Computational Morphology (Blockseminar)

Tentative course schedule

• 15 February -- Introduction to theoretical and computational morphology, solving some morphological problems (pre-formally) PDF
• 16 February -- finite state automata (FSA); finite state transducers (FST); theory and paper practice PDF
• 17 February -- xfst
• 18 February -- lexc
• 19 February -- Grammatical Framework

Grading

Attendance:

• I usually don't care about attendance itself, but as this is an intensive course, I think attendance is important;
• attendance sheets will be passed twice a day;
• if you are absent in some class you can expect that I will ask you some questions about the topic we discussed during that time when I check your exercises.

For both BN and AP:

• at the end of the class you should have solutions to all the exercises we have done during the class (together and on your own);
• for each exercise that includes writing a script you should be able to explain what any line of the script means;
• you should show general understanding of the material discussed in class.

For an AP:

• Please bring the AP forms to sign within this week;
• you will have to describe a piece of morphology using one of the frameworks we will be working with;
• each student doing an AP should be describing a separate piece of morphology;
• the area covered by your program should be something that takes around 70 optimal rules;
• to find such a piece, go to the library and study the shelves with grammars of languages you don't know;
• you have to tell (show) me the material you want to work with and receive my approval (please do it within this week).
• As a result of you work I expect to receive a script, a set of test examples (with the corresponding set of outputs), and a paper.
• The script has to work for all the cases described by the piece of morphology you aim to cover.
• Your set of test examples should be representative of the data you aim to cover, be sure to check that all the important cases are included and you are not testing exactly the same combination of rules multiple times (unless you provide an automated testing script that checks the output).
• In the paper you should describe the facts that you are modeling, the choices you had to make while writing the program (e.g., the ordering of rules and the selection of the formalism), the testing phase, and (optional) the material that you are aware of, but your program does not cover for good reasons.

Grades:

• The description part is worth 30 points, the script part -- 60 points, the set of testing examples -- 10 points;
• Grade/points correspondence:
  • 1.0: 95 -- 100
  • 1.3: 91 -- 94
  • 1.7: 87 -- 90
  • 2.0: 83 -- 86
  • 2.3: 80 -- 82
  • 2.7: 75 -- 79
  • 3.0: 70 -- 74
  • 3.3: 65 -- 69
  • 3.7: 60 -- 65
  • 4.0: 50 -- 59