Advertisement

Bootstrapping a Runyankore CNL from an isiZulu CNL

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9767)

Abstract

Runyankore is one of the top five languages spoken in Uganda. It is a Bantu language, thus it possesses the characteristic agglutinative structure, known to be challenging for the development of computational resources. It is also computationally under-resourced, which compounds the problem further. Given the recent progress in verbalization (writing the semantics expressed in axioms as CNL) of most constructors in the Description Logic \(\mathcal {ALC}\) in isiZulu, we take a bootstrapping approach to verbalization of similar constructors in Runyankore. The key variables affecting verbalization in isiZulu indeed also hold for Runyankore, allowing us to build on existing background theory. We present verbalization patterns for most \(\mathcal {ALC}\) constructors, also covering the ‘hasX’ role naming. Evaluation of text generated with 18 non-linguists found a clear preference for verbalization in the singular for subsumption (as with isiZulu), existential quantification, and negation in the context of subsumption; but the plural form of verb negation.

Keywords

Bootstrapping Runyankore isiZulu Verbalization \(\mathcal {ALC}\) constructors CNL 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work is based on the research supported by the Hasso Plattner Institute (HPI) Research School in CS4A at UCT and the National Research Foundation of South Africa (Grant Number 93397).

References

  1. 1.
    Angelov, K., Ranta, A.: Implementing controlled languages in GF. In: Fuchs, N.E. (ed.) CNL 2009. LNCS, vol. 5972, pp. 82–101. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Asiimwe, A.: Definiteness and specificity in Runyankore-Rukiga. Ph.D. thesis, Stallenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D.L., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (eds.): The Description Logics Handbook - Theory and Applications, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bosch, S., Pretorius, L., Fleisch, A.: Experimental bootstrapping of morphological analyzers for Nguni languages. Nordic J. Afr. Stud. 17(2), 66–88 (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bouayad-Agha, N., Casamayor, G., Wanner, L.: Natural language generation in the context of the semantic web. Semant. Web J. 5(6), 493–513 (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chavula, C., Keet, C.M.: Is lemon sufficient for building multilingual ontologies for Bantu languages? In: Proceedings of OWLED 2014, CEUR-WS, vol. 1265, pp. 61–72, Riva del Garda, Italy (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Davel, M., Barnard, E.: Bootstrapping in language resource generation. In: Proceedings of PRASA 2003, Langebaan, South Africa (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gruzitis, N., Barzdins, G.: Towards a more natural multilingual controlled language interface to owl. In: 9th International Conference on Computational Semantics (IWCS), pp. 335–339 (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gruzitis, N., Nespore, G., Saulite, B.: Verbalizing ontologies in controlled baltic languages. In: Proceedings of International Conference on HLT-The Baltic Perspective, FAIA, vol. 219, pp. 187–194. IOS Press, Riga, Latvia (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guthrie, M.: The Classification of the Bantu Languages. Oxford University Press, London (1948)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jarrar, M., Keet, C.M., Dongilli, P.: Multilingual verbalization of ORM conceptual models and axiomatized ontologies. Vrije Universiteit, Brussels, Belgium, Technical report (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Joubert, L., Zimu, V., Davel, M., Barnard, E.: A framework for bootstrapping morphological decomposition. In: Proceedings of PRASA 2004, Grabouw, South Africa (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Keet, C.M., Khumalo, L.: Basics for a grammar engine to verbalize logical theories in isiZulu. In: Bikakis, A., Fodor, P., Roman, D. (eds.) RuleML 2014. LNCS, vol. 8620, pp. 216–225. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Keet, C.M., Khumalo, L.: Toward verbalizing ontologies in isiZulu. In: Davis, B., Kaljurand, K., Kuhn, T. (eds.) CNL 2014. LNCS, vol. 8625, pp. 78–89. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kuhn, T.: A survey and classification of controlled natural languages. Comput. Linguist. 40(1), 121–170 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Maho, J.F.: Nugl online: The online version of the updated guthrie list, a referential classification of the bantu languages (2009). http://goto.glocalnet.net/mahopapers/nuglonline.pdf
  17. 17.
    Safwat, H., Davis, B.: CNLs for the semantic web: a state of the art. Lang. Resour. Eval. 1–30 (2016, in print). doi: 10.1007/s10579-016-9351-x Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tayebwa, D.D.: Demonstrative determiners in Runyankore-Rukiga. Master’s thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway (2014)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Taylor, C.: A Simplified Runyankore-Rukiga-English Dictionary. Fountain Publishers, Kampala (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Turamyomwe, J.: Tense and aspect in runyankore-rukiga: linguistic resources and analysis. Master’s thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Cape TownCape TownSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations