The ccomp/xcomp Boundary in Turkic Universal Dependencies: Evidence from Parallel Annotation and Low-Resource Perspectives

Abstract

Reliable multilingual parsing rests on consistent syntactic annotation across treebanks, yet the Universal Dependencies (UD) annotation of complement clause relations in Turkic languages has developed without explicit cross-treebank coordination. The structural root of this gap lies in the character of Turkic complementation: instead of the lexical subordinators characteristic of European grammars, Turkic languages realize complement arguments through inflected verbal nouns carrying case and possessive morphology – a configuration that the UD guidelines handle poorly in pro-drop environments. This challenge is sharpest for under-resourced varieties such as Kyrgyz, whose two UD treebanks provide approximately 25,000 annotated tokens, roughly one-tenth of Turkish UD coverage. The present study conducts a cross-treebank data quality audit of ccomp, xcomp, and csubj relations across a parallel corpus of 148 sentences in four Turkic languages (Turkish, Kyrgyz, Uzbek, Azerbaijani) and five large monolingual treebanks. Inter-annotator agreement, computed on all 44 sentences containing complement clauses, yields Fleiss’ κ = 0.29 and Krippendorff’s α = 0.30, alongside an observed cross-treebank divergence rate of 40.9% (18 of 44 sentences); the numerical proximity of the two figures is coincidental, as κ is chance-corrected while the divergence rate is a raw proportion. Possessive agreement marking on the nominalized verb is identified as the most reliable Turkic-specific diagnostic: 40.6% of ccomp tokens in Turkish bear a possessive suffix against 5.7% of xcomp tokens. A five-rule decision tree achieves 65– 67% agreement with existing annotations. A structurally distinct Kyrgyz desiderative construction is described whose behavior tentatively indicates a typologically motivated basis for csubj annotation where other Turkic languages use xcomp. Four concrete recommendations are proposed to harmonize Turkic UD guidelines and strengthen the Kyrgyz NLP resource base.

More by Aida Kasieva

• A model of a universal linguistic knowledge graph for Turkic languagesArctic XXI century · 2026
• The Annotation of Multiword Predicates in Kyrgyz Universal DependenciesInternational Conference on Computer Science and Engineering · 2026
• Linguistic and cultural representation of success in English: British and American perspectivesVestnik Bishkek state university af K Karasaev · 2026
• Morphological Complexity and Neural Machine Translation Quality in Kyrgyz: a Genre-Stratified Evaluation Using chrFUral Symposium on Biomedical Engineering, Radioelectronics and Information Technology · 2026