Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Identifying Syntactic Ambiguities in Single-Parse Arabic Sentence

  • Published:
Computers and the Humanities Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to describe a technique for identifying the sourcesof several types of syntactic ambiguity in Arabic Sentences with a singleparse only. Normally, any sentence with two or more structuralrepresentations is said to be syntactically ambiguous. However, Arabicsentences with only one structural representation may be ambiguous. Ourtechnique for identifying Syntactic Ambiguity in Single-Parse ArabicSentences (SASPAS) analyzes each sentence and verifies the conditionsthat govern the existence of certain types of syntactic ambiguities in Arabicsentences. SASPAS is integrated with the syntactic parser, which is basedon Definite Clause Grammar (DCG) formalism. The system accepts Arabicsentences in their original script.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Al-Douri, Z. “Using the Computer for Processing Simple Arabic Sentences”. MS Dissertation, University of Technology, Iraq, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ali, N. Arabic Language and the Computer. Cairo: Ta'reeb, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, J. Natural Language Understanding. California: Benjamin/Cummings, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bear J. and J.R. Hobbs. “Localizing Expressions of Ambiguity”. SRI International, Technical Note, 428 (1987), 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brysbaert, M. and D.C. Mitchell. “Modifier Attachment in Sentence Parsing: Evidence from Dutch”. Experimental Psychology, 49 (1996), 664–695.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiang, T., Y. Lin and K. Su. “Robust Learning, Smoothing, and Parameter Tying on Syntactic Ambiguity Ressolution”. Computational Linguistics, 21 (1995), 321–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiang, T., Y. Lin and K. Su. “Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution Using a Discrimination and Robustness Oriented Adaptive Learning Algorithm”. Proceedings for the 15th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Nantes, 1992.

  • Clifton, C., S. Kennison and J. Albrecht. “Reading theWords Her, His, Him: Implications for Parsing Principles Based on Frequency and on Structure”. Memory and Language, 36 (1997), 276–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daimi, K.A. and M. Abdel-Amir. “The Syntactic Analysis of Arabic by Machine”. Computers and the Humanities, 28 (1994), 29–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daimi, K. “Techniques for Handling ill-formed Arabic Sentences”. Proceedings of SNLP'95 Symposium on Language Processing. Bangkok, 1995.

  • Gazdar, G. and C. Mellish. Natural Language Processing in Prolog. Workington: Addison Wesley, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamoody, Z.S. “Designing a System for Resolving Ungrammatical Errors in Arabic”. MS Dissertation, University of Technology, Iraq, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassan, S.D. Translation: Issues, Problems and Solutions - Human and Machine Translation. Arab Bureau of Education for Gulf States, 1985.

  • Hindle, D. and M. Rooth. “Structural Ambiguity in Lexical Relations”. Computational Linguistics, 19 (1993), 103–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurum, S. “Handling Scope Ambiguities in English”. Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing. Austin, 1988.

  • Juliano, C. and M. Tanenhaus. “Contingent Frequency Effects in Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution”. Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, 1993.

  • MacDonald, M. “Probabilistic Constraints and Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution”. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9 (1994), 692–715.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, M., N. Pearlmutter and M. Seidenberg. “Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution as Lexical Ambiguity Resolution”. In Perspectives on Sentence Processing. Ed. C. Clifton, L. Frazier and K. Rayner. Hillsdale, 1994.

  • Ni, W. and S. Crain. “How to Resolve Structural Ambiguities”. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society, 20. Amherst, 1990.

  • Pereira, C.N. and H.D. Warren. “Definite Clause Grammars for Language Analysis: A Survey of the Formalism and Comparison with Augmented Transition Networks”. Artificial Intelligence, 13 (1980), 231–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spivey-Knowlton, M. and J.C. Sedivy. “Resolving Attachment Ambiguities with Multiple Constraints”. Cognition, 55 (1995), 227–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trueswell, J., M. Tanenhaus and S. Garnsey. “Semantics Influences on Parsing: Use of Thematic Role Information in Syntactic Disambiguation”. Memory and Language, 33 (1994), 285–318.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Detroit Mercy, 4001 W. McNichols Road, P.O. Box 19900, Detroit, MI, 48219, USA

    Kevin Daimi

Authors
  1. Kevin Daimi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Daimi, K. Identifying Syntactic Ambiguities in Single-Parse Arabic Sentence. Computers and the Humanities 35, 333–349 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017941320947

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017941320947

Search

Navigation