is one of the most recognizablecharacters in 20th century cinema. HAL is an artiﬁcial agent capable of such advancedlanguage behavior as speaking and understanding English, and at a crucial moment inthe plot, even reading lips. It is now clear that HAL’s creator, Arthur C. Clarke, wasa little optimistic in predicting when an artiﬁcial agent such as HAL would be avail-able. But just how far off was he? What would it take to create at least the language-relatedpartsofHAL?WecallprogramslikeHALthatconversewithhumansinnatural

/pdf/speech-and-language-processing-1xjlmt8snu.pdf

Speech and Language Processing

Ambiguity resolution is a central problem in language comprehension. Lexical and syntactic ambiguities are standardly assumed to involve different types of knowledge representations and be resolved by different mechanisms. An alternative account is provided in which both types of ambiguity derive from aspects of lexical representation and are resolved by the same processing mechanisms. Reinterpreting syntactic ambiguity resolution as a form of lexical ambiguity resolution obviates the need for special parsing principles to account for syntactic interpretation preferences, reconciles a number of apparently conflicting results concerning the roles of lexical and contextual information in sentence processing, explains differences among ambiguities in terms of ease of resolution, and provides a more unified account of language comprehension than was previously available.

The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution

In searching for universal constraints on the class of natural languages, linguists have investigated a number of formal properties, including that of context-freeness. Soon after Chomsky’s categorization of languages into his well-known hierarchy (Chomsky, 1963), the common conception of the context-free class of languages as a tool for describing natural languages was that it was too restrictive a class — interpreted strongly (as a way of characterizing structure sets) and even weakly (as a way of characterizing string sets).

/pdf/evidence-against-the-context-freeness-of-natural-language-zu9h5cn619.pdf

Evidence Against the Context-Freeness of Natural Language

In this paper, we have proposed novel methods for robust parsing that integrate the flexibility of linguistically motivated lexical descriptions with the robustness of statistical techniques. Our thesis is that the computation of linguistic structure can be localized if lexical items are associated with rich descriptions (supertags) that impose complex constraints in a local context. The supertags are designed such that only those elements on which the lexical item imposes constraints appear within a given supertag. Further, each lexical item is associated with as many supertags as the number of different syntactic contexts in which the lexical item can appear. This makes the number of different descriptions for each lexical item much larger than when the descriptions are less complex, thus increasing the local ambiguity for a parser. But this local ambiguity can be resolved by using statistical distributions of supertag co-occurrences collected from a corpus of parses. We have explored these ideas in the context of the Lexicalized Tree-Adjoining Grammar (LTAG) framework. The supertags in LTAG combine both phrase structure information and dependency information in a single representation. Supertag disambiguation results in a representation that is effectively a parse (an almost parse), and the parser need "only" combine the individual supertags. This method of parsing can also be used to parse sentence fragments such as in spoken utterances where the disambiguated supertag sequence may not combine into a single structure.

Supertagging: an approach to almost parsing

Dependency-based methods for syntactic parsing have become increasingly popular in natural language processing in recent years. This book gives a thorough introduction to the methods that are most widely used today. After an introduction to dependency grammar and dependency parsing, followed by a formal characterization of the dependency parsing problem, the book surveys the three major classes of parsing models that are in current use: transition-based, graph-based, and grammar-based models. It continues with a chapter on evaluation and one on the comparison of different methods, and it closes with a few words on current trends and future prospects of dependency parsing. The book presupposes a knowledge of basic concepts in linguistics and computer science, as well as some knowledge of parsing methods for constituency-based representations. Table of Contents: Introduction / Dependency Parsing / Transition-Based Parsing / Graph-Based Parsing / Grammar-Based Parsing / Evaluation / Comparison / Final Thoughts

Dependency Parsing

Since the late 1970s there has been vigorous activity in constructing highly constrained grammatical systems by eliminating the transformational component either totally or partially. There is increasing recognition of the fact that the entire range of dependencies that transformational grammars in their various incarnations have tried to account for can be captured satisfactorily by classes of rules that are nontransformational and at the same time highly constrained in terms of the classes of grammars and languages they define. Two types of dependencies are especially important: subcategorization and filler-gap dependencies. Moreover, these dependencies can be unbounded. One of the motivations for transformations was to account for unbounded dependencies. The so-called nontransformational grammars account for the unbounded dependencies in different ways. In a tree adjoining grammar (TAG) unboundedness is achieved by factoring the dependencies and recursion in a novel and linguistically interesting manner. All dependencies are defined on a finite set of basic structures (trees), which are bounded. Unboundedness is then a corollary of a particular composition operation called adjoining . There are thus no unbounded dependencies in a sense. This factoring of recursion and dependencies is in contrast to transformational grammars (TG), where recursion is defined in the base and the transformations essentially carry out the checking of the dependencies. The phrase linking grammars (PLGs) (Peters and Ritchie, 1982) and the lexical functional grammars (LFGs) (Kaplan and Bresnan, 1983) share this aspect of TGs; that is, recursion builds up a set a structures, some of which are then filtered out by transformations in a TG, by the constraints on linking in a PLG, and by the constraints introduced via the functional structures in an LFG.

Aravind K. Joshi

Papers

Natural language parsing: Tree adjoining grammars: How much context-sensitivity is required to provide reasonable structural descriptions?