VARD2:a tool for dealing with spelling variation in historical corpora

When applying corpus linguistic techniques to historical corpora, the corpus researcher should be cautious about the results obtained. Corpus annotation techniques such as part of speech tagging, trained for modern languages, are particularly vulnerable to inaccuracy due to vocabulary and grammatical shifts in language over time. Basic corpus retrieval techniques such as frequency profiling and concordancing will also be affected, in addition to the more sophisticated techniques such as keywords, n-grams, clusters and lexical bundles which rely on word frequencies for their calculations. In this paper, we highlight these problems with particular focus on Early Modern English corpora. We also present an overview of the VARD tool, our proposed solution to this problem, which facilitates pre-processing of historical corpus data by inserting modern equivalents alongside historical spelling variants. Recent improvements to the VARD tool include the incorporation of techniques used in modern spell checking software

Chunk Tagger - Statistical Recognition of Noun Phrases

We describe a stochastic approach to partial parsing, i.e., the recognition of syntactic structures of limited depth. The technique utilises Markov Models, but goes beyond usual bracketing approaches, since it is capable of recognising not only the boundaries, but also the internal structure and syntactic category of simple as well as complex NP's, PP's, AP's and adverbials. We compare tagging accuracy for different applications and encoding schemes.Comment: 7 pages, LaTe

Follow-up question handling in the IMIX and Ritel systems: A comparative study

One of the basic topics of question answering (QA) dialogue systems is how follow-up questions should be interpreted by a QA system. In this paper, we shall discuss our experience with the IMIX and Ritel systems, for both of which a follow-up question handling scheme has been developed, and corpora have been collected. These two systems are each other's opposites in many respects: IMIX is multimodal, non-factoid, black-box QA, while Ritel is speech, factoid, keyword-based QA. Nevertheless, we will show that they are quite comparable, and that it is fruitful to examine the similarities and differences. We shall look at how the systems are composed, and how real, non-expert, users interact with the systems. We shall also provide comparisons with systems from the literature where possible, and indicate where open issues lie and in what areas existing systems may be improved. We conclude that most systems have a common architecture with a set of common subtasks, in particular detecting follow-up questions and finding referents for them. We characterise these tasks using the typical techniques used for performing them, and data from our corpora. We also identify a special type of follow-up question, the discourse question, which is asked when the user is trying to understand an answer, and propose some basic methods for handling it

DepAnn - An Annotation Tool for Dependency Treebanks

DepAnn is an interactive annotation tool for dependency treebanks, providing both graphical and text-based annotation interfaces. The tool is aimed for semi-automatic creation of treebanks. It aids the manual inspection and correction of automatically created parses, making the annotation process faster and less error-prone. A novel feature of the tool is that it enables the user to view outputs from several parsers as the basis for creating the final tree to be saved to the treebank. DepAnn uses TIGER-XML, an XML-based general encoding format for both, representing the parser outputs and saving the annotated treebank. The tool includes an automatic consistency checker for sentence structures. In addition, the tool enables users to build structures manually, add comments on the annotations, modify the tagsets, and mark sentences for further revision