The annotation scheme of dependency treebanks might have an impact on the results of linguistic analysis, thus leading to different interpretations of linguistic phenomena. This study compares the results of two widely used dependency measures, i.e., dependency direction and dependency distance, based on 18 parallel Universal Dependencies (UD) annotated treebanks and 18 corresponding Surface-Syntactic Universal Dependencies (SUD) annotated treebanks. The results show that (1) Based on the semantic UD and syntactic SUD, dependency relations between function words and content words share the opposite dependency directions but similar dependency distances; (2) Annotation scheme has a significant impact on dependency direction, though the effect size is small. We find that the proportions of head-final dependencies based on the syntactic SUD can better group language families than those based on semantic UD; (3) Annotation scheme also affects dependency distance significantly, though its effect size is small. Mean dependency distances (MDDs) based on UD are always higher than those based on SUD. However, the MDDs based on both annotation schemes are within a certain threshold, which shows that the linguistic universal of dependency distance minimization is independent of annotation schemes.

中文翻译：

---

语义角色或句法功能：注释方案对依赖测量结果的影响

依赖树库的注释方案可能会对语言分析的结果产生影响，从而导致对语言现象的不同解释。本研究基于 18 个并行的通用依赖 (UD) 注释树库和 18 个相应的表面句法通用依赖 (SUD) 注释树库，比较了两种广泛使用的依赖度量的结果，即依赖方向和依赖距离。结果表明：（1）基于语义UD和句法SUD，虚词和实词的依存关系具有相反的依存方向，但依存距离相似；(2) 注释方案对依赖方向有显着影响，尽管影响很小。我们发现基于句法 SUD 的 head-final 依赖比例比基于语义 UD 的更能对语系进行分组；(3) 注释方案也显着影响依赖距离，尽管它的影响很小。基于 UD 的平均依赖距离 (MDD) 总是高于基于 SUD 的。然而，基于两种标注方案的MDD都在一定的阈值内，这表明依赖距离最小化的语言通用性与标注方案无关。