Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

2-4 April 2006 MSPIL IIT Mumbai1 MODELLING OF SHALLOW PARSING OF INDIAN LANGUAGES IIT MUMBAI April 2-4, 2006 Identification of Relative Clause as a Nominal.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "2-4 April 2006 MSPIL IIT Mumbai1 MODELLING OF SHALLOW PARSING OF INDIAN LANGUAGES IIT MUMBAI April 2-4, 2006 Identification of Relative Clause as a Nominal."— Presentation transcript:

1 2-4 April 2006 MSPIL IIT Mumbai1 MODELLING OF SHALLOW PARSING OF INDIAN LANGUAGES IIT MUMBAI April 2-4, 2006 Identification of Relative Clause as a Nominal Dependency Relation Tanmoy Bhattacharya Nguyen Chi Duy Khuong Department of Linguistics University of Delhi

2 2-4 April 2006 MSPIL IIT Mumbai2 The Problem Implementable formalisms (e.g. HPSG) have two problems with adjuncts: Identifying the adjunct ( RECOGNITION ) Determining the place the adjunct belongs ( ADDRESSING TECHNIQUE ) Solution using a “selectional” RC theory within Principles & Parameters framework

3 2-4 April 2006 MSPIL IIT Mumbai3 The Solution in Brief Both the RECOGNITION and the ADDRESSING problems can be bypassed if there is no adjunct to start with: 3 The [flower that John bought] selectional relation

4 2-4 April 2006 MSPIL IIT Mumbai4 The Problem in General Functor versus Argument The ARGUMENT view: HeadXPCOMPLEMENT The FUNCTOR view: HeadXPADJUNCT Head-Complement idea is conducive to HPSG as it is easier to see complements as semantic arguments of their heads

5 2-4 April 2006 MSPIL IIT Mumbai5 The Argument View Can explain diagnostics: (i) Semantic Constancy: a. Sharma sleeps/ snores/ laughs in the seminar b. Sharma depends/ relies on a mouse (ii) Iterability: Sharma opened the drawer with a key, with a hammer (iii) Order: The police blamed the riot on the residents without checking the facts

6 2-4 April 2006 MSPIL IIT Mumbai6 The Functor View Cannot be imported to HPSG easily SUBCAT cannot handle it since: Different adjuncts attach to different heads Not a Head-Filler semantics Adjunct relation is syntactically different since: Broader range of categories modified Number of adjuncts is not pre-fixed How do we handle it then?

7 2-4 April 2006 MSPIL IIT Mumbai7 Classic HPSG: The duality of representation Pollard and Sag (1987): adjunct-main clause dependency determined by rules of grammar; specification neither on N or the RC Assumes Type hierarchy Rule of RC: HEADMAJ N HEAD-DTR|SYN|LOCNFORM NORM DTRSLEX __ ADJ-DTR|SYN|RELCLAUSE

8 2-4 April 2006 MSPIL IIT Mumbai8 HPSG Structure for an RC PHONsolution that I like HEAD1 SYN | LOC SUBCAT2 LEX_ PHONsolution MAJ N HEAD-DTR HEAD 1NFORMNORM DTRS SYN|LOC SUBCAT 2  DET  LEX _ PHONthat I like ADJ-DTRSYNRELCLAUSE

9 2-4 April 2006 MSPIL IIT Mumbai9 Problems with the Classic HPSG A large number of such rules required The solution rests on hierarchy of types/ subtypes (head-structure and head-adjunct- structure respectively) Phrase qo CLAUSALITYHEADEDNESS qo Clausenon-clause hd-ph non-hd-ph  tu.. … rel-clhd-adj-ph

10 2-4 April 2006 MSPIL IIT Mumbai10 Unification Desirable: Unification within the rule BUT, who is selecting whom? (Functor/ Argument problem) Functor alternative is attractive but not formalizable So, modified heads “selecting” adjuncts (Kayne) Every common N bearing head feature ADJUNCT a head-adjunct rule: HEAD-DTR|SYN|LOCHEAD|ADJUNCT{..[1]..} DTRSLEX __ ADJ-DTR|SYN [1]

11 2-4 April 2006 MSPIL IIT Mumbai11 HPSG schemata for solution that I like PHONsolution that I like HEAD1 SYN | LOC SUBCAT2 LEX_ PHONsolution MAJ N HEAD-DTR HEAD 1NFORMNORM ADJUNCTS DTRS SYN|LOC SUBCAT 2  DET  LEX _ PHONthat I like ADJ-DTRSYN 3RELCLAUSE

12 2-4 April 2006 MSPIL IIT Mumbai12 Revised HPSG Highest V rather than a null relativizer heads the clause: S [MOD N’] qo NP VP [MOD N’] wi NP V [MOD N’] John-Ichayk-ulneh-un -nom book-accput-rel ‘The book that John put’ Sag (1997)

13 2-4 April 2006 MSPIL IIT Mumbai13 Highest V in RC need not show RC morphology Watashi ga inu ga taberu ring-o miru INOM dog NOM eats apple-ACC see ‘I see the apple which the dog eats.’ IP 3 watashi ga I’ 3 VP I 3 NP V 3 miru CPNP 6 inuga taberuringo Similarly with Vietnamese

14 2-4 April 2006 MSPIL IIT Mumbai14 Sag (1997) Solution who (relative) CATNP CONT[INDEX 3] REL{ 3 } QUE{ } The head words have a REL feature Inheritance of REL is governed by WHIP

15 2-4 April 2006 MSPIL IIT Mumbai15 Drawbacks of Revised HPSG Hierarchy of types as before Wh-relatives are wh-rel-cl and subject to a separate constraint Subject Wh-relatives belong to yet another type and subject to yet another constraint Non-subject relatives belong to another subtype and subject to another constraint And so on …

16 2-4 April 2006 MSPIL IIT Mumbai16 Semantics of the Gap Hunter (2004) I eat the apples which the men bought. BUY (RC) AGENT THEME Literal (MAN, PLURAL, DEFINITE) relativewh tensePAST negativeFALSE questionFALSE voiceACTIVE

17 2-4 April 2006 MSPIL IIT Mumbai17 Linking the two clauses EAT (MC) AGENT PATIENT conversant (SING, +SPEAKER, -LISTENER, HUMAN_MASC) relative (APPLE, PL, DEF, subclause0) tensePRESENT negativeFALSE questionFALSE voiceACTIVE

18 2-4 April 2006 MSPIL IIT Mumbai18 Back to the Duality of Representation “CP generated from the semantics of the RC is added as an adjunct to the NP.” Doesn’t address either the RECOGNITION or the ADDRESSING problem One feature for the RC (relativewh) and one for the MC ( subclause0 ) Can we bypass this problem?


Download ppt "2-4 April 2006 MSPIL IIT Mumbai1 MODELLING OF SHALLOW PARSING OF INDIAN LANGUAGES IIT MUMBAI April 2-4, 2006 Identification of Relative Clause as a Nominal."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google