Linguistik-Klassifikation
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Preprint (53)
- Conference Proceeding (34)
- Article (13)
- Part of a Book (9)
- Book (8)
- Working Paper (4)
- Review (2)
- diplomthesis (1)
Language
- English (98)
- German (21)
- Portuguese (4)
- French (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (124)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (124)
Keywords
- Computerlinguistik (38)
- Japanisch (18)
- Deutsch (16)
- Maschinelle Übersetzung (12)
- Syntaktische Analyse (10)
- Multicomponent Tree Adjoining Grammar (8)
- Semantik (6)
- Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammar (5)
- Grammatik (4)
- Korpus <Linguistik> (4)
Institute
- Extern (90)
- Universitätsbibliothek (1)
The purpose of this paper is to describe recent developments in the morphological, syntactic, and semantic annotation of the TüBa-D/Z treebank of German. The TüBa-D/Z annotation scheme is derived from the Verbmobil treebank of spoken German [4, 10], but has been extended along various dimensions to accommodate the characteristics of written texts. TüBa-D/Z uses as its data source the "die tageszeitung" (taz) newspaper corpus. The Verbmobil treebank annotation scheme distinguishes four levels of syntactic constituency: the lexical level, the phrasal level, the level of topological fields, and the clausal level. The primary ordering principle of a clause is the inventory of topological fields, which characterize the word order regularities among different clause types of German, and which are widely accepted among descriptive linguists of German [3, 6]. The TüBa-D/Z annotation relies on a context-free backbone (i.e. proper trees without crossing branches) of phrase structure combined with edge labels that specify the grammatical function of the phrase in question. The syntactic annotation scheme of the TüBa-D/Z is described in more detail in [12, 11]. TüBa-D/Z currently comprises approximately 15 000 sentences, with approximately 7 000 sentences being in the correction phase. The latter will be released along with an updated version of the existing treebank before the end of this year. The treebank is available in an XML format, in the NEGRA export format [1] and in the Penn treebank bracketing format. The XML format contains all types of information as described above, the NEGRA export format contains all sentenceinternal information while the Penn treebank format includes only those layers of information that can be expressed as pure tree structures. Over the course of the last year, more fine grained linguistic annotations have been added along the following dimensions: 1. the basic Stuttgart-Tübingen tagset, STTS, [9] labels have been enriched by relevant features of inflectional morphology, 2. named entity information has been encoded as part of the syntactic annotation, and 3. a set of anaphoric and coreference relations has been added to link referentially dependent noun phrases. In the following sections, we will describe each of these innovations in turn and will demonstrate how the additional annotations can be incorporated into one comprehensive annotation scheme.
Part-of-Speech tagging is generally performed by Markov models, based on bigram or trigram models. While Markov models have a strong concentration on the left context of a word, many languages require the inclusion of right context for correct disambiguation. We show for German that the best results are reached by a combination of left and right context. If only left context is available, then changing the direction of analysis and going from right to left improves the results. In a version of MBT (Daelemans et al., 1996) with default parameter settings, the inclusion of the right context improved POS tagging accuracy from 94.00% to 96.08%, thus corroborating our hypothesis. The version with optimized parameters reaches 96.73%.
The definition of similarity between sentences is formulated on the levels of words, POS tags, and chunks (Abney 91; Abney 96). The evaluation of this approach shows that while precision and recall based on the PARSEVAL measures (Black et al. 91) do not reach state of the art Parsers yet (F1=87.19 on syntactic constituents, F1=77.78 including functionargument structure), the parser shows a very reliable performance where function-argument structure is concerned (F1=96.52). The lower F-scores are very often due to unattached constituents.
The problem of vocalization, or diacritization, is essential to many tasks in Arabic NLP. Arabic is generally written without the short vowels, which leads to one written form having several pronunciations with each pronunciation carrying its own meaning(s). In the experiments reported here, we define vocalization as a classification problem in which we decide for each character in the unvocalized word whether it is followed by a short vowel. We investigate the importance of different types of context. Our results show that the combination of using memory-based learning with only a word internal context leads to a word error rate of 6.64%. If a lexical context is added, the results deteriorate slowly.
In dieser Arbeit soll erst ein kurzer Überblick über die Gebiete der Wortklassifizierung und des maschinellen Lernens gegeben werden (Kap. 1). Dann wird der Ansatz der transformationsbasierten fehlergesteuerten Wortklassifizierung (Transformation-Based Error-Driven Tagging) von Brill (1992, 1993, 1994) vorgestellt und für die Verwendung für deutschsprachige Korpora angepaßt (Kap. 2). Hierbei handelt es sich um ein regelbasiertes System, bei dem die Regeln im Gegensatz zu den bisher vorhandenen Systemen nicht manuell erarbeitet und dem System vorgegeben werden; das System erwirbt die Regeln vielmehr selbst anhand von wenigen Regelschemata aus einem kleinen bereits getaggten Lernkorpus. In Kapitel 3 werden die Ergebnisse aus der Anwendung des Systems auf Teile eines deutschsprachigen Korpus dargestellt. In Kapitel 4 schließlich werden andere Taggingsysteme vorgestellt und mit dem System von Brill (1993) anhand von acht Kriterien verglichen.
In syntax, the trend nowadays is towards lexicalized grammar formalisms. It is now widely accepted that dividing words into wordclasses may serve as a laborsaving mechanism - but at the same time, it discards all detailed information on the idiosyncratic behavior of words. And that is exactly the type of information that may be necessary in order to parse a sentence. For learning approaches, however, lexicalized grammars represent a challenge for the very reason that they include so much detailed and specific information, which is difficult to learn. This paper will present an algorithm for learning a link grammar of German. The problem of data sparseness is tackled by using all the available information from partial parses as well as from an existing grammar fragment and a tagger. This is a report about work in progress so there are no representative results available yet.
This paper presents a comparative study of probabilistic treebank parsing of German, using the Negra and TüBa-D/Z treebanks. Experiments with the Stanford parser, which uses a factored PCFG and dependency model, show that, contrary to previous claims for other parsers, lexicalization of PCFG models boosts parsing performance for both treebanks. The experiments also show that there is a big difference in parsing performance, when trained on the Negra and on the TüBa-D/Z treebanks. Parser performance for the models trained on TüBa-D/Z are comparable to parsing results for English with the Stanford parser, when trained on the Penn treebank. This comparison at least suggests that German is not harder to parse than its West-Germanic neighbor language English.
How to compare treebanks
(2008)
Recent years have seen an increasing interest in developing standards for linguistic annotation, with a focus on the interoperability of the resources. This effort, however, requires a profound knowledge of the advantages and disadvantages of linguistic annotation schemes in order to avoid importing the flaws and weaknesses of existing encoding schemes into the new standards. This paper addresses the question how to compare syntactically annotated corpora and gain insights into the usefulness of specific design decisions. We present an exhaustive evaluation of two German treebanks with crucially different encoding schemes. We evaluate three different parsers trained on the two treebanks and compare results using EVALB, the Leaf-Ancestor metric, and a dependency-based evaluation. Furthermore, we present TePaCoC, a new testsuite for the evaluation of parsers on complex German grammatical constructions. The testsuite provides a well thought-out error classification, which enables us to compare parser output for parsers trained on treebanks with different encoding schemes and provides interesting insights into the impact of treebank annotation schemes on specific constructions like PP attachment or non-constituent coordination.
In the last decade, the Penn treebank has become the standard data set for evaluating parsers. The fact that most parsers are solely evaluated on this specific data set leaves the question unanswered how much these results depend on the annotation scheme of the treebank. In this paper, we will investigate the influence which different decisions in the annotation schemes of treebanks have on parsing. The investigation uses the comparison of similar treebanks of German, NEGRA and TüBa-D/Z, which are subsequently modified to allow a comparison of the differences. The results show that deleted unary nodes and a flat phrase structure have a negative influence on parsing quality while a flat clause structure has a positive influence.