Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Preprint (26)
- Article (2)
- Part of a Book (2)
- Conference Proceeding (2)
- Book (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (33)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (33)
Keywords
- Deutsch (5)
- Satzanalyse (4)
- speech tagging (2)
- Acquisition (1)
- Arabisch (1)
- Automatische Sprachanalyse (1)
- Englisch (1)
- Fehlererkennung (1)
- Fehlertoleranz (1)
- German (1)
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.
Prepositional phrase (PP) attachment is one of the major sources for errors in traditional statistical parsers. The reason for that lies in the type of information necessary for resolving structural ambiguities. For parsing, it is assumed that distributional information of parts-of-speech and phrases is sufficient for disambiguation. For PP attachment, in contrast, lexical information is needed. The problem of PP attachment has sparked much interest ever since Hindle and Rooth (1993) formulated the problem in a way that can be easily handled by machine learning approaches: In their approach, PP attachment is reduced to the decision between noun and verb attachment; and the relevant information is reduced to the two possible attachment sites (the noun and the verb) and the preposition of the PP. Brill and Resnik (1994) extended the feature set to the now standard 4-tupel also containing the noun inside the PP. Among many publications on the problem of PP attachment, Volk (2001; 2002) describes the only system for German. He uses a combination of supervised and unsupervised methods. The supervised method is based on the back-off model by Collins and Brooks (1995), the unsupervised part consists of heuristics such as ”If there is a support verb construction present, choose verb attachment”. Volk trains his back-off model on the Negra treebank (Skut et al., 1998) and extracts frequencies for the heuristics from the ”Computerzeitung”. The latter also serves as test data set. Consequently, it is difficult to compare Volk’s results to other results for German, including the results presented here, since not only he uses a combination of supervised and unsupervised learning, but he also performs domain adaptation. Most of the researchers working on PP attachment seem to be satisfied with a PP attachment system; we have found hardly any work on integrating the results of such approaches into actual parsers. The only exceptions are Mehl et al. (1998) and Foth and Menzel (2006), both working with German data. Mehl et al. report a slight improvement of PP attachment from 475 correct PPs out of 681 PPs for the original parser to 481 PPs. Foth and Menzel report an improvement of overall accuracy from 90.7% to 92.2%. Both integrate statistical attachment preferences into a parser. First, we will investigate whether dependency parsing, which generally uses lexical information, shows the same performance on PP attachment as an independent PP attachment classifier does. Then we will investigate an approach that allows the integration of PP attachment information into the output of a parser without having to modify the parser: The results of an independent PP attachment classifier are integrated into the parse of a dependency parser for German in a postprocessing step.
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.
This report explores the question of compatibility between annotation projects including translating annotation formalisms to each other or to common forms. Compatibility issues are crucial for systems that use the results of multiple annotation projects. We hope that this report will begin a concerted effort in the field to track the compatibility of annotation schemes for part of speech tagging, time annotation, treebanking, role labeling and other phenomena.
This paper provides an overview of current research on a hybrid and robust parsing architecture for the morphological, syntactic and semantic annotation of German text corpora. The novel contribution of this research lies not in the individual parsing modules, each of which relies on state-of-the-art algorithms and techniques. Rather what is new about the present approach is the combination of these modules into a single architecture. This combination provides a means to significantly optimize the performance of each component, resulting in an increased accuracy of annotation.
This paper reports on the SYN-RA (SYNtax-based Reference Annotation) project, an on-going project of annotating German newspaper texts with referential relations. The project has developed an inventory of anaphoric and coreference relations for German in the context of a unified, XML-based annotation scheme for combining morphological, syntactic, semantic, and anaphoric information. The paper discusses how this unified annotation scheme relates to other formats currently discussed in the literature, in particular the annotation graph model of Bird and Liberman (2001) and the pie-in-thesky scheme for semantic annotation.
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.