Linguistik-Klassifikation
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Preprint (48)
- Conference Proceeding (19)
- Part of a Book (9)
- Article (5)
- Book (5)
- Working Paper (4)
Language
- English (90) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (90)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (90)
Keywords
- Computerlinguistik (33)
- Japanisch (15)
- Deutsch (13)
- Syntaktische Analyse (9)
- Maschinelle Übersetzung (8)
- Multicomponent Tree Adjoining Grammar (8)
- Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammar (5)
- Semantik (5)
- Satzanalyse (4)
- Transkription (4)
Institute
- Extern (80)
In the past, a divide could be seen between ’deep’ parsers on the one hand, which construct a semantic representation out of their input, but usually have significant coverage problems, and more robust parsers on the other hand, which are usually based on a (statistical) model derived from a treebank and have larger coverage, but leave the problem of semantic interpretation to the user. More recently, approaches have emerged that combine the robustness of datadriven (statistical) models with more detailed linguistic interpretation such that the output could be used for deeper semantic analysis. Cahill et al. (2002) use a PCFG-based parsing model in combination with a set of principles and heuristics to derive functional (f-)structures of Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG). They show that the derived functional structures have a better quality than those generated by a parser based on a state-of-the-art hand-crafted LFG grammar. Advocates of Dependency Grammar usually point out that dependencies already are a semantically meaningful representation (cf. Menzel, 2003). However, parsers based on dependency grammar normally create underspecified representations with respect to certain phenomena such as coordination, apposition and control structures. In these areas they are too "shallow" to be directly used for semantic interpretation. In this paper, we adopt a similar approach to Cahill et al. (2002) using a dependency-based analysis to derive functional structure, and demonstrate the feasibility of this approach using German data. A major focus of our discussion is on the treatment of coordination and other potentially underspecified structures of the dependency data input. F-structure is one of the two core levels of syntactic representation in LFG (Bresnan, 2001). Independently of surface order, it encodes abstract syntactic functions that constitute predicate argument structure and other dependency relations such as subject, predicate, adjunct, but also further semantic information such as the semantic type of an adjunct (e.g. directional). Normally f-structure is captured as a recursive attribute value matrix, which is isomorphic to a directed graph representation. Figure 5 depicts an example target f-structure. As mentioned earlier, these deeper-level dependency relations can be used to construct logical forms as in the approaches of van Genabith and Crouch (1996), who construct underspecified discourse representations (UDRSs), and Spreyer and Frank (2005), who have robust minimal recursion semantics (RMRS) as their target representation. We therefore think that f-structures are a suitable target representation for automatic syntactic analysis in a larger pipeline of mapping text to interpretation. In this paper, we report on the conversion from dependency structures to fstructure. Firstly, we evaluate the f-structure conversion in isolation, starting from hand-corrected dependencies based on the TüBa-D/Z treebank and Versley (2005)´s conversion. Secondly, we start from tokenized text to evaluate the combined process of automatic parsing (using Foth and Menzel (2006)´s parser) and f-structure conversion. As a test set, we randomly selected 100 sentences from TüBa-D/Z which we annotated using a scheme very close to that of the TiGer Dependency Bank (Forst et al., 2004). In the next section, we sketch dependency analysis, the underlying theory of our input representations, and introduce four different representations of coordination. We also describe Weighted Constraint Dependency Grammar (WCDG), the dependency parsing formalism that we use in our experiments. Section 3 characterises the conversion of dependencies to f-structures. Our evaluation is presented in section 4, and finally, section 5 summarises our results and gives an overview of problems remaining to be solved.
When a statistical parser is trained on one treebank, one usually tests it on another portion of the same treebank, partly due to the fact that a comparable annotation format is needed for testing. But the user of a parser may not be interested in parsing sentences from the same newspaper all over, or even wants syntactic annotations for a slightly different text type. Gildea (2001) for instance found that a parser trained on the WSJ portion of the Penn Treebank performs less well on the Brown corpus (the subset that is available in the PTB bracketing format) than a parser that has been trained only on the Brown corpus, although the latter one has only half as many sentences as the former. Additionally, a parser trained on both the WSJ and Brown corpora performs less well on the Brown corpus than on the WSJ one. This leads us to the following questions that we would like to address in this paper: - Is there a difference in usefulness of techniques that are used to improve parser performance between the same-corpus and the different-corpus case? - Are different types of parsers (rule-based and statistical) equally sensitive to corpus variation? To achieve this, we compared the quality of the parses of a hand-crafted constraint-based parser and a statistical PCFG-based parser that was trained on a treebank of German newspaper text.
We investigate methods to improve the recall in coreference resolution by also trying to resolve those definite descriptions where no earlier mention of the referent shares the same lexical head (coreferent bridging). The problem, which is notably harder than identifying coreference relations among mentions which have the same lexical head, has been tackled with several rather different approaches, and we attempt to provide a meaningful classification along with a quantitative comparison. Based on the different merits of the methods, we discuss possibilities to improve them and show how they can be effectively combined.
Using a qualitative analysis of disagreements from a referentially annotated newspaper corpus, we show that, in coreference annotation, vague referents are prone to greater disagreement. We show how potentially problematic cases can be dealt with in a way that is practical even for larger-scale annotation, considering a real-world example from newspaper text.
In this paper, we argue that difficulties in the definition of coreference itself contribute to lower inter-annotator agreement in certain cases. Data from a large referentially annotated corpus serves to corroborate this point, using a quantitative investigation to assess which effects or problems are likely to be the most prominent. Several examples where such problems occur are discussed in more detail, and we then propose a generalisation of Poesio, Reyle and Stevenson’s Justified Sloppiness Hypothesis to provide a unified model for these cases of disagreement and argue that a deeper understanding of the phenomena involved allows to tackle problematic cases in a more principled fashion than would be possible using only pre-theoretic intuitions.
Hybrid robust deep and shallow semantic processing for creativity support in document production
(2004)
The research performed in the DeepThought project (http://www.project-deepthought.net) aims at demonstrating the potential of deep linguistic processing if added to existing shallow methods that ensure robustness. Classical information retrieval is extended by high precision concept indexing and relation detection. We use this approach to demonstrate the feasibility of three ambitious applications, one of which is a tool for creativity support in document production and collective brainstorming. This application is described in detail in this paper. Common to all three applications, and the basis for their development is a platform for integrated linguistic processing. This platform is based on a generic software architecture that combines multiple NLP components and on robust minimal recursive semantics (RMRS) as a uniform representation language.
Transforming constituent-based annotation into dependency-based annotation has been shown to work for different treebanks and annotation schemes (e.g. Lin (1995) has transformed the Penn treebank, and Kübler and Telljohann (2002) the Tübinger Baumbank des Deutschen (TüBa-D/Z)). These ventures are usually triggered by the conflict between theory-neutral annotation, that targets most needs of a wider audience, and theory-specific annotation, that provides more fine-grained information for a smaller audience. As a compromise, it has been pointed out that treebanks can be designed to support more than one theory from the start (Nivre, 2003). We argue that information can also be added to an existing annotation scheme so that it supports additional theory-specific annotations. We also argue that such a transformation is useful for improving and extending the original annotation scheme with respect to both ambiguous annotation and annotation errors. We show this by analysing problems that arise when generating dependency information from the constituent-based TüBa-D/Z.
The purpose of this paper is to describe the TüBa-D/Z treebank of written German and to compare it to the independently developed TIGER treebank (Brants et al., 2002). Both treebanks, TIGER and TüBa-D/Z, use an annotation framework that is based on phrase structure grammar and that is enhanced by a level of predicate-argument structure. The comparison between the annotation schemes of the two treebanks focuses on the different treatments of free word order and discontinuous constituents in German as well as on differences in phrase-internal annotation.
The two papers included in this volume have developed from work with the CHILDES tools and the Media Editor in the two research projects, "Second language acquisition of German by Russian learners", sponsored by the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, from 1998 to 1999 (directed by Ursula Stephany, University of Cologne, and Wolfgang Klein, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen) and "The age factor in the acquisition of German as a second language", sponsored by the German Science Foundation (DFG), Bonn, since 2000 (directed by Ursula Stephany, University of Cologne, and Christine Dimroth, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen). The CHILDES Project has been developed and is being continuously improved at Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, under the supervision of Brian MacWhinney. Having used the CHILDES tools for more than ten years for transcribing and analyzing Greek child data there it was no question that I would also use them for research into the acquisition of German as a second language and analyze the big amount of spontaneous speech gathered from two Russian girls with the help of the CLAN programs. When in the spring of 1997, Steven Gillis from the University of Antwerp (in collaboration with Gert Durieux) developed a lexicon-based automatic coding system based on the CLAN program MOR and suitable for coding languages with richer morphologies than English, such as Modern Greek. Coding huge amounts of data then became much quicker and more comfortable so that I decided to adopt this system for German as well. The paper "Working with the CHILDES Tools" is based on two earlier manuscripts which have grown out of my research on Greek child language and the many CHILDES workshops taught in Germany, Greece, Portugal, and Brazil over the years. Its contents have now been adapted to the requirements of research into the acquisition of German as a second language and for use on Windows.
The Child Language Data Exchange System (CHILDES) consists of Codes for the Human Analysis of Transcripts (CHAT), Computerized Language Analysis (CLAN), and a database. There is also an online manual which includes the CHILDES bibliography, the database, and the CHAT conventions as well as the CLAN instructions. The first three parts of this paper concern the CHAT format of transcription, grammatical coding, and analyzing transcripts by using the CLAN programs. The fourth part shows examples of transcribed and coded data.