Publishing Partner: Cambridge University Press CUP Extra Publisher Login
amazon logo
More Info


New from Oxford University Press!

ad

Holy Sh*t: A Brief History of Swearing

By Melissa Mohr

Holy Sh*t: A Brief History of Swearing "contains original research into the history of swearing, and is scrupulous in analyzing the claims of other scholars."


New from Cambridge University Press!

ad

A New Manual of French Composition

By R. L. Graeme Ritchie

A New Manual of French Composition "provides a guide to French composition aimed at university students and the higher classes in schools. "


The LINGUIST List is dedicated to providing information on language and language analysis, and to providing the discipline of linguistics with the infrastructure necessary to function in the digital world. LINGUIST is a free resource, run by linguistics students and faculty, and supported primarily by your donations. Please support LINGUIST List during the 2016 Fund Drive.

Academic Paper


Title: Definitional, Personal, and Mechanical Constraints on Part of Speech Annotation Performance
Author: Anna Babarczy
Institution: Budapest University of Technology & Economics
Author: John Carroll
Institution: University of Sussex
Author: Geoffrey Sampson
Email: click here TO access email
Homepage: http://www.grsampson.net
Institution: University of Sussex
Linguistic Field: Computational Linguistics
Abstract: For one aspect of grammatical annotation, part-of-speech tagging, we investigate experimentally whether the ceiling on accuracy stems from limits to the precision of tag definition or limits to analysts' ability to apply precise definitions, and we examine how analysts' performance is affected by alternative types of semi-automatic support. We find that, even for analysts very well-versed in a part-of-speech tagging scheme, human ability to conform to the scheme is a more serious constraint than precision of scheme definition. We also find that although semi-automatic techniques can greatly increase speed relative to manual tagging, they have little effect on accuracy, either positively (by suggesting valid candidate tags) or negatively (by lending an appearance of authority to incorrect tag assignments). On the other hand, it emerges that there are large differences between individual analysts with respect to usability of particular types of semi-automatic support.

CUP AT LINGUIST

This article appears IN Natural Language Engineering Vol. 12, Issue 1, which you can READ on Cambridge's site or on LINGUIST .



Add a new paper
Return to Academic Papers main page
Return to Directory of Linguists main page