Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 31 references

Constituency Structure over Eojeol in Korean Treebanks

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Korean constituency trees should take eojeol as terminals and keep morphology in a separate layer.

desk verdict A clear, honest design proposal for eojeol-based Korean constituency; the conditional equivalence claim is asserted rather than demonstrated, so treat it as a proposal, not a result. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.22487 v2 pith:57QBHAIQ submitted 2025-12-27 cs.CL

Jungyeul Park , Chulwoo Park This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords Koreanconstituencyparsingeojeolmorphemesegmentationtreebanknormalizationconstituency–dependencyconversionannotationschemeuniversalpart-of-speechequivalence
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that Korean syntax should be annotated over eojeol—the spacing unit that usually combines a stem with case or ending—rather than over individual morphemes, and that morphology should live in a separate, non-constituent layer. Its central comparative claim is that after three explicit normalization steps (debinarizing one treebank, removing null elements from another, and aligning tokenization), the two major eojeol-based Korean constituency treebanks encode the same class of constituency relations, and the third, morpheme-based treebank can be converted to that same backbone. If true, the three resources become comparable and convertible without reconstructing word boundaries, and future parsing can treat eojeol as the surface terminal. This matters because existing Korean dependency resources are eojeol-based, so a shared eojeol backbone would remove a major representational mismatch between constituency and dependency grammar.

What carries the argument

The eojeol — the orthographic spacing unit in Korean, typically a lexical stem plus functional morphemes — is the central object. The argument makes it the sole constituency terminal and treats it as the minimal unit that participates in syntactic relations. Working as the common backbone, it allows the three treebanks to be normalized into one representational space, and it anchors the six-column format in which constituency bracketing and morphological analysis are aligned but non-interacting.

What would settle it

Take any sentence annotated in both the strictly-binary treebank and the null-element treebank, apply the paper's normalizations, and compare the derived eojeol-bracketed trees; if the two derived trees differ in constituent boundaries or labels for the same eojeol yield, the equivalence fails. A single such case, for example a null subject whose deletion changes where a complement attaches, would refute the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's load-bearing claim is representational equivalence under normalization: debinarizing the strictly binary treebank, deleting null elements from the treebank that annotates empty categories, and standardizing eojeol tokenization do not change the set of terminals, their order, or the syntactic relations among them. Under those assumptions the two major eojeol-based Korean constituency treebanks can be treated as encoding the same eojeol-level constituency structure; the third treebank, which segments functional morphemes as independent terminals, is converted to the same backbone by reattaching those morphemes to their host eojeol. The paper then proposes a six-column annotation fo

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the three normalization steps—debinarization, deletion of null elements, and tokenization alignment—are syntactically inert, altering neither the eojeol sequence nor the dominance relations among terminals; if any step changes attachment or hierarchy, the claimed equivalence collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The three existing Korean constituency treebanks can be compared and merged on a single eojeol backbone, so cross-treebank evaluation no longer requires reconstructing word boundaries.
  • Constituency–dependency conversion in Korean becomes a direct mapping because both representations share eojeol as their terminal unit.
  • Future treebanks can be built in layers: modifying the morphological segmentation does not change the syntactic tree, and vice versa.
  • Constituency parsing can be framed as bracketing over surface eojeol plus universal POS preterminals, independent of morphological analysis.
  • A practical path to open resources is converting public eojeol-based dependency corpora into the proposed constituency format, because the existing treebanks are license-restricted.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension: if the equivalence is right, a constituency parser trained on one normalized treebank should transfer to another with little loss; unexpected performance gaps would reveal where the normalization did change structure.
  • The paper leaves open which of the three compatible nominal-modifier analyses to adopt; a systematic annotation-consistency experiment would settle it and would determine whether the proposed modifier layer's attachment decisions are reproducible.
  • The separation of morphology from syntax implies that morphological error does not propagate into syntactic evaluation, which would change how Korean parsing errors are diagnosed; this is an implication the paper does not develop.
  • If the equivalence holds across all three treebanks, then many previously reported cross-treebank syntactic differences may be representational artifacts (binarization, nulls, segmentation); re-analyzing published Korean parsing results on the normalized backbone would test how much of the variance survives.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper argues that Korean constituency treebanks should use eojeol (orthographic spacing units) as the terminal layer, with morphological segmentation and fine-grained POS information stored in a separate, explicitly non-constituent annotation layer. It reviews the Sejong, Penn Korean, and KAIST treebanks, proposes a set of normalization steps (debinarizing Sejong, removing Penn nulls, aligning eojeol tokenization, and applying the SPMRL 2013 conversion to KAIST) under which these resources are claimed to become representationally equivalent over a shared eojeol-based constituency backbone. On this basis, it outlines a six-column annotation format and discusses implications for cross-treebank comparison, constituency–dependency conversion, and future Korean resource development.

Significance. If the central equivalence claim held, the paper would provide a useful common structural baseline for comparing and converting Korean constituency treebanks, and its separation of constituency structure from morphological annotation is a clear and potentially valuable design principle. The paper is commendably transparent about the conditional, methodological nature of the equivalence, and the proposed six-column format is concrete and actionable. However, the load-bearing assertion that the normalizations are syntactically inert is never demonstrated, and the paper's own footnote concedes that key structural choices cannot be resolved on structural grounds. The significance is therefore contingent on additional validation, either through formal proof or corpus-scale empirical checks, which are currently absent.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.1] The assertion that the three normalization steps 'do not alter the set of eojeol terminals or their linear order, nor do they introduce new syntactic relations' is load-bearing but unsupported. Debinarizing recursive NP→NP NP chains can collapse distinct modifier-attachment sites into a single flat NP; two different binary trees can map to the same flat tree, thus erasing syntactic distinctions rather than merely removing notation. Similarly, removing Penn's null elements deletes argument positions and may leave an S-COMP dominating a subjectless VP, changing the structural analysis of clausal complements. The paper should provide a formal definition of 'syntactic relations' and a proof of inertness, or support the claim with corpus-wide comparisons of original vs. normalized trees (e.g., checking that debinarization preserves head-modifier relations and that null removal does not alter
  2. [§5.3 and Footnote 4] The introduction of the NML layer and the re-attachment of modifiers in Figure 5 constitutes a further analysis choice, not merely a normalization. Footnote 4 explicitly states that at least three alternative analyses are 'compatible with the surface word order' and 'cannot be resolved on structural grounds alone.' This means the claimed 'shared backbone' is not uniquely determined by the source treebanks; the choice of Figure 5 is an annotation decision layered on top of the normalization. The paper should either demonstrate that the NML analysis is derivable from the original Sejong/Penn structures, or clearly separate this reanalysis from the equivalence claim and relegate it to an optional enrichment.
  3. [Abstract and §6.1] The abstract states that a 'comparative analysis shows' representational equivalence, but the paper presents only a single worked example (Figures 1–5). No corpus-scale evaluation, statistics, or agreement measurements are reported across the Sejong, Penn Korean, or SPMRL-converted KAIST treebanks. If the equivalence claim is intended as an empirical result, it requires a corpus-level normalization study; if it is only a methodological conditional, the abstract and discussion should be rephrased to avoid claiming an empirical comparative result that the paper does not contain.
  4. [§5.1 (KAIST)] The treatment of KAIST relies on a cited SPMRL 2013 conversion procedure, but no example of a converted KAIST tree is shown, no description is given of how eojeol boundaries are inferred from the original morpheme-level terminals, and there is no verification that the converted trees satisfy the proposed eojeol-terminal condition. Without such evidence, including KAIST in the equivalence claim is unsupported and should either be substantiated with examples and checks or explicitly deferred to future work.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§5.3] Typo: 'Earlier resourceEarlier resources' should read 'Earlier resources'.
  2. [Throughout] Inconsistent capitalization of 'KAIST' vs. 'Kaist' across §3.3 and elsewhere; pick one consistent spelling.
  3. [§5.5] The statement that 'surface forms are the sole terminals' is potentially confusing because UPOS nodes are described as preterminals. Please clarify that the terminal level consists of eojeol, with UPOS labels as an intermediate preterminal layer, so the bracketing notation remains unambiguous.
  4. [Figure 4] The six-column format is described in the text but the example is rendered with inconsistent whitespace, making it hard to see the column boundaries. Consider presenting the example with explicit tab separators or a clear table layout.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the §5.1 equivalence claim is an explicit conditional normalization proposal with an unproven invariance premise, not a derivation that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is not a fitted prediction or a theorem derived from itself. The Sejong/Penn equivalence in §5.1 is introduced as an explicitly conditional and methodological assumption: "This equivalence is explicitly conditional and methodological." The normalization steps (debinarizing Sejong, removing Penn nulls, aligning eojeol tokenization) are asserted to be inert, but they are not shown to force the two treebanks into the same structure; the assertion "these normalization steps do not alter the set of eojeol terminals or their linear order, nor do they introduce new syntactic relations" is an unverified invariance claim. If false, the equivalence fails, but that is a correctness/evidence problem, not circularity. There are no equations in which the conclusion is identical to an input by construction, and no parameter is fitted and then renamed as a prediction. The Kaist mapping relies on the external SPMRL 2013 conversion description (Seddah et al., 2013), not on a self-cited uniqueness result. Footnote 4 explicitly concedes that the NML modifier-attachment choice "cannot be resolved on structural grounds alone," which weakens the claim that the proposed backbone is uniquely determined, but the paper presents Figure 5 as an adopted analysis rather than as a derived consequence. The numerous self-citations (Park 2018; Park and Kim 2023, 2024; Park and Tyers 2019; Kim and Park 2022) support terminology and prior positions, but no load-bearing step reduces to an unverified assertion by the same authors. The main gap is that no corpus-scale comparison is reported, so the abstract's "comparative analysis shows" overstates the evidence; that is an empirical shortfall, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

No numerical free parameters are involved because the paper contains no fitted model; the load-bearing assumptions are linguistic premises and normalization rules. The main design choices are listed as axioms; NML is the one new annotation construct introduced without independent evidence.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Eojeol is the minimal unit that participates systematically in syntactic relations; functional morphemes are grammatically integrated within a single syntactic unit, not independent syntactic words.
    Invoked as a premise throughout §2.2 and §4.2; sourced to prior papers by the first author (Park 2018; Park & Kim 2023, 2024), not independently established in this paper.
  • domain assumption The purpose of constituency is to represent only syntactic grouping, excluding sublexical morphology.
    Stated under 'Representational objective of constituency' in §4.2; this normative premise drives the choice of eojeol terminals.
  • domain assumption Debinarizing Sejong's binary trees and deleting Penn's null elements preserve the syntactic relations encoded by the original trees.
    Assumed in §5.1 ('do not alter the set of eojeol terminals or their linear order, nor do they introduce new syntactic relations') without proof or evaluation; load-bearing for the equivalence claim.
  • domain assumption Kaist trees can be converted to an eojeol-based form by reattaching functional morphemes to their host lexical items as described in SPMRL 2013.
    Relies on external prior work (Seddah et al., 2013); the conversion is not reproduced or evaluated here.
  • domain assumption UPOS categories reflect syntactic behavior rather than morphological realization and can serve as preterminals for eojeol.
    Adopted in §5.2 as a practical convention; a design choice, not a demonstrated mapping.
invented entities (1)
  • NML (nominal modifier) layer
    purpose: Encodes optional internal modifier structure inside noun phrases in the proposed constituency representation.
    Introduced in §5.3 and Figure 5; the authors acknowledge in footnote 4 that alternative attachment analyses are linguistically plausible and cannot be ruled out, and no consistency or parser evaluation is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constituency Structure over Eojeol in Korean Treebanks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/57QBHAIQ

@misc{pith2026251222487,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constituency Structure over Eojeol in Korean Treebanks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/57QBHAIQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.22487}
}
read the original abstract

The design of Korean constituency treebanks raises a central representational question concerning the choice of terminal units. Although Korean words are morphologically complex, treating morphemes as constituency terminals can obscure the distinction between word-internal morphology and phrase-level syntactic structure, and can create mismatches with eojeol-based dependency resources. This paper argues for an eojeol-based constituency representation, with morphological segmentation and fine-grained POS information encoded in a separate, non-constituent layer. A comparative analysis shows that, under explicit normalization assumptions, the Sejong, Penn Korean, and KAIST treebanks can be compared over a shared eojeol-based constituency backbone. Building on this result, we outline an eojeol-based annotation scheme that preserves interpretable constituency, supports cross-treebank comparison and constituency-dependency alignment, and provides a surface-form terminal layer for future end-to-end Korean constituency parsing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.22487 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Constituency tree from the Sejong treebank [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Constituency tree from the Penn Korean treebank [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Constituency tree from the Kaist treebank [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Six-column joint annotation format for eojeol-based constituency and morphological [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Eojeol-based constituency structure obtained from the Sejong treebank under eojeol [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Building a Treebank for French

    Anne Abeill \' e , Lionel Cl \' e ment, and François Toussenel. Building a Treebank for French . In Anne Abeill \' e , editor, Treebanks: Building and Using Parsed Corpora, pages 165--188. Kluwer, 2003

    2003

  2. [2]

    Daniel M. Bikel. Intricacies of Collins' Parsing Model . Computational Linguistics, 30 0 (4): 0 479--511, 2004. doi:10.1162/0891201042544929. URL https://doi.org/10.1162/0891201042544929

    work page doi:10.1162/0891201042544929 2004

  3. [3]

    Tyers, and Jungyeul Park

    Yige Chen, Eunkyul Leah Jo, Yundong Yao, KyungTae Lim, Miikka Silfverberg, Francis M. Tyers, and Jungyeul Park. Yet Another Format of Universal Dependencies for Korean . In Nicoletta Calzolari, Chu-Ren Huang, Hansaem Kim, James Pustejovsky, Leo Wanner, Key-Sun Choi, Pum-Mo Ryu, Hsin-Hsi Chen, Lucia Donatelli, Heng Ji, Sadao Kurohashi, Patrizia Paggio, Nia...

    2022

  4. [4]

    Towards Standardized Annotation and Parsing for Korean FrameNet

    Yige Chen, Jae Ihn, KyungTae Lim, and Jungyeul Park. Towards Standardized Annotation and Parsing for Korean FrameNet . In Nicoletta Calzolari, Min-Yen Kan, Veronique Hoste, Alessandro Lenci, Sakriani Sakti, and Nianwen Xue, editors, Proceedings of the 2024 Joint International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC...

    2024

  5. [5]

    Korean named entity recognition based on language-specific features

    Yige Chen, KyungTae Lim, and Jungyeul Park. Korean named entity recognition based on language-specific features . Natural Language Engineering, 30 0 (3): 0 625–649, 2024 b . doi:10.1017/S1351324923000311

    work page doi:10.1017/s1351324923000311 2024

  6. [6]

    Korean Treebank Transformation for Parser Training

    DongHyun Choi, Jungyeul Park, and Key-Sun Choi. Korean Treebank Transformation for Parser Training . In Proceedings of the ACL 2012 Joint Workshop on Statistical Parsing and Semantic Processing of Morphologically Rich Languages, pages 78--88, Jeju, Republic of Korea, 2012. Association for Computational Linguistics. URL http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W12-3411

    2012

  7. [7]

    Han, Young G

    Key-Sun Choi, Young S. Han, Young G. Han, and Oh W. Kwon. KAIST Tree Bank Project for Korean: Present and Future Development . In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Sharable Natural Language Resources, pages 7--14, Nara Institute of Science and Technology, 1994. Nara Institute of Science and Technology

    1994

  8. [8]

    Factors Affecting the Accuracy of Korean Parsing

    Tagyoung Chung, Matt Post, and Daniel Gildea. Factors Affecting the Accuracy of Korean Parsing . In Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010 First Workshop on Statistical Parsing of Morphologically-Rich Languages, pages 49--57, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2010. Association for Computational Linguistics. URL http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W10-1406

    2010

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Programming Languages and Their Compilers: Preliminary Notes

    John Cocke. Programming Languages and Their Compilers: Preliminary Notes . New York University, USA, 1969. ISBN B0007F4UOA

    1969

  2. [11]

    Penn Korean Treebank: Development and Evaluation

    Chung-Hye Han, Na-Rae Han, Eon-Suk Ko, Martha Palmer, and Heejong Yi. Penn Korean Treebank: Development and Evaluation . In Proceedings of the 16th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation, pages 69--78, Jeju, Korea, 2002. Pacific Asia Conference on Lan...

    2002

  3. [12]

    Null Objects in Korean: Experimental Evidence for the Argument Ellipsis Analysis

    Chung-hye Han, Kyeong-min Kim, Keir Moulton, and Jeffrey Lidz. Null Objects in Korean: Experimental Evidence for the Argument Ellipsis Analysis . Linguistic Inquiry, 51 0 (2): 0 319--340, 2020 a . ISSN 0024-3892. 10.1162/ling \_ a \_ 00342 . URL https://doi.org/10.1162/ling

    2020 doi

  4. [13]

    Annotation Issues in Universal Dependencies for Korean and Japanese

    Ji Yoon Han, Tae Hwan Oh, Lee Jin, and Hansaem Kim. Annotation Issues in Universal Dependencies for Korean and Japanese . In Marie-Catherine de Marneffe, Miryam de Lhoneux, Joakim Nivre, and Sebastian Schuster, editors, Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Universal Dependenc...

    2020

  5. [14]

    An Efficient Recognition and Syntax-Analysis Algorithm for Context-Free Languages

    Tadao Kasami. An Efficient Recognition and Syntax-Analysis Algorithm for Context-Free Languages . Technical report, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 3 1966. URL http://hdl.handle.net/2142/74304

    1966

  6. [15]

    K-UD: Revising Korean Universal Dependencies Guidelines

    Kyuwon Kim, Yige Chen, Eunkyul Leah Jo, KyungTae Lim, Jungyeul Park, and Chulwoo Park. K-UD: Revising Korean Universal Dependencies Guidelines . arXiv, pages 1--6, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.00856

    2024 arXiv

  7. [16]

    A note on constituent parsing for Korean

    Mija Kim and Jungyeul Park. A note on constituent parsing for Korean . Natural Language Engineering, 28 0 (2): 0 199--222, 2022. doi:10.1017/S1351324920000479

    2022 doi

  8. [17]

    Marcus, Mary Ann Marcinkiewicz, and Beatrice Santorini

    Mitchell P. Marcus, Mary Ann Marcinkiewicz, and Beatrice Santorini. Building a Large Annotated Corpus of English: The Penn Treebank . Computational linguistics, 19 0 (2): 0 313--330, 1993. URL https://aclanthology.org/J93-2004

    1993

  9. [18]

    a ckstr \

    Ryan McDonald, Joakim Nivre, Yvonne Quirmbach-Brundage, Yoav Goldberg, Dipanjan Das, Kuzman Ganchev, Keith Hall, Slav Petrov, Hao Zhang, Oscar T \" a ckstr \" o m, Claudia Bedini, Núria Bertomeu Castell \' o , and Jungmee Lee. Universal Dependency Annotation for Multilingual P...

    2013

  10. [19]

    Enhancing Universal Dependencies for Korean

    Youngbin Noh, Jiyoon Han, Tae Hwan Oh, and Hansaem Kim. Enhancing Universal Dependencies for Korean . In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Universal Dependencies (UDW 2018), pages 108--116, Brussels, Belgium, 11 2018. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi:10.18653...

    2018 doi

  11. [20]

    For Developing the Synthetic Perspective about the Concept of Word in Korean

    Chulwoo Park. For Developing the Synthetic Perspective about the Concept of Word in Korean . HANGEUL, 79 0 (2): 0 327--368, 2018. ISSN 1225-0449. doi:https://doi.org/10.22557/HG.2018.06.79.2.327. URL https://www.kci.go.kr/kciportal/ci/sereArticleSearch/ciSereArtiView.kci?sereA...

    2018 doi

  12. [21]

    A role of functional morphemes in Korean categorial grammars

    Jungyeul Park and Mija Kim. A role of functional morphemes in Korean categorial grammars . Korean Linguistics, 19 0 (1): 0 1--30, 2023. doi:10.1075/kl.22003.par. URL https://doi.org/10.1075/kl.22003.par

    2023 doi

  13. [22]

    Word segmentation granularity in Korean

    Jungyeul Park and Mija Kim. Word segmentation granularity in Korean . Korean Linguistics, 20 0 (1): 0 83--113, 2024. URL https://benjamins.com/catalog/kl.00008.par

    2024

  14. [23]

    A New Annotation Scheme for the Sejong Part-of-speech Tagged Corpus

    Jungyeul Park and Francis Tyers. A New Annotation Scheme for the Sejong Part-of-speech Tagged Corpus . In Proceedings of the 13th Linguistic Annotation Workshop, pages 195--202, Florence, Italy, 8 2019. Association for Computational Linguistics. URL https://www.aclweb.org/anth...

    2019

  15. [24]

    Korean Language Resources for Everyone

    Jungyeul Park, Jeen-Pyo Hong, and Jeong-Won Cha. Korean Language Resources for Everyone . In Proceedings of the 30th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation: Oral Papers (PACLIC 30), pages 49--58, Seoul, Korea, 2016. Pacific Asia Conference on Language...

    2016

  16. [25]

    KLUE: Korean Language Understanding Evaluation

    Sungjoon Park, Jihyung Moon, Sungdong Kim, Won Ik Cho, Ji Yoon Han, Jangwon Park, Chisung Song, Junseong Kim, Youngsook Song, Taehwan Oh, Joohong Lee, Juhyun Oh, Sungwon Lyu, Younghoon Jeong, Inkwon Lee, Sangwoo Seo, Dongjun Lee, Hyunwoo Kim, Myeonghwa Lee, Seongbo Jang, Seung...

    2021

  17. [26]

    A Universal Part-of-Speech Tagset

    Slav Petrov, Dipanjan Das, and Ryan McDonald. A Universal Part-of-Speech Tagset . In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-2012), pages 2089--2096, Istanbul, Turkey, 2012. European Language Resources Association (ELRA). I...

    2012

  18. [27]

    Djamé Seddah, Reut Tsarfaty, Sandra K \" u bler, Marie Candito, Jinho D. Choi, Richárd Farkas, Jennifer Foster, Iakes Goenaga, Koldo Gojenola Galletebeitia, Yoav Goldberg, Spence Green, Nizar Habash, Marco Kuhlmann, Wolfgang Maier, Joakim Nivre, Adam Przepi \' o rkowski, Ryan ...

    2013

  19. [28]

    A Proposal on Universal Dependencies (v.2) Annotation for Korean

    Saetbyol Seo, Myeong-ju Kim, YeonSook Sung, and Seong Hee Yoo. A Proposal on Universal Dependencies (v.2) Annotation for Korean . Language and Information, 23 0 (1): 0 91--122, 2019. URL https://doi.org/10.29403/LI.23.1.5

    2019 doi

  20. [29]

    Parsing Noun Phrases in the Penn Treebank

    David Vadas and James R Curran. Parsing Noun Phrases in the Penn Treebank . Computational Linguistics, 37 0 (4): 0 753--809, 12 2011. 10.1162/COLI \_ a \_ 00076 . URL https://aclanthology.org/J11-4006/

    2011 doi

  21. [30]

    Converting Dependency Structures to Phrase Structures

    Fei Xia and Martha Palmer. Converting Dependency Structures to Phrase Structures . In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Human Language Technology Research, San Diego, CA, 2001. Association for Computational Linguistics. URL http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/H01-1014

    2001

  22. [31]

    The Penn Chinese TreeBank: Phrase Structure Annotation of a Large Corpus

    Nianwen Xue, Fei Xia, Fu-dong Chiou, and Marta Palmer. The Penn Chinese TreeBank: Phrase Structure Annotation of a Large Corpus . Natural Language Engineering, 11 0 (2): 0 207--238, 6 2005. ISSN 1351-3249. doi:10.1017/S135132490400364X. URL https://doi.org/10.1017/S135132490400364X

    2005 doi

  23. [32]

    Daniel H. Younger. Recognition and parsing of context-free languages in time n3 . Information and Control, 10 0 (2): 0 189--208, 1967. ISSN 0019-9958. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(67)80007-X. URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001999586780007X

    1967 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.