Multiword expression processing: A survey

Multiword expressions (MWEs) are a class of linguistic forms spanning conventional word boundaries that are both idiosyncratic and pervasive across different languages. The structure of linguistic processing that depends on the clear distinction between words and phrases has to be re-thought to accommodate MWEs. The issue of MWE handling is crucial for NLP applications, where it raises a number of challenges. The emergence of solutions in the absence of guiding principles motivates this survey, whose aim is not only to provide a focused review of MWE processing, but also to clarify the nature of interactions between MWE processing and downstream applications. We propose a conceptual framework within which challenges and research contributions can be positioned. It offers a shared understanding of what is meant by "MWE processing," distinguishing the subtasks of MWE discovery and identification. It also elucidates the interactions between MWE processing and two use cases: Parsing and machine translation. Many of the approaches in the literature can be differentiated according to how MWE processing is timed with respect to underlying use cases. We discuss how such orchestration choices affect the scope of MWE-aware systems. For each of the two MWE processing subtasks and for each of the two use cases, we conclude on open issues and research perspectives

Proceedings

Proceedings of the Workshop on Annotation and Exploitation of Parallel Corpora AEPC 2010. Editors: Lars Ahrenberg, Jörg Tiedemann and Martin Volk. NEALT Proceedings Series, Vol. 10 (2010), 98 pages. © 2010 The editors and contributors. Published by Northern European Association for Language Technology (NEALT) http://omilia.uio.no/nealt . Electronically published at Tartu University Library (Estonia) http://hdl.handle.net/10062/15893

Knowledge Expansion of a Statistical Machine Translation System using Morphological Resources

Translation capability of a Phrase-Based Statistical Machine Translation (PBSMT) system mostly depends on parallel data and phrases that are not present in the training data are not correctly translated. This paper describes a method that efficiently expands the existing knowledge of a PBSMT system without adding more parallel data but using external morphological resources. A set of new phrase associations is added to translation and reordering models; each of them corresponds to a morphological variation of the source/target/both phrases of an existing association. New associations are generated using a string similarity score based on morphosyntactic information. We tested our approach on En-Fr and Fr-En translations and results showed improvements of the performance in terms of automatic scores (BLEU and Meteor) and reduction of out-of-vocabulary (OOV) words. We believe that our knowledge expansion framework is generic and could be used to add different types of information to the model.JRC.G.2-Global security and crisis managemen

Proceedings of the Workshop Semantic Content Acquisition and Representation (SCAR) 2007

This is the proceedings of the Workshop on Semantic Content Acquisition and Representation, held in conjunction with NODALIDA 2007, on May 24 2007 in Tartu, Estonia.</p

Dependency Syntax in the Automatic Detection of Irony and Stance

[ES] The present thesis is part of the broad panorama of studies of Natural Language Processing (NLP). In particular, it is a work of Computational Linguistics (CL) designed to study in depth the contribution of syntax in the field of sentiment analysis and, therefore, to study texts extracted from social media or, more generally, online content. Furthermore, given the recent interest of the scientific community in the Universal Dependencies (UD) project, which proposes a morphosyntactic annotation format aimed at creating a "universal" representation of the phenomena of morphology and syntax in a manifold of languages, in this work we made use of this format, thinking of a study in a multilingual perspective (Italian, English, French and Spanish). In this work we will provide an exhaustive presentation of the morphosyntactic annotation format of UD, in particular underlining the most relevant issues regarding their application to UGC. Two tasks will be presented, and used as case studies, in order to test the research hypotheses: the first case study will be in the field of automatic Irony Detection and the second in the area of Stance Detection. In both cases, historical notes will be provided that can serve as a context for the reader, an introduction to the problems faced will be outlined and the activities proposed in the computational linguistics community will be described. Furthermore, particular attention will be paid to the resources currently available as well as to those developed specifically for the study of the aforementioned phenomena. Finally, through the description of a series of experiments, both within evaluation campaigns and within independent studies, I will try to describe the contribution that syntax can provide to the resolution of such tasks. This thesis is a revised collection of my three-year PhD career and collocates within the growing trend of studies devoted to make Artificial Intelligence results more explainable, going beyond the achievement of highest scores in performing tasks, but rather making their motivations understandable and comprehensible for experts in the domain. The novel contribution of this work mainly consists in the exploitation of features that are based on morphology and dependency syntax, which were used in order to create vectorial representations of social media texts in various languages and for two different tasks. Such features have then been paired with a manifold of machine learning classifiers, with some neural networks and also with the language model BERT. Results suggest that fine-grained dependency-based syntactic information is highly informative for the detection of irony, and less informative for what concerns stance detection. Nonetheless, dependency syntax might still prove useful in the task of stance detection if firstly irony detection is considered as a preprocessing step. I also believe that the dependency syntax approach that I propose could shed some light on the explainability of a difficult pragmatic phenomenon such as irony.[CA] La presente tesis se enmarca dentro del amplio panorama de estudios relacionados con el Procesamiento del Lenguaje Natural (NLP). En concreto, se trata de un trabajo de Lingüística Computacional (CL) cuyo objetivo principal es estudiar en profundidad la contribución de la sintaxis en el campo del análisis de sentimientos y, en concreto, aplicado a estudiar textos extraídos de las redes sociales o, más en general, de contenidos online. Además, dado el reciente interés de la comunidad científica por el proyecto Universal Dependencies (UD), en el que se propone un formato de anotación morfosintáctica destinado a crear una representación "universal" de la morfología y sintaxis aplicable a diferentes idiomas, en este trabajo se utiliza este formato con el propósito de realizar un estudio desde una perspectiva multilingüe (italiano, inglés, francés y español). En este trabajo se presenta una descripción exhaustiva del formato de anotación morfosintáctica de UD, en particular, subrayando las cuestiones más relevantes en cuanto a su aplicación a los UGC generados en las redes sociales. El objetivo final es analizar y comprobar si estas anotaciones morfosintácticas sirven para obtener información útil para los modelos de detección de la ironía y del stance o posicionamiento. Se presentarán dos tareas y se utilizarán como ejemplos de estudio para probar las hipótesis de la investigación: el primer caso se centra en el área de la detección automática de la ironía y el segundo en el área de la detección del stance o posicionamiento. En ambos casos, se proporcionan los antecendentes y trabajos relacionados notas históricas que pueden servir de contexto para el lector, se plantean los problemas encontrados y se describen las distintas actividades propuestas para resolver estos problemas en la comunidad de la lingüística computacional. Se presta especial atención a los recursos actualmente disponibles, así como a los desarrollados específicamente para el estudio de los fenómenos antes mencionados. Finalmente, a través de la descripción de una serie de experimentos, llevados a cabo tanto en campañas de evaluación como en estudios independientes, se describe la contribución que la sintaxis puede brindar a la resolución de esas tareas. Esta tesis es el resultado de toda la investigación que he llevado a cabo durante mi doctorado en una colección revisada de mi carrera de doctorado de los últimos tres años y medio, y se ubica dentro de la tendencia creciente de estudios dedicados a hacer que los resultados de la Inteligencia Artificial sean más explicables, yendo más allá del logro de puntajes más altos en la realización de tareas, sino más bien haciendo comprensibles sus motivaciones y qué los procesos sean más comprensibles para los expertos en el dominio. La contribución principal y más novedosa de este trabajo consiste en la explotación de características (o rasgos) basadas en la morfología y la sintaxis de dependencias, que se utilizaron para crear las representaciones vectoriales de textos procedentes de redes sociales en varios idiomas y para dos tareas diferentes. A continuación, estas características se han combinado con una variedad de clasificadores de aprendizaje automático, con algunas redes neuronales y también con el modelo de lenguaje BERT. Los resultados sugieren que la información sintáctica basada en dependencias utilizada es muy informativa para la detección de la ironía y menos informativa en lo que respecta a la detección del posicionamiento. No obstante, la sintaxis basada en dependencias podría resultar útil en la tarea de detección del posicionamiento si, en primer lugar, la detección de ironía se considera un paso previo al procesamiento en la detección del posicionamiento. También creo que el enfoque basado casi completamente en sintaxis de dependencias que propongo en esta tesis podría ayudar a explicar mejor un fenómeno prag[EN] La present tesi s'emmarca dins de l'ampli panorama d'estudis relacionats amb el Processament del Llenguatge Natural (NLP). En concret, es tracta d'un treball de Lingüística Computacional (CL), l'objectiu principal del qual és estudiar en profunditat la contribució de la sintaxi en el camp de l'anàlisi de sentiments i, en concret, aplicat a l'estudi de textos extrets de les xarxes socials o, més en general, de continguts online. A més, el recent interès de la comunitat científica pel projecte Universal Dependències (UD), en el qual es proposa un format d'anotació morfosintàctica destinat a crear una representació "universal" de la morfologia i sintaxi aplicable a diferents idiomes, en aquest treball s'utilitza aquest format amb el propòsit de realitzar un estudi des d'una perspectiva multilingüe (italià, anglès, francès i espanyol). En aquest treball es presenta una descripció exhaustiva del format d'anotació morfosintàctica d'UD, en particular, posant més èmfasi en les qüestions més rellevants pel que fa a la seva aplicació als UGC generats a les xarxes socials. L'objectiu final és analitzar i comprovar si aquestes anotacions morfosintàctiques serveixen per obtenir informació útil per als sistemes de detecció de la ironia i del stance o posicionament. Es presentaran dues tasques i s'utilitzaran com a exemples d'estudi per provar les hipòtesis de la investigació: el primer cas se centra en l'àrea de la detecció automàtica de la ironia i el segon en l'àrea de la detecció del stance o posicionament. En tots dos casos es proporcionen els antecedents i treballs relacionats que poden servir de context per al lector, es plantegen els problemes trobats i es descriuen les diferents activitats proposades per resoldre aquests problemes en la comunitat de la lingüística computacional. Es fa especialment referència als recursos actualment disponibles, així com als desenvolupats específicament per a l'estudi dels fenòmens abans esmentats. Finalment, a través de la descripció d'una sèrie d'experiments, duts a terme tant en campanyes d'avaluació com en estudis independents, es descriu la contribució que la sintaxi pot oferir a la resolució d'aquestes tasques. Aquesta tesi és el resultat de tota la investigació que he dut a terme durant el meu doctorat els últims tres anys i mig, i se situa dins de la tendència creixent d'estudis dedicats a fer que els resultats de la Intel·ligència Artificial siguin més explicables, que vagin més enllà de l'assoliment de puntuacions més altes en la realització de tasques, sinó més aviat fent comprensibles les seves motivacions i què els processos siguin més comprensibles per als experts en el domini. La contribució principal i més nova d'aquest treball consisteix en l'explotació de característiques (o trets) basades en la morfologia i la sintaxi de dependències, que s'utilitzen per crear les representacions vectorials de textos procedents de xarxes socials en diversos idiomes i per a dues tasques diferents. A continuació, aquestes característiques s'han combinat amb una varietat de classificadors d'aprenentatge automàtic, amb algunes xarxes neuronals i també amb el model de llenguatge BERT. Els resultats suggereixen que la informació sintàctica utilitzada basada en dependències és molt informativa per a la detecció de la ironia i menys informativa pel que fa a la detecció del posicionament. Malgrat això, la sintaxi basada en dependències podria ser útil en la tasca de detecció del posicionament si, en primer lloc, la detecció d'ironia es considera un pas previ al processament en la detecció del posicionament. També crec que l'enfocament basat gairebé completament en sintaxi de dependències que proposo en aquesta tesi podria ajudar a explicar millor un fenomen pragmàtic tan difícil de detectar i d'interpretar com la ironia.Cignarella, AT. (2021). Dependency Syntax in the Automatic Detection of Irony and Stance [Tesis doctoral]. Universitat Politècnica de València. https://doi.org/10.4995/Thesis/10251/177639TESI

OntoTag - A Linguistic and Ontological Annotation Model Suitable for the Semantic Web

OntoTag - A Linguistic and Ontological Annotation Model Suitable for the Semantic Web 1. INTRODUCTION. LINGUISTIC TOOLS AND ANNOTATIONS: THEIR LIGHTS AND SHADOWS Computational Linguistics is already a consolidated research area. It builds upon the results of other two major ones, namely Linguistics and Computer Science and Engineering, and it aims at developing computational models of human language (or natural language, as it is termed in this area). Possibly, its most well-known applications are the different tools developed so far for processing human language, such as machine translation systems and speech recognizers or dictation programs. These tools for processing human language are commonly referred to as linguistic tools. Apart from the examples mentioned above, there are also other types of linguistic tools that perhaps are not so well-known, but on which most of the other applications of Computational Linguistics are built. These other types of linguistic tools comprise POS taggers, natural language parsers and semantic taggers, amongst others. All of them can be termed linguistic annotation tools. Linguistic annotation tools are important assets. In fact, POS and semantic taggers (and, to a lesser extent, also natural language parsers) have become critical resources for the computer applications that process natural language. Hence, any computer application that has to analyse a text automatically and ‘intelligently’ will include at least a module for POS tagging. The more an application needs to ‘understand’ the meaning of the text it processes, the more linguistic tools and/or modules it will incorporate and integrate. However, linguistic annotation tools have still some limitations, which can be summarised as follows: 1. Normally, they perform annotations only at a certain linguistic level (that is, Morphology, Syntax, Semantics, etc.). 2. They usually introduce a certain rate of errors and ambiguities when tagging. This error rate ranges from 10 percent up to 50 percent of the units annotated for unrestricted, general texts. 3. Their annotations are most frequently formulated in terms of an annotation schema designed and implemented ad hoc. A priori, it seems that the interoperation and the integration of several linguistic tools into an appropriate software architecture could most likely solve the limitations stated in (1). Besides, integrating several linguistic annotation tools and making them interoperate could also minimise the limitation stated in (2). Nevertheless, in the latter case, all these tools should produce annotations for a common level, which would have to be combined in order to correct their corresponding errors and inaccuracies. Yet, the limitation stated in (3) prevents both types of integration and interoperation from being easily achieved. In addition, most high-level annotation tools rely on other lower-level annotation tools and their outputs to generate their own ones. For example, sense-tagging tools (operating at the semantic level) often use POS taggers (operating at a lower level, i.e., the morphosyntactic) to identify the grammatical category of the word or lexical unit they are annotating. Accordingly, if a faulty or inaccurate low-level annotation tool is to be used by other higher-level one in its process, the errors and inaccuracies of the former should be minimised in advance. Otherwise, these errors and inaccuracies would be transferred to (and even magnified in) the annotations of the high-level annotation tool. Therefore, it would be quite useful to find a way to (i) correct or, at least, reduce the errors and the inaccuracies of lower-level linguistic tools; (ii) unify the annotation schemas of different linguistic annotation tools or, more generally speaking, make these tools (as well as their annotations) interoperate. Clearly, solving (i) and (ii) should ease the automatic annotation of web pages by means of linguistic tools, and their transformation into Semantic Web pages (Berners-Lee, Hendler and Lassila, 2001). Yet, as stated above, (ii) is a type of interoperability problem. There again, ontologies (Gruber, 1993; Borst, 1997) have been successfully applied thus far to solve several interoperability problems. Hence, ontologies should help solve also the problems and limitations of linguistic annotation tools aforementioned. Thus, to summarise, the main aim of the present work was to combine somehow these separated approaches, mechanisms and tools for annotation from Linguistics and Ontological Engineering (and the Semantic Web) in a sort of hybrid (linguistic and ontological) annotation model, suitable for both areas. This hybrid (semantic) annotation model should (a) benefit from the advances, models, techniques, mechanisms and tools of these two areas; (b) minimise (and even solve, when possible) some of the problems found in each of them; and (c) be suitable for the Semantic Web. The concrete goals that helped attain this aim are presented in the following section. 2. GOALS OF THE PRESENT WORK As mentioned above, the main goal of this work was to specify a hybrid (that is, linguistically-motivated and ontology-based) model of annotation suitable for the Semantic Web (i.e. it had to produce a semantic annotation of web page contents). This entailed that the tags included in the annotations of the model had to (1) represent linguistic concepts (or linguistic categories, as they are termed in ISO/DCR (2008)), in order for this model to be linguistically-motivated; (2) be ontological terms (i.e., use an ontological vocabulary), in order for the model to be ontology-based; and (3) be structured (linked) as a collection of ontology-based triples, as in the usual Semantic Web languages (namely RDF(S) and OWL), in order for the model to be considered suitable for the Semantic Web. Besides, to be useful for the Semantic Web, this model should provide a way to automate the annotation of web pages. As for the present work, this requirement involved reusing the linguistic annotation tools purchased by the OEG research group (http://www.oeg-upm.net), but solving beforehand (or, at least, minimising) some of their limitations. Therefore, this model had to minimise these limitations by means of the integration of several linguistic annotation tools into a common architecture. Since this integration required the interoperation of tools and their annotations, ontologies were proposed as the main technological component to make them effectively interoperate. From the very beginning, it seemed that the formalisation of the elements and the knowledge underlying linguistic annotations within an appropriate set of ontologies would be a great step forward towards the formulation of such a model (henceforth referred to as OntoTag). Obviously, first, to combine the results of the linguistic annotation tools that operated at the same level, their annotation schemas had to be unified (or, preferably, standardised) in advance. This entailed the unification (id. standardisation) of their tags (both their representation and their meaning), and their format or syntax. Second, to merge the results of the linguistic annotation tools operating at different levels, their respective annotation schemas had to be (a) made interoperable and (b) integrated. And third, in order for the resulting annotations to suit the Semantic Web, they had to be specified by means of an ontology-based vocabulary, and structured by means of ontology-based triples, as hinted above. Therefore, a new annotation scheme had to be devised, based both on ontologies and on this type of triples, which allowed for the combination and the integration of the annotations of any set of linguistic annotation tools. This annotation scheme was considered a fundamental part of the model proposed here, and its development was, accordingly, another major objective of the present work. All these goals, aims and objectives could be re-stated more clearly as follows: Goal 1: Development of a set of ontologies for the formalisation of the linguistic knowledge relating linguistic annotation. Sub-goal 1.1: Ontological formalisation of the EAGLES (1996a; 1996b) de facto standards for morphosyntactic and syntactic annotation, in a way that helps respect the triple structure recommended for annotations in these works (which is isomorphic to the triple structures used in the context of the Semantic Web). Sub-goal 1.2: Incorporation into this preliminary ontological formalisation of other existing standards and standard proposals relating the levels mentioned above, such as those currently under development within ISO/TC 37 (the ISO Technical Committee dealing with Terminology, which deals also with linguistic resources and annotations). Sub-goal 1.3: Generalisation and extension of the recommendations in EAGLES (1996a; 1996b) and ISO/TC 37 to the semantic level, for which no ISO/TC 37 standards have been developed yet. Sub-goal 1.4: Ontological formalisation of the generalisations and/or extensions obtained in the previous sub-goal as generalisations and/or extensions of the corresponding ontology (or ontologies). Sub-goal 1.5: Ontological formalisation of the knowledge required to link, combine and unite the knowledge represented in the previously developed ontology (or ontologies). Goal 2: Development of OntoTag’s annotation scheme, a standard-based abstract scheme for the hybrid (linguistically-motivated and ontological-based) annotation of texts. Sub-goal 2.1: Development of the standard-based morphosyntactic annotation level of OntoTag’s scheme. This level should include, and possibly extend, the recommendations of EAGLES (1996a) and also the recommendations included in the ISO/MAF (2008) standard draft. Sub-goal 2.2: Development of the standard-based syntactic annotation level of the hybrid abstract scheme. This level should include, and possibly extend, the recommendations of EAGLES (1996b) and the ISO/SynAF (2010) standard draft. Sub-goal 2.3: Development of the standard-based semantic annotation level of OntoTag’s (abstract) scheme. Sub-goal 2.4: Development of the mechanisms for a convenient integration of the three annotation levels already mentioned. These mechanisms should take into account the recommendations included in the ISO/LAF (2009) standard draft. Goal 3: Design of OntoTag’s (abstract) annotation architecture, an abstract architecture for the hybrid (semantic) annotation of texts (i) that facilitates the integration and interoperation of different linguistic annotation tools, and (ii) whose results comply with OntoTag’s annotation scheme. Sub-goal 3.1: Specification of the decanting processes that allow for the classification and separation, according to their corresponding levels, of the results of the linguistic tools annotating at several different levels. Sub-goal 3.2: Specification of the standardisation processes that allow (a) complying with the standardisation requirements of OntoTag’s annotation scheme, as well as (b) combining the results of those linguistic tools that share some level of annotation. Sub-goal 3.3: Specification of the merging processes that allow for the combination of the output annotations and the interoperation of those linguistic tools that share some level of annotation. Sub-goal 3.4: Specification of the merge processes that allow for the integration of the results and the interoperation of those tools performing their annotations at different levels. Goal 4: Generation of OntoTagger’s schema, a concrete instance of OntoTag’s abstract scheme for a concrete set of linguistic annotations. These linguistic annotations result from the tools and the resources available in the research group, namely • Bitext’s DataLexica (http://www.bitext.com/EN/datalexica.asp), • LACELL’s (POS) tagger (http://www.um.es/grupos/grupo-lacell/quees.php), • Connexor’s FDG (http://www.connexor.eu/technology/machinese/glossary/fdg/), and • EuroWordNet (Vossen et al., 1998). This schema should help evaluate OntoTag’s underlying hypotheses, stated below. Consequently, it should implement, at least, those levels of the abstract scheme dealing with the annotations of the set of tools considered in this implementation. This includes the morphosyntactic, the syntactic and the semantic levels. Goal 5: Implementation of OntoTagger’s configuration, a concrete instance of OntoTag’s abstract architecture for this set of linguistic tools and annotations. This configuration (1) had to use the schema generated in the previous goal; and (2) should help support or refute the hypotheses of this work as well (see the next section). Sub-goal 5.1: Implementation of the decanting processes that facilitate the classification and separation of the results of those linguistic resources that provide annotations at several different levels (on the one hand, LACELL’s tagger operates at the morphosyntactic level and, minimally, also at the semantic level; on the other hand, FDG operates at the morphosyntactic and the syntactic levels and, minimally, at the semantic level as well). Sub-goal 5.2: Implementation of the standardisation processes that allow (i) specifying the results of those linguistic tools that share some level of annotation according to the requirements of OntoTagger’s schema, as well as (ii) combining these shared level results. In particular, all the tools selected perform morphosyntactic annotations and they had to be conveniently combined by means of these processes. Sub-goal 5.3: Implementation of the merging processes that allow for the combination (and possibly the improvement) of the annotations and the interoperation of the tools that share some level of annotation (in particular, those relating the morphosyntactic level, as in the previous sub-goal). Sub-goal 5.4: Implementation of the merging processes that allow for the integration of the different standardised and combined annotations aforementioned, relating all the levels considered. Sub-goal 5.5: Improvement of the semantic level of this configuration by adding a named entity recognition, (sub-)classification and annotation subsystem, which also uses the named entities annotated to populate a domain ontology, in order to provide a concrete application of the present work in the two areas involved (the Semantic Web and Corpus Linguistics). 3. MAIN RESULTS: ASSESSMENT OF ONTOTAG’S UNDERLYING HYPOTHESES The model developed in the present thesis tries to shed some light on (i) whether linguistic annotation tools can effectively interoperate; (ii) whether their results can be combined and integrated; and, if they can, (iii) how they can, respectively, interoperate and be combined and integrated. Accordingly, several hypotheses had to be supported (or rejected) by the development of the OntoTag model and OntoTagger (its implementation). The hypotheses underlying OntoTag are surveyed below. Only one of the hypotheses (H.6) was rejected; the other five could be confirmed. H.1 The annotations of different levels (or layers) can be integrated into a sort of overall, comprehensive, multilayer and multilevel annotation, so that their elements can complement and refer to each other. • CONFIRMED by the development of: o OntoTag’s annotation scheme, o OntoTag’s annotation architecture, o OntoTagger’s (XML, RDF, OWL) annotation schemas, o OntoTagger’s configuration. H.2 Tool-dependent annotations can be mapped onto a sort of tool-independent annotations and, thus, can be standardised. • CONFIRMED by means of the standardisation phase incorporated into OntoTag and OntoTagger for the annotations yielded by the tools. H.3 Standardisation should ease: H.3.1: The interoperation of linguistic tools. H.3.2: The comparison, combination (at the same level and layer) and integration (at different levels or layers) of annotations. • H.3 was CONFIRMED by means of the development of OntoTagger’s ontology-based configuration: o Interoperation, comparison, combination and integration of the annotations of three different linguistic tools (Connexor’s FDG, Bitext’s DataLexica and LACELL’s tagger); o Integration of EuroWordNet-based, domain-ontology-based and named entity annotations at the semantic level. o Integration of morphosyntactic, syntactic and semantic annotations. H.4 Ontologies and Semantic Web technologies (can) play a crucial role in the standardisation of linguistic annotations, by providing consensual vocabularies and standardised formats for annotation (e.g., RDF triples). • CONFIRMED by means of the development of OntoTagger’s RDF-triple-based annotation schemas. H.5 The rate of errors introduced by a linguistic tool at a given level, when annotating, can be reduced automatically by contrasting and combining its results with the ones coming from other tools, operating at the same level. However, these other tools might be built following a different technological (stochastic vs. rule-based, for example) or theoretical (dependency vs. HPS-grammar-based, for instance) approach. • CONFIRMED by the results yielded by the evaluation of OntoTagger. H.6 Each linguistic level can be managed and annotated independently. • REJECTED: OntoTagger’s experiments and the dependencies observed among the morphosyntactic annotations, and between them and the syntactic annotations. In fact, Hypothesis H.6 was already rejected when OntoTag’s ontologies were developed. We observed then that several linguistic units stand on an interface between levels, belonging thereby to both of them (such as morphosyntactic units, which belong to both the morphological level and the syntactic level). Therefore, the annotations of these levels overlap and cannot be handled independently when merged into a unique multileveled annotation. 4. OTHER MAIN RESULTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS First, interoperability is a hot topic for both the linguistic annotation community and the whole Computer Science field. The specification (and implementation) of OntoTag’s architecture for the combination and integration of linguistic (annotation) tools and annotations by means of ontologies shows a way to make these different linguistic annotation tools and annotations interoperate in practice. Second, as mentioned above, the elements involved in linguistic annotation were formalised in a set (or network) of ontologies (OntoTag’s linguistic ontologies). • On the one hand, OntoTag’s network of ontologies consists of − The Linguistic Unit Ontology (LUO), which includes a mostly hierarchical formalisation of the different types of linguistic elements (i.e., units) identifiable in a written text; − The Linguistic Attribute Ontology (LAO), which includes also a mostly hierarchical formalisation of the different types of features that characterise the linguistic units included in the LUO; − The Linguistic Value Ontology (LVO), which includes the corresponding formalisation of the different values that the attributes in the LAO can take; − The OIO (OntoTag’s Integration Ontology), which Includes the knowledge required to link, combine and unite the knowledge represented in the LUO, the LAO and the LVO; Can be viewed as a knowledge representation ontology that describes the most elementary vocabulary used in the area of annotation. • On the other hand, OntoTag’s ontologies incorporate the knowledge included in the different standards and recommendations for linguistic annotation released so far, such as those developed within the EAGLES and the SIMPLE European projects or by the ISO/TC 37 committee: − As far as morphosyntactic annotations are concerned, OntoTag’s ontologies formalise the terms in the EAGLES (1996a) recommendations and their corresponding terms within the ISO Morphosyntactic Annotation Framework (ISO/MAF, 2008) standard; − As for syntactic annotations, OntoTag’s ontologies incorporate the terms in the EAGLES (1996b) recommendations and their corresponding terms within the ISO Syntactic Annotation Framework (ISO/SynAF, 2010) standard draft; − Regarding semantic annotations, OntoTag’s ontologies generalise and extend the recommendations in EAGLES (1996a; 1996b) and, since no stable standards or standard drafts have been released for semantic annotation by ISO/TC 37 yet, they incorporate the terms in SIMPLE (2000) instead; − The terms coming from all these recommendations and standards were supplemented by those within the ISO Data Category Registry (ISO/DCR, 2008) and also of the ISO Linguistic Annotation Framework (ISO/LAF, 2009) standard draft when developing OntoTag’s ontologies. Third, we showed that the combination of the results of tools annotating at the same level can yield better results (both in precision and in recall) than each tool separately. In particular, 1. OntoTagger clearly outperformed two of the tools integrated into its configuration, namely DataLexica and FDG in all the combination sub-phases in which they overlapped (i.e. POS tagging, lemma annotation and morphological feature annotation). As far as the remaining tool is concerned, i.e. LACELL’s tagger, it was also outperformed by OntoTagger in POS tagging and lemma annotation, and it did not behave better than OntoTagger in the morphological feature annotation layer. 2. As an immediate result, this implies that a) This type of combination architecture configurations can be applied in order to improve significantly the accuracy of linguistic annotations; and b) Concerning the morphosyntactic level, this could be regarded as a way of constructing more robust and more accurate POS tagging systems. Fourth, Semantic Web annotations are usually pe

Inquiries into the lexicon-syntax relations in Basque

Index:- Foreword. B. Oyharçabal.- Morphosyntactic disambiguation and shallow parsing in computational processing in Basque. I. Aduriz, A. Díaz de Ilarraza.- The transitivity of borrowed verbs in Basque: an outline. X. Alberdi.- Patrixa: a unification-based parser for Basque and its application to the automatic analysis of verbs. I. Aldezabal, M. J. Aranzabe, A. Atutxa, K.Gojenola, K, Sarasola.- Learning argument/adjunct distinction for Basque. I. Aldezabal, M. J. Aranzabe, K. Gojenola, K, Sarasola, A. Atutxa.- Analyzing verbal subcategorization aimed at its computation application. I. Aldezabal, P. Goenaga.- Automatic extraction of verb paterns from “hauta-lanerako euskal hiztegia”. J. M. Arriola, X. Artola, A. Soroa.- The case of an enlightening, provoking an admirable Basque derivational siffux with implications for the theory of argument structure. X. Artiagoitia.- Verb-deriving processes in Basque. J. C. Odriozola.- Lexical causatives and causative alternation in Basque. B. Oyharçabal.- Causation and semantic control; diagnosis of incorrect use in minorized languages. I. Zabala.- Subject index.- Contributions

Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference Formal Approaches to South Slavic and Balkan languages

Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference Formal Approaches to South Slavic and Balkan Languages publishes 17 papers that were presented at the conference organised in Dubrovnik, Croatia, 4-6 Octobre 2010