A simple method for tagset comparison

Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC 2008

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 821-826

  Dickinson, Markus ^a   Jochim, Charles ^a  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANNOTATION SCHEME; LOCAL CONTEXTS; SIMPLE METHOD;

EID: 85037355646     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (21)

1. Babarczy, Anna, John Carroll, and Geoffrey Sampson (2006). Definitional, personal, and mechanical constraints on part of speech annotation performance. Journal of Natural Language Engineering 12, 77-90.
2. Brants, Thorsten (1995). Tagset Reduction Without Information Loss. In Proceedings of ACL-95. Cambridge, MA.
3. Brants, Thorsten (1997). Internal and External Tagsets in Part-of-Speech Tagging. In Proceedings of Eurospeech. Rhodes, Greece.
4. Déjean, Hervé (2000). How to Evaluate and Compare Tagsets? A Proposal. In Proceedings of LREC-00. Athens.
5. Dickinson, Markus (2005). Error detection and correction in annotated corpora. Ph. D. thesis, The Ohio State University.
6. Dickinson, Markus and W. Detmar Meurers (2003). Detecting Errors in Part-of-Speech Annotation. In Proceedings of EACL-03. Budapest, Hungary, pp. 107-114.
7. Francis, W. N. and H. Kucera (1979). Brown Corpus Manual. Tech. rep., Department of Linguistics, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, US.
8. Kucera, Henry and W. Nelson Francis (1967). Computational Analysis of Present-Day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
9. Leech, Geoffrey (1997). A Brief Users' Guide to the Grammatical Tagging of the British National Corpus. UCREL, Lancaster University.
10. Manning, Christopher D. and Hinrich Schütze (1999). Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
11. Marcus, Mitchell P., Beatrice Santorini and Mary Ann Marcinkiewicz (1993). Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics 19(2), 313-330.
12. Mintz, Toben H. (2002). Category induction from distributional cues in an artificial language. Memory & Cognition 30, 678-686.
13. Mintz, Toben H. (2003). Frequent frames as a cue for grammatical categories in child directed speech. Cognition 90, 91-117.
14. Mintz, Toben H. (2006). Finding the verbs: distributional cues to categories available to young learners. In K. Hirsh-Pasek and R. M. Golinkoff (eds.), Action Meets Word: How Children Learn Verbs, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 31-63.
15. Pollard, Carl and Ivan A. Sag (1994). Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16. Rehbein, Ines and Josef van Genabith (2007). Treebank Annotation Schemes and Parser Evaluation for German. In Proceedings of EMNLP-CoNLL-07. pp. 630-639.
17. Sampson, Geoffrey (1995). English for the Computer: The SUSANNE Corpus and Analytic Scheme. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
18. Santorini, Beatrice (1990). Part-Of-Speech Tagging Guidelines for the Penn Treebank Project (3rd Revision, 2nd printing). Tech. Rep. MS-CIS-90-47, The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
19. Toutanova, Kristina and Christopher D. Manning (2000). Enriching the Knowledge Sources Used in a Maximum Entropy Part-of-Speech Tagger. In Proceedings of EMNLP/VLC-2000. Hong Kong.
20. Tseng, Huihsin, Daniel Jurafsky and Christopher Manning (2005). Morphological features help POS tagging of unknown words across language varieties. In Proceedings of the Fourth SIGHAN Workshop on Chinese Language Processing.
21. Voutilainen, Atro and Timo Järvinen (1995). Specifying a shallow grammatical representation for parsing purposes. In Proceedings of EACL-95. Dublin, Ireland, pp. 210-214.