Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Parsing Techniques

  • Chapter
Book cover An Introduction to Language Processing with Perl and Prolog

Part of the book series: Cognitive Technologies ((COGTECH))

  • 2241 Accesses

Abstract

In the previous chapters, we used Prolog’s built-in search mechanism and the DCG notation to parse sentences and constituents. This search mechanism has drawbacks however. To name some of them: its depth-first strategy does not handle left-recursive rules well and backtracking is sometimes inefficient. In addition, if DCGs are appropriate to describe constituents, we haven’t seen means to parse dependencies until now.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

11.8 Further Reading

  • Aho, A. V., Sethi, R., and Ullman, J. D. (1986). Compilers: Principles, Techniques, and Tools. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, J. F. (1994). Natural Language Understanding. Benjamin/Cummings, Redwood City, California, second edition.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bikel, D. M. (2004). Intricacies of Collins’ parsing model. Computational Linguistics, 30(4):479–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charniak, E. (1993). Statistical Language Learning. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charniak, E. (2000). A maximum-entropy-inspired parser. In Proceedings of the First Meeting of the North American Chapter of the ACL, pages 132–139, Seattle.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, M. J. (1999). Head-Driven Statistical Models for Natural Language Parsing. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Constant, P. (1991). Analyse syntaxique par couches. Thèse de doctorat, École Nationale Supérieure des Télécommunications, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Covington, M. (1990). Parsing discontinuous constituents in dependency grammar. Computational Linguistics, 16(4):234–236.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Covington, M. (1994). Natural Language Processing for Prolog Programmers. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Frühwirth, T. (1998). Theory and practice of constraint handling rules. Journal of Logic Programming, 37(1–3):95–138.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Gal, A., Lapalme, G., and Saint-Dizier, P. (1989). Prolog pour l’analyse automatique du langage naturel. Eyrolles, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gazdar, G. and Mellish, C. (1989). Natural Language Processing in Prolog: An Introduction to Computational Linguistics. Addison-Wesley, Wokingham.

    Google Scholar 

  • El Guedj, P.-O. (1996). Analyse syntaxique par charts combinant règles de dépendance et règles syntagmatiques. PhD thesis, Université de Caen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hellwig, P. (1980). PLAIN — a program system for dependency analysis and for simulating natural language inference. In Bolc, L., editor, Representation and Processing of Natural Language, pages 271–376. Hanser, München.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hellwig, P. (1986). Dependency unification grammar (DUG). In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 86), pages 195–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hindle, D. and Rooth, M. (1993). Structural ambiguity and lexical relations. Computational Linguistics, 19(1):103–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jurafsky, D. and Martin, J. H. (2000). Speech and Language Processing, An Introduction to Natural Language Processing, Computational Linguistics, and Speech Recognition. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manning, C. D. and Schütze, H. (1999). Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Pereira, F. C. N. and Shieber, S. M. (1987). Prolog and Natural-Language Analysis, volume 10 of CSLI Lecture Notes. Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tapanainen, P. and Järvinen, T. (1997). A non-projective dependency parser. In Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing (ANLP’97), pages 64–71, Washington, D.C. ACL.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vergne, J. (1998). Entre arbre de dépendance et ordre linéaire, les deux processus de transformation: linéarisation, puis reconstruction de l’arbre. Cahiers de grammaire, 23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zelle, J. M. and Mooney, R. J. (1997). An inductive logic programming method for corpus-based parser construction. Technical note, University of Texas at Austin. http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/ml/publication/ilp.html. Cited 28 October 2005.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

(2006). Parsing Techniques. In: An Introduction to Language Processing with Perl and Prolog. Cognitive Technologies. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-34336-9_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-34336-9_11

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-25031-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-34336-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation