acl acl2010 acl2010-143 acl2010-143-reference knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: pdf
Author: Bharat Ram Ambati
Abstract: Statistical systems with high accuracy are very useful in real-world applications. If these systems can capture basic linguistic information, then the usefulness of these statistical systems improve a lot. This paper is an attempt at incorporating linguistic constraints in statistical dependency parsing. We consider a simple linguistic constraint that a verb should not have multiple subjects/objects as its children in the dependency tree. We first describe the importance of this constraint considering Machine Translation systems which use dependency parser output, as an example application. We then show how the current state-ofthe-art dependency parsers violate this constraint. We present two new methods to handle this constraint. We evaluate our methods on the state-of-the-art dependency parsers for Hindi and Czech. 1
B. R. Ambati, P. Gadde and K. Jindal. 2009. Experiments in Indian Language Dependency Parsing. In Proceedings of the ICON09 NLP Tools Contest: Indian Language Dependency Parsing, pp 32-37. R. Begum, S. Husain, A. Dhwaj, D. Sharma, L. Bai, and R. Sangal. 2008. Dependency annotation scheme for Indian languages. In Proceedings of IJCNLP-2008. A. Bharati, V. Chaitanya and R. Sangal. 1995. Natural Language Processing: A Paninian Perspective, Prentice-Hall of India, New Delhi, pp. 65-106. A. Bharati, S. Husain, D. M. Sharma, and R. Sangal. 2008. A Two-Stage Constraint Based Dependency Parser for Free Word Order Languages. In Proceedings of the COLIPS International Conference on Asian Language Processing 2008 (IALP). Chiang Mai, Thailand. S. Buchholz and E. Marsi. 2006. CoNLL-X shared task on multilingual dependency parsing. In Proc. of the Tenth Conf. on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL). E. Hajicova. 1998. Prague Dependency Treebank: From Analytic to Tectogrammatical Annotation. In Proc. TSD ’98. J. Hall, J. Nilsson, J. Nivre, G. Eryigit, B. Megyesi, M. Nilsson and M. Saers. 2007. Single Malt or Blended? A Study in Multilingual Parser Optimization. In Proceedings of the CoNLL Shared Task Session of EMNLP-CoNLL. R. Hudson. 1984. Word Grammar, Basil Blackwell, 108 Cowley Rd, Oxford, OX4 1JF, England. 107 S. Husain. 2009. Dependency Parsers for Indian Languages. In Proceedings of ICON09 NLP Tools Contest: Indian Language Dependency Parsing. Hyderabad, India. M. Marcus, B. Santorini, and M.A. Marcinkiewicz. 1993. Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank, Computational Linguistics 1993. I. A. Mel'čuk. 1988. Dependency Syntax: Theory and Practice, State University, Press of New York. R. McDonald, K. Lerman, and F. Pereira. 2006. Multilingual dependency analysis with a two-stage discriminative parser. In Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL-X), pp. 216–220. R. McDonald and J. Nivre. 2007. Characterizing the errors of data-driven dependency parsing models. In Proc. of EMNLP-CoNLL. J. Nivre, J. Hall, S. Kubler, R. McDonald, J. Nilsson, S. Riedel and D. Yuret. 2007a. The CoNLL 2007 Shared Task on Dependency Parsing. In Proceedings of EMNLP/CoNLL-2007. J. Nivre, J. Hall, J. Nilsson, A. Chanev, G. Eryigit, S. Kübler, S. Marinov and E Marsi. 2007b. MaltParser: A language-independent system for data-driven dependency parsing. Natural Language Engineering, 13(2), 95-135. S. Riedel, Ruket Çakıcı and Ivan Meza-Ruiz. 2006. Multi-lingual Dependency Parsing with Incremental Integer Linear Programming. In Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL-X). S. M. Shieber. 1985. Evidence against the contextfreeness of natural language. In Linguistics and Philosophy, p. 8, 334–343. 108