Deep Parsing of Turkish with Lexical-Functional Grammar

  • Özlem Çetinoğlu
  • Kemal OflazerEmail author
Part of the Theory and Applications of Natural Language Processing book series (NLP)


In this chapter we present a large scale, deep grammar for Turkish based on the Lexical-Functional Grammar formalism. In dealing with the rich derivational morphology of Turkish, we follow an approach based on morphological units that are larger than a morpheme but smaller than a word, in encoding rules of the grammar in order to capture the linguistic phenomena in a more formal and accurate way. Our work covers phrases that are building blocks of a large scale grammar, and also focuses on linguistically—and implementation-wise—more interesting cases such as long distance dependencies and complex predicates.


  1. Barker C, Hankamer J, Moore J (1990) Wa and Ga in Turkish. In: Dziwirek K, Farrell P, Meijas-Bikandi E (eds) Grammatical relations. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  2. Bozşahin C (2002) The combinatory morphemic lexicon. Comput Linguist 28(2):145–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bresnan J, Mchombo SA (1995) The lexical integrity principle: evidence from Bantu. Nat Lang Linguist Theory 13(2):181–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bresnan J, Mugane J (2006) Agentive nominalizations in Gikuyu and the theory of mixed categories. In: Butt M, Dalrympe M, King TH (eds) Intelligent linguistic architectures: variations on themes by Ronald M. Kaplan. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  5. Butt M, Niño M, Segond F (1999) A grammar writer’s cookbook. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  6. Butt M, Dyvik H, King TH, Masuichi H, Rohrer C (2002) The parallel grammar project. In: Proceedings of the workshop on grammar engineering and evaluation, Taipei, pp 1–7Google Scholar
  7. Butt M, King TH (2006) Restriction for morphological valency alternations: the Urdu causative. In: Butt M, Dalrympe M, King TH (eds) Intelligent linguistic architectures: variations on themes by Ronald M. Kaplan. CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp 235–258Google Scholar
  8. Çetinoğlu Ö (2009) A large scale LFG grammar for Turkish. PhD thesis, Sabancı University, IstanbulGoogle Scholar
  9. Çetinoğlu Ö, Butt M (2008) Turkish non-canonical objects. In: Proceedings of the LFG’08 conference, Sydney, pp 214–234Google Scholar
  10. Dalrymple M (2001) Lexical-functional grammar. Syntax and semantics. Academic, New York, NYCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dede M (1981) Grammatical relations and surface cases in Turkish. In: Proceedings of Berkeley Linguistic Society, Berkeley, CA, vol 7Google Scholar
  12. Enç M (1991) The semantics of specificity. Linguist Inq 22(1):1–25Google Scholar
  13. Frank A, King TH, Kuhn J, Maxwell JT (2001) Optimality Theory style constraint ranking in large-scale LFG grammars. In: Sells P (ed) Formal and empirical issues in optimality theoretic syntax. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  14. Göksel A, Kerslake C (2005) Turkish: a comprehensive grammar. Routledge, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gümüş T (2007) LFG for Turkish point-in-time expressions. Master’s thesis, Istanbul Technical University, IstanbulGoogle Scholar
  16. Güngördü Z, Engdahl E (1998) A relational approach to relativization in Turkish. In: Proceedings of joint conference on formal grammar, HPSG and categorial grammar, SaarbrückenGoogle Scholar
  17. Güngördü Z, Oflazer K (1995) Parsing Turkish using the lexical-functional grammar formalism. Mach. Transl 10(4):515–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. İşigüzel Ş (1994) Öykümü Kim Anlatacak. Can Yayınları, IstanbulGoogle Scholar
  19. Kabak B (2007) Turkish suspended affixation. Linguistics 45:311–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kaplan RM, Bresnan J (1982) Lexical-functional grammar: a formal system for grammatical representation. In: Bresnan J (ed) The mental representation of grammatical relations. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 173–281Google Scholar
  21. Kaplan RM, Maxwell JT (1988) Constituent coordination in lexical-functional grammar. In: Proceedings of COLING, Budapest, pp 303–305Google Scholar
  22. Kaplan RM, Maxwell JT (1996) LFG grammar writer’s workbench. Tech. rep., Xerox PARC, Palo Alto, CAGoogle Scholar
  23. Kaplan RM, Zaenen A (1989) Long-distance dependencies, constituent structure, and functional uncertainty. In: Baltin M, Kroch A (eds) Alternative conceptions of phrase structure. Chicago University Press, Chicago, IL, pp 17–42Google Scholar
  24. Kaplan R, Riezler S, King T, Maxwell J, Vasserman A, Crouch R (2004) Speed and accuracy in shallow and deep stochastic parsing. In: Proceedings of NAACL-HLT, Boston, MA, pp 97–104Google Scholar
  25. Kornfilt J (1990) Remarks on headless partitives and case in Turkish. In: Mascaro J, Nespor M (eds) Grammar in progress — GLOW essays for Henk van Riemsdijk, vol 30. Foris Publications, Providence, RI, pp 285–303Google Scholar
  26. Kornfilt J (1997) Turkish. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Oflazer K (1994) Two-level description of Turkish morphology. Lit Linguist Comput 9(2):137–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Özkaragöz İ (1986) Monoclausal double passives in Turkish. In: Slobin DI, Zimmer K (eds) Studies in Turkish linguistics. John Benjamins, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  29. Prince A, Smolensky P (2004) Optimality theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Blackwell, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Riezler S, Vasserman A (2004) Incremental feature selection and L1 regularization for maximum-entropy modeling. In: Proceedings of EMNLP, Barcelona, pp 174–181Google Scholar
  31. Riezler S, King TH, Kaplan RM, Crouch R, Maxwell JT, Johnson M (2002) Parsing the wall street journal using a lexical-functional grammar and discriminative estimation techniques. In: Proceedings of ACL, Philadelphia, PA, pp 271–278Google Scholar
  32. Say B, Zeyrek D, Oflazer K, Özge U (2004) Development of a corpus and a treebank for present-day written Turkish. In: Proceedings of the international conference on Turkish linguistics, Magosa, pp 183–192Google Scholar
  33. Şehitoğlu O (1996) A sign-based phrase structure grammar for Turkish. Master’s thesis, METU, AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  34. Sulger S, Butt M, King TH, Meurer P, Laczkó T, Rákosi G, Dione CB, Dyvik H, Rosén V, De Smedt K, Patejuk A, Çetinoglu Ö, Arka IW, Mistica M (2013) ParGramBank: the ParGram parallel treebank. In: Proceedings of ACL, Sofia, pp 550–560Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of StuttgartStuttgartGermany
  2. 2.Carnegie Mellon University QatarDoha-Education CityQatar

Personalised recommendations