Advertisement

Machine Translation

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 293–319 | Cite as

Parsing Turkish using the lexical functional grammar formalism

  • Zealal Güngördü
  • Kemal Oflazer
Article

Abstract

This paper describes our work on parsing Turkish using thelexical-functional grammar formalism [11]. This work represents the first effort for wide-coverage syntactic parsing of Turkish. Our implementation is based on Tomita's parser developed at Carnegie Mellon University Center for Machine Translation. The grammar covers a substantial subset of Turkish including structurally simple and complex sentences, and deals with a reasonable amount of word order freeness. The complex agglutinative morphology of Turkish lexical structures is handled using a separate two-level morphological analyzer, which has been incorporated into the syntactic parser. After a discussion of the key relevant issues regarding Turkish grammar, we discuss aspects of our system and present results from our implementation. Our initial results suggest that our system can parse about 82% of the sentences directly and almost all the remaining with very minor pre-editing.

Key words

Parsing Natural Language Grammar Development Turkish Lexical Functional Grammar 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Evan L. Antworth.PC-KIMMO: A Two-level Processor for Morphological Analysis. Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1990.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Joan Bresnan, editor.The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. MIT Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    David Brill.Loom User's Guide. University of Southern California-Information Sciences Institute, 1992.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Riza Şimşek.Örneklerle Türkçe Sözdizimi (Turkish Syntax with Examples). Kuzey Matbaacilik, 1987.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mürvet Enç. The semantics of specificity.Linguistic Inquiry, 22(1):1–25, Winter 1991.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eser E. Erguvanli.The Function of Word Order in Turkish Grammar. PhD thesis, Department of Linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles, 1979.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eser E. Erguvanli. The role of semantic features in Turkish word order.Folia Linguistica, XXI:215–229, 1987.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zelal Güngördü. A lexical-functional grammar for Turkish. Master's thesis. Department of Computer Engineering and Information Sciences, Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey, July 1993.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zelal Güngördü and Kemal Oflazer. Parsing Turkish using the Lexical-Functional Grammar formalism. InProceedings of COLING-94, the 15th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, volume 1, pages 494–500, Kyoto, Japan, 1994.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ilker Kuruöz. Tagging and morphological disambiguation of Turkish text. Master's thesis, Department of Computer Engineering and Information Sciences, Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey, July 1994.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ronald Kaplan and Joan Bresnan.The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, chapter Lexical-Functional Grammar: A Formal System for Grammatical Representation, pages 173–281. MIT Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ronald Kaplan and Annie Zaenen.Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure, chapter Long-distance Dependencies, Consituent Structure, and Functional Uncertainty. IL: Chicago University Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lauri Karttunen and Kenneth R. Beesley. Two-level rule compiler. Technical Report, XEROX Palo Alto Research Center, 1992.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tracy H. King.Configuring Topic and Focus in Russian. PhD thesis, Department of Linguistics, Stanford University, 1993.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Robert H. Meskill.A Transformational Analysis of Turkish Syntax. Mouton, The Hague, Paris, 1970.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ingrid Meyer, Boyan Onyshkevych, and Lynn Carlson. Lexicographic principles and design for knowledge-based machine translation. Technical Report CMU-CMT-90-118, Carnegie-Mellon University, Center for Machine Translation, 1990.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Teruko Mitamura, Hireyuki Musha, and Marion Kee.The Generalized LR Parser/Compiler Version 8.1: User's Guide. Carnegie-Mellon University — Center for Machine Translation, April 1988.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    K.P. Mohanan.The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, chapter Grammatical Relations and Clause Structure in Malayalam, pages 504–589. MIT Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Birgit Nilsson.Case Marking Semantics in Turkish. PhD thesis, University of Stockholm, Stockholm, 1985.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sergei Nirenburg, Jaime Carbonell, Masaru Tomita, and Kenneth Goodman.Machine Translation: A Knowledge-based Approach. Morgan Kaufman Publishers, 1992.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kemal Oflazer. Two-level description of Turkish morphology. InProceedings of the Sixth Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, April 1993. A full version appears inLiterary and Linguistic Computing, Vol. 9 No. 2, 1994.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kemal Oflazer and Cem Boz¢ahin. Turkish Natural Language Processing Initiative: An overview. InProceedings of the Third Turkish Symposium on Artifical Intelligence. Middle East Technical University, 1994.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kemal Oflazer and Ilker Kuruöz. Tagging and morphological disambiguation of Turkish text. InProceedings of the Fourth Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing, pages 144–149. ACL, 1994.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ronald Kaplan and Jürgen Wedekind. Restriction and correspondence-based translation. InProceedings of the Sixth Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 193–202, Utrecht, The Netherlands, April 1993.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Peter Sells.Lectures on Contemporary Syntactic Theories. CSLI-Lecture Notes 3, 1985.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stuart M. Shieber.An Introduction to Unification-Based Approaches to Grammar. CSLI Lecture Notes 4, 1986.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Albert M. Stoop. Atmaca: Semantic analysis by the computer. In Sabri Koç, editor,Studies on Turkish Linguistics, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, pages 539–564, Ankara, Turkey, 1988. Middle East Technical University.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Masaru Tomita. An efficient augmented-context-free parsing algorithm.Computational Linguistics, 13:31–46, January-June 1987.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Masaru Tomita and Eric H. Nyberg.Generation Kit and Transformation Kit, Version 3.2 User's Manual. Center for Machine Translation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Frank van Eynde, editor.Linguistic Issues in Machine Translation, 1993.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Okan Yilmaz. Design and implementation of a verb lexicon and a verb sense disambiguator for Turkish. Master's thesis, Department of Computer Engineering and Information Science, Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey, September 1994.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zealal Güngördü
    • 1
  • Kemal Oflazer
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for Cognitive ScienceUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghScotland, U.K.
  2. 2.Department of Computer Engineering and Information ScienceBilkent UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations