learner for dependency treebanks. In: Proceedings of CONLL, New York, NY, pp 171–175Google Scholar
  5. Black E, Jelinek F, Lafferty JD, Magerman DM, Mercer RL, Roukos S (1992) Towards history-based grammars: using richer models for probabilistic parsing. In: Proceedings of the DARPA speech and natural language workshop, New York, NY, pp 31–37Google Scholar
  6. Bozşahin C (2002) The combinatory morphemic lexicon. Comput Linguist 28(2):145–186Google Scholar
  7. Buchholz S, Marsi E (2006) CoNLL-X shared task on multilingual dependency parsing. In: Proceedings of CONLL, New York, NY, pp 149–164Google Scholar
  8. Canisius S, Bogers T, van den Bosch A, Geertzen J, Sang ETK (2006) Dependency parsing by inference over high-recall dependency predictions. In: Proceedings of CONLL, New York, NY, pp 176–180Google Scholar
  9. Carreras X, Surdeanu M, Marquez L (2006) Projective dependency parsing with perceptron. In: Proceedings of CONLL, New York, NY, pp 181–185Google Scholar
  10. Chang CC, Lin CJ (2011) LIBSVM: a library for support vector machines. ACM Trans Intell Syst Technol 2(3), 1–27Google Scholar
  11. Chang MW, Do Q, Roth D (2006) A pipeline model for bottom-up dependency parsing. In: Proceedings of CONLL, New York, NY, pp 186–190Google Scholar
  12. Cheng Y, Asahara M, Matsumoto Y (2006) Multi-lingual dependency parsing at NAIST. In: Proceedings of CONLL, New York, NY, pp 191–195Google Scholar
  13. Chung H, Rim HC (2004) Unlexicalized dependency parser for variable word order languages based on local contextual pattern. In: Proceedings of CICLING, Seoul, pp 109–120Google Scholar
  14. Collins M (1996) A new statistical parser based on bigram lexical dependencies. In: Proceedings of ACL, Santa Cruz, CA, pp 184–191Google Scholar
  15. Collins M (1999) Head-driven statistical models for natural language parsing. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PAGoogle Scholar
  16. Corston-Oliver S, Aue A (2006) Dependency parsing with reference to Slovene, Spanish and Swedish. In: Proceedings of CONLL, New York, NY, pp 196–200Google Scholar
  17. Daelemans W, van den Bosch A (2005) Memory-based language processing. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Derici C, Çelik K, Özgür A, Güngör T, Kutbay E, Aydın Y, Kartal G (2014) Rule-based focus extraction in Turkish question answering systems. In: Proceedings of IEEE signal processing and communications applications conference, Trabzon, pp 1604–1607Google Scholar
  19. Dreyer M, Smith DA, Smith NA (2006) Vine parsing and minimum risk reranking for speed and precision. In: Proceedings of CONLL, New York, NY, pp 201–205Google Scholar
  20. Eisner J (1996) Three new probabilistic models for dependency parsing: an exploration. In: Proceedings of COLING, Copenhagen, pp 340–345Google Scholar
  21. Erguvanlı EE (1979) The function of word order in Turkish grammar. PhD thesis, UCLA, Los Angeles, CAGoogle Scholar
  22. Eryiğit G (2007) Dependency parsing of Turkish. PhD thesis, Istanbul Technical University, IstanbulGoogle Scholar
  23. Eryiğit G (2014) ITU Turkish NLP web service. In: Proceedings of EACL, Gothenburg, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  24. Eryiğit G, Oflazer K (2006) Statistical dependency parsing of Turkish. In: Proceedings of EACL, Trento, pp 89–96Google Scholar
  25. Eryiğit G, Nivre J, Oflazer K (2006) The incremental use of morphological information and lexicalization in data-driven dependency parsing. In: Proceedings of the international conference on the computer processing of oriental languages, Singapore, pp 498–507Google Scholar
  26. Eryiğit G, Nivre J, Oflazer K (2008) Dependency parsing of Turkish. Comput Linguist 34(3):357–389Google Scholar
  27. Eryiğit G, Çetin FS, Yanık M, Temel T, Çiçekli İ (2013) Turksent: a sentiment annotation tool for social media. In: Proceedings of the workshop on linguistic annotation workshop and interoperability with discourse, Sofia, pp 131–134Google Scholar
  28. Goldberg Y, Nivre J (2012) A dynamic oracle for arc-eager dependency parsing. In: Proceedings of COLING, Mumbai, pp 959–976Google Scholar
  29. Hadımlı K, Yöndem MT (2011) Information retrieval from Turkish radiology reports without medical knowledge. In: Proceedings of the international conference on flexible query answering systems, Ghent, pp 210–220Google Scholar
  30. Hadımlı K, Yöndem MT (2012) Two alternate methods for information retrieval from Turkish radiology reports. In: Proceedings of ISCIS, London, pp 527–532Google Scholar
  31. Hakkani-Tür DZ, Oflazer K, Tür G (2002) Statistical morphological disambiguation for agglutinative languages. Comput Hum 36(4):381–410Google Scholar
  32. Hoffman B (1994) Generating context appropriate word orders in Turkish. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on natural language generation, Kennebunkport, ME, pp 117–126Google Scholar
  33. Hudson RA (1990) English word grammar, vol 108. Basil Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  34. Johansson R, Nugues P (2006) Investigating multilingual dependency parsing. In: Proceedings of CONLL, New York, NY, pp 206–210Google Scholar
  35. Koo T, Collins M (2010) Efficient third-order dependency parsers. In: Proceedings of ACL, Uppsala, pp 1–11Google Scholar
  36. Koo T, Rush AM, Collins M, Jaakkola T, Sontag D (2010) Dual decomposition for parsing with non-projective head automata. In: Proceedings of EMNLP, Cambridge, MA, pp 1288–1298Google Scholar
  37. Kudo T, Matsumoto Y (2002) Japanese dependency analysis using cascaded chunking. In: Proceedings of CONLL, Taipei, pp 63–69Google Scholar
  38. Liu T, Ma J, Zhu H, Li S (2006) Dependency parsing based on dynamic local optimization. In: Proceedings of CONLL, New York, NY, pp 211–215Google Scholar
  39. Magerman DM (1995) Statistical decision-tree models for parsing. In: Proceedings of ACL, Cambridge, MA, pp 276–283Google Scholar
  40. Marcus M (1980) A theory of syntactic recognition for natural language. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  41. Martins AF, Smith NA, Xing EP (2009) Concise integer linear programming formulations for dependency parsing. In: Proceedings of the ACL-IJCNLP, Singapore, pp 342–350Google Scholar
  42. McDonald R, Pereira F (2006) Online learning of approximate dependency parsing algorithms. In: Proceedings of EACL, Trento, pp 81–88Google Scholar
  43. McDonald R, Crammer K, Pereira F (2005) Online large-margin training of dependency parsers. In: Proceedings of ACL, Ann Arbor, MI, pp 91–98Google Scholar
  44. McDonald R, Lerman K, Pereira F (2006) Multilingual dependency analysis with a two-stage discriminative parser. In: Proceedings of CONLL, New York, NY, pp 216–220Google Scholar
  45. Megyesi B, Dahlqvist B (2007) The Swedish-Turkish parallel corpus and tools for its creation. In: Proceedings of the nordic conference on computational linguistics, Tartu, pp 136–143Google Scholar
  46. Megyesi B, Dahlqvist B, Pettersson E, Nivre J (2008) Swedish-Turkish parallel treebank. In: Proceedings of LREC, Marrakesh, pp 470–473Google Scholar
  47. Mel’čuk IA (1988) Dependency syntax: theory and practice. SUNY Press, Albany, NYGoogle Scholar
  48. Meral HM, Sankur B, Özsoy AS, Güngör T, Sevinç E (2009) Natural language watermarking via morphosyntactic alterations. Comput Speech Lang 23(1):107–125Google Scholar
  49. Nivre J (2003) An efficient algorithm for projective dependency parsing. In: Proceedings of IWPT, Nancy, pp 149–160Google Scholar
  50. Nivre J (2004) Incrementality in deterministic dependency parsing. In: Proceedings of the workshop on incremental parsing: bringing engineering and cognition together, Barcelona, pp 50–57Google Scholar
  51. Nivre J (2006) Inductive dependency parsing. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  52. Nivre J, Scholz M (2004) Deterministic dependency parsing of English text. In: Proceedings of COLING, Geneva, pp 64–70Google Scholar
  53. Nivre J, Hall J, Nilsson J (2004) Memory-based dependency parsing. In: Proceedings of CONLL, Boston, MA, pp 49–56Google Scholar
  54. Nivre J, Hall J, Nilsson J, Eryiğit G, Marinov S (2006) Labeled pseudo-projective dependency parsing with support vector machines. In: Proceedings of CONLL, New York, NY, pp 221–225Google Scholar
  55. Nivre J, Hall J, Nilsson J, Chanev A, Eryiğit G, Kübler S, Marinov S, Marsi E (2007) MaltParser: a language-independent system for data-driven dependency parsing. Nat Lang Eng 13(2):95–135Google Scholar
  56. Oflazer K (2003) Dependency parsing with an extended finite-state approach. Comput Linguist 29(4):515–544Google Scholar
  57. Oflazer K (2014) Turkish and its challenges for language processing. Lang Resour Eval 48(4):639–653Google Scholar
  58. Oflazer K, Say B, Hakkani-Tür DZ, Tür G (2003) Building a Turkish treebank. In: Treebanks: building and using parsed corpora. Kluwer Academic Publishers, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  59. Ratnaparkhi A (1997) A linear observed time statistical parser based on maximum entropy models. In: Proceedings of EMNLP, Providence, RI, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  60. Riedel S, Çakıcı R, Meza-Ruiz I (2006) Multi-lingual dependency parsing with incremental integer linear programming. In: Proceedings of CONLL, New York, NY, pp 226–230Google Scholar
  61. Sagae K, Lavie A (2005) A classifier-based parser with linear run-time complexity. In: Proceedings of IWPT, Vancouver, pp 125–132Google Scholar
  62. Saygın AP (2010) A computational analysis of interaction patterns in the acquisition of Turkish. Res Lang Comput 8(4):239–253Google Scholar
  63. Schiehlen M, Spranger K (2006) Language independent probabilistic context-free parsing bolstered by machine learning. In: Proceedings of CONLL, New York, NY, pp 231–235Google Scholar
  64. Sekine S, Uchimoto K, Isahara H (2000) Backward beam search algorithm for dependency analysis of Japanese. In: Proceedings of COLING, Saarbrücken, pp 754–760Google Scholar
  65. Sgall P, Hajicová E, Panevová J (1986) The meaning of the sentence in its semantic and pragmatic aspects. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  66. Shieber SM (1983) Sentence disambiguation by a shift-reduce parsing technique. In: Proceedings of ACL, Cambridge, MA, pp 113–118Google Scholar
  67. Shimizu N (2006) Maximum spanning tree algorithm for non-projective labeled dependency parsing. In: Proceedings of CONLL, New York, NY, pp 236–240Google Scholar
  68. Sulubacak U, Eryiğit G (2013) Representation of morphosyntactic units and coordination structures in the Turkish dependency treebank. In: Proceedings of the workshop on statistical parsing of morphologically rich languages, Seattle, WA, pp 129–134Google Scholar
  69. Tesnière L (1959) Eléments de syntaxe structurale. Librairie C. Klincksieck, ParisGoogle Scholar
  70. Vapnik VN (1995) The nature of statistical learning theory. Springer, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  71. Wu YC, Lee YS, Yang JC (2006) The exploration of deterministic and efficient dependency parsing. In: Proceedings of CONLL, New York, NY, pp 241–245Google Scholar
  72. Yamada H, Matsumoto Y (2003) Statistical dependency analysis with support vector machines. In: Proceedings of IWPT, Nancy, pp 195–206Google Scholar
  73. Yıldırım E, Çetin FS, Eryiğit G, Temel T (2014) The impact of NLP on Turkish sentiment analysis. In: Proceedings of the international conference on Turkic language processing, IstanbulGoogle Scholar
  74. Yuret D (2006) Dependency parsing as a classification problem. In: Proceedings of CONLL, New York, NY, pp 246–250Google Scholar
  75. Zhang Y, Clark S (2008) A tale of two parsers: investigating and combining graph-based and transition-based dependency parsing using beam-search. In: Proceedings of EMNLP, Honolulu, HI, pp 562–571Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gülşen Eryiğit
    • 1
  • Joakim Nivre
    • 2
  • Kemal Oflazer
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Istanbul Technical UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Uppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden
  3. 3.Carnegie Mellon University QatarDoha-Education CityQatar

Personalised recommendations