DOCSLIB.ORG

Integration of Syntactic and Lexical Information in a Hierarchical

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Integration of Syntactic and Lexical Information in a Hierarchical I Integration of syntactic and lexical information in a hierarchical ! dependency grammar Cristina Barbero and Leonardo Lesmo and Vincenzo Lombardo Dipartimento di Informatica I Universit~ di Torino - Italy Paola Merlo Universit6 de Gen~ve - Switzerland I IRCS - University of Pennsylvania I Abstract level provided by syntactic rules is necessary to avoid In this paper, we propose to introduce syntactic the loss of generalization which would arise if class- classes in a lexicalized dependency formalism. Sub- level information were repeated in all lexical items. i categories of words are organized hierarchically from In parsing, a predictive component is required to a general, abstract level (syntactic categories) to a guarantee the valid prefiz property, namely the ca- word-specific level (single lexical items). The formal- pabifity of detecting as soon as possible whether a ism is parsimonious, and useful for processing. We substring is a valid prefix for the language defined I also sketch a parsing model that uses the hierarchi- by the grammar. Knowledge of syntactic categories, cal mixed-grain representation to make predictions which does not depend on the input, is needed for a on the structure of the input. parser to be predictive. In this paper we address the problem of the in- I 1 Introduction teraction between syntactic and lexical information in dependency grammar. We introduce many inter- Much recent work in linguistics and computational mediate levels between lexical items and syntactic linguistics emphasizes the role of lexical information categories, by organizing the grammar around the i in syntactic representation and processing. notion of subcategorizetion. Intuitively, a subcat- This emphasis given to the lexicon is the result egorization frame for a lexical item L is a specifi- of a gradual process. The original trend in linguis- cation of the number and type of elements that L I tics has been to individuate categories of words hav- requires in order, for ml utterance that contains L, ing related characteristics - the traditional syntactic to be well-formed. For example, within the syntac- categories like verb, noun, adjective, etc. - and to tic category VERB, different verbs require different express the structure of a sentence in terms of con- numbers of nominal dependents for a well-formed I stituents, or phrases, built around these categories. sentence. In Italian (our case study), an intransi- Subsequent considerations lead to a lexicalization of tive verb such as dormirv, "sleep", subcategorizes for grammar. Linguistically, the constraints expressed only one nominal element (the subject), while a tran- on syntactic categories are too general to explain sitive verb such as baciare, "kiss", subcategorizes for I facts about words - e.g. the relation between a verb two nominal elements (the subject and the object) and its nominalization, "destroy the city" and "de- 1. Grammatical relations such as subject and object struction of the city" - or to account uniformly for a are primitive concepts in a dependency paradigm, number of phenomena across languages - e.g. pas- | i.e. they directly define the structure of the sen- sivization. In parsing, the use of individual item tence. Consequently, the dependency paradigm is information reduces the search space of the possi- particularly suitable to define the grammar in terms ble structures of a sentence. From a mathematical of constraints on subcategorization frames. point of view, lexicalized grammars exhibit proper- Our proposal is to use subcategories organized in i ties - like finite ambiguity (Schabes, 1990) - that are of a practical interest (especially in writing real- a hierarchy: the upper level of the hierarchy corre- istic grammars). Dependency grammar is naturally sponds to the syntactic categories, the other levels I suitable for a lexicalization, as the binary relations correspond to subcategories that are more and more representing the structure of a sentence are defined 1We include the subject relation in the subcategorization, with respect to the head (that is a word). or valency, of a verb - cf. (Hudson, 1990) (Mel'cuk, 1988). Pure lexicalized formalisms, however, have also In most constituency theories, on the contrary, the subject is I several disadvantages. Linguistically, the abstract not part of the valency of a verb. I i 58 I specific as one descends the hierarchy. This repre- 2 A dependency formalism sentation is advantageous because of its compact- The basic idea of dependency is that the syntac- ness, and bemuse the hierarchical mixed-grained or- tic structure of a sentence is described in terms of ganization of the information is useful in processing. binary relations (dependency relations) on pairs of In fact, using the general knowledge at the upper words, a head (or parent), and a dependent (daugh- level of the hierarchy, we can make predictions on ter), respectively; these relations form a tree, the de- the structure of the sentence before encountering the pendency tree. In this section we introduce a formal lexical head. dependency system, which expresses the syntactic Hierarchical formalisms have been proposed in knowledge through dependency rules. The grammar some theories. Pollard and Sag (1987) suggested and the lexicon coindde, since the rules are lexical- a hierarchical organization of lexical information: ized: the head of the rule is a word of a certain cate- as far as subcategorization is concerned, they in- gory, namely the lexical anchor. The formalism is a troduced a "hierarchy of lexical types". A specific shnplified version of (Lombardo and Lesmo, 1998); formalisation of this hierarchy has never reached a we have left out the treatment of long-distance de- wide consensus in the HPSG community, but sev- pendencies to focus on the subcategorization knowl- eral proposals have been developed - see for example edge, which is to be represented in a hierarchy. (Meurers, 1997), that uses head subtypes and lexical principles to express generalizations on the valency A dependency grammar is a five-tuple <W,C,S,D, properties of words. H>, where Hudson (1990) adopts a dependency approach and W is a finite set of words of a natural language; uses hierarchies to organize different kinds of lin- C is a finite set of syntactic categories; guistic information, for instance a hierarchy includ- S is a non-empty set of categories (S _C C) that can ing word classes and lexical items. The subcatego- act as head of a sentence; rization constraints, however, are specified for each D is the set of dependency relations, for instance lexical item (for instance STAND -4 STAND-intrans, SUB J, OBJ, XCOMP, P-OB3, PRED; STAND-trans): this is highly redundant and misses H is a set of dependency rules of the form important generalizations. z:X (<raYl> ... <ri-l~-l> # <ri+l~+l> ... In LTAG (Joshi and Schabes, 1996), pure syntac- <rmYrn>) tic information is grouped around shared subcatego- 1) z E W, is the head of the rule; rization constraints (tree families). Hierarchical rep- 2) X E C, is its syntactic category; resentations of LTAG have been proposed: (Vijay- 3) an dement <rjYj> is a d-pair (which descri- Shanker and Schabes, 1992), (Becker, 1993), (Evans bes a dependent); the sequence of d-pairs, in- et al., 1995), (Candito, 1996), (Doran et al., 1997). eluding the special symbol # (representing the However, none of these works proposes to use the hi- linear position of the head), is called the d-pair erarchical representation in processing - just Vijay- sequence. We have that Shanker and Schabes (1992) mention, as a possible 3a) rj E D, j E {1,...,i - 1,i + 1 .... ,rn}; future investigation, the definition of parsing strate- 3b) Y~ ~ C,j ~ {1,...,i-l,i+l,...,m}; gies that take advantage of the hierarchical repre- Intuitively, a dependency rule constrains one node sentation. (head) and its dependents in a dependency tree: the The goal of our hierarchical formalism is twofold. d-pair sequence states the order of elements, both On one side, we want to provide a hierarchical orga- the head (# position) and the dependents (d-pairs). nization to a lexicalized dependency formalism: sim- The grammar is lexicalized, because each depen- ilarly to the hierarchical representations of LTAG, dency rule has a lexieal anchor in its head (z:X). the aim is to solve the problems of redundancy and A d-pair <riYi> identifies a dependent of category lexicon maintenance of pure lexicalized approaches. Yi, connected with the head via a dependency rela- On the other side, we want to explore how a hierar- tion rl. chical formAllgm can be used in processing in order As an example, consider the grammar 2: to get the maximum benefit from it. The paper is organized as follows: in section 2 we G--< describe a lexiealized dependency formalism that is a W : {gli, un, amici, eroe, lo, credevano} simplified version of (Lombardo and Lesmo, 1998). 2We use Italian terms to label grammatical relations - Starting from this formalism, we define in section see table 1. Since subcategorization frames are language- 3 the hierarchy of subcategories. In section 4, we dependent, we prefer to avoid confusions due to different ter- sketch a parsing model that uses the hierarchical minology across languages. For example, the relation Ter- mine - see the caption of figure 4 - actually corresponds to the grammar. In section 5, we describe an application indirect object in English. However l-Objundergoes the dou- of the formalism to the classification of 101 Italian ble accusative transformation into Obj, while Termine does verbs. Section 6 concludes the paper. not. 59 grammar) and sets of subcategories, L : W --~ 2 T- {}. That is, each word can "belong" to one or mo- re subcategories; D is a set of dependency relations (as in section 2); Q is a set of subcategorization frames. Each subcate- gorization frame is a total mapping q : D -4 Rx 2 T, where R is the set of pairs of natural numbers Figure 1: Dependency tree of the sentence Gg arnici io <nl,n~> such that nl _> 0,n2 _> 0 and nl ~ n2; credevano un eroe, "The friends considered him a hero", F is a bijection between subcategories and subcatv- given the grammar G.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chapter 14: Dependency Parsing
    Speech and Language Processing. Daniel Jurafsky & James H. Martin. Copyright © 2021. All rights reserved. Draft of September 21, 2021. CHAPTER 14 Dependency Parsing The focus of the two previous chapters has been on context-free grammars and constituent-based representations. Here we present another important family of dependency grammars grammar formalisms called dependency grammars. In dependency formalisms, phrasal constituents and phrase-structure rules do not play a direct role. Instead, the syntactic structure of a sentence is described solely in terms of directed binary grammatical relations between the words, as in the following dependency parse: root dobj det nmod (14.1) nsubj nmod case I prefer the morning flight through Denver Relations among the words are illustrated above the sentence with directed, labeled typed dependency arcs from heads to dependents. We call this a typed dependency structure because the labels are drawn from a fixed inventory of grammatical relations. A root node explicitly marks the root of the tree, the head of the entire structure. Figure 14.1 shows the same dependency analysis as a tree alongside its corre- sponding phrase-structure analysis of the kind given in Chapter 12. Note the ab- sence of nodes corresponding to phrasal constituents or lexical categories in the dependency parse; the internal structure of the dependency parse consists solely of directed relations between lexical items in the sentence. These head-dependent re- lationships directly encode important information that is often buried in the more complex phrase-structure parses. For example, the arguments to the verb prefer are directly linked to it in the dependency structure, while their connection to the main verb is more distant in the phrase-structure tree.
    [Show full text]
  • Dependency Grammars and Parsers
    Dependency Grammars and Parsers Deep Processing for NLP Ling571 January 30, 2017 Roadmap Dependency Grammars Definition Motivation: Limitations of Context-Free Grammars Dependency Parsing By conversion to CFG By Graph-based models By transition-based parsing Dependency Grammar CFGs: Phrase-structure grammars Focus on modeling constituent structure Dependency grammars: Syntactic structure described in terms of Words Syntactic/Semantic relations between words Dependency Parse A dependency parse is a tree, where Nodes correspond to words in utterance Edges between nodes represent dependency relations Relations may be labeled (or not) Dependency Relations Speech and Language Processing - 1/29/17 Jurafsky and Martin 5 Dependency Parse Example They hid the letter on the shelf Why Dependency Grammar? More natural representation for many tasks Clear encapsulation of predicate-argument structure Phrase structure may obscure, e.g. wh-movement Good match for question-answering, relation extraction Who did what to whom Build on parallelism of relations between question/relation specifications and answer sentences Why Dependency Grammar? Easier handling of flexible or free word order How does CFG handle variations in word order? Adds extra phrases structure rules for alternatives Minor issue in English, explosive in other langs What about dependency grammar? No difference: link represents relation Abstracts away from surface word order Why Dependency Grammar? Natural efficiencies: CFG: Must derive full trees of many
    [Show full text]
  • Dependency Grammar and the Parsing of Chinese Sentences*
    Dependency Grammar and the Parsing of Chinese Sentences* LAI Bong Yeung Tom Department of Chinese, Translation and Linguistics City University of Hong Kong Department of Computer Science and Technology Tsinghua University, Beijing E-mail: [email protected] HUANG Changning Department of Computer Science and Technology Tsinghua University, Beijing Abstract Dependency Grammar has been used by linguists as the basis of the syntactic components of their grammar formalisms. It has also been used in natural langauge parsing. In China, attempts have been made to use this grammar formalism to parse Chinese sentences using corpus-based techniques. This paper reviews the properties of Dependency Grammar as embodied in four axioms for the well-formedness conditions for dependency structures. It is shown that allowing multiple governors as done by some followers of this formalism is unnecessary. The practice of augmenting Dependency Grammar with functional labels is discussed in the light of building functional structures when the sentence is parsed. This will also facilitate semantic interpretion. 1 Introduction Dependency Grammar (DG) is a grammatical theory proposed by the French linguist Tesniere.[1] Its formal properties were then studied by Gaifman [2] and his results were brought to the attention of the linguistic community by Hayes.[3] Robinson [4] considered the possiblity of using this grammar within a transformation-generative framework and formulated four axioms for the well-formedness of dependency structures. Hudson [5] adopted Dependency Grammar as the basis of the syntactic component of his Word Grammar, though he allowed dependency relations outlawed by Robinson's axioms. Dependency Grammar is concerned directly with individual words.
    [Show full text]
  • Dependency Grammar
    Dependency Grammar Introduc)on Christopher Manning Dependency Grammar and Dependency Structure Dependency syntax postulates that syntac)c structure consists of relaons between lexical items, normally binary asymmetric relaons (“arrows”) called dependencies submitted Bills were by on Brownback ports Senator Republican and immigration of Kansas Christopher Manning Dependency Grammar and Dependency Structure Dependency syntax postulates that syntac)c structure consists of relaons between lexical items, normally binary asymmetric relaons (“arrows”) called dependencies submitted nsubjpass auxpass prep The arrows are Bills were by commonly typed prep pobj with the name of on Brownback pobj nn appos grammacal ports Senator Republican relaons (subject, cc conj prep preposi)onal object, and immigration of apposi)on, etc.) pobj Kansas Christopher Manning Dependency Grammar and Dependency Structure Dependency syntax postulates that syntac)c structure consists of relaons between lexical items, normally binary asymmetric relaons (“arrows”) called dependencies submitted The arrow connects a nsubjpass auxpass prep head (governor, Bills were by superior, regent) with a prep pobj dependent (modifier, on inferior, subordinate) Brownback pobj nn appos ports Senator Republican Usually, dependencies cc conj prep form a tree (connected, and immigration of acyclic, single-head) pobj Kansas Christopher Manning Dependency Grammar and Dependency Structure ROOT Discussion of the outstanding issues was completed . • Some people draw the arrows one way; some the other way! • Tesnière had them point from head to dependent… • Usually add a fake ROOT so every word is a dependent of precisely 1 other node Christopher Manning Dependency Grammar/Parsing History • The idea of dependency structure goes back a long way • To Pāṇini’s grammar (c.
    [Show full text]
  • Dependency Grammar Induction Via Bitext Projection Constraints
    Dependency Grammar Induction via Bitext Projection Constraints Kuzman Ganchev and Jennifer Gillenwater and Ben Taskar Department of Computer and Information Science University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia PA, USA {kuzman,jengi,taskar}@seas.upenn.edu Abstract ing recent interest in transferring linguistic re- sources from one language to another via parallel Broad-coverage annotated treebanks nec- text. For example, several early works (Yarowsky essary to train parsers do not exist for and Ngai, 2001; Yarowsky et al., 2001; Merlo many resource-poor languages. The wide et al., 2002) demonstrate transfer of shallow pro- availability of parallel text and accurate cessing tools such as part-of-speech taggers and parsers in English has opened up the pos- noun-phrase chunkers by using word-level align- sibility of grammar induction through par- ment models (Brown et al., 1994; Och and Ney, tial transfer across bitext. We consider 2000). generative and discriminative models for Alshawi et al. (2000) and Hwa et al. (2005) dependency grammar induction that use explore transfer of deeper syntactic structure: word-level alignments and a source lan- dependency grammars. Dependency and con- guage parser (English) to constrain the stituency grammar formalisms have long coex- space of possible target trees. Unlike isted and competed in linguistics, especially be- previous approaches, our framework does yond English (Mel’cuk,ˇ 1988). Recently, depen- not require full projected parses, allowing dency parsing has gained popularity as a simpler, partial, approximate transfer through lin- computationally more efficient alternative to con- ear expectation constraints on the space stituency parsing and has spurred several super- of distributions over trees.
    [Show full text]
  • Three Dependency-And-Boundary Models for Grammar Induction
    Three Dependency-and-Boundary Models for Grammar Induction Valentin I. Spitkovsky Hiyan Alshawi Stanford University and Google Inc. Google Inc., Mountain View, CA, 94043 [email protected] [email protected] Daniel Jurafsky Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 94305 [email protected] Abstract DT NN VBZ IN DT NN [The check] is in [the mail]. We present a new family of models for unsu- | {z } | {z } pervised parsing, Dependency and Boundary Subject Object models, that use cues at constituent bound- Figure 1: A partial analysis of our running example. aries to inform head-outward dependency tree generation. We build on three intuitions that Consider the example in Figure 1. Because the are explicit in phrase-structure grammars but determiner (DT) appears at the left edge of the sen- only implicit in standard dependency formu- tence, it should be possible to learn that determiners lations: (i) Distributions of words that oc- may generally be present at left edges of phrases. cur at sentence boundaries — such as English This information could then be used to correctly determiners — resemble constituent edges. parse the sentence-internal determiner in the mail. (ii) Punctuation at sentence boundaries fur- ther helps distinguish full sentences from Similarly, the fact that the noun head (NN) of the ob- fragments like headlines and titles, allow- ject the mail appears at the right edge of the sentence ing us to model grammatical differences be- could help identify the noun check as the right edge tween complete and incomplete sentences. of the subject NP. As with jigsaw puzzles, working (iii) Sentence-internal punctuation boundaries inwards from boundaries helps determine sentence- help with longer-distance dependencies, since internal structures of both noun phrases, neither of punctuation correlates with constituent edges.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards an Implelnentable Dependency Grammar
    Towards an implementable dependency grammar Timo JKrvinen and Pasi Tapanainen Research Unit for Multilingual Language Technology P.O. Box 4, FIN-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland Abstract such as a context-free phrase structure gram- mar. This leads us to a situation where the Syntactic models should be descriptively ade- parsing problem is extremely hard in the gen- I quate and parsable. A syntactic description is eral, theoretical case, but fortunately parsable autonomous in the sense that it has certain ex- in practise. Our result shows that, while in gen- plicit formal properties. Such a description re- eral we have an NP-hard parsing problem, there i lates to the semantic interpretation of the sen- is a specific solution for the given grammar that tences, and to the surface text. As the formal- can be run quickly. Currently, the speed of the ism is implemented in a broad-coverage syntac- parsing system I is several hundred words per tic parser, we concentrate on issues that must I second. be resolved by any practical system that uses In short, the grammar should be empirically such models. The correspondence between the motivated. We have all the reason to believe structure and linear order is discussed. ! that if a linguistic analysis rests on a solid de- scriptive basis, analysis tools based on the the- 1 Introduction ory would be more useful for practical purposes. i The aim of this paper is to define a dependency We are studying the possibilities of using com- grammar framework which is both linguistically putational implementation as a developing and motivated and computationally parsable.
    [Show full text]
  • Dependency Parsing
    Dependency Parsing Sandra Kubler¨ LSA Summer Institute 2017 Dependency Parsing 1(16) Dependency Syntax ◮ The basic idea: ◮ Syntactic structure consists of lexical items, linked by binary asymmetric relations called dependencies. ◮ In the words of Lucien Tesni`ere: ◮ La phrase est un ensemble organis´e dont les ´el´ements constituants sont les mots. [1.2] Tout mot qui fait partie d’une phrase cesse par lui-mˆeme d’ˆetre isol´ecomme dans le dictionnaire. Entre lui et ses voisins, l’esprit aper¸coit des connexions, dont l’ensemble forme la charpente de la phrase. [1.3] Les connexions structurales ´etablissent entre les mots des rapports de d´ependance. Chaque connexion unit en principe un terme sup´erieur `aun terme inf´erieur. [2.1] Le terme sup´erieur re¸coit le nom de r´egissant. Le terme inf´erieur re¸coit le nom de subordonn´e. Ainsi dans la phrase Alfred parle [. ], parle est le r´egissant et Alfred le subordonn´e. [2.2] Dependency Parsing 2(16) Dependency Syntax ◮ The basic idea: ◮ Syntactic structure consists of lexical items, linked by binary asymmetric relations called dependencies. ◮ In the words of Lucien Tesni`ere: ◮ The sentence is an organized whole, the constituent elements of which are words. [1.2] Every word that belongs to a sentence ceases by itself to be isolated as in the dictionary. Between the word and its neighbors, the mind perceives connections, the totality of which forms the structure of the sentence. [1.3] The structural connections establish dependency relations between the words. Each connection in principle unites a superior term and an inferior term.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Dependency Grammar
    Christopher Manning Dependency Grammar and Dependency Structure Dependency Dependency syntax postulates that syntac)c structure consists of Grammar relaons between lexical items, normally binary asymmetric relaons (“arrows”) called dependencies submitted Bills were by Introduc)on on Brownback ports Senator Republican and immigration of Kansas Christopher Manning Christopher Manning Dependency Grammar and Dependency Grammar and Dependency Structure Dependency Structure Dependency syntax postulates that syntac)c structure consists of Dependency syntax postulates that syntac)c structure consists of relaons between lexical items, normally binary asymmetric relaons between lexical items, normally binary asymmetric relaons (“arrows”) called dependencies relaons (“arrows”) called dependencies submitted submitted nsubjpass auxpass prep The arrow connects a nsubjpass auxpass prep head (governor, The arrows are Bills were by Bills were by prep pobj superior, regent) with a prep pobj commonly typed dependent (modifier, on on with the name of Brownback inferior, subordinate) Brownback pobj nn appos pobj nn appos grammacal ports Senator Republican ports Senator Republican relaons (subject, cc conj prep Usually, dependencies cc conj prep preposi)onal object, and immigration of form a tree (connected, and immigration of apposi)on, etc.) pobj acyclic, single-head) pobj Kansas Kansas Christopher Manning Christopher Manning Dependency Grammar and Dependency Structure Dependency Grammar/Parsing History • The idea of dependency structure goes back a long way • To Pāṇini’s grammar (c. 5th century BCE) • Basic approach of 1st millennium Arabic grammarians ROOT Discussion of the outstanding issues was completed . • Cons)tuency is a new-fangled inven)on • 20th century inven)on (R.S. Wells, 1947) • Modern dependency work o^en linked to work of L.
    [Show full text]
  • Dependency Grammars
    Introduction Phrase Structures Dependency Grammars Dependency Grammars Syntactic Theory Winter Semester 2009/2010 Antske Fokkens Department of Computational Linguistics Saarland University 27 October 2009 Antske Fokkens Syntax — Dependency Grammar 1/42 Introduction Phrase Structures Dependency Grammars Outline 1 Introduction 2 Phrase Structures 3 Dependency Grammars Introduction Dependency relations Properties of Dependencies Antske Fokkens Syntax — Dependency Grammar 2/42 Introduction Phrase Structures Dependency Grammars Outline 1 Introduction 2 Phrase Structures 3 Dependency Grammars Introduction Dependency relations Properties of Dependencies Antske Fokkens Syntax — Dependency Grammar 3/42 Introduction Phrase Structures Dependency Grammars Overview of this lecture In the next three lectures, we will discuss Dependency Grammars: Dependencies and Phrase Structures: basic objectives of syntactic analysis properties of phrase structure grammars Basic definitions of Dependencies What are dependencies? Example analyses Differences and Relations between Dependencies and Phrase Structures Syntactic Theory/CL and Dependencies Meaning to Text Theory Prague Dependency Treebank Antske Fokkens Syntax — Dependency Grammar 4/42 Introduction Phrase Structures Dependency Grammars Syntactic Analysis Syntax investigates the structure of expressions Some reasons for performing syntactic analysis: To understand something about how language works To analyze language: how can we relate speech/written text to meaning? Antske Fokkens Syntax — Dependency Grammar
    [Show full text]
  • Enhancing Freeling Rule-Based Dependency Grammars with Subcategorization Frames
    Enhancing FreeLing Rule-Based Dependency Grammars with Subcategorization Frames Marina Lloberes Irene Castellon´ Llu´ıs Padro´ U. de Barcelona U. de Barcelona U. Politecnica` de Catalunya Barcelona, Spain Barcelona, Spain Barcelona, Spain [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract explicitly relate the improvements in parser per- formance to the addition of subcategorization. Despite the recent advances in parsing, This paper analyses in detail how subcatego- significant efforts are needed to improve rization frames acquired from an annotated cor- the current parsers performance, such as pus and distributed among fine-grained classes in- the enhancement of the argument/adjunct crease accuracy in rule-based dependency gram- recognition. There is evidence that verb mars. subcategorization frames can contribute to The framework used is that of the FreeLing parser accuracy, but a number of issues re- Dependency Grammars (FDGs) for Spanish and main open. The main aim of this paper is Catalan, using enriched lexical-syntactic informa- to show how subcategorization frames ac- tion about the argument structure of the verb. quired from a syntactically annotated cor- FreeLing (Padro´ and Stanilovsky, 2012) is an pus and organized into fine-grained classes open-source library of multilingual Natural Lan- can improve the performance of two rule- guage Processing (NLP) tools that provide linguis- based dependency grammars. tic analysis for written texts. The FDGs are the core of the FreeLing dependency parser, the Txala 1 Introduction Parser (Atserias et al., 2005). Statistical parsers and rule-based parsers have ad- The remainder of this paper is organized as fol- vanced over recent years.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Dependency Grammar Dependency Grammar Overview
    Introduction Dependency Grammar Introduction to Dependency Grammar ◮ Not a coherent grammatical framework: wide range of different kinds of DG ◮ just as there are wide ranges of ”generative syntax” HS Current Approaches to Dependency Parsing ◮ Different core ideas than phrase structure grammar SS 2010 ◮ We will base a lot of our discussion on Mel’ˇcuk (1988) Dependency grammar is important for those interested in CL: ◮ Increasing interest in dependency-based approaches to Thanks to Markus Dickinson, Joakim Nivre and Sandra Kubler.¨ syntactic parsing in recent years (e.g., CoNLL-X shared task, 2006) Introduction to Dependency Grammar 1(29) Introduction to Dependency Grammar 2(29) Introduction Introduction Overview: constituency Overview: dependency Syntactic structure consists of lexical items, linked by binary asymmetric relations called dependencies. (1) Small birds sing loud songs obj What you might be more used to seeing: nmod sbj nmod S Small birds sing loud songs NP VP sing Small birds sing NP sbj obj birds songs loud songs nmod nmod small loud Introduction to Dependency Grammar 3(29) Introduction to Dependency Grammar 4(29) Introduction Introduction Constituency vs. Relations Simple relation example ◮ DG is based on relationships between words, i.e., dependency relations For the sentence John loves Mary, we have the relations: ◮ A B means A governs B or B depends on A ... → ◮ Dependency relations can refer to syntactic properties, ◮ loves subj John semantic properties, or a combination of the two → ◮ loves Mary Some variants of DG separate syntactic and semantic relations obj → → by representing different layers of dependencies Both John and Mary depend on loves, which makes loves the head, ◮ These relations are generally things like subject, or root, of the sentence (i.e., there is no word that governs loves) object/complement, (pre-/post-)adjunct, etc.
    [Show full text]