2003
DOI: 10.2989/16073610309486348
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Computational aids for Zulu natural language processing

Abstract: The development of finite-state morphological analyser prototypes for a variety of languages belonging to the Bantu language family, based on underlying machine-readable lexicons that conform to common lexical specifications and international standards.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This suggests that more careful attention to sentence structure is necessary when selecting content for lessons whether in class or in an app. 6 Indeed, this has also provided challenges to attempts to automate morphological analysis of Zulu (Pretorius & Bosch, 2003).…”
Section: Considering Some Challenges With Learning Zulumentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This suggests that more careful attention to sentence structure is necessary when selecting content for lessons whether in class or in an app. 6 Indeed, this has also provided challenges to attempts to automate morphological analysis of Zulu (Pretorius & Bosch, 2003).…”
Section: Considering Some Challenges With Learning Zulumentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The xfst script is also compiled into a finitestate network. These networks are finally combined by means of the operation of composition into a so-called Lexical Transducer that constitutes the morphological analyser and contains all the morphological information of Zulu, including derivation, inflection, alternation and compounding (Pretorius & Bosch, 2003b).…”
Section: Containing Overgeneration General Computational Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This baseline method already achieves more than 97% accuracy on known words (Table 1), but does not handle unknown words very well with a score of only 18.59%. 2 MXPOST is available from ØÔ »» ØÔº ׺ÙÔ ÒÒº Ù»ÔÙ » Û Ø» ÑÜ» ÑÜºØ Öº Þ 3 MBT is available from ØØÔ »» Ð ºÙÚغÒл×Ó ØÛ Ö º ØÑÐ 4 SVMTool is available from ØØÔ »»ÛÛÛºÐ× ºÙÔ º ×» ÒÐÔ»ËÎÅÌÓÓл Table 1 indicates that the TnT tagger by far exhibits the most efficient processing times of all data-driven taggers 5 . Despite an exhaustive optimization phase on the validation set (which still revealed the default settings to perform the best), the performance of the TnT tagger trails in direct comparison to the other taggers.…”
Section: Experiments: Individual Tagger Performancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Compared to the baseline tagger, MXPOST achieves an error reduction rate of 72% (54% on known words, 92% on unknown words). 5 Approximate CPU time was measured on a dual 64bit AMD Opteron 2.44GHz system with 6GB RAM.…”
Section: Experiments: Individual Tagger Performancementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation