A 2016-10-20 18:01, Joonas Kylmälä escrigué: > Hi Fran, > > I guess you mean with disambiguated corpus only a corpus with > morphological readings disambiguated and where there is no syntactic > structure marked (like with CG style sugar). But generating barrier > sets from syntax trees (and in general just from syntactilly marked > corpus) is a good idea! The research I have seen so far on this topic > has only used the morphological tags and n-gram methods for induction > but no syntactic information.
No, no... I mean from a treebank like the treebanks in the Universal dependencies project. And yes, as far as I can tell most research so far on inducing CGs has been with n-gram style methods, so new original research would be trying to do it taking advantage of tree structure. > And now as you mentioned this topic I remembered that we should decide > that do we want to use the rules only for morphological disambiguation > or also for marking syntactic structure. Morphological disambiguation > as the first objective seems reasonable and then again later rules for > syntactic marking could be added. Ideally rules for both, but I think it's also interesting to combine rule-based and statistical methods. F. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Apertium-stuff mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
