Korpuslinguistik
Refine
Document Type
Language
- English (6)
Has Fulltext
- yes (6)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (6)
Keywords
- Korpus <Linguistik> (6)
- Syntaktische Analyse (3)
- Annotation (2)
- Deutsch (2)
- Gesprochene Sprache (2)
- Automatische Sprachanalyse (1)
- Evaluation methodologies (1)
- German (1)
- Interoperabilität (1)
- Jugendsprache (1)
Publicationstate
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (6) (remove)
Publisher
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 the first release of the KiezDeutsch Korpus (KiDKo), a new language resource with multiparty spoken dialogues of Kiezdeutsch, a newly emerging language variety spoken by adolescents from multi-ethnic urban areas in Germany. The first release of the corpus includes the transcriptions of the data as well as a normalisation layer and part-of-speech annotations. In the paper, we describe the main features of the new resource and then focus on automatic POS tagging of informal spoken language. Our tagger achieves an accuracy of nearly 97% on KiDKo. While we did not succeed in further improving the tagger using ensemble tagging, we present our approach to using the tagger ensembles for identifying error patterns in the automatically tagged data.
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.
This paper presents an extension to the Stuttgart-Tübingen TagSet, the standard part-of-speech tag set for German, for the annotation of spoken language. The additional tags deal with hesitations, backchannel signals, interruptions, onomatopoeia and uninterpretable material. They allow one to capture phenomena specific to spoken language while, at the same time, preserving inter-operability with already existing corpora of written language.
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.
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.