MAGEAD: A Morphological Analyzer and Generator for the Arabic Dialects

What it is about

MAGEAD is a finite-state morphological analyzer and generator for MSA and for Levantine verbs. A lexeme is a root, a meaning index and a morphological behaviour class; patterns and vocalisms are interdigitated with the root on a multitape machine (Kiraz's approach, with an added tier for orthography), and affixes are attached afterwards. The MSA version uses a hierarchy of 66 behaviour classes (25 of them abstract), 69 phonological and 53 orthographic rules. Moving to Levantine took a native-speaking linguist about six hours: one rule changed, one added, two new morphemes. Without a lexicon, the analyzer on MSA verbs of the Penn Treebank reaches type recall of 98.5% with all roots allowed, and restricting roots to a list derived from the Buckwalter lexicon raises type precision from 44.8% to 63.5% while recall falls to 96.1%. Most of the 2,536 false-positive types turn out to be gaps in the gold standard (75%, mostly passive forms that differ only in unwritten vowels). On Levantine verbs, context token recall rises from 60.4% with the MSA rules to 94.2% with the Levantine rules.

Ideas

• I1. A root list as a precision knob: the paper orders restrictions from "all roots" to a full lexicon and reports type precision and recall for each. For Hebrew, the roots and lemma list from the existing data can restrict the root guesses of an unpointed token in tools/hbo, reported as a table of the same shape.
• I2. Sort the disagreements before scoring: the authors classify each false positive as a gold-standard error or an analyzer error. Do the same for macula compare against PTNK, so that the score measures the parser and not the reference.
• I3. A verb generator with separate tiers: root, pattern (binyan), vocalism, then phonology and orthography as output tiers, with rules for weak and doubled roots. Test it by round trip (analyse, generate, compare) on all binyanim and persons of the MACULA verbs.

For Mova

I1 goes into tools/hbo (unpointed mode, root restriction). I2 is a rule for tools/macula (macula compare). I3 is a plan for the verb chapter The verb, with the weak-root rules in The weak verbs.

Cite

The paper itself, not this card. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.3115/1220175.1220261

@inproceedings{habash2006magead,
  title = {{MAGEAD: A Morphological Analyzer and Generator for the Arabic Dialects}},
  author = {Habash, Nizar and Rambow, Owen},
  booktitle = {Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 44th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics},
  year = {2006},
  doi = {10.3115/1220175.1220261},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.3115/1220175.1220261}
}

References

21 references, 3 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

1. Imad A. Al-Sughaiyer and Ibrahim A. Al-Kharashi. 2004. Arabic morphological analysis techniques: A comprehensive survey. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(3):189–213. find
2. K. Beesley, T. Buckwalter, and S. Newton. 1989. Two-level finite-state analysis of Arabic morphology. In Proceedings of the Seminar on Bilingual Computing in Arabic and English, page n.p. find
3. K. Beesley. 1998. Arabic morphology using only finite-state operations. In M. Rosner, editor, Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Approaches to Semitic Languages, pages 50–7, Montereal. find our card
4. S. Bird and T. Ellison. 1994. One-level phonology. Computational Linguistics, 20(1):55–90. find
5. Tim Buckwalter. 2004. Buckwalter Arabic morphological analyzer version 2.0. find
6. Kareem Darwish. 2003. Building a shallow Arabic morphological analyser in one day. In ACL02 Workshop on Computational Approaches to Semitic Languages, Philadelpia, PA. Association for Computational Linguistics. 1959. Diglossia. Charles F Ferguson. 15(2):325–340. find our card
7. Word, Nizar Habash, Owen Rambow, and Geroge Kiraz. 2005. Morphological analysis and generation for arabic dialects. In Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Computational Approaches to Semitic Languages, Ann Arbor, MI. find our card
8. Nizar Habash, Owen Rabmow, and Richard Sproat. 2006. The representation of linguistic knowledge in a pan-Arabic morphological analyzer. Paper under preparation, Columbia University and UIUC. find
9. Nizar Habash. 2004. Large scale lexeme based arabic morphological generation. In Proceedings of Traitement Automatique du Langage Naturel (TALN-04). Fez, Morocco. find
10. L. Kataja and K. Koskenniemi. 1988. Finite state description of Semitic morphology. In COLING-88: Papers Presented to the 12th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, volume 1, pages 313–15. find
11. Martin Kay. 1987. Nonconcatenative finite-state morphology. In Proceedings of the Third Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2–10. find
12. George Anton Kiraz. 2000. Multi-tiered nonlinear morphology using multi-tape finite automata: A case study on Syriac and Arabic. Computational Linguistics, 26(1):77–105. find
13. George Kiraz. 2001. Computational Nonlinear Morphology: With Emphasis on Semitic Languages. Cambridge University Press. find
14. A. Kornai. 1995. Formal Phonology. Garland Publishing. find
15. K. Koskenniemi. 1983. Two-Level Morphology. Ph.D. thesis, University of Helsinki. find
16. Mohamed Maamouri, Ann Bies, and Tim Buckwalter. 2004. The Penn Arabic Treebank: Building a large-scale annotated arabic corpus. In NEMLAR Conference on Arabic Language Resources and Tools, Cairo, Egypt. find
17. Mohamed Maamouri, Ann Bies, Tim Buckwalter, Mona Diab, Nizar Habash, Owen Rambow, and Dalila Tabessi. 2006. Developing and using a pilot dialectal arabic treebank. In Proceedings of LREC, Genoa, Italy. find
18. John McCarthy. 1981. A prosodic theory of nonconcatenative morphology. Linguistic Inquiry, 12(3):373–418. find
19. M. Mohri, F. Pereira, and M. Riley. 1998. A rational design for a weighted finite-state transducer library. In D. Wood and S. Yu, editors, Automata Implementation, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1436, pages 144–58. Springer. find
20. S. Pulman and M. Hepple. 1993. A feature-based formalism for two-level phonology: a description and implementation. Computer Speech and Language, 7:333–58. find
21. Richard Sproat. 1995. Lextools: Tools for finite-state linguistic analysis. Technical Report 11522-951108-10TM, Bell Laboratories. find

This page in Markdown → https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/aclbulk-2006-habash-magead-morphological-analyzer-generator-arabic/