Language Resources and Evaluation

, Volume 51, Issue 1, pp 131–157 | Cite as

Toward a knowledge-to-text controlled natural language of isiZulu

Original Paper
First Online:

Abstract

The language isiZulu belongs to the Nguni group of languages, which also include isiXhosa, isiNdebele and siSwati. Of the four Nguni languages, isiZulu is the most dominant language in South Africa, which is spoken by 22.7 % of the country’s 51.8 million population. However, isiZulu (and even more so the other Nguni languages) still remains an under-resourced language for software applications. In this article we focus on controlled natural languages for structured knowledge-to-text viewed from a potential utility for verbalising business rules and OWL ontologies. IsiZulu grammar—and by extension, all Bantu languages—shows that a template-based approach is infeasible. This is due to, mainly, the noun class system, the agglutination and verb conjugation with concords for each noun class. We present verbalisation patterns for existential and universal quantification, taxonomic subsumption, axioms with simple properties, and basic cases of negation. Based on the preliminary user assessment of the patterns, selected ones are refined into algorithms for verbalisation to generate correct isiZulu sentences, which have been evaluated.

Keywords

Bantu languages isiZulu Controlled natural language OWL 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work is based on the research supported in part by the National Research Foundation of South Africa (CMK: Grant Number 93397).

References

  1. Alberts, R., Fogwill, T., & Keet, C. M. (2012). Several required OWL features for indigenous knowledge management systems. In P. Klinov & M. Horridge (Eds.), 7th Workshop on OWL: Experiences and directions (OWLED 2012), volume 849 of CEUR-WS, p. 12, May 27–28, Heraklion, Crete, Greece.Google Scholar
  2. Androutsopoulos, I., Lampouras, G., & Galanis, D. (2013). Generating natural language descriptions from owl ontologies: The naturalowl system. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 48, 671–715.Google Scholar
  3. Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D. L., Nardi, D., & Patel-Schneider, P. F., (Eds). (2008). The description logics handbook—Theory and applications. 2 edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bentley, M., & Kulemeka, A. (2001). Chichewa. Müchen: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
  5. Bosca, A., Dragoni, M., Francescomarino, C. D., & Ghidini, C. (2014). Collaborative management of multilingual ontologies. In P. Buitelaar & P. Cimiano (Eds.), Towards the multilingual semantic Web. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Bouayad-Agha, N., Casamayor, G., & Wanner, L. (2014). Natural language generation in the context of the semantic web. Semantic Web Journal, 5(6), 493–513.Google Scholar
  7. Chavula, C. & Keet, C. M. (2014). Is lemon sufficient for building multilingual ontologies for Bantu languages? In C. M. Keet & V. Tamma (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th OWL: Experiences and Directions Workshop (OWLED’14), volume 1265 of CEUR-WS, pp. 61–72. Riva del Garda, Italy, Oct 17–18, 2014.Google Scholar
  8. Cimiano, P., Buitelaar, P., McCrae, J., & Sintek, M. (2011). Lexinfo: A declarative model for the lexicon-ontology interface. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 9(1), 29–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Curland, M., & Halpin, T. (2007). Model driven development with NORMA. Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-40) (pp. 286a–286a). Hawaii: IEEE Computer Society. Los Alamitos.Google Scholar
  10. Dent, G. R., & Nyembezi, C. L. S. (2009). Scholar’s Zulu Dictionary. Pietermaritzburg: Shuter & Shooter Publishers.Google Scholar
  11. Doke, C. (1927). Text book of Zulu grammar. Witwatersrand: Witwatersrand University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Doke, C. (1935). Bantu Linguistic terminology. London: Longman, Green and Co.Google Scholar
  13. Durrant, P. (2013). Formulaicity in an agglutinating language: The case of Turkish. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 9(1), 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Engelbrecht, C., Shangase, N., Majeke, S., Mthembu, S., & Zondi, Z. (2010). Isizulu terminology development in nursing and midwifery. Alternation, 17(1), 249–272.Google Scholar
  15. Fogwill, T., Viviers, I., Engelbrecht, L., Krause, C., & Alberts, R. (2011). A software architecture for an indigenous knowledge management system. In Indigenous knowledge technology conference 2011. Windhoek, Namibia, 2–4 November 2011.Google Scholar
  16. Franconi, E., Guagliardo, P., & Trevisan, M. (2010). An intelligent query interface based on ontology navigation. In Workshop on Visual Interfaces to the Social and Semantic Web (VISSW’10). Hong Kong, February 2010.Google Scholar
  17. Fuchs, N. E., Kaljurand, K., & Kuhn, T. (2010). Discourse Representation Structures for ACE 6.6. Technical Report ifi-2010.0010, Dept of Informatics, University of Zurich, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  18. Ghidini, C., Kump, B., Lindstaedt, S., Mabhub, N., Pammer, V., Rospocher, M., and Serafini, L. (2009). Moki: The enterprise modelling wiki. Proceedings of the 6th Annual European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC2009). Heraklion, Greece, 2009 (demo).Google Scholar
  19. Goldsmith, J. & Buthelezi, G. (2005). The Zulu Language - Fall 2005. Online course material. University of Chicago, http://hum.uchicago.edu/jagoldsm/ZuluLanguage/. Last accessed 24 December 2014.
  20. Guthrie, M. (1971). Comparative Bantu: An introduction to the comparative linguistics and prehistory of the bantu languages. Number v. 1–2. Gregg.Google Scholar
  21. Jarrar, M., Keet, C. M., & Dongilli, P. (2006). Multilingual verbalization of ORM conceptual models and axiomatized ontologies. Starlab technical report, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium.Google Scholar
  22. Kaljurand, K., Kuhn, T., & Canedo, L. (2014). Collaborative multilingual knowledge management based on controlled natural language. Semantic Web Journal, 6, 241–258.Google Scholar
  23. Keet, C. M., & Khumalo, L. (2014a). Basics for a grammar engine to verbalize logical theories in isiZulu. In A. Bikakis et al., (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Web Rule Symposium (RuleML’14), volume 8620 of LNCS, pp 216–225. Springer. August 18–20, 2014, Prague, Czech Republic.Google Scholar
  24. Keet, C. M.&, Khumalo, L. (2014b). Toward verbalizing logical theories in isiZulu. In B. Davis, T. Kuhn, & K. Kaljurand, (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Controlled Natural Language (CNL’14), volume 8625 of LNAI, pp. 78–89. Springer. 20–22 August 2014, Galway, Ireland.Google Scholar
  25. Keet, C. M., & Barbour, G. (2015). Limitations of regular terminology development practices: The case of the isiZulu computing terminology. Alternation, 22(1), 33–70.Google Scholar
  26. Khumalo, L. (2007). An analysis of the Ndebele passive construction. Ph.D. thesis, University of Oslo, Norway.Google Scholar
  27. Kuhn, T. (2013). A principled approach to grammars for controlled natural languages and predictive editors. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 12, 13–48.Google Scholar
  28. Leo, J. (2008). Modeling relations. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 37, 353–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Maho, J. (1999). A (tentative) verb slot system for Shona. Unpublished report for the ALLEX (African Languages Lexical) Project: Department of Oriental and African Languages, Göteborg University, Sweden.Google Scholar
  30. Mberi, N. E. (2002). The categorical status and functions of auxiliaries in Shona. Ph.D. thesis, University of Oslo, Norway.Google Scholar
  31. McCrae, J., de Cea, G. A., Buitelaar, P., Cimiano, P., Declerck, T., Gómez-Pérez, A., et al. (2012). The Lemon cookbook. Monnet Project: Technical report.Google Scholar
  32. Meinhof, C. (1948). Grundzüge einer vergleichenden Grammatik der Bantusprachen. Eckhardt und Messtorff: Hamburg.Google Scholar
  33. Miti, L. (2006). Comaprative Bantu phonology and morphology. The Center for Advanced Studies of African Societies (CASAS): Cape Town.Google Scholar
  34. Motik, B., Grau, B. C., Horrocks, I., Wu, Z., Fokoue, A., & Lutz, C. (2009). OWL 2 Web ontology language profiles. W3C recommendation, W3C.Google Scholar
  35. Msila, V. (2014). Africa must take pride of place in higher education. Mail & Guardian, Nov 14, 2014. http://mg.co.za/article/2014-11-13-africa-must-take-pride-of-place-in-higher-education.
  36. Ngcobo, M. N. (2010). Zulu noun classes revisited: A spoken corpus-based approach. South African Journal of African Languages, 1, 11–21.Google Scholar
  37. Ngcobo, M. N. (2013). Loan words classification in isiZulu: The need for a sociolinguistic approach. Language Matters: Studies in the Languages of Africa, 44(1), 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pretorius, L., & Bosch, S. (2009). Exploiting cross-linguistic similarities in zulu and xhosa computational morphology: Facing the challenge of a disjunctive orthography. Proceedings of the EACL 2009 workshop on language technologies for African languages—AfLaT 2009, pp 96–103.Google Scholar
  39. Pretorius, L., & Bosch, S. E. (2003). Enabling computer interaction in the indigenous languages of South Africa: The central role of computational morphology (p. 56). New York: ACM Interactions.Google Scholar
  40. Ranta, A. (2011). Grammatical framework: Programming with multilingual grammars. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  41. Rector, A., Drummond, N., Horridge, M., Rogers, L., Knublauch, H., Stevens, R., et al. (2004). OWL pizzas: Practical experience of teaching OWL-DL: Common errors & common patterns. Proceedings of the 14th international conference knowledge acquisition, modeling and management (EKAW’04), volume 3257 of LNCS (pp. 63–81). UK: Springer. Whittlebury Hall.Google Scholar
  42. Sharma Grover, A., Van Huyssteen, G., & Pretorius, M. (2011). The South African human language technology audit. Language Resources & Evaluation, 45, 271–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Spiegler, S., van der Spuy, A., and Flach, P. A. (2010). Ukwabelana - an open-source morphological zulu corpus. Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on computational Linguistics (COLING’10), pp. 1020–1028. Association for Computational Linguistics. Beijing.Google Scholar
  44. Third, A., Williams, S., and Power, R. (2011). OWL to English: a tool for generating organised easily-navigated hypertexts from ontologies. poster/demo paper, Open Unversity UK. 10th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC’11), 23–27 Oct 2011, Bonn, Germany.Google Scholar
  45. Turner, N. S. (1990). IsiZulu sokuzwana (zulu for mutual understanding). Course notes.Google Scholar
  46. Wald, B. (1987). Swahili and the Bantu languages. In B. Comrie (Ed.), The World’s Major Languages (pp. 991–1014). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Cape TownCape TownSouth Africa
  2. 2.Linguistics Program, School of ArtsUniversity of KwaZulu-NatalDurbanSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations