Abstract
A parsing system returning analyses in the form of sets of grammatical relations can obtain high precision if it hypothesises a particular grammatical relation only when it is certain that the relation is correct. We operationalise this technique-in a statistical parser using a manually-developed wide-coverage grammar of English — by only returning relations that form part of all analyses licensed by the grammar. We observe an increase in precision from 75% to over 90% (at the cost of a reduction in recall) on a test corpus of naturally-occurring text.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aït-Mokhtar, S. and J-P. Chanod (1997). Subject and object dependency extraction using finite-state transducers. In Proceedings of the ACL/EACL Workshop on Automatic Information Extraction and Building of Lexical Semantic Resources, 71–77. Madrid, Spain.
Argamon, S., I. Dagan and Y. Krymolowski (1998). A memory-based approach to learning shallownatural language patterns. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 67–73. Montreal.
Blaheta, D. and E. Charniak (2000). Assigning function tags to parsed text. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 234–240. Seattle, WA.
Bouma, G., G. van Noord and R. Malouf (2001). Alpino: wide-coverage computational analysis of Dutch. Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands 2000. Selected Papers from the 11th CLIN Meeting.
Brants, T., W. Skut and B. Krenn (1997). Tagging grammatical functions. In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 64–74. Providence, RI.
Brent, M. (1993). From grammar to lexicon: unsupervised learning of lexical syntax. Computational Linguistics, 19(3):243–262.
Briscoe, E. and J. Carroll (1997). Automatic extraction of subcategorization from corpora. In Proceedings of the 5th Association for Computational Linguistics Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing, 356–363. Washington, DC.
Briscoe, E. and J. Carroll (2002). Robust Accurate Statistical Annotation of GeneralText. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, Las Palmas, Gran Canaria. 1499–1504.
Buchholz, S., J. Veenstra and W. Daelemans (1999). Cascaded grammatical relation assignment. In Proceedings of the Joint SIGDAT Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Very Large Corpora, College Park, MD. 239–246.
Carroll, J., E. Briscoe and A. Sanfilippo (1998). Parser evaluation: a survey and a new proposal. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, 447–454. Granada, Spain.
Carroll, J., G. Minnen and E. Briscoe (1998). Can subcategorisation probabilities help a statistical parser?. In Proceedings of the 6th ACL/S1GDAT Workshop on Very Large Corpora, 118–126. Montreal, Canada.
Clark, S. and D. Weir (2001). Class-based probability estimation using a semantic hierarchy. In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 95–102. Pittsburgh, PA.
Collins, M. (1999). Head-driven statistical models for natural language parsing. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.
Grefenstette, G. (1997). SQLET: short query linguistic expansion techniques, palliating one-word queries by providing intermediate structure to text. In Proceedings of the RIAO’97, 500–509. Montreal, Canada.
Grefenstette, G. (1999). Light parsing as finite-state filtering. In A. Kornai (Ed.), Extended Finite State Models of Language, Cambridge University Press. 86–94.
Harrison, P., S. Abney, E. Black, D. Flickinger, C. Gdaniec, R. Grishman, D. Hindle, B. Ingria, M. Marcus, B. Santorini and T. Strzalkowski (1991). Evaluating syntax performance of parser/grammars of English. In Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Evaluating Natural Language Processing Systems, 71–78. Berkeley, CA.
Karlsson, F., A. Voutilainen, J. Heikkilä and A. Anttila (1995). Constraint Grammar: a Language-Independent System for Parsing Unrestricted Text. Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter.
Kiefer, B., H-U. Krieger, J. Carroll and R. Malouf (1999). A bag of useful techniques for efficient and robust parsing. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 473–80. University of Maryland.
Lafferty, J., D. Sleator and D. Temperley (1992). Grammatical trigrams: a probabilistic model of link grammar. In Proceedings of the AAAI Fall Symposium on Probabilistic Approaches to Natural Language, 89–97. Cambridge, MA.
Leech, G. (1992). 100 million words of English: the British National Corpus. Language Research, 28(1):1–13.
Lin, D. (1998). Dependency-based evaluation of MINIPAR. In Proceedings of the Evaluation of Parsing Systems: Workshop at the 1st International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. Granada, Spain (also available as University of Sussex technical report CSRP-489).
Lin, D. (1999). Automatic identification of non-compositional phrases. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 317–324. College Park, MD.
McCarthy, D. (2000). Using semantic preferences to identify verbal participation in role switching alternations. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 256–263. Seattle, WA.
Oepen, S. and J. Carroll (2000). Ambiguity packing in constraint-based parsing — practical results. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 162–169. Seattle, WA.
Palmer, M., R. Passonneau, C. Weir and T. Finin (1993). The KERNEL text understanding system. Artificial Intelligence, 63:17–68.
Pantel, P. and D. Lin (2000). An unsupervised approach to prepositional phrase attachment using contextually similar words. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 101–108. Hong Kong.
Sampson, G. (1995). English for the Computer. Oxford University Press.
Schmid, H. and M. Rooth (2001). Parse forest computation of expected governors. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 458–465. Toulouse, France.
Srinivas, B. (2000). A lightweight dependency analyzer for partialparsing. Natural Language Engineering, 6(2):113–138.
Yeh, A. (2000). Using existing systems to supplement small amounts of annotated grammatical relations training data. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 126–132. Hong Kong.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Carroll, J., Briscoe, T. (2004). High Precision Extraction of Grammatical Relations. In: Bunt, H., Carroll, J., Satta, G. (eds) New Developments in Parsing Technology. Text, Speech and Language Technology, vol 23. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2295-6_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2295-6_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-2293-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-2295-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and Law