This is an old revision of the document!
Marie-Catherine de Marneffe, Christopher D. Manning: The Stanford typed dependencies representation, Coling 2008.
Questions
Formally there are 7 questions, but the answers can be brief.
- What do the authors give as a good example of a frequently used linguistic data resource? What reason(s) do they give for its frequent use?
- What is more important for SDs: semantic relevance or linguistic accuracy?
- The version of SDs described in the paper collapses prepositions. If they were represented as individual nodes instead (which they are in the “basic” version of SDs, not described in the paper), would you expect them to be head nodes or dependent nodes of the prepositional phrase? I.e., which representation of “go to school” seems more appropriate according to the Design Principles?
- a) prep(go, to); pobj(to, school)
- b) pobj(go, school); prep(school, to)
- In the variant of SDs described in the paper, each word of the sentence appears as a dependent in a relation:
- a) exactly once
- b) once or not at all
- c) once or more times
- d) zero or more times
- In the variant of SDs described in the paper, each word of the sentence appears as a head in a relation:
- a) exactly once
- b) once or not at all
- c) once or more times
- d) zero or more times
- Based on the paper, what properties do you think that a representation of a sentence in SD has (if you think about it as a graph)?
- a) Is it connected?
- b) Is it a DAG (directed acyclic graph)?
- c) Is it rooted?
- d) Is it a tree?
- Try to devise the SD representation of the following sentence: Small boys and girls must go to school.
Hint: you should probably use the following SD types: amod, aux, conj_*, nsubj, prep_*, root.
The 'root' relation was probably not mentioned in the paper (so you don't have to use it) – it is used to denote the dependent of the technical ROOT-0 node.
If you want, try to also draw that as a graph representation.