Upload
siran
View
87
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Introduction to Computational Linguistics. Martha Palmer April 19, 2006. Natural Language Processing. Machine Translation Predicate argument structures Syntactic parses Producing semantic representations Ambiguities in sentence interpretation. Machine Translation. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
LING 2000 - 2006 NLP2
Natural Language Processing
• Machine Translation• Predicate argument structures• Syntactic parses• Producing semantic representations• Ambiguities in sentence interpretation
LING 2000 - 2006 NLP3
Machine Translation
• One of the first applications for computers– bilingual dictionary > word-word translation
• Good translation requires understanding!– War and Peace, The Sound and The Fury?
• What can we do? Sublanguages.– technical domains, static vocabulary– Meteo in Canada, Caterpillar Tractor Manuals,
Botanical descriptions, Military Messages
LING 2000 - 2006 NLP5
Translation Issues: Korean to English
- Word order- Dropped arguments- Lexical ambiguities- Structure vs morphology
LING 2000 - 2006 NLP6
Common Thread
• Predicate-argument structure– Basic constituents of the sentence and how
they are related to each other• Constituents
– John, Mary, the dog, pleasure, the store.• Relations
– Loves, feeds, go, to, bring
LING 2000 - 2006 NLP9
Machine Translation Lexical Choice- Word Sense Disambiguation
Iraq lost the battle. Ilakuka centwey ciessta. [Iraq ] [battle] [lost].
John lost his computer. John-i computer-lul ilepelyessta. [John] [computer] [misplaced].
LING 2000 - 2006 NLP10
Natural Language Processing
• Syntax– Grammars, parsers, parse trees,
dependency structures• Semantics
– Subcategorization frames, semantic classes, ontologies, formal semantics
• Pragmatics– Pronouns, reference resolution, discourse
models
LING 2000 - 2006 NLP11
Syntactic Categories
• Nouns, pronouns, Proper nouns• Verbs, intransitive verbs, transitive verbs,
ditransitive verbs (subcategorization frames)
• Modifiers, Adjectives, Adverbs• Prepositions• Conjunctions
LING 2000 - 2006 NLP12
Syntactic Parsing
• The cat sat on the mat. Det Noun Verb Prep Det Noun
• Time flies like an arrow. Noun Verb Prep Det Noun
• Fruit flies like a banana. Noun Noun Verb Det Noun
Context Free Grammar
• S -> NP VP• NP -> det (adj) N• NP -> Proper N• NP -> N• VP -> V, VP -> V PP• VP -> V NP• VP -> V NP PP, PP -> Prep NP• VP -> V NP NP
LING 2000 - 2006 NLP13
LING 2000 - 2006 NLP14
Parses
V PP
VP
S
NP
the
the mat
satcat
onNPPrep
The cat sat on the mat
DetN
Det N
LING 2000 - 2006 NLP15
Parses
VPP
VP
S
NP
time
an arrow
flies
likeNPPrep
Time flies like an arrow.
N
Det N
LING 2000 - 2006 NLP16
Parses
V NP
VP
S
NP
flies like
anNDet
Time flies like an arrow.
Ntime
arrow
N
LING 2000 - 2006 NLP17
Features• C for Case, Subjective/Objective
– She visited her. • P for Person agreement, (1st, 2nd, 3rd)
– I like him, You like him, He likes him, • N for Number agreement, Subject/Verb
– He likes him, They like him.• G for Gender agreement, Subject/Verb
– English, reflexive pronouns He washed himself.– Romance languages, det/noun
• T for Tense, – auxiliaries, sentential complements, etc. – * will finished is bad
LING 2000 - 2006 NLP18
Probabilistic Context Free Grammars
• Adding probabilities• Lexicalizing the probabilities
LING 2000 - 2006 NLP19
Simple Context Free Grammar in BNFS → NP VPNP → Pronoun
| Noun | Det Adj Noun |NP PP
PP → Prep NPV → Verb
| Aux VerbVP → V
| V NP | V NP NP | V NP PP | VP PP
LING 2000 - 2006 NLP20
Simple Probabilistic CFGS → NP VPNP → Pronoun [0.10]
| Noun [0.20]| Det Adj Noun [0.50]|NP PP [0.20]
PP → Prep NP [1.00]V → Verb [0.33]
| Aux Verb [0.67]VP → V [0.10]
| V NP [0.40]| V NP NP [0.10]| V NP PP [0.20]| VP PP [0.20]
LING 2000 - 2006 NLP21
Simple Probabilistic Lexicalized CFGS → NP VPNP → Pronoun [0.10]
| Noun [0.20]| Det Adj Noun [0.50]|NP PP [0.20]
PP → Prep NP [1.00]V → Verb [0.33]
| Aux Verb [0.67]VP → V [0.87] {sleep, cry, laugh}
| V NP [0.03]| V NP NP [0.00]| V NP PP [0.00]| VP PP [0.10]
LING 2000 - 2006 NLP22
Simple Probabilistic Lexicalized CFGVP → V [0.30]
| V NP [0.60] {break,split,crack..}
| V NP NP [0.00]| V NP PP [0.00]| VP PP [0.10]
VP → V [0.10] what about | V NP [0.40] leave?| V NP NP [0.10] leave1,
leave2?| V NP PP [0.20]| VP PP [0.20]
LING 2000 - 2006 NLP23
Language to Logic
• John went to the book store. John store1, go(John, store1)
• John bought a book. buy(John,book1)
• John gave the book to Mary. give(John,book1,Mary)
• Mary put the book on the table. put(Mary,book1,table1)
LING 2000 - 2006 NLP24
SemanticsSame event - different sentences
John broke the window with a hammer.
John broke the window with the crack.
The hammer broke the window.
The window broke.
LING 2000 - 2006 NLP25
Same event - different syntactic frames
John broke the window with a hammer. SUBJ VERB OBJ MODIFIER
John broke the window with the crack. SUBJ VERB OBJ MODIFIER
The hammer broke the window. SUBJ VERB OBJ
The window broke. SUBJ VERB
LING 2000 - 2006 NLP26
Semantics -predicate arguments
break(AGENT, INSTRUMENT, PATIENT)
AGENT PATIENT INSTRUMENT John broke the window with a hammer.
INSTRUMENT PATIENT The hammer broke the window.
PATIENT The window broke.
Fillmore 68 - The case for case
LING 2000 - 2006 NLP27
AGENT PATIENT INSTRUMENT John broke the window with a hammer. SUBJ OBJ MODIFIER
INSTRUMENT PATIENT The hammer broke the window. SUBJ OBJ
PATIENT The window broke. SUBJ
LING 2000 - 2006 NLP28
Canonical Representation
break (Agent: animate, Instrument: tool, Patient: physical-object)
Agent <=> subj Instrument <=> subj, with-pp Patient <=> obj, subj
LING 2000 - 2006 NLP29
Syntax/semantics interaction
• Parsers will produce syntactically valid parses for semantically anomalous sentences
• Lexical semantics can be used to rule them out