Definitional, personal, and mechanical constraints on part of speech annotation performance

Natural Language Engineering

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 77-90

  Babarczy, Anna ^a,b   Carroll, John ^a   Sampson, Geoffrey ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX   (United Kingdom)

^b BUDAPEST UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND ECONOMICS   (Hungary)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONSTRAINT THEORY; PRECISION ENGINEERING; SPEECH COMMUNICATION; SPEECH PROCESSING;

GRAMMATICAL ANNOTATION; PART-OF-SPEECH TAGGING; SEMI-AUTOMATIC SUPPORT; SPEECH ANNOTATION;

SPEECH ANALYSIS;

EID: 33744908548     PISSN: 13513249     EISSN: 14698110     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S1351324905003803     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Blaheta, D. (2002) Handling noisy training and testing data. Proceedings of the 7th Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Philadelphia, pp. 111-16; faculty.knox.edu/dblaheta/papers/ dpb-emnlp02.pdf
2. Brants, T. (2000) Inter-annotator agreement for a German newspaper corpus. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC-2000, Athens; www.coli.uni-sb.de/ ~thorsten/publications/Brants-LREC00.pdf
3. Carletta, J. (1996) Assessing agreement on classification tasks: The kappa statistic. Computational Linguistics 22: 249-254. Reprinted in G. R. Sampson and D. McCarthy, editors, Corpus Linguistics: Readings in a widening discipline, Continuum, 2004, pp. 335-339.
4. Church, K. W. (1992) Current practice in part of speech tagging and suggestions for the future. In: C. F. Simmons, editor, Sbornik Práci: in honor of Henry Kučera, Michigan Slavonic Studies, pp. 13-48; www.research.att.com/~kwc/kucera.text.ps
5. Dickinson, M. and Meurers, W. D. (2003) Detecting errors in part-of-speech annotation. Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL-03), Budapest, pp. 107-14; www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~dm/papers/ dickinson-meurers-03.pdf
6. Elworthy, D. (1994) Does Baum-Welch re-estimation help taggers? Proceedings of the 4th Association for Computational Linguistics Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing, Trento, pp. 53-58.
7. Hornby, A. S. (editor) (1974) Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English (3rd ed). Oxford University Press.
8. Langendoen, D. T. (1997) Review of Sampson (1995). Language 73: 600-603.
9. Leech, G. N. (1992) 100 million words of English: The British National Corpus. Language Research 28: 1-13.
10. Leech, G. N., Garside, R. G. and Bryant, M. (1994) CLAWS4: The tagging of the British National Corpus. Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 94), Kyoto, pp. 622-628.
11. Lin, D. (2003) Dependency-based evaluation of Minipar. In: A. Abeillé (editor), Treebanks: Building and Using Parsed Corpora, Kluwer, pp. 317-329.
12. Oliva, K. (2001) The possibility of automatic detection/correction of errors in tagged corpora: A pilot study on a German corpus. In: V. Matoušek, P. Mautner, R. Moucek and K. Taušer (editors), Proceedings 4th International Conference on Text, Speech and Dialogue (TSD 2001: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2166, Železná Ruda. Springer, pp. 39-46.
13. Sampson, G. R. (1995) English for the Computer: The SUSANNE Corpus and analytic scheme. Clarendon Press.
14. Sampson, G. R. (2000) CHRISTINE Corpus, Stage I: Documentation. www.grsampson.net/ChrisDoc.html
15. Tateisi, Y. and Tsujii, J.-I. (2004) Part-of-speech annotation of biology research abstracts. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2004), Lisbon, pp. 1267-1270; www-tsujii.is.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/%7Eyucca/papers/LREC2004-528.pdf
16. Voutilainen, A. (1999) An experiment on the upper bound of interjudge agreement: The case of tagging. Proceedings of the 9th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Bergen, pp. 204-208; acl.ldc.upenn.edu/E/E99/E99-1027.pdf