A Task-based Evaluation of French Morphological Resources and Tools

Morphology is a key component for many Language Technology applications. However, morphological relations, especially those relying on the derivation and compounding processes, are often addressed in a superficial manner. In this article, we focus on assessing the relevance of deep and motivated morphological knowledge in Natural Language Processing applications. We first describe an annotation experiment whose goal is to evaluate the role of morphology for one task, namely Question Answering (QA). We then highlight the kind of linguistic knowledge that is necessary for this particular task and propose a qualitative analysis of morphological phenomena in order to identify the morphological processes that are most relevant. Based on this study, we perform an intrinsic evaluation of existing tools and resources for French morphology, in order to quantify their coverage. Our conclusions provide helpful insights for using and building appropriate morphological resources and tools that could have a significant impact on the application performance

Morphological resources for precise information retrieval

International audienceQuestion answering (QA) systems aim at providing a precise answer to a given user question. Their major difficulty lies in the lexical gap problem between question and answering passages. We present here the different types of morphological phenomena in question answering, the resources available for French, and in particular a resource that we built containing deverbal agent nouns. Then, we evaluate the results of a particular QA system, according to the morphological knowledge used

De la simplicité en morphologie

International audienceLes unités lexicales simples ne font que rarement l’objet d’études en morphologie dérivationnelle, bien qu’elles soient le point de départ des mécanismes qui la sous-tendent. Nous nous proposons dans cet article d’élaborer et d’analyser un important corpus de noms simples du français. L’objectif est de vérifier l’hypothèse de Croft (1991) selon laquelle les noms simples dénotent prototypiquement des objets, contrairement aux noms construits, qui renvoient principalement à des actions ou à des propriétés, selon qu’ils sont dérivés de verbes ou d’adjectifs. Nous constituons dans un premier temps un corpus de noms simples, ce qui présuppose de définir cette notion, plus problématique qu’elle ne le paraît d’emblée. Nous proposons dans un second temps une annotation sémantique des quelque 3500 noms simples retenus, en noms d’objet, d’action ou de propriété, et nous détaillons la série de tests linguistiques employés pour établir cette classification. Il ressort de notre étude qu’environ un quart des noms simples ne dénotent pas (ou pas uniquement) des objets. Certains d’entre eux relèvent de classes nominales plus spécifiques, non réductibles aux trois catégories initialement considérées

The lexeme in descriptive and theoretical morphology

After being dominant during about a century since its invention by Baudouin de Courtenay at the end of the nineteenth century, morpheme is more and more replaced by lexeme in contemporary descriptive and theoretical morphology.  The notion of a lexeme is usually associated with the work of P. H. Matthews (1972, 1974), who characterizes it as a lexical entity abstracting over individual inflected words. Over the last three decades, the lexeme has become a cornerstone of much work in both inflectional morphology and word formation (or, as it is increasingly been called, lexeme formation). The papers in the present volume take stock of the descriptive and theoretical usefulness of the lexeme, but also adress many of the challenges met by classical lexeme-based theories of morphology

The lexeme in descriptive and theoretical morphology

After being dominant during about a century since its invention by Baudouin de Courtenay at the end of the nineteenth century, morpheme is more and more replaced by lexeme in contemporary descriptive and theoretical morphology.  The notion of a lexeme is usually associated with the work of P. H. Matthews (1972, 1974), who characterizes it as a lexical entity abstracting over individual inflected words. Over the last three decades, the lexeme has become a cornerstone of much work in both inflectional morphology and word formation (or, as it is increasingly been called, lexeme formation). The papers in the present volume take stock of the descriptive and theoretical usefulness of the lexeme, but also adress many of the challenges met by classical lexeme-based theories of morphology

The lexeme in descriptive and theoretical morphology

After being dominant during about a century since its invention by Baudouin de Courtenay at the end of the nineteenth century, morpheme is more and more replaced by lexeme in contemporary descriptive and theoretical morphology.  The notion of a lexeme is usually associated with the work of P. H. Matthews (1972, 1974), who characterizes it as a lexical entity abstracting over individual inflected words. Over the last three decades, the lexeme has become a cornerstone of much work in both inflectional morphology and word formation (or, as it is increasingly been called, lexeme formation). The papers in the present volume take stock of the descriptive and theoretical usefulness of the lexeme, but also adress many of the challenges met by classical lexeme-based theories of morphology

The lexeme in descriptive and theoretical morphology

After being dominant during about a century since its invention by Baudouin de Courtenay at the end of the nineteenth century, morpheme is more and more replaced by lexeme in contemporary descriptive and theoretical morphology.  The notion of a lexeme is usually associated with the work of P. H. Matthews (1972, 1974), who characterizes it as a lexical entity abstracting over individual inflected words. Over the last three decades, the lexeme has become a cornerstone of much work in both inflectional morphology and word formation (or, as it is increasingly been called, lexeme formation). The papers in the present volume take stock of the descriptive and theoretical usefulness of the lexeme, but also adress many of the challenges met by classical lexeme-based theories of morphology

The lexeme in descriptive and theoretical morphology

After being dominant during about a century since its invention by Baudouin de Courtenay at the end of the nineteenth century, morpheme is more and more replaced by lexeme in contemporary descriptive and theoretical morphology.  The notion of a lexeme is usually associated with the work of P. H. Matthews (1972, 1974), who characterizes it as a lexical entity abstracting over individual inflected words. Over the last three decades, the lexeme has become a cornerstone of much work in both inflectional morphology and word formation (or, as it is increasingly been called, lexeme formation). The papers in the present volume take stock of the descriptive and theoretical usefulness of the lexeme, but also adress many of the challenges met by classical lexeme-based theories of morphology

The lexeme in descriptive and theoretical morphology

After being dominant during about a century since its invention by Baudouin de Courtenay at the end of the nineteenth century, morpheme is more and more replaced by lexeme in contemporary descriptive and theoretical morphology.  The notion of a lexeme is usually associated with the work of P. H. Matthews (1972, 1974), who characterizes it as a lexical entity abstracting over individual inflected words. Over the last three decades, the lexeme has become a cornerstone of much work in both inflectional morphology and word formation (or, as it is increasingly been called, lexeme formation). The papers in the present volume take stock of the descriptive and theoretical usefulness of the lexeme, but also adress many of the challenges met by classical lexeme-based theories of morphology

The lexeme in descriptive and theoretical morphology

After being dominant during about a century since its invention by Baudouin de Courtenay at the end of the nineteenth century, morpheme is more and more replaced by lexeme in contemporary descriptive and theoretical morphology.  The notion of a lexeme is usually associated with the work of P. H. Matthews (1972, 1974), who characterizes it as a lexical entity abstracting over individual inflected words. Over the last three decades, the lexeme has become a cornerstone of much work in both inflectional morphology and word formation (or, as it is increasingly been called, lexeme formation). The papers in the present volume take stock of the descriptive and theoretical usefulness of the lexeme, but also adress many of the challenges met by classical lexeme-based theories of morphology