Dependency Parsing

Historical notes

1. How old is dependency grammar compared with constituency grammar?
   Much older: it goes back to Pāṇini (7th–4th c. BCE) and ancient Greek traditions; modern theories draw on Tesnière (1959). Constituency grammars date only to the 20th century.
   • Jurafsky & Martin, Speech and Language Processing, 3rd ed. draft, ch. 20, Historical notes, p. 471
2. Who introduced the main modern dependency parsing approaches?
   Covington (2001) the word-by-word deterministic idea; Yamada & Matsumoto and Kudo & Matsumoto shift-reduce with SVMs; Nivre (2003) the modern transition-based approach; McDonald et al. (2005) graph-based MST parsing; Chen & Manning (2014) neural transition parsing.
   • Jurafsky & Martin, Speech and Language Processing, 3rd ed. draft, ch. 20, Historical notes, p. 471
3. What notable dependency treebank projects exist?
   The Prague Dependency Treebank (multiple layers of morphological, syntactic and semantic annotation) and Universal Dependencies (nearly 200 treebanks in over 100 languages, evolved from Stanford dependencies and Google universal POS tags); CoNLL shared tasks drove much evaluation.
   • Jurafsky & Martin, Speech and Language Processing, 3rd ed. draft, ch. 20, Historical notes, pp. 471–472