Querying Linguistic Trees

Lai, Catherine; Bird, Steven

doi:10.1007/s10849-009-9086-9

Cited by 10 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…depth-first traversals (recall Example 3). Palm (1999) and Lai and Bird (2010) study the question in much greater detail and argue that PDL cp provides an appropriate expressiveness for linguistic queries.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Interestingly, such PDL tree constraints can easily be tested against tree corpora to check their validity; see (Lai and Bird, 2010) on using PDL tree -like query languages to this end. We checked that the above PDL tree formula was satisfied by the trees in the Sequoia treebank (Candito and Seddah, 2012) using an XPath processor: note that our formula is indeed in PDL core .…”

Section: Clitic Arguments Forbid the Matching Canonical Arguments)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Model-Checking Parse Trees

Boral

Schmitz

2013

2013 28th Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Parse trees are fundamental syntactic structures in both computational linguistics and compilers construction. We argue in this paper that, in both fields, there are good incentives for model-checking sets of parse trees for some word according to a context-free grammar. We put forward the adequacy of propositional dynamic logic (PDL) on trees in these applications, and study as a sanity check the complexity of the corresponding model-checking problem: although complete for exponential time in the general case, we find natural restrictions on grammars for our applications and establish complexities ranging from nondeterministic polynomial time to polynomial space in the relevant cases.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Clitic Arguments Forbid the Matching Canonical Arguments)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Model-Checking Parse Trees

Boral

Schmitz

2013

2013 28th Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, Mírovský (2008) provides a list of required language features for querying PDT and Lai and Bird (2004) do so for treebanks in general, specifically related to navigation, closures over relations and going "beyond ordered trees" in order to query more complex structures. This list of functional requirements is later extended on in Lai and Bird (2010) with features such as temporal organization and non-navigational requirements. While not exclusive to corpus query systems, technical aspects related to feasibility (e.g.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Formal evaluations of query languages are somewhat rare, e.g. (Lai and Bird, 2010) for LPath and LPath + , (Kepser, 2004) for MonaSearch or in part (Kepser, 2003) for FSQ. Instead the vast majority of evaluations use example queries of varying complexity to compare different query languages or systems.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

To Boldly Query What No One Has Annotated Before? The Frontiers of Corpus Querying

Gärtner

Jung

2020

Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Corpus query systems exist to address the multifarious information needs of any person interested in the content of annotated corpora. In this role they play an important part in making those resources usable for a wider audience. Over the past decades, several such query systems and languages have emerged, varying greatly in their expressiveness and technical details. This paper offers a broad overview of the history of corpora and corpus query tools. It focusses strongly on the query side and hints at exciting directions for future development.

show abstract

“…Several approaches have adopted XML representations and the associated query language families of XPATH and SPARQL. For example, LPath augments XPath with additional tree operators to give it further expressiveness (Lai and Bird, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving the Recognizability of Syntactic Relations Using Contextualized Examples

Muralidharan¹,

Hearst²

2014

Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A common task in qualitative data analysis is to characterize the usage of a linguistic entity by issuing queries over syntactic relations between words. Previous interfaces for searching over syntactic structures require programming-style queries. User interface research suggests that it is easier to recognize a pattern than to compose it from scratch; therefore, interfaces for non-experts should show previews of syntactic relations. What these previews should look like is an open question that we explored with a 400-participant Mechanical Turk experiment. We found that syntactic relations are recognized with 34% higher accuracy when contextual examples are shown than a baseline of naming the relations alone. This suggests that user interfaces should display contextual examples of syntactic relations to help users choose between different relations.

show abstract

Querying Linguistic Trees

Cited by 10 publications

References 24 publications

Model-Checking Parse Trees

Model-Checking Parse Trees

To Boldly Query What No One Has Annotated Before? The Frontiers of Corpus Querying

Improving the Recognizability of Syntactic Relations Using Contextualized Examples

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About