DOCSLIB.ORG

A Linguistic Comparison of Constituency, Dependency and Link Grammar

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Linguistic Comparison of Constituency, Dependency and Link Grammar Institut für Informatik Sommer 1998 der Universität Zürich - Summer 1998 Lizentiatsarbeit - Diploma Paper Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Michael Hess ExtrAns Research Report: Dependency vs. Constituency A Linguistic Comparison of Constituency, Dependency and Link Grammar Gerold Schneider Büro 27-K-46 Institut für Informatik Lerchenhalde 43 Winterthurerstr. 190 CH - 8046 Zürich CH - 8057 Zürich +41 1 / 371 85 06 +41 1 / 635 67 24 [email protected] Version 1.1 Juli – July 1998 Notes on the Present Version 1.1 The revisions between version 1.0 and 1.1 of this paper were based on the supervisor’s comments. They consist in the correction of about two dozen small errors, some printing mistakes, some stylistic improvements and the addition of some explanatory footnotes. No fundamental changes were made. It has to be pointed out, however, that chapter 6 is not well enough researched and contains a fundamental mistake, which would necessitate a major revision. The supervisor, however, preferred to accept the paper without such a revision. The fundamental mistake I have made is that the topic-focus articulation (TFA) dependency structures presented there have nothing to do with a logical representation and are not suitable as an intermediate step towards them, either. TFA dependency structures should rather be treated and therefore also presented and defended as a discourse representation structure (DRS). Please bear this in mind when reading chapter 6 and section 2.3.2.2, which introduces the same mistake. Comments and criticisms are always welcome, although I will no longer be able to integrate any of them into this paper. I hope, nevertheless, that it will be possible for me to come back to some of the topics dealt with at a later stage. I hope that you will enjoy reading this paper Gerold Schneider *HUROG6FKQHLGHU &RPSDULVRQRI&RQVWLWXHQF\'HSHQGHQF\DQG/LQN*UDPPDUV 27DEOHRIFRQWHQWV 2YHUYLHZ 1. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................1 1.1 Link Grammar and Its Linguistic Background ..........................................................................1 1.2 Relations and Questions............................................................................................................2 1.3 The Scientific Status of Linguistics............................................................................................3 1.4 Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................6 2. CONSTITUENCY VERSUS DEPENDENCY...........................................................................................7 2.1 Tesnière.....................................................................................................................................7 2.2 Advocates of Dependency after Tesnière.................................................................................18 2.3 Basic Concepts of Dependency in GB and PSG terms ............................................................37 2.4 Equivalence of Dependency and Constituency ........................................................................76 2.5 Parsing Efficiency ...................................................................................................................88 2.6 Conclusions: Remaining Differences ......................................................................................89 3. TOY DEPENDENCY PARSERS.........................................................................................................91 3.1 A Toy Parser for German in Perl............................................................................................91 3.2 Dependency Unification Grammar (DUG) .............................................................................97 3.3 Dependency Existence Prolog Parser (DEPP) .......................................................................98 3.4 The Real Challenge: Constraining Non-Projectivity.............................................................119 3.5 Outlook..................................................................................................................................122 3.6 Conclusions...........................................................................................................................123 4. LINK GRAMMAR VS. DEPENDENCY GRAMMARS ........................................................................125 4.1 Differences between Link Grammar and Classical Dependency...........................................125 4.2 Differences between Link Grammar and Dependency-Related Grammars...........................130 4.3 Link Grammar’s Post-Processing .........................................................................................139 5. A CLOSER LOOK AT LINK GRAMMAR LINK TYPES.....................................................................141 5.1 Comparing Link to A Standard English Grammar ................................................................141 5.2 Different Kinds Of Link Types...............................................................................................167 5.3 Semantic Dependencies.........................................................................................................167 5.4 Converting Linkages to Constituency....................................................................................168 6. SYNTACTIC VS. SEMANTIC: THE SEMANTIC INTERFACE ............................................................175 6.1 Truth Theory..........................................................................................................................175 6.2 Topic-Focus Articulation (TFA)............................................................................................177 6.3 Semantic Heads.....................................................................................................................183 6.4 Functionalism and Semantics in Link Grammar ...................................................................186 7. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................187 8. BIBLIOGRAPHY ...........................................................................................................................191 The detailed table of contents follows on the next page: D *HUROG6FKQHLGHU &RPSDULVRQRI&RQVWLWXHQF\'HSHQGHQF\DQG/LQN*UDPPDUV 'HWDLOHG&RQWHQWV 1. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................1 1.1 Link Grammar and Its Linguistic Background ..........................................................................1 1.2 Relations and Questions............................................................................................................2 1.3 The Scientific Status of Linguistics............................................................................................3 1.3.1 To Speak or to Silence, That Is the Question ..................................................................................3 1.3.2 There Is no Linguistic Structure......................................................................................................4 1.3.3 Arbitrary Grammatical Decisions ...................................................................................................5 1.4 Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................6 2. CONSTITUENCY VERSUS DEPENDENCY...........................................................................................7 2.1 Tesnière.....................................................................................................................................7 2.1.1 Connection......................................................................................................................................8 2.1.1.1 Syntax and Semantics................................................................................................................9 2.1.1.2 Dependency .............................................................................................................................11 2.1.2 Complements (actants) and adjuncts (circonstants)......................................................................12 2.1.3 Junction.........................................................................................................................................12 2.1.4 Translation....................................................................................................................................13 2.1.4.1 A Functional Concept of Word Classes...................................................................................14 2.1.4.2 Open Valencies........................................................................................................................16 2.1.4.3 Parsing Efficiency....................................................................................................................16 2.1.5 Conclusions...................................................................................................................................17 2.2 Advocates of Dependency after Tesnière.................................................................................18 2.2.1 Hays and Gaifman.........................................................................................................................18
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Protein Interaction Extraction Systemusing a Link Grammar Parser from Biomedical Abstracts
    World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology International Journal of Biomedical and Biological Engineering Vol:1, No:5, 2007 PIELG: A Protein Interaction Extraction System using a Link Grammar Parser from Biomedical Abstracts Rania A. Abul Seoud, Nahed H. Solouma, Abou-Baker M. Youssef, and Yasser M. Kadah, Senior Member, IEEE failure. Applications that repair or replace portions of or Abstract—Due to the ever growing amount of publications about whole living tissues (e.g., bone, dentine, or bladder) using protein-protein interactions, information extraction from text is living cells is named Tissue Engineering (TE). For example, increasingly recognized as one of crucial technologies in dentine formation is the process of regenerating dental tissues bioinformatics. This paper presents a Protein Interaction Extraction by tissue engineering principles and technology. Dentine System using a Link Grammar Parser from biomedical abstracts formation is governed by biological mediators or growth (PIELG). PIELG uses linkage given by the Link Grammar Parser to start a case based analysis of contents of various syntactic roles as factors (protein) and interactions amongst different proteins. well as their linguistically significant and meaningful combinations. Dentine formation needs the support of continuous updated The system uses phrasal-prepositional verbs patterns to overcome information about protein-protein interactions. preposition combinations problems. The recall and precision are Researches in the last decade have resulted in the 74.4% and 62.65%, respectively. Experimental evaluations with two production of a large amount of information about protein other state-of-the-art extraction systems indicate that PIELG system functions involved in dentine formation process. That achieves better performance.
    [Show full text]
  • Implementing a Portable Clinical NLP System with a Common Data Model: a Lisp Perspective
    Implementing a portable clinical NLP system with a common data model: a Lisp perspective The MIT Faculty has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters. Citation Luo, Yuan, and Peter Szolovits, "Implementing a portable clinical NLP system with a common data model: a Lisp perspective." Proceedings, 2018 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM 2018), December 3-6, 2018, Madrid, Spain (Piscataway, N.J.: IEEE, 2018): doi 10.1109/BIBM.2018.8621521 ©2018 Author(s) As Published 10.1109/BIBM.2018.8621521 Publisher Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Version Original manuscript Citable link https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/124439 Terms of Use Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike Detailed Terms http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ Implementing a Portable Clinical NLP System with a Common Data Model – a Lisp Perspective Yuan Luo* Peter Szolovits* Dept. of Preventive Medicine CSAIL Northwestern University MIT Chicago, USA Cambridge, USA [email protected] [email protected] Abstract— This paper presents a Lisp architecture for a annotations, often in idiosyncratic representations. This makes portable NLP system, termed LAPNLP, for processing clinical it quite difficult to chain together sequences of operations. Alt- notes. LAPNLP integrates multiple standard, customized and hough several recent projects have achieved reasonable in-house developed NLP tools. Our system facilitates portability success in analyzing certain types of clinical narratives [3-6], across different institutions and data systems by incorporating an enriched Common Data Model (CDM) to standardize neces- efforts towards a common data model (CDM) to ensure port- sary data elements.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Development of a Persian Syntactic Dependency Treebank
    Development of a Persian Syntactic Dependency Treebank Mohammad Sadegh Rasooli Manouchehr Kouhestani Amirsaeid Moloodi Department of Computer Science Department of Linguistics Department of Linguistics Columbia University Tarbiat Modares University University of Tehran New York, NY Tehran, Iran Tehran, Iran [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract tions in tasks such as machine translation. Depen- dency treebanks are collections of sentences with This paper describes the annotation process their corresponding dependency trees. In the last and linguistic properties of the Persian syn- decade, many dependency treebanks have been de- tactic dependency treebank. The treebank veloped for a large number of languages. There are consists of approximately 30,000 sentences at least 29 languages for which at least one depen- annotated with syntactic roles in addition to morpho-syntactic features. One of the unique dency treebank is available (Zeman et al., 2012). features of this treebank is that there are al- Dependency trees are much more similar to the hu- most 4800 distinct verb lemmas in its sen- man understanding of language and can easily rep- tences making it a valuable resource for ed- resent the free word-order nature of syntactic roles ucational goals. The treebank is constructed in sentences (Kubler¨ et al., 2009). with a bootstrapping approach by means of available tagging and parsing tools and man- Persian is a language with about 110 million ually correcting the annotations. The data is speakers all over the world (Windfuhr, 2009), yet in splitted into standard train, development and terms of the availability of teaching materials and test set in the CoNLL dependency format and annotated data for text processing, it is undoubt- is freely available to researchers.
    [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]
  • Downloads." the Open Information Security Foundation
    Performance Testing Suricata The Effect of Configuration Variables On Offline Suricata Performance A Project Completed for CS 6266 Under Jonathon T. Giffin, Assistant Professor, Georgia Institute of Technology by Winston H Messer Project Advisor: Matt Jonkman, President, Open Information Security Foundation December 2011 Messer ii Abstract The Suricata IDS/IPS engine, a viable alternative to Snort, has a multitude of potential configurations. A simplified automated testing system was devised for the purpose of performance testing Suricata in an offline environment. Of the available configuration variables, seventeen were analyzed independently by testing in fifty-six configurations. Of these, three variables were found to have a statistically significant effect on performance: Detect Engine Profile, Multi Pattern Algorithm, and CPU affinity. Acknowledgements In writing the final report on this endeavor, I would like to start by thanking four people who made this project possible: Matt Jonkman, President, Open Information Security Foundation: For allowing me the opportunity to carry out this project under his supervision. Victor Julien, Lead Programmer, Open Information Security Foundation and Anne-Fleur Koolstra, Documentation Specialist, Open Information Security Foundation: For their willingness to share their wisdom and experience of Suricata via email for the past four months. John M. Weathersby, Jr., Executive Director, Open Source Software Institute: For allowing me the use of Institute equipment for the creation of a suitable testing
    [Show full text]
  • Lexicalization and Grammar Development
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons IRCS Technical Reports Series Institute for Research in Cognitive Science April 1995 Lexicalization and Grammar Development B. Srinivas University of Pennsylvania Dania Egedi University of Pennsylvania Christine D. Doran University of Pennsylvania Tilman Becker University of Pennsylvania Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/ircs_reports Srinivas, B.; Egedi, Dania; Doran, Christine D.; and Becker, Tilman, "Lexicalization and Grammar Development" (1995). IRCS Technical Reports Series. 138. https://repository.upenn.edu/ircs_reports/138 University of Pennsylvania Institute for Research in Cognitive Science Technical Report No. IRCS-95-12. This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/ircs_reports/138 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Lexicalization and Grammar Development Abstract In this paper we present a fully lexicalized grammar formalism as a particularly attractive framework for the specification of natural language grammars. We discuss in detail Feature-based, Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammars (FB-LTAGs), a representative of the class of lexicalized grammars. We illustrate the advantages of lexicalized grammars in various contexts of natural language processing, ranging from wide-coverage grammar development to parsing and machine translation. We also present a method for compact and efficientepr r esentation of lexicalized trees. In diesem Beitrag präsentieren wir einen völlig lexikalisierten Grammatikformalismus als eine besonders geeignete Basis für die Spezifikation onv Grammatiken für natürliche Sprachen. Wir stellen feature- basierte, lexikalisierte Tree Adjoining Grammars (FB-LTAGs) vor, ein Vertreter der Klasse der lexikalisierten Grammatiken. Wir führen die Vorteile von lexikalisierten Grammatiken in verschiedenen Bereichen der maschinellen Sprachverarbeitung aus; von der Entwicklung von Grammatiken für weite Sprachbereiche über Parsing bis zu maschineller Übersetzung.
    [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]
  • Fundamental Methodological Issues of Syntactic Pattern Recognition
    Pattern Anal Applic (2014) 17:465–480 DOI 10.1007/s10044-013-0322-1 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Fundamental methodological issues of syntactic pattern recognition Mariusz Flasin´ski • Janusz Jurek Received: 22 February 2012 / Accepted: 30 January 2013 / Published online: 9 March 2013 Ó The Author(s) 2013. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract Fundamental open problems, which are fron- Syntactic pattern recognition prevails over ‘‘standard’’ tiers of syntactic pattern recognition are discussed in the pattern recognition approaches (probabilistic, discriminant paper. Methodological considerations on crucial issues in function-based, NN, etc.) when patterns considered can be areas of string and graph grammar-based syntactic methods characterized better with structural features than vectors of are made. As a result, recommendations concerning an features. What is more, using this approach not only can we enhancement of context-free grammars as well as con- make a classification (in a sense of ascribing a pattern to a structing parsable and inducible classes of graph grammars pre-defined category), but also a (structural) interpretation are formulated. of an unknown pattern. Therefore, for structurally-oriented recognition problems such as: character recognition, speech Keyword Syntactic pattern recognition Á recognition, scene analysis, chemical and biological struc- Formal language Á Graph grammar tures analysis, texture analysis, fingerprint recognition, geophysics, a syntactic approach has been applied suc- cessfully since its beginning in the early 1960s for the next 1 Introduction two decades. A rapid development of syntactic methods has slowed down since 1990s and the experts in this area (see Representing a pattern as a structure of the form of string, e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 5 Mildly Context-Sensitive Languages
    Lecture 5 Mildly Context-Sensitive Languages Last modified 2016/07/08 Multiple context-free grammars In the previous lecture, we proved the equivalence between TAG and LIG. In fact, there is yet another grammar formalism, namely the head grammar, that is equivalent to these two formalisms. A head grammar is a special kind of multiple context-free grammar (MCFG), so we introduce the latter formalism first. The MCFG is a natural generalization of the “bottom-up” view of the CFG. The standard, “top-down” view of the CFG takes a rule A X ::: X ! 1 n as a permission to rewrite A into X1 ::: Xn. In contrast, the bottom-up view of the CFG interprets the same rule not as a rewriting instruction, but as an implication, which says: A ∗ x ::: x if X ∗ x X ∗ x : ) 1 n 1 ) 1 ^ · · · ^ n ) n In fact, to define the language L(G) = w Σ S w of a CFG G, there is no f 2 ∗ j )∗ g need to define the derivation relation which holds between strings of terminals )∗ and nonterminals. All you need is an inductive definition of the subrelation of this relation that holds between single nonterminals and strings of terminals: ∗ (N Σ ∗): ) \ × To express that nonterminal A and terminal string x stand in this relation (i.e., A x), we may write A(x), treating nonterminal A as a unary predicate on )∗ 5–1 terminal strings. Then the bottom-up interpretation of the CFG rule can be written in the form of a Horn clause: A(x ::: x ) X (x );:::; X (x ): 1 n 1 1 n n A context-free grammar now becomes a Horn clause program consisting of rules of the above form.
    [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]