Article

Free access

Deep linguistic analysis for the accurate identification of predicate-argument relations

Authors:

Jun'ichi TsujiiAuthors Info & Claims

COLING '04: Proceedings of the 20th international conference on Computational Linguistics

Pages 1392 - es

https://doi.org/10.3115/1220355.1220559

Published: 23 August 2004 Publication History

Abstract

This paper evaluates the accuracy of HPSG parsing in terms of the identification of predicate-argument relations. We could directly compare the output of HPSG parsing with PropBank annotations, by assuming a unique mapping from HPSG semantic representation into PropBank annotation. Even though PropBank was not used for the training of a disambiguation model, an HPSG parser achieved the accuracy competitive with existing studies on the task of identifying PropBank annotations.

References

[1]

Steven P. Abney. 1997. Stochastic attribute-value grammars. Computational Linguistics, 23(4).

Digital Library

[2]

Collin F. Baker, Charles J. Fillmore, and John B. Lowe. 1998. The Berkeley FrameNet project. In Proc. COLING/ACL 1998, pages 86--90.

Digital Library

[3]

Adam L. Berger, Stephen A. Della Pietra, and Vincent. J. Della Pietra. 1996. A maximum entropy approach to natural language processing. Computational Linguistics, 22(1):39--71.

Digital Library

[4]

Joan Bresnan, editor. 1982. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

[5]

Michael Burke, Aoife Cahill, Ruth O'Donovan, Josef van Genabith, and Andy Way. 2004. Treebank-based acquisition of wide-coverage, probabilistic LFG resources: Project overview, results and evaluation. In Proc. IJCNLP-04 Workshop "Beyond Shallow Analyses".

[6]

Aoife Cahill, Mairead McCarthy, Josef van Genabith, and Andy Way. 2002. Parsing with PCFGs and automatic f-structure annotation. In Proc. 7th International Lexical-Functional Grammar Conference.

[7]

Eugene Charniak. 2000. A maximum-entropyinspired parser. In Proc. NAACL-2000, pages 132--139.

Digital Library

[8]

John Chen and Owen Rambow. 2003. Use of deep linguistic features for the recognition and labeling of semantic arguments. In Proc. EMNLP 2003.

Digital Library

[9]

John Chen and K. Vijay-Shanker. 2000. Automated extraction of TAGs from the Penn Treebank. In Proc. 6th IWPT.

[10]

David Chiang. 2000. Statistical parsing with an automatically-extracted tree adjoining grammar. In Proc. 38th ACL, pages 456--463.

Digital Library

[11]

Stephen Clark and James R. Curran. 2003. Loglinear models for wide-coverage CCG parsing. In Proc. EMNLP 2003, pages 97--104.

Digital Library

[12]

Stephen Clark, Julia Hockenmaier, and Mark Steedman. 2002. Building deep dependency structures with a wide-coverage CCG parser. In Proc. 40th ACL, pages 327--334.

Digital Library

[13]

Michael Collins. 1999. Head-Driven Statistical Models for Natural Language Parsing. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Pennsylvania.

Digital Library

[14]

Anette Frank, Louisa Sadler, Josef van Genabith, and Andy Way. 2003. From treebank resources to LFG f-structures: Automatic f-structure annotation of treebank trees and CFGs extracted from treebanks. In Anne Abeille, editor, Building and Using Syntactically Annotated Corpora, pages 367--389. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

[15]

Stuart Geman and Mark Johnson. 2002. Dynamic programming for parsing and estimation of stochastic unification-based grammars. In Proc. 40th ACL, pages 279--286.

Digital Library

[16]

Daniel Gildea and Julia Hockenmaier. 2003. Identifying semantic roles using Combinatory Categorial Grammar. In Proc. EMNLP 2003.

Digital Library

[17]

Daniel Gildea and Daniel Jurafsky. 2002. Automatic labeling of semantic roles. Computational Linguistics, 28(3):245--288.

Digital Library

[18]

Daniel Gildea and Martha Palmer. 2002. The necessity of parsing for predicate argument recognition. In Proc. 40th ACL.

Digital Library

[19]

Julia Hockenmaier and Mark Steedman. 2002a. Acquiring compact lexicalized grammars from a cleaner treebank. In Proc. 3rd LREC.

[20]

Julia Hockenmaier and Mark Steedman. 2002b. Generative models for statistical parsing with Combinatory Categorial Grammar. In Proc. 40th ACL, pages 335--342.

Digital Library

[21]

Julia Hockenmaier. 2003. Parsing with generative models of predicate-argument structure. In Proc. 41st ACL, pages 359--366.

Digital Library

[22]

Mark Johnson, Stuart Geman, Stephen Canon, Zhiyi Chi, and Stefan Riezler. 1999. Estimators for stochastic "unification-based" grammars. In Proc. ACL '99, pages 535--541.

Digital Library

[23]

Paul Kingsbury and Martha Palmer. 2002. From Treebank to PropBank. In Proc. 3rd LREC.

[24]

Robert Malouf and Gertjan van Noord. 2004. Wide coverage parsing with stochastic attribute value grammars. In Proc. IJCNLP-04 Workshop "Beyond Shallow Analyses".

[25]

Mitchell Marcus, Grace Kim, Mary Ann Marcinkiewicz, Robert MacIntyre, Ann Bies, Mark Ferguson, Karen Katz, and Britta Schasberger. 1994. The Penn Treebank: Annotating predicate argument structure. In ARPA Human Language Technology Workshop.

Digital Library

[26]

Yusuke Miyao and Jun'ichi Tsujii. 2002. Maximum entropy estimation for feature forests. In Proc. HLT 2002.

Digital Library

[27]

Yusuke Miyao, Takashi Ninomiya, and Jun'ichi Tsujii. 2003. Probabilistic modeling of argument structures including non-local dependencies. In Proc. RANLP 2003, pages 285--291.

[28]

Yusuke Miyao, Takashi Ninomiya, and Jun'ichi Tsujii. 2004. Corpus-oriented grammar development for acquiring a Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar from the Penn Treebank. In Proc. IJCNLP-04.

Digital Library

[29]

Carl Pollard and Ivan A. Sag. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. University of Chicago Press.

[30]

Stefan Riezler, Tracy H. King, Ronald M. Kaplan, Richard Crouch, John T. Maxwell III, and Mark Johnson. 2002. Parsing the Wall Street Journal using a Lexical-Functional Grammar and discriminative estimation techniques. In Proc. 40th ACL.

Digital Library

[31]

Yves Schabes, Anne Abeillé, and Aravind K. Joshi. 1988. Parsing strategies with 'lexicalized' grammars: Application to tree adjoining grammars. In Proc. 12th COLING, pages 578--583.

Digital Library

[32]

Mark Steedman. 2000. The Syntactic Process. The MIT Press.

Digital Library

[33]

Fei Xia. 1999. Extracting tree adjoining grammars from bracketed corpora. In Proc. 5th NLPRS.

Cited By

Hanamoto AMatsuzaki TTsujii JDaelemans W(2012)Coordination structure analysis using dual decompositionProceedings of the 13th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics10.5555/2380816.2380870(430-438)Online publication date: 23-Apr-2012
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2380816.2380870
Uematsu STsujii JBunt H(2009)Evaluating contribution of deep syntactic information to shallow semantic analysisProceedings of the 11th International Conference on Parsing Technologies10.5555/1697236.1697254(85-88)Online publication date: 7-Oct-2009
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1697236.1697254
Sætre RSøvik HAmble TTsuruoka Y(2006)GeneTUC, GENIA and googleTransactions on Computational Systems Biology V10.5555/2168332.2168338(68-82)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2006
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2168332.2168338

Deep linguistic analysis for the accurate identification of predicate-argument relations

Recommendations

Parsing with generative models of predicate-argument structure
ACL '03: Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics - Volume 1

The model used by the CCG parser of Hockenmaier and Steedman (2002b) would fail to capture the correct bilexical dependencies in a language with freer word order, such as Dutch. This paper argues that probabilistic parsers should therefore model the ...
Modeling the translation of predicate-argument structure for SMT
ACL '12: Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Long Papers - Volume 1

Predicate-argument structure contains rich semantic information of which statistical machine translation hasn't taken full advantage. In this paper, we propose two discriminative, feature-based models to exploit predicate-argument structures for ...
Towards a predicate-argument evaluation for MT
SSST-6 '12: Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop on Syntax, Semantics and Structure in Statistical Translation

HMEANT (Lo and Wu, 2011a) is a manual MT evaluation technique that focuses on predicate-argument structure of the sentence. We relate HMEANT to an established linguistic theory, highlighting the possibilities of reusing existing knowledge and resources ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image DL Hosted proceedings

COLING '04: Proceedings of the 20th international conference on Computational Linguistics

August 2004

1411 pages

Publisher

Association for Computational Linguistics

United States

Publication History

Published: 23 August 2004

Qualifiers

Article

Acceptance Rates

COLING '04 Paper Acceptance Rate 1,411 of 1,411 submissions, 100%;

Overall Acceptance Rate 1,537 of 1,537 submissions, 100%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

3
Total Citations
View Citations
256
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)36
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)9

Reflects downloads up to 13 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Hanamoto AMatsuzaki TTsujii JDaelemans W(2012)Coordination structure analysis using dual decompositionProceedings of the 13th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics10.5555/2380816.2380870(430-438)Online publication date: 23-Apr-2012
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2380816.2380870
Uematsu STsujii JBunt H(2009)Evaluating contribution of deep syntactic information to shallow semantic analysisProceedings of the 11th International Conference on Parsing Technologies10.5555/1697236.1697254(85-88)Online publication date: 7-Oct-2009
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1697236.1697254
Sætre RSøvik HAmble TTsuruoka Y(2006)GeneTUC, GENIA and googleTransactions on Computational Systems Biology V10.5555/2168332.2168338(68-82)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2006
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2168332.2168338

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents