Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Visual Tools for Natural Language Processing

By Robert Gaizauskas, Peter Rodgers and Kevin Humphreys


We describe GATE, the General Architecture for Text Engineering, an integrated visual development environment to support the visual assembly, execution and analysis of modular natural language processing systems. The visual model is an executable data flow program graph, automatically synthesised from data dependency declarations of language processing modules. The graph is then directly executable: modules are run interactively in the graph, and results are accessible via generic text visualisation tools linked to the modules. These tools lighten the cognitive load of viewing and compar-ing module results by relating data produced by modules back to the underlying text, by reducing the amount of search in examining results, and by displaying results in context. Overall, the GATE integrated visual development environment leads to rapid understanding of system behaviour and hence to rapid system refinement, therefore demonstrating the utility of visual programming and visualisation techniques for the development of natural language processing systems

Topics: QA76
Publisher: Academic Press Inc
Year: 2001
OAI identifier:

Suggested articles


  1. (1995). A dependency-based method for evaluating broad coverage parsers. In: doi
  2. (1998). A linguistically interpreted corpus of german newspaper texts. In: doi
  3. (1998). A linguistically interpreted corpus of german newspapertexts.In:
  4. (1994). A modular and flexible architecture for an integrated corpus query system. In:
  5. (1998). A scheme for comparative evaluation of diverse parsing systems. In:
  6. (1998). A treebank development tool. In:
  7. (1993). Advanced Research Projects Agency doi
  8. (1998). Alembic workbench corpus development tool. In:
  9. (1994). An open architecture for language engineering. In: First Language Engineering Convention,
  10. (1993). Building a large annotated corpus of english: the Penn treebank.
  11. (1997). Corpus Annotation: Linguistic Information from Computer Text Corpora. doi
  12. (1982). Data flow program graphs. doi
  13. (1982). Data flow systems: guest editor’s introduction. doi
  14. (1998). Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency doi
  15. (1995). Description of the LaSIE system as used for MUC-6. In: doi
  16. (1995). English for the Computer: The SUSANNE Corpus and Analytic Scheme. doi
  17. (1998). Evalb: A bracket scoring program. projects/proteus/evalb/. Site visited 11/11/98.
  18. (1991). Evaluating syntax performance of parser/grammars of english. In: doi
  19. (1995). Four scorers and seven years ago: the scoring method for MUC-6. In: doi
  20. (1996). GATE—an environment to support research and development in natural language engineering. In: doi
  21. (1979). Information Retrieval. doi
  22. (1981). Methods for visual understanding of hierarchical system structures. doi
  23. (1990). Principles of Visual Programming Systems.
  24. (1987). Scaling up visual languages. doi
  25. (1997). Semantica. doi
  26. (1997). Software infrastructure for natural language processing. In: doi
  27. (1996). Syntactica.
  28. (1982). Text as diagram: using typography to improve access and understanding. In:
  29. (1982). The future of interaction systems and the emergence of direct manipulation. doi
  30. (1998). The official tkdiff home page.
  31. (1990). The SGML Handbook. doi
  32. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. doi
  33. (1997). TIPSTER Architecture Design Document Version 2.3. doi
  34. (1996). Usability analysis of visual programming environments: a ‘cognitive dimensions’ framework. doi
  35. (1995). Visual AWK: a model for text processing by demonstration. In: doi
  36. (1997). Visual execution and data visualisation in natural language processing. In: doi
  37. (1992). Visual languages and computing survey: data flow visual programming languages. doi
  38. (1996). Visual Programming With Prograph CPX. Manning Publication.
  39. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth then thousand words. doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.