1,539 research outputs found
An automatic part-of-speech tagger for Middle Low German
Syntactically annotated corpora are highly important for enabling large-scale diachronic and diatopic language research. Such corpora have recently been developed for a variety of historical languages, or are still under development. One of those under development is the fully tagged and parsed Corpus of Historical Low German (CHLG), which is aimed at facilitating research into the highly under-researched diachronic syntax of Low German. The present paper reports on a crucial step in creating the corpus, viz. the creation of a part-of-speech tagger for Middle Low German (MLG). Having been transmitted in several non-standardised written varieties, MLG poses a challenge to standard POS taggers, which usually rely on normalized spelling. We outline the major issues faced in the creation of the tagger and present our solutions to them
Tagging Complex Non-Verbal German Chunks with Conditional Random Fields
We report on chunk tagging methods for German that recognize complex non-verbal phrases using structural chunk tags with Conditional Random Fields (CRFs). This state-of-the-art method for sequence classification achieves 93.5% accuracy on newspaper text. For the same task, a classical trigram tagger approach based on Hidden Markov Models reaches a baseline of 88.1%. CRFs allow for a clean and principled integration of linguistic knowledge such as part-of-speech tags, morphological constraints and lemmas. The structural chunk tags encode phrase structures up to a depth of 3 syntactic nodes. They include complex prenominal and postnominal modifiers that occur frequently in German noun phrases
Comparing a statistical and a rule-based tagger for German
In this paper we present the results of comparing a statistical tagger for
German based on decision trees and a rule-based Brill-Tagger for German. We
used the same training corpus (and therefore the same tag-set) to train both
taggers. We then applied the taggers to the same test corpus and compared their
respective behavior and in particular their error rates. Both taggers perform
similarly with an error rate of around 5%. From the detailed error analysis it
can be seen that the rule-based tagger has more problems with unknown words
than the statistical tagger. But the results are opposite for tokens that are
many-ways ambiguous. If the unknown words are fed into the taggers with the
help of an external lexicon (such as the Gertwol system) the error rate of the
rule-based tagger drops to 4.7%, and the respective rate of the statistical
taggers drops to around 3.7%. Combining the taggers by using the output of one
tagger to help the other did not lead to any further improvement.Comment: 8 page
Recommended from our members
Minimally supervised induction of morphology through bitexts
textA knowledge of morphology can be useful for many natural language processing systems. Thus, much effort has been expended in developing accurate computational tools for morphology that lemmatize, segment and generate new forms. The most powerful and accurate of these have been manually encoded, such endeavors being without exception expensive and time-consuming. There have been consequently many attempts to reduce this cost in the development of morphological systems through the development of unsupervised or minimally supervised algorithms and learning methods for acquisition of morphology. These efforts have yet to produce a tool that approaches the performance of manually encoded systems.
Here, I present a strategy for dealing with morphological clustering and segmentation in a minimally supervised manner but one that will be more linguistically informed than previous unsupervised approaches. That is, this study will attempt to induce clusters of words from an unannotated text that are inflectional variants of each other. Then a set of inflectional suffixes by part-of-speech will be induced from these clusters. This level of detail is made possible by a method known as alignment and transfer (AT), among other names, an approach that uses aligned bitexts to transfer linguistic resources developed for one language–the source language–to another language–the target. This approach has a further advantage in that it allows a reduction in the amount of training data without a significant degradation in performance making it useful in applications targeted at data collected from endangered languages. In the current study, however, I use English as the source and German as the target for ease of evaluation and for certain typlogical properties of German. The two main tasks, that of clustering and segmentation, are approached as sequential tasks with the clustering informing the segmentation to allow for greater accuracy in morphological analysis.
While the performance of these methods does not exceed the current roster of unsupervised or minimally supervised approaches to morphology acquisition, it attempts to integrate more learning methods than previous studies. Furthermore, it attempts to learn inflectional morphology as opposed to derivational morphology, which is a crucial distinction in linguistics.Linguistic
A Robust Transformation-Based Learning Approach Using Ripple Down Rules for Part-of-Speech Tagging
In this paper, we propose a new approach to construct a system of
transformation rules for the Part-of-Speech (POS) tagging task. Our approach is
based on an incremental knowledge acquisition method where rules are stored in
an exception structure and new rules are only added to correct the errors of
existing rules; thus allowing systematic control of the interaction between the
rules. Experimental results on 13 languages show that our approach is fast in
terms of training time and tagging speed. Furthermore, our approach obtains
very competitive accuracy in comparison to state-of-the-art POS and
morphological taggers.Comment: Version 1: 13 pages. Version 2: Submitted to AI Communications - the
European Journal on Artificial Intelligence. Version 3: Resubmitted after
major revisions. Version 4: Resubmitted after minor revisions. Version 5: to
appear in AI Communications (accepted for publication on 3/12/2015
- …