Using grammatical relations to compare parsers

10th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, EACL 2003

Volumn , Issue , 2003, Pages 291-298

  Preiss, Judita ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS;

ANAPHORA RESOLUTION; GOLD STANDARDS; GRAMMATICAL RELATIONS; PARSING ALGORITHM; RELATION EXTRACTION; RESOLUTION ALGORITHMS; TREEBANKS;

SYNTACTICS;

EID: 33846526239     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (19)

1. D. Blaheta and E. Charniak. 2000. Assigning function tags to parsed text. In Proceedings of the First Meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 234-240.
2. E. J. Briscoe and J. Carroll. 1993. Generalised probabilistic LR parsing of natural language (corpora) with unification-based grammars. Computational Linguistics, 19(1):25-60.
3. S. Buchholz, J. Veenstra, and W. Daelemans. 1999. Cascaded grammatical relation assignment. In P. Fung and J. Zhou, editors, Proceedings of the Joint SIGDAT Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Very Large Corpora (EMNLP/VLC), pages 239-246.
4. S. Buchholz. 2002. Memory-Based Grammatical Relation Finding. Ph.D. thesis, University of Tilburg.
5. J. Carroll, E. Briscoe, and A. Sanfilippo. 1998. Parser evaluation: A survey and a new proposal. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, pages 447-454.
6. E. Charniak. 2000. A maximum-entropy-inspired parser. In Proceedings of NAACL-2000, pages 132-139.
7. S. Clark and J. Hockenmaier. 2002. Evaluating a wide-coverage CCG parser. In Proceedings of the LREC 2002 Beyond Parseval Workshop.
8. M. Collins. 1997. Three generative, lexicalised models for statistical parsing. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the ACL (jointly with the 8th Conference of the EACL), pages 16-23.
9. W. Daelemans, J. Zavrel, P. Berck, and S. Gillis. 1996. MBT: A memory-based part of speech tagger generator. In E. Ejerhed and I. Dagan, editors, Proceedings of the 4th ACL/SIGDAT Workshop on Very Large Corpora, pages 14-27.
10. W. Daelemans. 1996. Abstraction considered harmful: Lazy learning of language processing. In H. J. van den Herik and A. Weijiters, editors, Proceedings of the Sixth Beligian-Dutch Conference on Machine Learning, pages 3-12.
11. D. Elworthy. 1994. Does Baum-Welch re-estimation help taggers? In Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Applied NLP, pages 53-58.
12. S. Lappin and H. Leass. 1994. An algorithm for pronominal anaphora resolution. Computational Linguistics, 20(4):535-561.
13. G. Leech. 1992. 100 million words of English: the British National Corpus. Language Research, 28(1):1-13.
14. D. Lin. 1995. Dependency-based parser evaluation: a study with a software manual corpus. In R. Sutcliffe, H-D. Koch, and A. McEllingott, editors, Industrial Parsing of Software Manuals, pages 13-24.
15. M. Marcus, R. Santorini, and M. Marcinkiewicz. 1993. Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn TreeBank. Computational Linguisitcs, 19(2):313-330.
16. J. Preiss and E. Briscoe. 2003. Shallow or full parsing for anaphora resolution? An experiment with the Lappin and Leass algorithm. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Anaphora Resolution.
17. A. Ratnaparkhi. 1996. A maximum entropy model for part-of-speech tagging. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 133-142.
18. G. Sampson. 1995. English for the computer. Oxford University Press.
19. J. Veenstra and A. van den Bosch. 2000. Single-classifier memory-based phrase chunking. In Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL) and the Second Learning Language in Logic Workshop (LLL), pages 157-159.