On different approaches to syntactic analysis into bi-lexical dependencies: An empirical comparison of direct, PCFG-based, and HPSG-based parsers

We compare three different approaches to parsing into syntactic, bi- lexical dependencies for English: a ‘direct’ data-driven dependency parser, a statistical phrase structure parser, and a hybrid, ‘deep’ grammar-driven parser. The analyses from the latter two are post- converted to bi-lexical depen...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of Language Modelling 2016-04, Vol.4 (1)
Hauptverfasser: Ivanova, Angelina, Oepen, Stephan, Dridan, Rebecca, Flickinger, Dan, Øvrelid, Lilja, Lapponi, Emanuele
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:We compare three different approaches to parsing into syntactic, bi- lexical dependencies for English: a ‘direct’ data-driven dependency parser, a statistical phrase structure parser, and a hybrid, ‘deep’ grammar-driven parser. The analyses from the latter two are post- converted to bi-lexical dependencies. Through this ‘reduction’ of all three approaches to syntactic dependency parsers, we determine empirically what performance can be obtained for a common set of de- pendency types for English, across a broad variety of domains. In doing so, we observe what trade-offs apply along three dimensions, accuracy, efficiency, and resilience to domain variation. Our results suggest that the hand-built grammar in one of our parsers helps in both accuracy and cross-domain parsing performance, but these accuracy gains do not necessarily translate to improvements in the downstream task of negation resolution.
ISSN:2299-856X
2299-8470
DOI:10.15398/jlm.v4i1.101