Chapter. 1 Introduction

Kucera, H. 1992. The Odd Couple: The Linguist and the Software Engineer. The Struggle for High Quality Computerized Language Aids. In Svartvik, pages 401–424.

Kuhlmann, M. and M. Möhl. 2007. Mildly Context Sensitive Dependency Language. In Proceedings of ACL. Prague, Czech Republic.

Landis, J.R. and G.G. Koch. 1977. The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. Biometrics: 159–174.

Lawey, Aadil, A. & Nazima, Mehdi. 2011. Development of Unicode Complaint Kashmiri Font: Issues and Resolutions. In Interdisciplinary Journal of Linguistics 4:195-200/ University of Kashmir: Srinagar.

Lee, H. C. N. Huang, J. Gao and X. Fan, 2004. Chinese Chunking with Another Type of Spec. In Proceedings of SIGHAN: 41-48. Barcelona.

Leech, G. & Wilson, A. 1996. Recommendations for the Morpho-syntactic Annotation of Corpora. EAGLES Report EAG-TCWG-MAC/R.

Leech, G and Wilson, A. 1999. Standards for Tag-sets. In Syntactic Wordclass Tagging, Hans van Halteren (ed.), Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

Leech, G. 1991. The State of the Art in Corpus Linguistics. In Aijmer, K. and Altenberg, B., Editors, English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik, pages 8–29. Longman, London.

Leech, G. 1992. Corpora and Theories of Linguistic Performance. In Svartvik, 1992b, pages 105–122.

Leech, G., Barnett, R., and Kahrel, P. 1996. EAGLES Recommendations for the Syntactic Annotation of Corpora, eag-tcwg-sasg/1.8 version of 11th march 1996. http://www.ilc.pi.cnr.it/EAGLES96/segsasg1/segsasg1.html.

Lehal, G.S. 2010. A Word Segmentation System for Handling Space Omission Problem in Urdu Script. In Proceedings of 23^rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics: 43.

Lesmo, L. and Lombardo, V. 2000. Automatic Assignment of Grammatical Relations. In Proceedings of LREC, pages 475-482, Athens, Greece.

Litkowski, K. 1999. Question-answering Using Semantic Relation Triples. In Proceedings of TREC-8, pages 349–356, Gaithersburg MD.

Lombardo, V. and Lesmo, L. 1998. Unit Coordination and Gapping in Dependecy Theory. In Processing of Dependency-based Grammars, COLING-ACL.

Levin, B. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. University of Chicago Press.

Lindquist, Hans. 2009. Corpus Linguistics and the Description of English. Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh.

Liberman, M. 2000. Legal, Ethical and Policy Issues Concerning the Recording and Publication of Primary Language Materials. In Steven Bird and Gary Simons, (editors).

Lüdeling, Anke & Merja Kytö (eds.). 2009. Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook Vol.2. Walter de Gruyter: Berlin.

Manning, C. and H. Schütze. 1999. Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing. MIT.

Steedman M. 2011. Romantics and Revolutionaries: What Theoretical and Computational Linguists Need to Know About Each Other But We Are Afraid. Linguistic Issues in Language Technology LILT. CSLI Publications

Marcus, M.P. M.A. Marcinkiewicz, and B. Santorini. 1993. Building a Large Annotated Corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. Computational linguistics 19 (2): 313–330.

Marantz, A. P. 1984. On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. MIT Press, Cambridge.

Marcus, M., Kim, G., Marcinkiewicz, M., MacIntyre, R., Bies, A., Ferguson, M., Katz, K. and Schasberger, B. 1994. The Penn Treebank: Annotating Predicate Argument structure. In Proceedings of The Human Language Technology Workshop, San Francisco. Morgan-Kaufmann.

Marcus, M., Santorini, B., and Marcinkiewicz, M. 1993. Building a Large Annotated Corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics, 19:313–330.

M. Butt. 2004. The Light Verb Jungle. In G. Aygen, C. Bowern & C. Quinn Eds.

Papers from the GSAS/Dudley House Workshop on Light Verbs. Cambridge, Harvard

Working Papers in Linguistics, p. 1-50.

McEnery, T. and Wilson, A. (1996). Corpus Linguistics. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.

Masica, C.P. 1993. The Indo-Aryan Languages. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK

Matthews, P.H. 2007. Syntactic Relations: A Critical Survey. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

McDonald, R. F. Pereira, K. Ribarov and J. Hajič. 2005. Non-Projective Dependency Parsing using Spanning Tree Algorithms. In Proceedings of HLTEMNLP.

McEnery, Tony & Wilson, A. Corpus Linguistics. Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh.

McEnery, A. M. Backer, J. P. Gaizauskas, R. & Cunningham, H. 2000. EMILLE: Building Corpus of South Asian Languages. Vervek, A Quaterly in Artificial Intelligence. 13 (3): page 23-32.

Melčuk, I. 1979. Studies in Dependency Syntax. Karoma Publishers, Inc.

Mel’cuk, I.A. 1988. Dependency Syntax: Theory and Practice. State University Press of New York.

Meyers, A. R. Reeves, C. Macleod, R. Szekely, V. Zielinska, B. Young, and R. Grishman, 2004. The NomBank Project: An Interim Report. In NAACL/HLT 2004 Workshop Frontiers in Corpus Annotation.

Meyers, A. 1995. The NP Analysis of NP. In Papers from the 31st Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society: 329-342.

Meyer, Charles F. 2002. English Corpus Linguistics: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Mitchell, T. M. (1997). Machine Learning. McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Milicevic, Jasmina. 2006. A Short Guide to the Meaning-Text Linguistic Theory. Journal of Koralex, vol. 8: 187-233.

Mohanan, T. 1990. Arguments in Hindi. Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University.

Neumann, Gunter. 1994. A Uniform Computational Model for Natural Language Parsing and Generation. Doctoral Dissertation. The University of Saarlandes

Nilsson, Peter. --- . An Experimental Study of Nivre’s Parser. Thesis for a diploma in computer science, Department of computer science, Faculty of science, Lund University.

Nivre, J. 2003. An Efficient Algorithm for Projective Dependency Parsing. In Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Parsing Technologies (IWPT 03), pages 149–160, Nancy.

Nivre, J. 2005. Inductive Dependency Parsing of Natural Language Text. PhD thesis, School of Mathematics and System Engineering, Växjö University.

Nivre, J. and Nilsson, J. (2005). Pseudo-projective Dependency Parsing. In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL’05), pages 99–106, Ann Arbor.

Nivre, J. ---. Dependency Grammar and Dependency Parsing. Ms.

Oepen, S. K. Toutanova, S. M. Shieber, C. D. Manning, D. Flickinger, and T. Brants, 2002. The LinGO Redwoods Treebank: Motivation and Preliminary Applications. In Proceedings of COLING. Taipei, Taiwan.

O'keeffe, A. & M. Mccarthy (eds.). 2010. The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics. Routledge:London.

Oflazer, K. B., Say, D.Z. Hakkani-T¨ur, and G. T¨ur. 2003. Building a turkish treebank. Abeill´e: 261–277.

Palmer, M., D. Gildea, P. Kingsbury. 2005. The Proposition Bank: An Annotated Corpus of Semantic Roles. Computational Linguistics 31(1):71-106.

Palmer, M., R. Bhatt, B. Narasimhan, O. Rambow, D.M. Sharma, and F. Xia. 2009. Hindi syntax: Annotating dependency, lexical predicate-argument structure, and phrase structure. In Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Natural Language Processing: 14–17.

Perlmutter, D. M. and P. M. Postal, 1984. The 1- Advancement Exclusiveness Law. In Studies in Relational Grammar 2. D. M. Perlmutter & C. G. Rosen,(eds). Univ. of Chicago Press.

Perlmutter, D. 1983. Studies in Relational Grammar. University of Chicago Press.

Poesio, M. 1999. Coreference in MATE Deliverable 2.1,

http://www.ims.unistuttgart.de/projekte/mate/mdag/cr/cr_1.html

Piwek, Paul & Kees van Deemter. 2006. Constraint-based Natural Language Generation: A Survey. Technical Report. The Open University, UK.

Phillips, C. - - -. Should we Impeach Armchair Linguists? To Appear in S. Iwasaki (Ed.) Japanese/Korean Linguistics 17. CSLI Publications. Special Section of Papers from a Workshop on ‘Progress in Generative Grammar’. Ms.

Poesio, M. 2004. The MATE/GNOME Scheme for Anaphoric Annotation, Revisited. In Proceedings of SIGDIAL.

Poesio, M. and R. Artstein. 2005. The Reliability of Anaphoric Annotation, Reconsidered: Taking Ambiguity into Account. In Proceedings of ACL Workshop on Frontiers in Corpus Annotation.

Polguère. A & Mel’čuk A. Igor. 2009. Dependency in Linguistic Description. John Benjamins.

Pustejovsky, J. A. Meyers, M. Palmer, and M. Poesio, 2005. Merging PropBank, NomBank, TimeBank, Penn Discourse Treebank and Coreference. In ACL Workshop: Frontiers in Corpus Annotation II: Pie in the Sky.

Rambow, O., Creswell, C., Szekely, R., Taber, H., Walker, M. 2002. A Dependency Treebank for English. In Proceedings of LREC.

Rajesh Bhatt. 2008. A Lecture at EFLU, Hyderabad.

http://people.umass.edu/bhatt/papers/eflu-aug18.pdf

Reddy, Prashanth, Aswarth Abhilash & Akshar Bharati. 2009. LTAG-spinal Treebank and Parser for Hindi. In International Conference on Natural Language Processing (ICON2009).

Reichartz, F., H. Korte, and G. Paass. 2009. Dependency Tree Kernels for Relation Extraction from Natural Language Text. Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases: 270–285.

Renouf, A. 2002. The Time Dimension in Modern English Corpus Linguistics. In B. Kettemann & G. Marko (eds.). 2000. Teaching and Learning by doing Corpus Analysis. Papers from the Fourth International Conference on Teaching and Language Corpora, Graz, Amsterdam.

Richa. 2011. Hindi Verb Classes & Their Argument Structure Alternations. Cambridge Scholars Publishing: UK.

Ross, J. R. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

Robins, R. H. 1967. A Short History of Linguistics. Longman.

Robinson, J. J. (1970). Dependency Structures and Transformational Rules. Language

46: page 259-285.

Sag, I. A. and J. D. Fodor, 1994. Extraction without Traces. In R. Aranovich, W. Byrne, S.

Sampson, G. 2005. Quantifying the Shift Towards Empirical Methods. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 10 (1)

Sampson, G. 2007. Grammar without Grammaticality. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 3 (1)

Schneider, G. 1998. A Linguistic Comparision of Constituency, Dependency and Link Grammar. ExtrAns Research Report: Dependency vs. Constituency

Bird, S. and Simons, G. 2001. The OLAC Metadata Set and Controlled Vocabularies. In Proceedings of ACL/EACL Workshop on Sharing Tools and Resources for Research and Education. http://arXiv.org/abs/cs/0105030.

Bird, S. and Simons, G. 2001. Seven Dimensions of Portability for Language Documentation and Description. LDC UPenn http://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0204020v1

Salmon-Alt, S. and L. Romary. 2004. RAF: Towards a Reference Annotation Framework, LREC.

Santorini, B. 1990. Part-of-speech Tagging Guidelines for the Penn Treebank Project. Technical Report MS-CIS- 90-47, Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania.

Sharma, D. M., R. Sangal, L. Bai, R. Begam, and K.V. Ramakrishnamacharyulu. 2007. AnnCorra: TreeBanks for Indian Languages, Annotation Guidelines (manuscript), IIIT, Hyderabad, India.

Shaumyan, S. 1977. Applicative Grammar as a Semantic Theory of Natural Language. Chicago Univ. Press.

Shieber, S.M. 1985. Evidence Against the Context-freeness of Natural Language. Linguistics and Philosophy 8(3): page 333-343.

Singh, A. K. 2008. A Mechanism to Provide Language-encoding Support and an NLP Friendly Editor. In Proceedings of the third international joint conference on natural language processing (ijcnlp). Hyderabad, India: Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing.

Singh, A. K. 2011. A Concise Query Language with Search and Transform Operations for Corpora with Multiple Levels of Annotation. CoRR, http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.1966.

Singh, A. K. & Ambati, B. 2010. An Integrated Digital Tool for Accessing Language

Resources. In The Seventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (lrec). Malta: The European Language Resources Association (ELRA).

Singh, A. K. 2011. Part-of-Speech Annotation with Sanchay. In Proceedings of National Seminar on POS Annotation: Issues and Prespectives.LDCIL, CIIL Mysore.

Skut, Wojciech, Brigitte Krenn, Thorsten Brants, and Hans Uszkoreit, 1997. An Annotation Scheme for Free Word Order Languages. In Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing ANLP-97. Washington, DC.

Simkova, Maria (ed.). 2006. Insight into the Slovak and Czech Corpus Linguistics. Publishing House of Slovak Academy of Sciences: Bratislava.

Sinclair, John & Ronald Carter (eds.). Trust the Text: Language, Corpus & Discourse. Routledge: London.

Singh, Anil Kumar, Samar Husain, Harshit Surana, Jagadeesh Gorla, Chinnappa Guggilla & Dipti Misra Sharma. 2007. Disambiguating Tense, Aspect and Modality Markers for Correcting Machine Translation Errors. In Proceedings of the Conference on Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing (RANLP). Borovets, Bulgaria.

Sinha, Mahesh K. 2009. A Journey from Indian Scripts Processing to Indian Language Processing. IEEE the Annals of the History of Computing:8-31. IEEE Computer Society.

Sampson, G. 1992. Probabilistic Parsing. In Svartvik, 1992b, pages 105–122.

Sampson, G. 2000. Thoughts on Two Decades of Drawing Trees. In Abeill´e, 2000, pages 23–41.

Taylor, A., Marcus, M., and Santorini, B. 2000. The Penn Treebank: An Overview. In Abeill´e, 2000, pages 5–22.

Telljohann, H. E. Hinrichs, S. Kübler and H. Zinsmeister. 2005. Stylebook of the Tübinger Treebank of Written German (TüBa-D/Z).

Teubert, Wolfgang. 2001. Corpus Linguistics and Lexicography. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics Vol. 6:125-153.

Teubert, Wolfgang. 2005. My Version of Corpus Linguistics. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 10.1: 1-13.

Thielen, C. and A. Schiller, 1996. Technical report. University of Tübingen.. Ein kleines und erweitertes Tagset fürs Deutsche. In Feldweg,

Tsai, J. L., 2005. Lexicographica. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 193-203. A Study of Applying BTM Model on the Chinese Chunk Bracketing. In LINC-2005, IJCNLP-2005, pp.21-30.

Uria, L., A. Estarrona, I. Aldezabal, M. Aranzabe, A. D´ıaz de Ilarraza, and M. Iruskieta. 2009. Evaluation of the syntactic annotation in epec, the reference corpus for the processing of Basque. Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing:72–85.

Uszkoreit, H. 1986. Constraints on Order. Linguistics 24.

Vaidya, A., S. Husain, P. Mannem, and D. Sharma. 2009. A Karaka Based Annotation Scheme for English. Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing: 41–52.

Vempaty, Chaitanya, Naidu, Viswanatha, Husain, Samar, Kiran, Ravi, Bai, Lakshmi, Sharma, Dipti M., and Sangal, Rajeev. 2010. Issues in Analyzing Telugu Sentences Towards Building a Telugu Treebank. In Proceedings of CICLING.

Klimes, Vaclav. 2006. Analytical and Tectogrammatical Analysis of a Natural Language. Ph.D. Thesis. Charles University, Prague.

Van Deemter, K. and R. Kibble, 2001. On Coreferring: Coreference in MUC and related Annotation schemes. Journal of Computational Linguistics 26 (4): 629-637

Van Der Beek, L., G. Bouma, R. Malouf, and G. Van Noord. 2002. The Alpino Dependency Treebank. Language and Computers 45(1):8-22.

VanValin, R. D. 1999. Generalized Semantic Roles and the Syntax-semantics Interface. In Corblin, F., Dobrovie-Sorin, C., and Marandin, J. M., Editors, Empirical Issues in Formal Syntax and Semantics 2, pages 373-389. Thesus, The Hague.

VanValin, R. D. 2001. An Introduction to Syntax. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Vempaty, Chaitanya, Viswanatha Naidu, Samar Husain, Ravi Kiran, Lakshmi Bai, Dipti M Sharma & Rajeev Sangal.2010. Issues in Analyzing Telugu Sentences Towards Building a Telugu Treebank. MS. Language Technologies Research Centre, IIIT-Hyderabad, India. Page 50-59

Volodina, Elena. 2008. From Corpus to Language Classroom: Reusing Stockholm Umeå Corpus in a Vocabulary Exercise Generator SCORVEX. Master Thesis. University of Gothenburg.

Wenger, Neven. 2009. The Syntax of Finiteness. Frankfurt a. M.

Woolford, Ellen. 1997. Four Way Accusative Case Systems: Ergative, Nominative, Objective and Accusative. Natural Language & Linguistics Theory 15:181-227. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Netherlands.

Xia, F. O. Rambow, R. Bhatt, M. Palmer and D. Sharma, 2009. Towards a Multi-Representational Treebank. In Proceedings of the 7th Int’lWorkshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories (TLT-7)

Xia, F. M. Palmer, N. Xue, N., M. E. Okurowski, J. Kovarik, F.-D. Chiou, S. Huang, T. Kroch, and Marcus, M., 2000. Developing Guidelines and Ensuring Consistency for Chinese Text Annotation. In Proceedings of LREC. Greece.

Xia, F. 2001. Automatic Grammar Generation from Two Different Perspectives. PhD Thesis, University of Pennsylvania.

Xia, F. and Palmer, M. (2001). Converting Dependency Structures to Phrase Structures. In Proceedings of the Human Language Technology Conference (HLT-2001), San Diego CA.

Xue, N. F. Chiou and M. Palmer. Building a Large-Scale Annotated Chinese Corpus, 2002. In Proceedings of COLING. Taipei, Taiwan.

Xue, N., F. Xia, F.-D. Chiou and M. Palmer, 2005. The Penn Chinese TreeBank: Phrase Structure Annotation of a Large Corpus. Natural Language Engineering 11(2): 207.

Yong, C. and S.K. Foo. 1999. A Case Study on Inter-annotator Agreement for Word Sense Disambiguation. Ms.

Zeldes, Amir & Anke Lüdeling (eds.). 2011. Proceedings of Quantitative Investigations in Theoretical Linguistics 4. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.

Zwicky, A. M. (1985). Heads. Journal of Linguistics 21: page 1-29.

1 An assembly of e-dictionary and formal representation of word, phrase and sentence formation rules for a language.

2 The well known treebanks are Penn English Treebank; Marcus et al. 1993, Penn Arabic Treebank; Maamouri et al. 2004, Penn Chinese Treebank; Xue et al. 2004, Prague Dependency Treebank of Czech; Hijicova & Hajic, 1998, Böhmova et al. 2003, HyDTB Hindi Treebank; Begum et al., 2008, etc.

3^ KashTreeBank was initially conceived as a summer school project in IASNLP 2011.

4^ During the last decade treebanks have been used for the induction of probabilistic grammars for syntactic parsing (see Collins, 1999 & Charniak 2000) but currently these are used in data-driven parsing (see Bod 1998, Nivere 2009) which eliminates the traditional notion of grammar completely and uses a probabilistic model defined directly on the treebank.

5^ Besides optimization of syntactic parsers, treebanks are used to induce other linguistic phenomena that are relevant to NLP e.g. extraction of sub-categorization frames (Briscoe, 1997).

6^ see, http://visl.edu.dk

7^ Parse a little, learn a little

8^{ Indian Languages Machine Translation, a consortium project at LTRC Lab IIIT Hydrabad}

9^{ PropBank (Palmer M, Kingsbury P, Gildea D, 2005) at University of Colorado}

10^{ LDCIL-IIT Kharagpur Bangla Treebank (Sanjay C, Praveen S, Sudeshna S, Devshri R, 2009)}

11^{ The French clause “Alfred parle” means “Alfred speaks”}

12^{ Translated from Tesniere (1959, page. 11–13) by Joakim Nivre (2009)}

13^{ The notational convention used in the above dependency graph is that the arrows point from H to Ds but there is a competing tradition in the literature according to which arrows point from the Ds to the H (Nivere, 2009).}

14^{ Taken from Hudson (1990, pp. 106-7).}

15^{ One peculiarity of the dependency structure in Figure.4 is that there is an artificial word root before the first word of the sentence. This is a mere technicality, which simplifies both formal definitions and computational implementations. In particular, it is assumed that every real word of the sentence has a syntactic head. Thus, instead of saying that the verb had lacks a syntactic head, it can be said that it is dependent of the artificial word root (Nivere, 2009).}

16^{ Argument Structure is inherent property of certain classes of lexemes, particularly verbs (also for nouns and adjectives). The argument structure of verb is called predicate argument structure.}

17^{ This bottom-up approach is widely used in Europe (by linguists in Germany, France, Scandinavia, Czechoslovakia, Russia), and by Russians and Slavists in USA (Mel'cuk, Shaumyan, Nichols). From concrete data (empirical) to abstract categories (rational) or simply from data to theory}

18^{ In 1930 Leonard Bloomfield in the USA developed a top-down approach: Immediate-Constituent Analysis (which turned into PSG, TGG, X-bar Syntax and Minimalism), largely inspired by the German psychologist Wundt - Percival, "On the Historical Source of Immediate Constituent". From abstract categories (rational) to concrete data (empirical) or simply from theory to data}

19^{ The alternative terms for that are used in the literature are modifier or child for dependent and modified, governor, regent or parent for head.}

20^{ The nucleus is a unique head which coincides with the head of the structural as well as the semantic node and consequently bears both the semantic and the nodal functions. Otherwise the nucleus is said to be dissociated. The most typical example of a dissociated nucleus in the verb group consisting of an auxiliary Verb and a main Verb; the former bears the nodal function, while the latter bears the semantic function.}

21^{ Johnson (1977) used terms S, DO, IO to describe grammatical relations but Perlmutter (1980) used simple numbers 1, 2. & 3.}

22^{ The term ‘chomeur’ is the French word meaning a jobless person, indicated by * in the clause.}

23 For Covington (1984) the Primum-to-Secundum relation correspond the current notion of dependency.

24 Covington (1984) and Robins (1997) explicitly point out that the Dependens-to-Terminans relation should not be confused with the present-day notion of dependency. Percival (1990), for example, considers the Dependens-to-Terminans dichotomy to correspond to the modern notion of dependent-head asymmetry. But he also considers this relation to be another way of capturing Boethius’ notion of “Determination”.