Strategies for Contiguous Multiword Expression Analysis and Dependency Parsing

Abstract

In this paper, we investigate various strategies to predict both syntactic dependency parsing and contiguous multiword expression (MWE) recognition, testing them on the dependency version of French Treebank (Abeillé and Barrier, 2004), as instantiated in the SPMRL Shared Task . Our work focuses on using an alternative representation of syntactically regular MWEs, which captures their syntactic internal structure. We obtain a system with comparable performance to that of previous works on this dataset, but which predicts both syntactic dependencies and the internal structure of MWEs. This can be useful for capturing the various degrees of semantic compositionality of MWEs.

A Transition-Based System for Joint Lexical and Syntactic Analysis

“…When compared with existing state-of-the-art systems, we can see that the proposed systems achieve MWE identification scores that are comparable with the pipeline and joint approaches used in Candito and Constant (2014) Table 3: Results on the reviews part of the English Web Treebank, via cross-validation on the training set with 8 splits, and simple validation on the test set.…”

“…They are commonly used for evaluating the most recent MWE-aware dependency parsers and supervised MWE identification systems. Concerning the FTB, we used the dependency version developed in Candito and Constant (2014) derived from the SPMRL shared task version . Fixed and non-fixed MWEs are distinguished, but are limited to contiguous ones only.…”

“…Pipeline strategies consist in positioning the MWE recognition either before or after the parser itself, as in Nivre and Nilsson (2004), Eryigit et al (2011), Constant et al (2013), and Kong et al (2014) for pre-identification and as in Vincze et al (2013a) for post-identification. Joint strategies have mainly consisted in using off-the-shelf parsers and integrating MWE annotation in the syntactic structure, so that MWE identification is blind for the parser (Nivre and Nilsson, 2004;Eryigit et al, 2011;Vincze et al, 2013b;Candito and Constant, 2014;Nasr et al, 2015).…”

“…To the best of our knowledge, this system is the first transition-based parser that includes a specific mechanism for handling MWEs in two dimensions. Previous related research has usually proposed either pipeline approaches with MWE identification performed either before or after dependency parsing (Kong et al, 2014;Vincze et al, 2013a) or workaround joint solutions using off-the-shelf parsers trained on dependency treebanks where MWEs are annotated by specific subtrees (Nivre and Nilsson, 2004;Eryigit et al, 2011;Vincze et al, 2013b;Candito and Constant, 2014;Nasr et al, 2015).…”

USzeged: Identifying Verbal Multiword Expressions with POS Tagging and Parsing Techniques

“…Our system works through the connection of MWEs and parsing, an approach described by many sources (Constant and Nivre, 2016;Nasr et al, 2015;Candito and Constant, 2014;Green et al, 2011;Waszczuk et al, 2016;Wehrli et al, 2010;Green et al, 2013) and is one the basic ideas behind the work done by the PARSEME group 2 .…”