A GRAMMATICALLY AND STRUCTURALLY BASED PART OF SPEECH (POS) TAGGER FOR ARABIC LANGUAGE

International Journal on Natural Language Computing (IJNLC) Vol.11, No.5, October 2022
DOI: 10.5121/ijnlc.2022.11502 17
A GRAMMATICALLY AND STRUCTURALLY
BASED PART OF SPEECH (POS) TAGGER
FOR ARABIC LANGUAGE
Mohamed Taybe Elhadi1
and Ramadan Sayad Alfared2
1
Software Engineering Department,
Faculty of Information Technology, Zawia University, Az Zawiyah, Libya
2
Computer Technology Department,
Faculty of Information Technology, Zawia University, Az Zawiyah, Libya
ABSTRACT
In this paper we report on an experimental syntactically and morphologically driven rule-based Arabic
tagger. The tagger is developed using Arabic language grammatical rules and regulations. The tagger re-
quires no pre-tagged text and is developed using a primitive set of lexicon items along with extensive
grammatical and structural rules. It is tested and compared to Stanford tagger both in terms of accuracy and
performance (speed). Obtained results are quite comparable to Stanford tagger performance with marginal
difference favoring the developed tagger in accuracy with huge difference in terms of speed of execution. The
newly developed tagger named MTE Tagger has been tested and evaluated. For the evaluation of its accu-
racy of tagging, a set of Arabic text was manually prepared and annotated. Compared to Stanford tagger, the
MTE tagger performance was quite comparable. The developed tagger makes use of no pre-annotated da-
tasets, except of some simple lexicon consisting of list of words representing closed word types like demon-
strative nouns or pronouns or some particles. For the purpose of evaluation of the new tagger, it was run on
multiple datasets and results were compared to those of Stanford tagger. In particular, both taggers (the
MTE and the Stanford) were run on a set of 1226 sentences with close to 20,000 tokens that was human
annotated and verified to serve as testbed. The results were very encouraging where in both test runs, the
MTE tagger outperformed the Stanford tagger in terms of accuracy of 87.88% versus 86.67% for the Stan-
ford tagger. In terms of speed of tagging and in comparison Stanford tagger, MTE Taggers’ performance
was on average 1:50. More improved accuracy is possible in future work as the set of rules are further
optimized, integrated and more of Arabic language properties such as end of word discretization are used.
KEYWORDS
Part of Speech Tagging, Rule-based POS, Arabic Text Processing.
1. INTRODUCTION
Natural Language Understanding (NLU) and Text Processing with all of their related subfields are
part of what is termed computational linguistics. Computational linguistics is the combination of
computing and linguistics dealing with the automatic processing of natural language using artificial
intelligence and machine learning methods [1,2,3].
Part of speech tagging (POS) is an important component of NLP and a prerequisite for many
text-processing subfields and applications. It is concerned with assigning a label to language tokens
representing most appropriate grammatical or morph-syntactical category. POS-tagging is usually
the first step in linguistic analysis and a very important intermediate step in many applications such
as machine translation, parsers, information retrieval, and spell-checkers-correctors [1]. POS has

18
very much matured for English and many European languages. Unlike English, however, Arabic
language lacks NLP tools and resources including POS taggers and its prerequisite resources; the
manually tagged corpora. When done on a large corpus, POS for instance, is a labor intensive and
time-consuming task. As most POS processing is based on Markoff models which in turn are based
on statistical models trained on annotated datasets. Obtaining a fast and quality tagging algorithms
with high precision and accuracy requires a large manually annotated data. It is quite a disap-
pointment for many language users, Arabic language users in particular, that there are very limited
and hardly any freely available annotated data for training and evaluations. With the exception of
very few tools, there is hardly any tools for Arabic part of speech tagging. Great many attempts
have taken place to produce POS taggers for Arabic using non-statistical alternatives such as
rule-based and machine learning methods.
This paper reports on an experimental syntactically and morphologically driven rule-based Arabic
tagger developed using Arabic language grammatical rules and regulations without the use of
pre-tagged corpora and without the involvement of any language experts except for the authors
who are merely native Arabic speakers. It is developed using a primitive set of lexicon items along
with extensive grammatical and structural rules. The tagger is tested and compared to currently
used tagger in terms of accuracy and performance (speed). Obtained results are quite comparable
and in favour of the newly developed tagger both in accuracy and certainly more in speed of tag-
ging.
This paper is organized as follows: section 1 is an introduction, section 2 is a review of Arabic
POS; Section 3 contains a description of corpora and datasets used for testing and evaluations;
section 4 contains a detailed description and discussion on the new tagger (named MTE Tagger);
Section 5 contains a detailed description of experiments conducted and results obtained along with
discussions; finally, section 6 contains concluding remarks followed with list of reference used.
2. ARABIC LANGUAGE AND PART OF SPEECH TAGGING (POS)
Like many Semitic languages, Arabic language had a history that belongs to thousands of years ago
[4]. The language is used as the language of journalism, media and education in the private sector
as well as in public and governmental agencies. It is the medium of commutations for close to 400
Arabs in 21 states and large communities all over the globe. It is also of interest to many other
nations who share the religious beliefs of Islam, as it is the language of the Holy Quran. The De-
partment of Cultural Affairs in USA asserts that Arabic language is one of the worlds’ important
languages and the United Nations lists it as the sixth official language of the United Nations [5,6].
Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) is based on classical Arabic, on the wholly Quran and on Arabic
literature. It is a written and read in a right to left fashion using a set of twenty-eight letters. Arabic
has three numbers, singular, dual, and plural; two genders, feminine and masculine; and three
grammatical cases, nominative, accusative, and genitive. Words are grouped as nouns, verbs, ad-
jectives, adverbs, and particles [5,6,7].
Arabic has limited access to technology hindering research efforts in automation and utilization.
With a relatively complex nature, Arabic itself poses quite a challenge for NLP [6]. Such chal-
lenges are further complicated by the existence of multiples of parallel dialects that are similar in
certain aspects but different in others [5].
It is stated in [8] that Arabic is made of 58% nouns, 31% particles and 11% verbs with prepositions
making up 14.1%, and 44.5% of all particles. Nouns in the genitive case make up 61.8% of the
total, in the accusative 9.6% and in the nominative 18.5%. Nouns that occur after a preposition are
more frequent than nominative and accusative nouns [9]. Such characteristics and challenges cause
lots of ambiguities. Some such ambiguities are inevitable and constitute an inherent part of the

19
language. They are rather considered advantageous by introducing flexibility and expressiveness
from the perspective of authors particularly eloquent writers and poets.
There are other challenges and limitations that relate to POS that has to do with tag sets devel-
opment and usage. Arabic’ limited research work on standard tag-set, lack of resources, richly
inflected nature and a complex morphological nature constitute the main reasons for such limited
research. Arabic lacks manually tagged corpus to be used for training and evaluations making it
hard to develop tools such as POS taggers using a statistical approach [10-13].
Tag sets, an important part of POS research, had to be developed and researched. Some of the
researched and used tag sets include Brown tag set which contains 226 tags, LOB tag set which
contains 135 tags which is based on the tag set that was used in Brown corpus and Penn Treebank.
Other Arabic tag sets used in literature includes Khoja tag set with 177 detailed tags [14]. This set
was used for their semi-automatic tagger system. In [15] a tag set of 55 tags were used for an HMM
tagger. In [1] a tag set which contains 28 general tags and 161 detailed tags used by AMT tagger
system [2].
2.1. Part of Speech Tagging (POS)
In natural languages, Arabic included, POS tagging is the process of assigning of words into spe-
cific and representative linguistic or grammatical type. It is the assignment of POS tags to a token
taken from a sentence, a paragraph or simple set of words. POS tagging is an important requirement
to NLP applications permitting the categorisation of words as adjectives, verbs, nouns, or a prep-
osition. Knowing the verbs in a sentence, for instance can very well help us deciding on action(s)
the sentence may contain and can help to indicate sentential meaning. With POS tagging we are
also able to do chunking of sentences and aid in figuring out functional components such as Sub-
ject, Object and Verb. A number of different approaches are being used to do POS tagging with
rule-based and stochastic methodology [16,17] as the most common methods.
2.1.1. Stochastic POS Models
Stochastic models use the probabilistic methods using first-order or second-order Markov models
[18, 19]. They are based on building a trainable statistical language model and estimating param-
eters using previously tagged corpus. They make use of the idea that the probability of a word
appearing with a specific tag and the probability that a tag is followed by another. Tree Tagger is
and earlier example of such taggers that achieving an accuracy of up to 96.36% [19,20]. Stochastic
systems require less work and cost than the rule-based approach and are considered more trans-
porting of the language model to other languages especially provided that large manually tagged
corpus is available. On the other hand, they suffer from unknown words that cannot be tagged and
lack of annotated corpora in certain languages. Some of the stochastic based system in use include
CLAWS (Constituent-Likelihood Automatic Word-Tagging System), PARTS system; and many
other POS-taggers [21-26].
2.1.2. Rule-based POS Models
Rule-based taggers go back to the 1960-70’s and use a set of linguistic rules during the tagging
process. They are easy to maintain and provide an accurate and robust system [27-28], but are very
difficult to build. Some of the well-known rule-based systems CGC (Computational Grammar
Coder) [29,20], TAGGIT [32], TBL (Transformation-Based error-driven Learning) system [33]
and Fidditch system [34] and many others [35].

20
2.1.3. Hybrid and Other Systems
A number of systems with high rate of accuracy were produced using a combination of more than
one model. Examples include [35,36] for European languages with a reported accuracy of 98%.;
POS-tagger for Hungarian language[12] and POS-tagger developed by [37,38]. Many other POS
taggers are inspired from the Artificial Intelligence are developed including machine learning,
memory based and neural networks [39-43]. Other methods used include Conditional Random
Fields, Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) and a variation on LSTM the bidirectional LSTMs
(BiLSTMs), in which the learning algorithm is fed with the original data from the beginning to the
end, and then from the end to beginning [44].
2.2. Arabic POS Tagging
An initial focal step in Arabic POS was the adaptation of Tree tagger for Arabic with tag set that
covers 22 different languages including Arabic [45,46]. Later on, the Stanford POS tagger was
introduced to become one of the few taggers that supported Arabic [47]. Khoja is an Arabic de-
veloped tagger that combines statistical and rule-based approach achieving an accuracy close to
90% [48]. Schmid reported on a language independent tagger based on decision trees [49,50].
Algerian, et al reported an accuracy of 91% using a small manually annotated lexicon [51]. Yousif,
et al used the Support Vector Machines (SVM) and a tagged corpus reporting an accuracy of
99.99% [52]. Labidi reported on similar work [53] using augmented stately sliding-window [54]
based on a database of nearly 50.000 Arabic terms.
Al Shamsi, et al reported on a semi-automatic hybrid tagger that used statistical method and
morphological rules in the form of HMMs achieving an accuracy of 90% [55]. Othmane, et al
reported on Automatic Arabic POS-Tagger which is a combination of statistical and rule-based
techniques achieving an accuracy of 86 % [56]. Mohamed, et al implementing Arabic Brill’s
POS-tagger using a manually created corpus [57]. Kučera, et al created a rule-based tagger basing
their work on automatic annotation output produced by the morphological analyser of Tim
BuckeckWalter reported an accuracy of 96% [58]. An Arabic POS-tagger was developed using the
support vector machine (SVM) method and LDC (Linguistic Data Consortium) [59]. An HMM
tagger for Arabic language with an accuracy of 96% was reported on in [60]. In [61], a tagger was
developed that used a rule-based and a memory-based learning achieving an accuracy of 86%.
In [62], structure of Arabic sentence was taken into account in developing an Arabic POS-tagger
for un-vocalized text with an accuracy of 97%. In [63], a POS-tagger was developed using the
rule-based and untagged raw partially-vocalized corpus making use of pattern-based, lexical, and
contextual rules. The system an accuracy of 91%. In [64] used the genetic algorithm and a reduced
tag set to develop an Arabic POS tagging. [65] considered the structure of Arabic sentence com-
bining morphological analysis with Hidden Markov Models (HMMs) obtained a recognition rate
of this tagger reached 96%. In [66, 67] developed what they termed whole word tagging and
segmentation-based tagging. More research on Arabic POS tagging is performed. Most of such
work uses the hidden Markov models [68-70]. Unfortunately, most of reported wok is private with
limited availability.
3. CORPORA AND DATASETS
A corpus is normally looked at as a large collection of machine readable text that is accessible and
searchable. It role is to provide POS systems with the needed linguistic knowledge that helps re-
solving the ambiguity. Well-known corpora for English language include Brown University [71],
Bergen Corpus of London Teenage English (COLT) [72], BNC (British National Corpus) [73],

21
Child Language Data Exchange System (CHILDES) [74], TOSCA Corpus [65] and Penn Treebank
Corpus [75].
For Arabic language, however, there is no free corpus available. A few corpora were created for
Arabic language including, but not limited to, LDC Arabic newswire corpus, Hayat newspaper
corpus, An-Nahar Newspaper Text Corpus, Buckeck Walter Arabic Corpus, Nijmegen Corpus,
Penn Arabic Treebank Corpus and Corpus of Contemporary Arabic [58,75,76,77].
As this work is based on linguistics rules and regulations of Arabic language, there was no need or
use of corpora except for evaluation purposes. As will be discussed in section 5, five datasets re-
ferred-to in this work as CNN-UTF8, Basel-Dataset, Arabic Discretized Books, Quranic Text
Dataset and Annotated Dataset were used for evaluation. They included two sets on news, one from
Quran and one from books along with the annotated set.
4. THE MTE TAGGER: THE PROPOSED APPROACH
MTE Tagger is totally based on readily available primitive data lists and a complex set of linguistic
rules both of which are highlighted next:
Figure 1. The over all process adopted.
Available word list of some known word types which are mostly collected from web, short and
limited in size, hand formulated, closed word types of Arabic basic components such as pronouns,
demonstrative nouns …etc. Few non-exhaustive lists are for things such as common names and
geographical information like cities and countries …etc.
1. An initial data collection using available net resources and datasets is performed. This part is
geared at minimal work to account for many of the closed Arabic word taxonomies and some
limited but readily available list. It resulted in the lists as shown in the table (mostly incomplete
but quite useful).
Lists
Rules MTE
Tagger
Data
Set 1
Tagg
er
Data
Set 2
Tag
ger
Data
Set 3
Tag
ger
Stanford
Tagger
Compare Results
Anno-
tated
Data
Set 1
Tag-
ger

22
Table 1. Sample Closed POS Categories List
Days Weeks Months Seasons Adjectives ‫صفات‬ God Attributes ‫هللا‬ ‫صفات‬
Verb Cana-Thana ‫كان‬
-
‫ضن‬
‫اخواتها‬ ‫و‬ Mausool Names ‫الموصول‬ ‫اسم‬ Five Names ‫الخمس‬ ‫األسماء‬
Adjective Seq Numbers ‫تراتبية‬ ‫ارقام‬ Punctuation ‫ترقيم‬ Particles ‫حروف‬
Place and Time Adverbs ‫الضرف‬ Currencies ‫عمالت‬ ‫تفضيل‬
Independent Pronouns‫منفصلة‬ ‫ضمائر‬ Towns & countries ‫وبلدان‬ ‫مدن‬ Exceptional Adverbs
Demonstrative Nouns ‫االشارة‬ ‫اسم‬ Colors ‫الوان‬ Partials Rabat ‫الريط‬ ‫حروف‬
IN Particle ‫الجر‬ ‫حروف‬ Numbers‫ارقام‬ MSA Verb ‫افعال‬
Particle Ena’a ‫ان‬
‫واخواتها‬ God Names ‫الحسنى‬ ‫األسماء‬ People Names ‫األشخاص‬ ‫أسماء‬
2. A second set of very compacted grammatical functions or rule representing the Arabic lan-
guage rules for many of syntactical and structural compositions. Table 2 lists some names of
some of such rules. The tagger works sentence by sentence by first searching the set of lists
(primitive lexicon) to decide on the category of any word in the sentence. Next it will reiterate
through the set of grammatical and structural rules and will re-confirm existing categories and
fix new ones. At the end, a sentence may have some missing categories for some words. A
number of experiments were tried but the issue still open for improvements.
Table 2. Gramatical, Morphological and Strctural Procedures (Rules)
Ckeck Eshar Plus Ckeck FirstPOS Ckeck IfAdaadTratubiah
Ckeck SplDarfI Ckeck Tarkim PunI Ckeck TimesI Ckeck
Ckeck Spl Words I Ckeck CDI HrfJarAndAftNNContextI
Ckeck MudenBuldanI EnaaGroupCTX tamizeAlafadd
Ckeck
MaousoolNameCtxI
Ckeck TafdealCtx1I Emma
Ckeck IfParticlesNotJar Ckeck IstithnaCtxI EthandEthaPlus
Ckeck Names Ataf GroupCTX Ckeck Lema Ctx
Ckeck Damer MunfaselI Ckeck StartWaAlifCtxI BaseRuleSet1
Ckeck WITHCtxI Ckeck MaaaCt Ckeck IfEThCtx
CanaZanaGroupCtx Ckeck MustathnaI Ckeck AlfLamCtxI
LaNafiaWaNahia Ckeck AlfFariqaCtxI Ckeck LELI
Ckeck KADCtxI ckeckSaYAVBCtx setJJ
5. EXPERIMENTS, EVALUATIONS, AND DISCUSSIONS
The evaluations process consists of the following experiments with results as shown in Table 3.
Two sets of experiments were performed. The first set is made of four runs on four different un-
annotated data sets to compare performance (Accuracy and Timing) of the new tagger to that of
Stanford Tagger.

23
Table 3. Accuracy and Timings results comparison.
Accuracy Stanford
Tagger
MTE
Tagger
Speed
Data/Sets Experiments MTE / STF Timing
Mints
Timing
Mints
%
CNN-UTF8 74.23 2954.5 4.4 0.059
Basel-Dataset 75,2 714.13 0.245 0.0003
Arabic Discretized Books 75.45 6052.57 62.54 0.0103
Quranic Text Dataset 65.45 3252.73 4.1 0.0013
Average 72.58 3243;48 71.29 0.022
Annotated Dataset 87.88 / 86.67 0.022 0.020 .91
The second set of experiments are based on a small selected dataset that is manually annotated. The
two taggers are both run on the data set and accuracy of tagging and speed of performance are noted
and compared. Accuracy is a representation of the number of rightly tagged tokens while perfor-
mance is the speed of tagging. Due to the expectation that rule-based systems tend to be much
faster and robust, the measurements take are only indicative and lack features of a well-controlled
experiments.
5.1. MTE Tagger vs. Stanford Tagger on Unannotated Datasets
This is a set of four experiments each is conducted on a different set of data.
5.1.1. Experiment-1: MTE Tagger vs. Stanford tagger on CNN-UTF8
This a set of 5070 files of news articles taken from CNN covering business, entertainment, middle
east, science, technology, sports and world news [1]. The whole set contains a total of 141,4021
words. The obtained results of comparing MTE tagger to Stanford tagger showed and overall ac-
curacy of 74.20 %. That is the percentage of overlap between the taggers is three quarters and
differed on one quarter. In terms of timings, the results were 48 minutes and 44.5 seconds versus
only 4.4 seconds respectively. That is the time taken by MTE Tagger is only 0.0015% of that taken
by Stanford tagger.
5.1.2. Experiment-2: MTE Tagger vs. Stanford on Basel-Dataset
This is a set of 1000 files that are hand compiled on 4 different subjects, namely science, politics,
arts, sports and economics [78]. The set is made of a total of 159,442 words. The obtained results of
comparing MTE tagger to Stanford tagger show and overall accuracy of 75.12%. Again numbers
are similar to the previous set. In terms of timings, the results were 11 minutes and 54.13 seconds
versus 0.245 seconds which is only 0.00034%
5.1.3. Experiment 3: MTE Tagger vs. Stanford on Arabic Discretized Books (Tashkeela)
This a set of 20 files with each file containing the text of a whole book [79]. The text is discretized.
The set is made of a total of 298,416 words. The obtained results of comparing MTE tagger to
Stanford tagger show and overall accuracy of 75.43%. Again numbers are similar to the previous
two sets. In terms of timings, the results were 1 hour, 40 minutes and 52.57 seconds versus 1 mi-
nute and 1.54 seconds which is .01%. This albeit higher than the previous cases. It is probably due
to diacritics removal.

24
5.1.4. Experiment 4: Quranic Text Dataset
This a single file containing 214 chapters of the whole Quran. The set is made of 77,289 words. The
obtained results of comparing MTE tagger to Stanford tagger show and overall accuracy of
65.79%. Even though this lower than previous experiments results, still however within an ac-
ceptable range. In terms of timings, the results were 54 minutes and 12.73 seconds versus 4.1
seconds which is only 0.0013%. On average, there percentage accuracy is 88.89% and the speed is
2.2% faster in favor of MTE Tagger.
5.2. MTE Tagger vs. Stanford Tagger on Annotated Dataset:
This experiment is based on manually tagged dataset. The data set consists of a total of 17,485
words taken from set 1. The objective is comparing the MTE tagger performs to that of Stanford
tagger. The results obtained were 87.89 % for MTE Tagger and 86.67% for the Stanford tagger. In
terms of timings, the results showed that MTE took on average only 2.2% of the time taken by
Stanford tagger.
5.3. Discussions
From obtained results, we can see that the first set of experiments aimed at looking at the using of
Stanford tagger on four datasets with variable tokens and context. The data set included 2 sets on
news, one from Quran and one from books.
To validate the utility of Stanford and then to compare the results obtained to MTE tagger, the
experiments were clearly that the MTE tagger did not compare well to the Stanford tagger with an
average of 72.64%. That is to say they only agree 72.64%. This prompted us to study the data and
see the differences and agreements. It was clear that the difference was a result of disagreements
for which many cases Stanford failed to tag correctly and vice versa.
Obtained results prompted us to annotate part of the datasets to use for evaluation. We studied the
results and confirmed the correct and fixed the incorrect for a set of 1226 sentences.
The manually annotated set was developed and compared to the two taggers. Obviously better
accuracies were made with MTE tagger having a marginally higher accuracy.
The obtained results were very encouraging and further refinement of the tagger to include more
complete lexicon and more rules using furthers linguistic properties like vocalization will certainly
make the tagger perform better. As far as time performance, much better numbers where obtained
with MTE taking only 2.2% compared to STF. It is expected that Rule-based are to be much faster,
but we were surprised by their results. Table 5 shows a sentence taken from the results.
Table 4. A sentence example: Made of 27 Tokens. Taggers match on 19 and mismatch on 8
Word MTE STF Agree Verify 0/1 Word MTE STF Agree Verify 0/1
‫وبينت‬ VBD VBD Agree Both Right 1 ‫معهم‬ NN JJ Disagree STF
Wrong
1-0
‫الشرطة‬ DTNN DTNN Agree Right 1 ‫ما‬ WP WP Agree are Right 1
‫ان‬ IN IN Agree Right 1 ‫يبدو‬ VBP VBP Agree are Right 1
‫صلة‬ NN NN Agree Right 1 ‫الفتة‬ NN JJ Disagree are wrong 0-0
‫المهاجم‬ DTNN DTNN Agree Right 1 ‫المحققين‬ DTNNS DTNNS Agree Right 1
‫تميل‬ VBP VBP Agree Right 1 ‫تواصلوا‬ VBD VBD Agree are Right 1
‫الي‬ IN IN Agree Right 1 ‫مع‬ IN NN Disagree STF
Wrong
1-0
‫انه‬ NN NN Agree Right 1 ‫زوجته‬ NN NN Agree Right 1

25
The calculated result is 19/27. This signifies that both the calculated percentage overlap can still be
made more accurate.
Table 5. Overal missed percentage for the different POS catagories
Tag DTNNPS DTNNP DTJJR DT CD IN NNS
Wrong 0 0 0 4 34 17
Right 50 35 16 126 647 1519 608
% 0 0 0 0 0.62 2.24 2.8
Tag WP CC DTNNS RP NNP JJR RB
Wrong 7 8 13 4 15 3 32
Right 243 265 379 99 319 53 462
% 2.88 3.02 3.43 4.04 4.7 5.66 6.93
Tag PRP DTNN VBD NN JJ DTJJ VBP
Wrong 6 532 88 1048 10 102 596
Right 84 5432 674 7014 56 537 916
% 7.14 9.79 13.06 14.94 17.86 18.99 65.07
Tag Nouns Verbs Adjectives <<For totals
Wrong 1625 684 112
Right 13837 1590 593
% 11.74 43.02 18.89
Looking at the overall success of tagging we could see that Adjectives (JJ) are the least accurate in
MTE and better rules will still have to be invented to improve the classification of JJs.
6. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper we report on an experimental syntactically and morphologically driven rule-based
Arabic tagger. The tagger is developed using Arabic language grammatical rules and regulations.
The tagger requires no pre-tagged text and is developed using a primitive set of lexicon items along
with extensive grammatical and structural rules. It is tested and compared to Stanford tagger both
in terms of accuracy and performance (speed). Obtained results are quite comparable to Stanford
tagger performance with marginal difference favoring the developed tagger in accurate and huge
difference in terms of performance. The newly developed tagger name MTE Tagger has been
tested and evaluated and was able to obtain an accuracy of 85% versus 82% for the Stanford tagger.
The developed tagger makes use of no pre-annotated datasets, except of some simple lexicon
consisting of list of words representing closed word types like demonstrative nouns or pronouns list
or some particles. For the purpose of evaluation of the new tagger, it was run on multiple datasets
and results were compared to those of Stanford tagger. In particular, both taggers (the MTE and the
Stanford) were run on a set of 1226 sentences with close to 20,000 tokens that was human anno-
tated and verified to serve as testbed. The results were very encouraging in both test runs the MTE
tagger outperformed the Stanford tagger with accuracies in the range of 87.88% versus 86.67% for
the Stanford tagger. In terms of efficiency (speed of tagging) the MTE to Sanford tagger 1:50.
‫متاثر‬ NN NN Agree Right 1 ‫دون‬ RB NN Disagree STF
Wrong
1-0
‫بالتنظيم‬ NN NNP Agree Right 1 ‫تقديم‬ NN NN Agree Right 1
‫عوضا‬ NN NN Agree Right 1 ‫تفاصيل‬ VBP NN Disagree MTE
Wrong
0-1
‫عن‬ IN IN Agree Right 1 ‫اضافية‬ ----- JJ Disagree MTE
Failed
0-1
‫علي‬ IN IN Agree Wrong 0 ‫تفاصيل‬ VBP NN Disagree MTE
Wrong
0-1
‫تواصل‬ VBP NN Disagree MTT
Wrong
0-1 ‫اضافية‬ ----- JJ Disagree MTE
Failed
0-1
‫مباشر‬ NN JJ Disagree MTT
Wrong
0-1 - - - - - -

26
Better accuracy is expected as the set of rules are optimized and other Arabic language properties
such as end of word discretization are used.
REFERENCES
[1] Abumalloh RA, Al-Sarhan HM, Ibrahim O, Abu-Ulbeh W. Arabic part-of-speech tagging. Journal of
Soft Computing and Decision Support Systems. 2016 Feb 25;3(2):45-52.
[2] Das BR, Sahoo S, Panda CS, Patnaik S. Part of speech tagging in odia using support vector machine.
Procedia Computer Science. 2015 Jan 1;48:507-12.
[3] Stolcke A, Ries K, Coccaro N, Shriberg E, Bates R, Jurafsky D, Taylor P, Martin R, Ess-Dykema
CV, Meteer M. Dialogue act modeling for automatic tagging and recognition of conversational
speech. Computational linguistics. 2000 Sep 1;26(3):339-73.
[4] Seikaly ZA. The Arabic Language: The Glue that Binds the Arab World. AMIDEAST, Ameri-
ca-Mideast Educational and Training Services, Inc. 2007
[5] Elhadi MT, Alfared RA. Adopting Arabic Taggers to Annotate a Libyan Dialect Text with a
Pre-Tagging Processing and Term Substitutions. International Journal of Science and Technology,
Specail Edition. Feb 2022.
[6] Elhadi MT. Arabic News Articles Classification Using Vectorized-Cosine Based on Seed Documents.
Journal of Advances in Computer Engineering and Technology. 2019 May 1;5(2):117-28.
[7] Agirre E, Edmonds P, editors. Word sense disambiguation: Algorithms and applications. Springer
Science & Business Media; 2007 Nov 16.
[8] al-Khūlī, M.A. al-Tarākīb al-Shāiʽah fī al-Lughah al-ʽArabīyah: Dirasah Iḥṣā’īyah .ʻAmmām: Dār
al-Falāḥ lil-Nashr wa-al-Tawzīʽ. (1998).
[9] Husni R, Zaher A. Working with Arabic prepositions: Structures and functions. Routledge; 2020 Mar
2.
[10] Marsi E, Van Den Bosch A, Soudi A. Memory-based morphological analysis generation and
part-of-speech tagging of Arabic. InProceedings of the ACL workshop on computational approaches
to semitic languages 2005 Jun (pp. 1-8).
[11] Stokoe C, Oakes MP, Tait J. Word sense disambiguation in information retrieval revisited. InPro-
ceedings of the 26th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in
informaion retrieval 2003 Jul 28 (pp. 159-166).
[12] Atkins BT. Tools for computer-aided corpus lexicography: the Hector project. Acta Linguistica Hun-
garica. 1992 Jan 1;41(1/4):5-71.
[13] Jacquemin B, Brun C, Roux C. Enriching a text by semantic disambiguation for information extrac-
tion. arXiv preprint cs/0506048. 2005 Jun 12.
[14] Chiche A, Yitagesu B. Part of speech tagging: a systematic review of deep learning and machine
learning approaches. Journal of Big Data. 2022 Dec;9(1):1-25.
[15] Schneider, S. The biggest data challenges that you might not even know you have,
https://www.ibm.com/blogs/watson/2016/05/biggest-data-challenges-might-not-even-know/
[16] Masand B, Linoff G, Waltz D. Classifying news stories using memory based reasoning. InProceed-
ings of the 15th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in infor-
mation retrieval 1992 Jun 1 (pp. 59-65).
[17] Zaghouani W. Critical survey of the freely available Arabic corpora. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1702.07835. 2017 Feb 25.
[18] Bahl, L.R., Mercer, R.L.: Part-of-speech assignment by a statistical decision algorithm. In: Proceed-
ings of the IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory, pp. 88-89. IEEE Computer Socie-
ty Press, Los Alamitos (1976)
[19] Sanger N. The computational analysis of English: A Corpus-based approach: R. Garside; G. Leech;
and G. Sampson (Eds.). Longman, London and New York (1987).
[20] Marshall I. Choice of grammatical word-class without global syntactic analysis: tagging words in the
LOB corpus. Computers and the Humanities. 1983 Sep 1:139-50.
[21] Church KW. A stochastic parts program and noun phrase parser for unrestricted text. InInternational
Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, 1989 May 23 (pp. 695-698). IEEE.
[22] Cutting D, Kupiec J, Pedersen J, Sibun P. A practical part-of-speech tagger. InThird conference on
applied natural language processing 1992 Mar (pp. 133-140).

27
[23] Kupiec J. Robust part-of-speech tagging using a hidden Markov model. Computer speech & lan-
guage. 1992 Jul 1;6(3):225-42.
[24] Weischedel R, Schwartz R, Palmucci J, Meteer M, Ramshaw L. Coping with ambiguity and unknown
words through probabilistic models. Using Large Corpora. 1994:323-6.
[25] Merialdo B. Tagging English text with a probabilistic model. Computational linguistics.
1994;20(2):155-71.
[26] Khoja S. APT: An automatic Arabic part-of-speech tagger (Doctoral dissertation, Lancaster Univer-
sity). 2003
[27] Alqrainy S. A morphological-syntactical analysis approach for Arabic textual tagging (Doctoral dis-
sertation, De Montfort University). 2008
[28] McEnery AM. Computational Linguistics: A handbook and toolbox for natural language processing.
Coronet Books Incorporated; 1992.
[29] Harris Z. String analysis of language structure. Mouton and Co., The Hague. 1962.
[30] Klein S, Simmons RF. A computational approach to grammatical coding of English words. Journal of
the ACM (JACM). 1963 Jul 1;10(3):334-47.
[31] Greene BB, Rubin GM. Automatic grammatical tagging of English. Department of Linguistics,
Brown University; 1971.
[32] Brill E. A simple rule-based part of speech tagger. PENNSYLVANIA UNIV PHILADELPHIA
DEPT OF COMPUTER AND INFORMATION SCIENCE; 1992 Jan 1.
[33] Abney S. Part-of-speech tagging and partial parsing. InCorpus-based methods in language and speech
processing 1997 (pp. 118-136). Springer, Dordrecht.
[34] Chanod JP, Tapanainen P. Tagging French--comparing a statistical and a constraint-based method.
arXiv preprint cmp-lg/9503003. 1995 Mar 2..
[35] Volk M, Schneider G. Comparing a statistical and a rule-based tagger for German. arXiv preprint
cs/9811016. 1998 Nov 11.
[36] Schmid H. Part-of-speech tagging with neural networks. arXiv preprint cmp-lg/9410018. 1994 Oct
24.
[37] Perez-Ortiz JA, Forcada ML. Part-of-speech tagging with recurrent neural networks. InIJCNN'01.
International Joint Conference on Neural Networks. Proceedings (Cat. No. 01CH37222) 2001 Jul 15
(Vol. 3, pp. 1588-1592). IEEE.
[38] Bosch AV, Marsi E, Soudi A. Memory-based morphological analysis and part-of-speech tagging of
Arabic. In Arabic Computational Morphology 2007 (pp. 201-217). Springer, Dordrecht.
[39] Cover T, Hart P. Nearest neighbor pattern classification. IEEE transactions on information theory.
1967 Jan;13(1):21-7.
[40] Zavrel J, Daelemans W. Recent advances in memory-based part-of-speech tagging. In VI Simposio
Internacional de Comunicacion Social 1999 (pp. 590-597).),
[41] Ramani D. A short survey on memory based reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1904.06736. 2019 Apr 14.
[42] Angle S, Mishra P, Sharma DM. Automated Error Correction and Validation for POS Tagging of
Hindi. In Proceedings of the 32nd Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and computa-
tion 2018.
[43] Kanakaraddi SG, Nandyal SS. Survey on parts of speech tagger techniques. In2018 International
Conference on Current Trends towards Converging Technologies (ICCTCT) 2018 Mar 1 (pp. 1-6).
IEEE.
[44] Katz G, Diab M, editors. Introduction to the Special Issue on Arabic Computational Linguistics.
ACM Transactions on Asian Language Information Processing (TALIP). 2011 Mar 1;10(1):1-4.
[45] Toutanvoa K, Manning CD. Enriching the knowledge sources used in a maximum entropy
part-of-speech tagger. In2000 Joint SIGDAT conference on Empirical methods in natural language
processing and very large corpora 2000 Oct (pp. 63-70)
[46] Manning CD. Part-of-speech tagging from 97% to 100%: is it time for some linguistics? In Interna-
tional conference on intelligent text processing and computational linguistics 2011 Feb 20 (pp.
171-189). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
[47] Brill E. Transformation-based error-driven learning and natural language processing: A case study in
part-of-speech tagging. Computational linguistics. 1995;21(4):543-65.
[48] Khoja S. APT: Arabic part-of-speech tagger. InProceedings of the Student Workshop at NAACL
2001 Jun (pp. 20-25).

28
[49] Schmid H. TreeTagger-a language independent part-of-speech tagger. http://www. ims. uni-stuttgart.
de/projekte/corplex/TreeTagger/. 1994
[50] Wu X, Kumar V, Ross Quinlan J, Ghosh J, Yang Q, Motoda H, McLachlan GJ, Ng A, Liu B, Yu PS,
Zhou ZH. Top 10 algorithms in data mining. Knowledge and information systems. 2008
Jan;14(1):1-37.
[51] Algrainy S, AlSerhan HM, Ayesh A. Pattern-based algorithm for part-of-speech tagging. In Interna-
tional Conference on Computer Engineering and Systems, ICCES 2008 (pp. 119-124).
[52] Yousif JH, Sembok TM. Arabic part-of-speech tagger-based Support Vectors Machines. In2008 In-
ternational Symposium on Information Technology 2008 Aug 26 (Vol. 3, pp. 1-7). IEEE.
[53] Labidi M. New Combined Method to Improve Arabic POS Tagging. Journal of Autonomous Intelli-
gence. 2019 Jan 8;1(2):23-8.
[54] Sánchez-Villamil E, Forcada ML, Carrasco RC. Unsupervised training of a finite-state slid-
ing-window part-of-speech tagger. InInternational Conference on Natural Language Processing (in
Spain) 2004 Oct 20 (pp. 454-463). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
[55] Elhadj YO. Statistical part-of-speech tagger for traditional Arabic texts. Journal of computer science.
2009;5(11):794.
[56] Diab M, Hacioglu K, Jurafsky D. Automatic tagging of Arabic text: From raw text to base phrase
chunks. InProceedings of HLT-NAACL 2004: Short papers 2004 (pp. 149-152).Banko and Moore
(2004)
[57] Al Shamsi F, Guessoum A. A hidden Markov model-based POS tagger for Arabic. InProceeding of
the 8th international conference on the statistical analysis of textual data, France 2006 (pp. 31-42).
[58] Alqrainy S, Muaidi H, Alkoffash MS. Context-free grammar analysis for Arabic sentences. Interna-
tional Journal of Computer Applications. 2012 Jan 1;53(3).
[59] Othmane CZ, Fraj FB, Limam I. POS-tagging Arabic texts: A novel approach based on ant colony.
Natural Language Engineering. 2017 May;23(3):419-39.
[60] Mohamed E, Kübler S. Arabic part of speech tagging. InProceedings of the Seventh International
Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'10) 2010 May.
[61] Alqrainy S. A morphological-syntactical analysis approach for Arabic textual tagging (Doctoral dis-
sertation, De Montfort University).2008
[62] Kučera H, Francis WN. Computational analysis of present-day American English. Dartmouth;
1967.Stenstrom et al., 2002)
[63] Al-Taani AT, Al-Rub SA. A rule-based approach for tagging non-vocalized Arabic words. Int.
Arab J. Inf. Technol.. 2009 Jul 1;6(3):320-8..
[64] AbuZeina D, Al-Khatib W, Elshafei M, Al-Muhtaseb H. Toward enhanced Arabic speech recognition
using part of speech tagging. International Journal of Speech Technology. 2011 Dec;14(4):419-26.
[65] Tlili-Guiassa Y. Hybrid method for tagging Arabic text. Journal of Computer science.
2006;2(3):245-8.
[66] Hadni M, Ouatik SA, Lachkar A, Meknassi M. Hybrid part-of-speech tagger for non-vocalized Ara-
bic text. Int. J. Nat. Lang. Comput. 2013 Dec;2(6):1-5.
[67] Calciu RH. Semantic change in the age of corpus linguistics. Journal of Humanistic and Social Stud-
ies. 2012;3(1):45-58. (MacWhinney and Snow, 1984),
[68] Ali BB, Jarray F. Genetic approach for Arabic part of speech tagging. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1307.3489. 2013 Jul 11.
[69] El Hadj Y, Al-Sughayeir I, Al-Ansari A. Arabic part-of-speech tagging using the sentence structure.
InProceedings of the Second International Conference on Arabic Language Resources and Tools,
Cairo, Egypt 2009 Apr (pp. 241-5).
[70] Kübler S, Mohamed E. Part of speech tagging for Arabic. Natural Language Engineering. 2012
Oct;18(4):521-48.
[71] Bird S, Klein E, Loper E. Natural language processing with Python: analyzing text with the natural
language toolkit. " O'Reilly Media, Inc."; 2009 Jun 12.
[72] Stenström AB, Breivik LE. The Bergen corpus of London teenager language (COLT). ICAME jour-
nal. 1993 Apr;17:128.
[73] MacWhinney B. Child Language Data Exchange System. Transcript Analysis. 1984 Aug;1(1):2-18.
[74] Aarts J, Van Halteren H, Oostdijk N. The linguistic annotation of corpora: The TOSCA analysis sys-
tem. International journal of corpus linguistics. 1998 Jan 1;3(2):189-210.
[75] Taylor A, Marcus M, Santorini B. The Penn treebank: an overview. Treebanks. 2003:5-22.

29
[76] Motaz K. Saad and Wesam Ashour, "OSAC: Open-Source Arabic Corpus", 6th ArchEng Internation-
al Symposiums, EEECS’10 the 6th International Symposium on Electrical and Electronics Engineer-
ing and Computer Science, European University of Lefke, Cyprus, 2010.
[77] Sklyarova DD. The History of Corpus Linguistics Development.
[78] Bani-Ismail, B, Al-Rababah, K, Shatnawi, S., The effect of full word, stem, and root as index-term on
Arabic information retrieval, Global Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 2011
[79] Zerrouki T, Balla A. Tashkeela: Novel corpus of Arabic vocalized texts, data for auto-diacritization
systems. Data in brief. 2017 Apr 1;11:147-51.

A GRAMMATICALLY AND STRUCTURALLY BASED PART OF SPEECH (POS) TAGGER FOR ARABIC LANGUAGE

More Related Content

Similar to A GRAMMATICALLY AND STRUCTURALLY BASED PART OF SPEECH (POS) TAGGER FOR ARABIC LANGUAGE (20)

More from kevig (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

A GRAMMATICALLY AND STRUCTURALLY BASED PART OF SPEECH (POS) TAGGER FOR ARABIC LANGUAGE