A comparison of two different approaches to morphological analysis of dutch

Current Themes in Computational Phonology and Morphology: 7th Meeting of the ACL Special Interest Group in Computational Phonology, Held in cooperation with ACL 2004

Volumn , Issue , 2004, Pages 62-69

  de Pauw, Guy ^a   Laureys, Tom ^b   Daelemans, Walter ^a   van Hamme, Hugo ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ANTWERP   (Belgium)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS; MORPHOLOGY;

AUTOMATIC SPEECH RECOGNITION; MODULAR ARCHITECTURES; MORPHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS; MORPHOLOGICAL ANALYZER;

SPEECH RECOGNITION;

EID: 84857541520     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (14)

1. R.H. Baayen, R. Piepenbrock, and L. Gulikers. 1995. The Celex Lexical Database (Release2) [CD-ROM]. Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, U.S.A.
2. K. R. Beesley and L. Karttunen, editors. 2003. Finite State Morphology. CSLI Publications, Stanford.
3. W. Daelemans, Jakub Zavrel, Ko van der Sloot, and Antal van den Bosch. 2003. TiMBL: Tilburg memory based learner, version 5.0, reference guide. ILK Technical Report 01-04, Tilburg University. Available from http://ilk.kub.nl.
4. L. Dehaspe, H. Blockeel, and L. De Raedt. 1995. Induction, logic and natural language processing. In Proceedings of the joint ELSNET/COMPULOG-NET/EAGLES Workshop on Computational Logic for Natural Language Processing.
5. K. Demuynck, T. Laureys, D. Van Compernolle, and H. Van hamme. 2003. Flavor: a flexible architecture for LVCSR. In Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology, pages 1973–1976, Geneva, Switzerland, September.
6. J. Heemskerk. 1993. A probabilistic context-free grammar for disambiguation in morphological parsing. Technical Report 44, itk, Tilburg University.
7. K. Koskenniemi. 1983. Two-level morphology: A general computational model for word-form recognition and production. Ph.D. thesis, Department of General Linguistics, University of Helsinki.
8. T. Laureys, V. Vandeghinste, and J. Duchateau. 2002. A hybrid approach to compounds in LVCSR. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, volume I, pages 697–700, Denver, U.S.A., September.
9. T. Laureys, G. De Pauw, H. Van hamme, W. Daelemans, and D. Van Compernolle. 2004. Evaluation and adaptation of the CELEX Dutch morphological database. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, Lisbon, Portugal, May.
10. R. Rosenfeld. 2000. Two decades of statistical language modeling: Where do we go from here? Proceedings of the IEEE, 88(8):1270–1278.
11. V. Siivola, T. Hirismaki, M. Creutz, and M. Kurimo. 2003. Unlimited vocabulary speech recognition based on morphs discovered in an unsupervised manner. In Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology, pages 2293–2296, Geneva, Switzerland, September.
12. M. Szarvas and S. Furui. 2003. Finite-state transducer based modeling of morphosyntax with applications to Hungarian LVCSR. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, pages 368–371, Hong Kong, China, May.
13. A. Van den Bosch and W. Daelemans. 1999. Memory-based morphological analysis. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 285–292, New Brunswick, U.S.A., September.
14. A. Van den Bosch, W. Daelemans, and A. Weijters. 1996. Morphological analysis as classification: an inductive-learning approach. In K. Oflazer and H. Somers, editors, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on New Methods in Natural Language Processing, NeMLaP-2, Ankara, Turkey, pages 79–89.