Advertisement

A Derivational Model of Discontinuous Parsing

  • Mark-Jan Nederhof
  • Anssi Yli-Jyrä
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10168)

Abstract

The notion of latent-variable probabilistic context-free derivation of syntactic structures is enhanced to allow heads and unrestricted discontinuities. The chosen formalization covers both constituent parsing and dependency parsing. The derivational model is accompanied by an equivalent probabilistic automaton model. By the new framework, one obtains a probability distribution over the space of all discontinuous parses. This lends itself to intrinsic evaluation in terms of perplexity, as shown in experiments.

Keywords

Parsing Grammars Weighted automata 

References

  1. 1.
    Alshawi, H.: Head automata and bilingual tiling: translation with minimal representations. In: Proceedings of the Conference on 34th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Santa Cruz, California, USA, pp. 167–176, June 1996Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boyd, A.: Discontinuity revisited: an improved conversion to context-free representations. In: Proceedings of the Linguistic Annotation Workshop, at ACL 2007, Prague, Czech Republic, pp. 41–44, June 2007Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Collins, M.: Head-driven statistical models for natural language parsing. Comput. Linguis. 29(4), 589–637 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Daniels, M., Meurers, W.: Improving the efficiency of parsing with discontinuous constituents. In: Proceedings of NLULP 2002: The 7th International Workshop on Natural Language Understanding and Logic Programming, Datalogiske Skrifter, vol. 92, pp. 49–68, Roskilde Universitetscenter, Copenhagen (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Evang, K., Kallmeyer, L.: PLCFRS parsing of English discontinuous constituents. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Parsing Technologies, Dublin, Ireland, pp. 104–116, October 2011Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gaifman, H.: Dependency systems and phrase-structure systems. Inf. Control 8, 304–337 (1965)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hays, D.: Dependency theory: a formalism and some observations. Language 40(4), 511–525 (1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jelinek, F., Lafferty, J., Mercer, R.: Basic methods of probabilistic context free grammars. In: Laface, P., De Mori, R. (eds.) Speech Recognition and Understanding – Recent Advances, Trends and Applications, pp. 345–360. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kahane, S., Nasr, A., Rambow, O.: Pseudo-projectivity, a polynomially parsable non-projective dependency grammar. In: 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, vol. 1, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, pp. 646–652, August 1998Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kallmeyer, K., Kuhlmann, M.: A formal model for plausible dependencies in lexicalized tree adjoining grammar. In: Eleventh International Workshop on Tree Adjoining Grammar and Related Formalisms, pp. 108–116 (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kathol, A., Pollard, C.: Extraposition via complex domain formation. In: Proceedings of the Conference on 33rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA , pp. 174–180, June 1995Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kuhlmann, M.: Mildly non-projective dependency grammar. Comput. Linguis. 39(2), 355–387 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maier, W.: Discontinuous incremental shift-reduce parsing. In: 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, vol. 1, Beijing, pp. 1202–1212, July 2015Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    McDonald, R., Pereira, F.: Online learning of approximate dependency parsing algorithms. In: Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Trento, Italy, pp. 81–88 (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nederhof, M.J., McCaffery, M.: Deterministic parsing using PCFGs. In: Proceedings of the 14th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Gothenburg, Sweden, pp. 338–347 (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nederhof, M.J., Satta, G.: An alternative method of training probabilistic LR parsers. In: Proceedings of the Conference on 42nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Barcelona, Spain, pp. 551–558, July 2004Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nederhof, M.J., Vogler, H.: Hybrid grammars for discontinuous parsing. In: The 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical papers, Dublin, Ireland, pp. 1370–1381, August 2014Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nivre, J.: Non-projective dependency parsing in expected linear time. In: Proceedings of the Joint Conference of the 47th Annual Meeting of the ACL and the 4th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing of the AFNLP, Suntec, Singapore, pp. 351–359, August 2009Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nivre, J.: Towards a universal grammar for natural language processing. In: Gelbukh, A. (ed.) CICLing 2015. LNCS, vol. 9041, pp. 3–16. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-18111-0_1 Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nivre, J., Nilsson, J.: Pseudo-projective dependency parsing. In: Proceedings of the Conference on 43rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Ann Arbor, Michigan, pp. 99–106, June 2005Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Petrov, S., Barrett, L., Thibaux, R., Klein, D.: Learning accurate, compact, and interpretable tree annotation. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 44th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Sydney, Australia, pp. 433–440, July 2006Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Reape, M.: A logical treatment of semi-free word order and bounded discontinuous constituency. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Fourth Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Manchester, England, pp. 103–110, April 1989Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Søgaard, A., Haulrich, M.: On the derivation perplexity of treebanks. In: Proceedings of the Ninth International Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories, Tartu, Estonia, pp. 223–232, December 2010Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sornlertlamvanich, V., Inui, K., Tanaka, H., Tokunaga, T., Takezawa, T.: Empirical support for new probabilistic generalized LR parsing. J. Nat. Lang. Process. 6(3), 3–22 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceUniversity of St AndrewsSt AndrewsUK
  2. 2.Department of Modern LanguagesUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations