This paper summarizes the preliminary results of an ongoing survey on multiword resources carried out within the IC1207 Cost Action PARSEME (PARSing and Multi-word Expressions). Despite the availability of language resource catalogs and the inventory of multiword datasets on the SIGLEX-MWE website, multiword resources are scattered and difficult to find. In many cases, language resources such as corpora, treebanks, or lexical databases include multiwords as part of their data or take them into account in their annotations. However, these resources need to be centralized to make them accessible. The aim of this survey is to create a portal where researchers can easily find multiword(-aware) language resources for their research. We report on the design of the survey and analyze the data gathered so far. We also discuss the problems we have detected upon examination of the data as well as possible ways of enhancing the survey.

By means of an online survey, we have investigated ways in which various types of multiword expressions are annotated in existing treebanks. The results indicate that there is considerable variation in treatments across treebanks and thereby also, to some extent, across languages and across theoretical frameworks. The comparison is focused on the annotation of light verb constructions and verbal idioms. The survey shows that the light verb constructions either get special annotations as such, or are treated as ordinary verbs, while VP idioms are handled through different strategies. Based on insights from our investigation, we propose some general guidelines for annotating multiword expressions in treebanks. The recommendations address the following application-based needs: distinguishing MWEs from similar but compositional constructions; searching distinct types of MWEs in treebanks; awareness of literal and nonliteral meanings; and normalization of the MWE representation. The cross-lingually and cross-theoretically focused survey is intended as an aid to accessing treebanks and an aid for further work on treebank annotation.

We present NorGramBank, a treebank for Norwegian with highly detailed LFG analyses. It is one of many treebanks made available through the INESS treebanking infrastructure. NorGramBank was constructed as a parsebank, i.e. by automatically parsing a corpus, using the wide coverage grammar NorGram. One part consisting of 350,000 words has been manually disambiguated using computer-generated discriminants. A larger part of 50 M words has been stochastically disambiguated. The treebank is dynamic: by global reparsing at certain intervals it is kept compatible with the latest versions of the grammar and the lexicon, which are continually further developed in interaction with the annotators. A powerful query language, INESS Search, has been developed for search across formalisms in the INESS treebanks, including LFG c- and f-structures. Evaluation shows that the grammar provides about 85% of randomly selected sentences with good analyses. Agreement among the annotators responsible for manual disambiguation is satisfactory, but also suggests desirable simplifications of the grammar.

Automatic syntactic analysis of a corpus requires detailed lexical and morphological information that cannot always be harvested from traditional dictionaries. In building the INESS Norwegian treebank, it is often the case that necessary lexical information is missing in the morphology or lexicon. The approach used to build the treebank is incremental parsebanking; a corpus is parsed with an existing grammar, and the analyses are efficiently disambiguated by annotators. When the intended analysis is unavailable after parsing, the reason is often that necessary information is not available in the lexicon. INESS has therefore implemented a text preprocessing interface where annotators can enter unrecognized words before parsing. This may concern words that are unknown to the morphology and/or lexicon, and also words that are known, but for which important information is missing. When this information is added, either during text preprocessing or during disambiguation, the result is that after reparsing the intended analysis can be chosen and stored in the treebank. The lexical information added to the lexicon in this way may be of great interest both to lexicographers and to other language technology efforts, and the enriched lexical resource being developed will be made available at the end of the project.