Locally coverned trees and dependency parsing

Abstract

~ paper desc[J.~s the notion of ]pcall.y gove~:ned t~:ees as a n<x]el of sttuCtu17ally [estrfcted dependency st~:uctures of sentenc.eSo 2~n abstract umchine and its supporting softwa~:e to*. the building of local ly goqerned t~:ees is intr_(~iuced. The rest of the paper dis~:usse,q [.ew uuaM]iguous~ ~<-'].]-for,~d local]y governed i:~:ees can be parsed ill l.i[~ea~: tia~ ~{~en cxertain ~'tructural ~x~nstr~int's a~e in fuzce o

Concurrent, object-oriented natural language parsing: the ParseTalk model

“…from Table 1. Note that unlike most previous dependency grammar formalisms (Starosta and Nomura, 1986;Hellwig, 1988;Jäppinen, Lassila and Lehtola, 1988;Fraser and Hudson, 1992) this criterion assigns equal opportunities to syntactic as well as conceptual conditions for computing dependency relations. Information on word classes, morphosyntactic features, and order constraints is purely syntactic, while conceptual compatibility introduces an additional descriptive layer to be satisfied before a grammatical relation may actually be established (cf.…”

Concurrent lexicalized dependency parsing

“…As can easily be verified, SATISFIES is fulfilled for the combination of "mit", the prepositional valency, and "Notebook" from Table 1. Note that unlike most previous dependency grammar formalisms (Starosta & Nomura, 1986;Hellwig, 1988;Jäppinen, Lassila & Lehtola, 1988;Fraser & Hudson, 1992) this criterion assigns equal opportunities to syntactic as well as conceptual conditions for computing valid dependency relations. Information on word classes, morphosyntactic features, and order constraints is purely syntactic, while conceptual compatibility introduces an additional description layer to be satisfied before a grammatical relation may be established (cf.…”