Language Resources and Evaluation

, Volume 41, Issue 2, pp 191–207 | Cite as

Urdu in a parallel grammar development environment

Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

In this paper, we report on the role of the Urdu grammar in the Parallel Grammar (ParGram) project (Butt, M., King, T. H., Niño, M.-E., & Segond, F. (1999). A grammar writer’s cookbook. CSLI Publications; Butt, M., Dyvik, H., King, T. H., Masuichi, H., & Rohrer, C. (2002). ‘The parallel grammar project’. In: Proceedings of COLING 2002, Workshop on grammar engineering and evaluation, pp. 1–7). The Urdu grammar was able to take advantage of standards in analyses set by the original grammars in order to speed development. However, novel constructions, such as correlatives and extensive complex predicates, resulted in expansions of the analysis feature space as well as extensions to the underlying parsing platform. These improvements are now available to all the project grammars.

Keywords

Urdu Deep grammars Grammer engineering Parallel grammar development LFG 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the audience of the COLING Workshop on Asian Languages in which an earlier version of this paper appeared (Butt and King 2002) and three anonymous reviewers who provided detailed comments. We would also like to thank John Maxwell for extensive discussion and implementation help over the years.

References

  1. Asahara, M., & Matsumoto, Y. (2000). Extended models and tools for high-performance part-of-speech tagger. In: Proceedings of COLING.Google Scholar
  2. Beesley, K., & Karttunen, L. (2003). Finite-state morphology. CSCI Publications.Google Scholar
  3. Bender, E., & Flickinger, D. (2005). Rapid prototyping of scalable grammars: Towards modularity in extensions to a language-independent core. In: Proceedings of IJCNLP-05 (Posters/Demos).Google Scholar
  4. Butt, M. (1995). The structure of complex predicates in Urdu. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  5. Butt, M., Dyvik, H., King, T. H., Masuichi, H., & Rohrer, C. (2002). The parallel grammar project. In: Proceedings of COLING 2002, Workshop on Grammar Engineering and Evaluation, pp. 1–7.Google Scholar
  6. Butt, M., Forst, M., King, T. H., & Kuhn, J. (2003a). The feature space in parallel grammar writing. In: ESSLLI 2003 Workshop on ideas and strategies for multilingual grammar development.Google Scholar
  7. Butt, M., & King, T. H. (2002). Urdu and the parallel grammar project. In: Proceedings of COLING 2002, Workshop on Asian Language Resources and International Standardization, pp. 39–45.Google Scholar
  8. Butt, M., & King, T. H. (2005a). Case systems: Beyond structural distinctions. In: New perspectives on case theory (pp. 53–87). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  9. Butt, M., & King, T. H. (2005b). The status of case. In V. Dayal & A. Mahajan (Eds.), Clause structure in South Asian languages. Kluwer.Google Scholar
  10. Butt, M., & King, T. H. (2006a). Restriction for morphological valency alternations: The Urdu causative. In M. Butt, M. Dalrymple, & T. H. King (Eds.), Intelligent linguistic architectures: Variations on themes by Ronald M. Kaplan (pp. 235–258). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  11. Butt, M., & King, T. H. (2006b). Restriction for Morphological valency alternations: The Urdu causative. In: Intelligent linguistic architectures: Variations on themes by Ronald M. Kaplan (pp. 235–258). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  12. Butt, M., King, T. H., & Maxwell, J. T. (2003b). Complex predicates via restriction. In: Proceedings of the LFG03 Conference. CSLI On-line Publications.Google Scholar
  13. Butt, M., King, T. H., Niño, M.-E., & Segond, F. (1999). A grammar writer’s cookbook. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  14. Cahill, A., Forst, M., Burke, M., McCarthy, M., O’Donovan, R., Rohrer, C., van Genabith, J., & Way, A. (2005). Treebank-based acquisition of multilingual unification grammar resources. Journal of Research on Language and Computation; Special Issue on Shared Representations in Multilingual Grammar Engineering, pp. 247–279.Google Scholar
  15. Chanod, J.-P., & Tapanainen, P. (1995). Creating a tagset, lexicon, and guesser for a French tagger. In: Proceedings of the ACL SIGDAT Workshop: From texts to tags. Issues in Multilingual Language Analysis, pp. 58–64.Google Scholar
  16. Crouch, D., Dalrymple, M., Kaplan, R., King, T. H., Maxwell, J., & Newman, P. (2007). XLE Documentation. Available on-line at http://www.2.parc.com/isl/groups/nltt/xle/doc/xle_toc.html. Accessed 10 Oct 2007.
  17. Crouch, D., & King, T. H. (2006). Semantics via f-structure rewriting. In: Proceedings of LFG06. CSLI On-line Publications.Google Scholar
  18. Crouch, R., Kaplan, R., King, T. H., & Riezler, S. (2002). A comparison of evaluation metrics for a broad coverage parser. In: workshop on beyond PARSEVAL at the language resources and evaluation conference.Google Scholar
  19. Crouch, R., King, T. H., Maxwell, J. T., Riezler, S., & Zaenen, A. (2004). Exploiting f-structure input for sentence condensation. In: Proceedings of LFG04, pp. 167–187. CSLI On-line Publications.Google Scholar
  20. Dalrymple, M. (2001). Lexical functional grammar, Vol. 34 of Syntax and semantics. Academic Press.Google Scholar
  21. Dalrymple, M., Dyvik, H., & King, T. H. (2004a). Copular complements: Closed or open? In: Proceedings of the LFG04 conference. CSLI On-line Publications.Google Scholar
  22. Dalrymple, M., Kaplan, R., & King, T. H. (2004b). Linguistic generalizations over descriptions. In: Proceedings of the LFG04 conference. CSLI On-line Publications.Google Scholar
  23. Forst, M. (2003a). Treebank conversion—Creating a German f-structure bank from the TIGER corpus. In: Proceedings of the LFG03 conference. CSLI On-line Publications.Google Scholar
  24. Forst, M. (2003b). Treebank conversion—Establishing a testsuite for a broad-coverage LFG from the TIGER Treebank. In: Proceedings of the EACL workshop on linguistically interpreted corpora (LINC ’03).Google Scholar
  25. Forst, M. (2007). Disambiguation for a linguistically precise German LFG parser. Ph.D. thesis, IMS Stuttgart (in press).Google Scholar
  26. Forst, M., Bertomeu, N., Crysmann, B., Fouvry, F., Hansen-Schirra, S., & Kordoni, V. (2004). Towards a dependency-based gold standard for German parsers—The TiGer Dependency Bank. In: Proceedings of the COLING workshop on linguistically interpreted corpora (LINC ’04).Google Scholar
  27. Frank, A. (1999). From parallel grammar development towards machine translation. In: Proceedings of MT Summit VII, pp. 134–142.Google Scholar
  28. Kaplan, R. (1988). Correspondences and their Inverses. In: Presented at the Titisee workshop on unification formalisms: Syntax, semantics, and implementation, Titisee, Germany.Google Scholar
  29. Kaplan, R., King, T. H., & Maxwell, J. (2002). Adapting existing grammars: The XLE experience. In: Proceedings of COLING2002, Workshop on Grammar Engineering and Evaluation, pp. 29–35.Google Scholar
  30. Kaplan, R., Maxwell, J. T., King, T. H., & Crouch, R. (2004a). Integrating finite-state technology with deep LFG grammars. In: Proceedings of the workshop on combining shallow and deep processing for NLP (ESSLLI).Google Scholar
  31. Kaplan, R., & Wedekind, J. (1993). Restriction and correspondence-based translation. In: Proceedings of the sixth European conference of the association for computational linguistics, pp. 193–202.Google Scholar
  32. Kaplan, R. M., Riezler, S., King, T. H., Maxwell, J. T., Vasserman, A., & Crouch, R. (2004b). Speed and accuracy in shallow and deep stochastic parsing. In: Proceedings of the human language technology conference and the 4th annual meeting of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics (HLT-NAACL’04).Google Scholar
  33. Khader, R. (2003). Evaluation of an English LFG-based grammar as error checker. MSc thesis, UMIST.Google Scholar
  34. King, T. H., Crouch, R., Riezler, S., Dalrymple, M., & Kaplan, R. (2003). The PARC700 dependency bank. In: Proceedings of the EACL03: 4th international workshop on linguistically interpreted corpora (LINC-03).Google Scholar
  35. King, T. H., Forst, M., Kuhn, J., & Butt, M. (2005). The feature space in parallel grammar writing. Research on Language and Computation, 3(2), 139–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Malik, A. (2006). Hindi Urdu machine transliteration system. MSc Thesis, University of Paris 7.Google Scholar
  37. Masuichi, H., & Ohkuma, T. (2003). Constructing a practical Japanese parser based on lexical-functional grammar. Journal of Natural Language Processing, 10, 79–109 (In Japanese).Google Scholar
  38. Masuichi, H., Ohkuma, T., Yoshimura, H., & Harada, Y. (2003). Japanese parser on the basis of the lexical-functional grammar formalism and its evaluation. In: Proceedings of The 17th Pacific Asia conference on language, information and computation (PACLIC17), pp. 298–309.Google Scholar
  39. Maxwell, J. T., & Kaplan, R. (1993). The interface between phrasal and functional constraints. Computational Linguistics, 19, 571–589.Google Scholar
  40. Riezler, S., King, T. H., Crouch, R., & Zaenen, A. (2003). Statistical sentence condensation using ambiguity packing and stochastic disambiguation methods for Lexical-Functional Grammar. In: Proceedings of the human language technology conference and the 3rd meeting of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics.Google Scholar
  41. Riezler, S., King, T. H., Kaplan, R., Crouch, D., Maxwell, J., & M. Johnson (2002). Parsing the wall street journal using a lexical-functional grammar and discriminative estimation techniques. In: Proceedings of the annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics.Google Scholar
  42. Riezler, S., & Maxwell, J. T. (2006). Grammatical machine translation. In: Proceedings of human language technology conference—North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics.Google Scholar
  43. Rivzi, S. M. J. (2006). Development of algorithms and computational grammar of Urdu for the machine translation between English and Urdu languages. Ph.D. thesis, Pakistan Institute of Engineering and Applied Sciences.Google Scholar
  44. Rohrer, C., & Forst, M. (2006a). Broad-coverage grammar development—How far can it go?. In M. Butt, M. Dalrymple, & T. H. King (Eds.), Intelligent linguistic architectures—Variations on themes by Ronald M. Kaplan. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  45. Rohrer, C., & Forst, M. (2006b). Improving coverage and parsing quality of a large-scale LFG for German. In: Proceedings of the Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC-2006). Genoa, Italy.Google Scholar
  46. Umemoto, H. (2006). Implementing a Japanese semantic parser based on glue approach. In: Proceedings of The 20th Pacific Asia conference on language, information and computation.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universität KonstanzKonstanzGermany
  2. 2.Palo Alto Research CenterPalo AltoUSA

Personalised recommendations