Automatic acquisition of LFG resources for German - as good as it gets
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...
mehr
|
Volltext:
|
|
|
Zitierfähiger Link:
|
|
|
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.
|
| Export in Literaturverwaltung |
|
Treebank Annotation Schemes and Parser Evaluation for German
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...
mehr
|
Volltext:
|
|
|
Zitierfähiger Link:
|
|
|
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.
|
| Export in Literaturverwaltung |
|
German particle verbs and pleonastic prepositions
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...
mehr
|
Volltext:
|
|
|
Zitierfähiger Link:
|
|
|
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).
|
| Export in Literaturverwaltung |
|
Evaluating Evaluation Measures
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...
mehr
|
Volltext:
|
|
|
Zitierfähiger Link:
|
|
|
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.
|
| Export in Literaturverwaltung |
|
Why is it so difficult to compare treebanks? TIGER and TüBa-D/Z revisited
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...
mehr
|
Volltext:
|
|
|
Zitierfähiger Link:
|
|
|
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.
|
| Export in Literaturverwaltung |
|
