1 / 27

Computer Simulation of a Serial Parsing Model

Computer Simulation of a Serial Parsing Model. Doan-Nguyen Hai haidoan@cs.concordia.ca CLaC (Computational Linguistics at Concordia) Department of Computer Science Concordia University (Montréal, Canada). Introduction.

amena
Download Presentation

Computer Simulation of a Serial Parsing Model

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Computer Simulation of a Serial Parsing Model Doan-Nguyen Hai haidoan@cs.concordia.ca CLaC (Computational Linguistics at Concordia) Department of Computer Science Concordia University (Montréal, Canada)

  2. Introduction • Question: How about a computer simulation for serial syntactic parsing, which achieves a medium coverage and can deal with some classes of long and difficult sentences? • We implemented such a computer simulation: • Based on the garden-path theory (Frazier, 1978; Frazier & Clifton, 1996) • Parsing process is basically incremental and input-driven (bottom-up), but some top-down mechanisms are also included

  3. Introduction (2) • Focus on reanalysis • Not based on context-free grammars. Using context extensively. Linguistic knowledge is represented procedurally in Prolog clauses • Considering characteristics of computer to obtain high performance whenever psycholinguistic knowledge is not available • Leaving space for non-structural information in future extension (a human-simulating sentence interpretation program)

  4. Introduction (3) • Limitations: not yet considered: • Lexical ambiguities: words of multiple categories • Conjunctive structures, sentences with punctuations

  5. State-of-the-Art • Computational implementations: • Marcus 1980: deterministic serial • McRoy & Hirst 1990: serial model, no reanalysis • Lombardo 1998: top-down parsing + selective reanalysis • Stevenson 1994: connectionism • Crocker & Brants 2000: parallel, probabilistic

  6. The Algorithm Basic loop: incremental CurrentTree := NIL; whilenot end of sentence do InNode := next input word; attach InNode to CurrentTree; end How to do attachment ? Where to attach InNode into CurrentTree ? In principle: examine all information from the tree and the input word. Attachment may be costly!

  7. First refinement: Attachment with Waiting Nodes • A node is waiting for some constituent(s) • obligatory: I look for … • expected: I am reading … • Incoming element = expected constituent ? Quick checks! • I read … the (book) / the (teacher’s book) / good (books) • First refinement: attach(InNode) :- waiting_node(WaitingNode), attach_wait(WaitingNode, InNode); ... . % more procedures

  8. More refinements • Two cases: • InNode can be attached to CurrentTree: specific attachment • InNode cannot be attached to CurrentTree: reanalysis

  9. Specific Attachment • attach_spec(InNode) examines specifically the tree and the input element for an attachment • I read it … loudly • I went to the theatre of the town... to see (her) • Resolve attachment ambiguities and improve efficiency with psycholinguistic preferences. Classical examples: • Late Closure: He said that John came … yesterday. • Minimal Attachment: The boy … found ... • PP-attachment: V preferred to N: I founda bird … in (the garden)

  10. Reanalysis • Reanalysis • I knew the cat in the garden … was (smart) • The cat found in the garden … was (smart) • I told him the story … was (interesting) • Is the girl sitting there … intelligent? • Recent focus in psycholinguistics • Frazier & Rayner 1982: Selective Reanalysis. • Fodor & Inoue 1994: Diagnosis model: repairing (not reparsing!) after diagnosis. • Fodor & Inoue 1998: Attach Anyway + Adjust • Others: Lewis 1998 (NL-Soar), Sturt & Crocker 1996 (Tree Lowering)

  11. Reanalysis (2) • Reanalysis: symptoms + guesses + verifications + repair • The cat found in the garden … was (smart) • symptoms: 'was' has no subject but needs one • guesses: the potential subject may be now the object of a verb, or the subject of a clause • verifications • repair the current tree

  12. Reanalysis instead of easy attachment • verbs with multiple subcategorizations • I will bring the children … some food • v - 1 object --> v - 2 objects (Not a relative!) • I tell the children … that … • I tell the children … she … • v - object --> v - object - clause (Not relative) • I want him … to come • v - object --> v - (CP (TP him to (VP come))) (Not a purposive adjunct) • Although there is no breakdown and attachment is possible, reanalysis should be invoked instead!

  13. Reanalysis instead of easy attachment (2) • Hypothesis: When a verb is satisfied by the incoming element, the parser still remembers its other subcategorizations by registering the verb as a may_wait node. • attach_may_wait(Elt) considers the possibility of reanalysis before doing specific attachment • I want him • verb - obj: (VP want (DP him)) • may_wait(want, other subcats of 'want') • … to come • attach_may_wait reanalyzes the current tree: (VP want (CP (TP (DP him) to (VP come)))

  14. Reanalysis instead of easy attachment (3) • empty categories • The picturesi you have ei … seen • eiis put right after have (Minimal Chain Principle (De Vincenzi 1991)) • seen can begin a modifier, cf. The pictures you took seen from this perspective are very surrealist • Other examples • The booki I want ei … to read • Whati do you want ei … to read? • The folderi which I keep ei … my files in • Whati do you see ei … the birds with?

  15. Reanalysis instead of easy attachment (4) • Hypothesis: (Similar to multiple subcategorization verbs) An object trace node is registered in may_wait state. During parsing, when the top may_wait node is a trace node, attach_may_wait will check whether InNode needs to be attached to the verb, and if yes, move the trace node somewhere else. • The picturesi you have ei ... • ei is registered as may_wait • When seen arrives, attach_may_wait reanalyzes and gives: • The picturesi you haveseen • The parser then looks for a new position for ei • The picturesi you haveseen ei

  16. Reanalysis instead of easy attachment (5) • If the parser cannot find a new position for ei, it hangs it in the memory for future location • The folderi which I keep ei … my files in is blue • The folderi which I keepei … • The folderi which I keepmy files -- ei is hung in memory • The folderi which I keepmy files in ei-- ei is located

  17. The algorithm attach(N) :- waiting_node(W), attach_wait(W, N); may_wait_node(W), attach_may_wait(W, N); % reanalysis attach_spec(N); reanalyze(N). % reanalysis CurrentTree := NIL; whilenot end of input do N := next word; attach N to CurrentTree; end

  18. DPi DP adjunct waiting node the boy the boy CP CP waiting node who ei TP you Structure postulation the boy … you the boy … who Conform to Frazier 1998: parsing is not purely bottom-up, but also has some top-down features

  19. Forward parsing • Examples • We need... disk… storage... management... software. • I saw the … teacher’s son’s dog. Reanalysis repeated??? Seems unlikely! • I go… to… school / see her. • They are… selected… people / by John. Reanalysis seems not occur in either case • Hypothesis: With normal pronouncing rhythm, reanalysis does not occur here but forward parsing

  20. Forward parsing (2) • Forward parsing: the parser delays attachment and continues to work with the input stream to gather enough information for a good attachment • We need... disk… storage... management... software. When disk arrives, the parser does not attach it immediately, but continues parsing forward to get the head of the DP • I go… to… school / see her. When to arrives, the parser continues parsing forward to know whether it will get a PP or an infinitive VP

  21. Implementation • Programmed in Prolog (Windows) • Coverage: many basic and 'advanced' structures of English. See test examples. • Test: • Time complexity: • Theoretical ? • Practical: seems good (linear ?)

  22. Test Results (on  300 sentences) Time (operations)

  23. Some test sentences • The folder I kept my letters in is blue. • Is the girl working in the house your daughter? • Is the girl working in the house your daughter bought recently? • What exactly do you want to see in this old house? • The big white horse raced quickly past the old barn fell behind the house. • The girl who I hear they say he thinks John loves is their daughter. • To drink with friends that you have not met for a long time is very interesting. • Do you notice the old tall woman who sits looking at your daughter's little dog has spent a long time here? • Are the three little boys in the computer group chosen recently by the university where your friend is studying computer science intelligent boys?

  24. The folder I kept my letters in is blue. 'node(4,d:0:[sg,def],0-1,the) node(2,n:[sg],1-2,folder) - 'node(7,e:o,?,e(d,node(4,d:0:[sg,def],0-1,the))) node(5,c:r,?,[]) 'node(3,d:p:[sg,p(1)],2-3,i) node(6,t:[],?,[]) node(8,v:[o,g]:[cj,past0,r(keep)],3-4,kept) node(13,d:ps:[pl],4-5,my) node(11,n:[pl],5-6,letters) -node(12,p:[],6-7,in) node(15,e:d,?,e(d,node(7,e:o,?, e(d,node(4,d:0:[sg,def],0-1,the))))) node(16,t:[cj,sg,p(3),pres,sg,def],?,[]) node(14,v:be:[cj,sg,p(3),pres],7-8,is) node(17,a,8-9,blue)

  25. Discussions • Future work: • Lexical ambiguities: words of multiple categories • Conjunctive structures, sentences with punctuations • Incorporating non-structural (semantic, real world) information: sentence processing. • Incorporating other techniques: statistics. • Comparing the parser with traditional cfg-based and statistics-based parsers. • Programming the parser on the computer may help us understand more on the human process.

  26. Conclusions • A serial parsing prototype has been implemented with some good results • Particularities: • Reanalysis instead of easy attachment • Forward parsing • Still a lot of things to do

  27. References Crocker, M. & Brants, T., 2000. Wide-Coverage Probabilistic Sentence Processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, Vol. 29, No. 6, 2000. De Vincenzi M., 1991. Syntactic parsing strategies in Italian (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1991). Fodor, J.D. & Ferreira, F., 1998 (eds). Reanalysis in Sentence Processing. Kluwer Academic. Fodor, J.D. & Inoue, A., 1994. The Diagnosis and Cure of Garden Paths. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, Vol. 23, No. 5, 1994. Fodor, J.D. & Inoue, A., 1998. Attach Anyway. In Fodor & Ferreira (1998) 101-141. Frazier, L., 1978. On Comprehending Sentences: Syntactic Parsing Strategies. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut. Frazier, L., 1998. Getting There (Slowly). Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, Vol. 27, No. 2, 1998. Frazier, L. & Clifton, C., 1996. Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lombardo, V., 1998. A Computational Model of Recovery. In Fodor & Ferreira (1998) 287-325. Marcus, M., 1980. A Theory of Syntactic Recognition for Natural Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. McRoy, S. & Hirst, G., 1990. Race-based Parsing and Syntactic Disambiguation. Cognitive Science, 14. Stevenson S., 1998. Parsing as Incremental Restructuring. In Fodor & Ferreira (1998) 327-363.

More Related