Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Conference Proceeding (30) (remove)
Language
- English (30)
Has Fulltext
- yes (30)
Keywords
- Korpus <Linguistik> (18)
- Annotation (13)
- Automatische Sprachanalyse (9)
- Deutsch (9)
- Syntaktische Analyse (9)
- Gesprochene Sprache (4)
- Frame-Semantik (3)
- Computerlinguistik (2)
- Lexikalisch funktionale Grammatik (2)
- Parser (2)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (30) (remove)
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (17)
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (9)
- Peer-review (1)
Publisher
This paper discusses the behaviour of German particle verbs formed by two-way prepositions in combination with pleonastic PPs including the verb particle as a preposition. These particle verbs have a characteristic feature: some of them license directional prepositional phrases in the accusative, some only allow for locative PPs in the dative, and some particle verbs can occur with PPs in the accusative and in the dative. Directional particle verbs together with directional PPs present an additional problem: the particle and the preposition in the PP seem to provide redundant information. The paper gives an overview of the semantic verb classes influencing this phenomenon, based on corpus data, and explains the underlying reasons for the behaviour of the particle verbs. We also show how the restrictions on particle verbs and pleonastic PPs can be expressed in a grammar theory like Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG).
This paper is a contribution to the ongoing discussion on treebank annotation schemes and their impact on PCFG parsing results. We provide a thorough comparison of two German treebanks: the TIGER treebank and the TüBa-D/Z. We use simple statistics on sentence length and vocabulary size, and more refined methods such as perplexity and its correlation with PCFG parsing results, as well as a Principal Components Analysis. Finally we present a qualitative evaluation of a set of 100 sentences from the TüBa- D/Z, manually annotated in the TIGER as well as in the TüBa-D/Z annotation scheme, and show that even the existence of a parallel subcorpus does not support a straightforward and easy comparison of both annotation schemes.
Recent studies focussed on the question whether less-configurational languages like German are harder to parse than English, or whether the lower parsing scores are an artefact of treebank encoding schemes and data structures, as claimed by Kübler et al. (2006). This claim is based on the assumption that PARSEVAL metrics fully reflect parse quality across treebank encoding schemes. In this paper we present new experiments to test this claim. We use the PARSEVAL metric, the Leaf-Ancestor metric as well as a dependency-based evaluation, and present novel approaches measuring the effect of controlled error insertion on treebank trees and parser output. We also provide extensive past-parsing crosstreebank conversion. The results of the experiments show that, contrary to Kübler et al. (2006), the question whether or not German is harder to parse than English remains undecided.
This paper presents a thorough examination of the validity of three evaluation measures on parser output. We assess parser performance of an unlexicalised probabilistic parser trained on two German treebanks with different annotation schemes and evaluate parsing results using the PARSEVAL metric, the Leaf-Ancestor metric and a dependency-based evaluation. We reject the claim that the TüBa-D/Z annotation scheme is more adequate then the TIGER scheme for PCFG parsing and show that PARSEVAL should not be used to compare parser performance for parsers trained on treebanks with different annotation schemes. An analysis of specific error types indicates that the dependency-based evaluation is most appropriate to reflect parse quality.
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.
We present data-driven methods for the acquisition of LFG resources from two German treebanks. We discuss problems specific to semi-free word order languages as well as problems arising from the data structures determined by the design of the different treebanks. We compare two ways of encoding semi-free word order, as done in the two German treebanks, and argue that the design of the TiGer treebank is more adequate for the acquisition of LFG resources. Furthermore, we describe an architecture for LFG grammar acquisition for German, based on the two German treebanks, and compare our results with a hand-crafted German LFG grammar.
Generative lexicalized parsing models, which are the mainstay for probabilistic parsing of English, do not perform as well when applied to languages with different language-specific properties such as free(r) word order or rich morphology. For German and other non-English languages, linguistically motivated complex treebank transformations have been shown to improve performance within the framework of PCFG parsing, while generative lexicalized models do not seem to be as easily adaptable to these languages. In this paper, we show a practical way to use grammatical functions as first-class citizens in a discriminative model that allows to extend annotated treebank grammars with rich feature sets without having to suffer from sparse data problems. We demonstrate the flexibility of the approach by integrating unsupervised PP attachment and POS-based word clusters into the parser.
We present MaJo, a toolkit for supervised Word Sense Disambiguation (WSD), with an interface for Active Learning. Our toolkit combines a flexible plugin architecture which can easily be extended, with a graphical user interface which guides the user through the learning process. MaJo integrates off-the-shelf NLP tools like POS taggers, treebank-trained statistical parsers, as well as linguistic resources like WordNet and GermaNet. It enables the user to systematically explore the benefit gained from different feature types for WSD. In addition, MaJo provides an Active Learning environment, where the
system presents carefully selected instances to a human oracle. The toolkit supports manual annotation of the selected instances and re-trains the system on the extended data set. MaJo also provides the means to evaluate the performance of the system against a gold standard. We illustrate the usefulness of our system by learning the frames (word senses) for three verbs from the SALSA corpus, a version of the TiGer treebank with an additional layer of frame-semantic annotation. We show how MaJo can be used to tune the feature set for specific target words and so improve performance for these targets. We also show that syntactic features, when carefully tuned to the target word, can lead to a substantial increase in performance.
In the paper we investigate the impact of data size on a Word Sense Disambiguation task (WSD). We question the assumption that the knowledge acquisition bottleneck, which is known as one of the major challenges for WSD, can be solved by simply obtaining more and more training data. Our case study on 1,000 manually annotated instances of the German verb drohen (threaten) shows that the best performance is not obtained when training on the full data set, but by carefully selecting new training instances with regard to their informativeness for the learning process (Active Learning). We present a thorough evaluation of the impact of different sampling methods on the data sets and propose an improved method for uncertainty sampling which dynamically adapts the selection of new instances to the learning progress of the classifier, resulting in more robust results during the initial stages of learning. A qualitative error analysis identifies problems for automatic WSD and discusses the reasons for the great gap in performance between human annotators and our automatic WSD system.