Towards robust animacy classification using morphosyntactic distributional features

EACL 2006 - 11th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Proceedings of the Conference

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 47-54

  Øvrelid, Lilja ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS; DECISION TREES;

AUTOMATIC CLASSIFICATION; CLASSIFICATION ACCURACY; CLASSIFICATION METHODS; DECISION TREE CLASSIFIERS; DISTRIBUTIONAL FEATURES; FREQUENCY THRESHOLD; RELATIVE FREQUENCIES; TRAINING AND TESTING;

CLASSIFICATION (OF INFORMATION);

EID: 84893407455     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.3115/1609039.1609045     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (14)

1. Judith Aissen. 2003. Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. Economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21: 435-483.
2. Joan Bresnan, Anna Cueni, Tatiana Nikitina and Harald Baayen. 2005. Predicting the Dative Alternation. To appear in Royal Netherlands Academy of Science Workshop on Foundations of Interpretation proceedings.
3. Shipra Dingare. 2001. The effect of feature hierarchies on frequencies of passivization in English. M.A. Thesis, Stanford University.
4. David Dowty. 1991. Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection. Language, 67(3): 547-619.
5. John Hale and Eugene Charniak. 1998. Getting Useful Gender Statistics from English Text. Technical Report, Comp. Sci. Dept. at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.
6. Christiane Fellbaum, editor. 1998. WordNet, an electronic lexical database. MIT Press.
7. Fred Karlsson and Atro Voutilainen and Juha Heikkilä and Atro Anttila. 1995. Constraint Grammar: A language-independent system for parsing unrestricted text. Mouton de Gruyer.
8. Hanjung Lee. 2002. Prominence Mismatch and Markedness Reductionin Word Order. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21(3): 617-680.
9. Paola Merlo and Suzanne Stevenson. 2001. Automatic Verb Classification Based on Statistical Distributions of Argument Structure. Computational Linguistics, 27(3): 373-408.
10. Constantin Orǎsan and Richard Evans. 2001. Learning to Identify Animate References. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Natural Language Learning, ACL-2001.
11. Lilja Øvrelid. 2004. Disambiguation of syntactic functions in Norwegian: modeling variation in word order interpretations conditioned by animacy and def-initeness. In Fred Karlsson (ed.): Proceedings of the 20th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, Helsinki.
12. J. Ross Quinlan. 1998. C5.0: An Informal Tutorial. http://www.rulequest. com/see5-unix.html.
13. J. Ross Quinlan. 1993. C4.5: Programs for machine learning. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Series in Machine Learning.
14. Annie Zaenen, Jean Carletta, Gregory Garretson, Joan Bresnan, Andrew Koontz-Garboden, Tatiana Nikitina, M. Catherine O'Connor and Tom Wasow. 2004. Animacy encoding in English: why and how. In D. Byron and B. Webber (eds.): Proceedings of ACL Workshop on Discourse Annotation, Barcelona.