Use of Deep Linguistic Features for the Recognition and Labeling of Semantic Arguments

Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2003

Volumn , Issue , 2003, Pages 41-48

  Chen, John ^a   Rambow, Owen ^a  

^a Columbia University ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMS; SEMANTICS;

LABELINGS; LINGUISTIC FEATURES; ORIENTED FEATURES; SEMANTIC ARGUMENTS; SEMANTIC ROLES; SYNTACTIC FEATURES;

SYNTACTICS;

EID: 85146433133     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.3115/1119355.1119361     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (15)

1. Srinivas Bangalore and Aravind Joshi. 1999. Supertagging: An approach to almost parsing. Computational Linguistics, 25(2):237–266.
2. John Chen and K. Vijay-Shanker. 2000. Automated extraction of tags from the penn treebank. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Parsing Technologies, pages 65–76.
3. John Chen. 2001. Towards Efficient Statistical Parsing Using Lexicalized Grammatical Information. Ph.D. thesis, University of Delaware.
4. David Chiang. 2000. Statistical parsing with an automatically-extracted tree adjoining grammar. In Proceedings of the the 38th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 456–463, Hong Kong.
5. Michael Collins. 1999. Head-Driven Statistical Models for Natural Language Parsing. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania.
6. Daniel Gildea and Martha Palmer. 2002. The necessity of parsing for predicate argument recognition. In acl02, pages 239–246, Philadelphia, PA.
7. Julia Hockenmaier and Mark Steedman. 2002. Acquiring compact lexicalized grammars from a cleaner treebank. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, Las Palmas.
8. Aravind K. Joshi and Yves Schabes. 1991. Tree-adjoining grammars and lexicalized grammars. In Maurice Nivat and Andreas Podelski, editors, Definability and Recognizability of Sets of Trees. Elsevier.
9. Paul Kingsbury, Martha Palmer, and Mitch Marcus. 2002. Adding semantic annotation to the Penn Tree-Bank. In Proceedings of the Human Language Technology Conference, San Diego, CA.
10. David Magerman. 1995. Statistical decision-tree models for parsing. In 33rd Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL’95).
11. Mitchell M. Marcus, Beatrice Santorini, and Mary Ann Marcinkiewicz. 1993. Building a Large Annotated Corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics, 19.2:313–330, June.
12. M. Marcus, G. Kim, M. Marcinkiewicz, R. MacIntyre, A. Bies, M. Ferguson, K. Katz, and B. Schasberger. 1994. The Penn Treebank: Annotating predicate argument structure. In Proceedings of the ARPA Human Language Technology Workshop.
13. B. Srinivas. 1997. Performance evaluation of supertagging for partial parsing. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Parsing Technologies, pages 187–198, Cambridge, MA.
14. Wen Wang and Mary P. Harper. 2002. The superarv language model: Investigating the effectiveness of tightly integrating multiple knowledge sources. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 238–247, Philadelphia, PA.
15. Fei Xia. 1999. Extracting tree adjoining grammars from bracketed corpora. In Fifth Natural Language Processing Pacific Rim Symposium (NLPRS-99), Beijing, China.