Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Computational Linguistics - 1992
DOI: 10.3115/992066.992091
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Two-level morphology with composition

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
51
0
1

Year Published

1997
1997
2009
2009

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 116 publications
(54 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
2
51
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The underlying assumption of the finite-state approach to morphology is that the relation between surface forms and the corresponding lexical forms can be described as a regular or rational relation R(T), defined using the metalanguage of regular expressions (Karttunen et al, 1992). With a suitable compiler, the R(T) source code can be compiled into a FST that implements the relation computationally.…”
Section: They Are Bidirectional (Not Unidirectional)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The underlying assumption of the finite-state approach to morphology is that the relation between surface forms and the corresponding lexical forms can be described as a regular or rational relation R(T), defined using the metalanguage of regular expressions (Karttunen et al, 1992). With a suitable compiler, the R(T) source code can be compiled into a FST that implements the relation computationally.…”
Section: They Are Bidirectional (Not Unidirectional)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A second important advance in computational morphology was the recognition by Karttunen et al (1992) that a cascade of composed FSTs could implement the two-level model. This made possible quite complex finite state systems, including ordered alternation rules representing context-sensitive variation in the phonological or orthographic shape of morphemes, the morphotactics characterizing the possible sequences of morphemes (in canonical form) for a given word class, and one or more sublexicons.…”
Section: Finite State Morphologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The application of NLP to texts involves a sequence of analytical tasks performed in the separate modules that constitute the linguistic architecture of the system. Among available tools for NP extraction are: the category tagger based on Brill's (1992) rules; the Xerox morphological analyzer (Karttunen, Kaplan, & Zaenen, 1992); disambiguation devices of POS categories based on stochastic methods, such as the hidden Markov model (HMM) (Cutting, Kupiec, Pedersen, & Sibun, 1992;Kupiec, 1992Kupiec, , 1993; the NPtool phrase analyzer (Voutilainen, 1997); or the AZ noun phraser (Tolle & Chen, 2000), which combines tokenizing with POS tagging (Brill, 1993).…”
Section: Standardization Of Multiterm Variantsmentioning
confidence: 99%