Improvements in Part-of-Speech Tagging with an Application to German

  • H. Schmid
Part of the Text, Speech and Language Technology book series (TLTB, volume 11)


Work on part-of-speech tagging has concentrated on English in the past, since a lot of manually tagged training material is available for English and results can be compared to those of other researchers. It was assumed that methods which have been developed for English would work for other languages as well.1


Terminal Node Word Form Training Corpus Unknown Word Contextual Parameter 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Brill, E. 1992. A simple rule-based part of speech tagger. In Proceedings of the Third Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing, Trento, Italy, pp. 152–155.Google Scholar
  2. Brill, E. 1999. Unsupervised learning of disambiguation rules for part of speech tagging. This volume, pp. 27–42.Google Scholar
  3. Church, K. W. and Gale, W. A. 1991. A comparison of the enhanced Good-Turing and deleted estimation methods for estimating probabilities of English bigrams. Computer Speech and Language, 5: 19–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cutting, D., Kupiec, J., Pedersen, J. and Sibun, P. 1992. A practical part-of-speech tagger. In Proceedings of the Third Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing, Trento, Italy pp. 133–140.Google Scholar
  5. Feldweg, H. 1999. Implementation and evaluation of a German HMM for POS disambiguation. This volume, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
  6. Jelinek, F. and Mercer, R. L. 1980. Interpolated estimation of Markov source parameters from sparse data. In Workshop on Pattern Recognition in Practice,pp. 381–397, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  7. Katz, S. 1987. Estimation of probabilities from sparse data for the language model component of a speech recognizer. IEEE Transactions on ASSP,34(3), pp. 400401.Google Scholar
  8. Marcus, M. P., Santorini, B. and Marcinkiewicz, M. A. 1993. Building a large annotated corpus of English: the Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics, 19 (2), pp. 313–330.Google Scholar
  9. Merialdo, B. 1994. Tagging English text with a probabilistic model. Computational Linguistics, 20 (2), pp. 155–171.Google Scholar
  10. Pereira, F. C., Singer, Y. and Tishby, N. 1999. Beyond word N-grams. This volume, pp. 121–136.Google Scholar
  11. Quinlan, J. R. 1983. Learning efficient classification procedures and their application to chess end games. In Michalski, Carbonell, and Mitchell (eds), Machine Learning: An artificial intelligence approach, pp. 463–482. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA.Google Scholar
  12. Quinlan, J. R. 1993. C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Mateo, CA.Google Scholar
  13. Schiller, A. 1995. DMOR: Benutzeranleitung. Technical report, Institut für maschinelle Sprachverarbeitung, Universität Stuttgart. (in German).Google Scholar
  14. Schmid, H. 1994. Probabilistic part-of-speech tagging using decision trees. In International Conference on New Methods in Language Processing, pp. 44–49, Manchester, UK.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. Schmid

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations