1. 1 Introduction to Computational Natural Language Learning Linguistics 79400 (Under: Topics in Natural Language Processing ) Computer Science 83000 (Under: Topics in Artificial Intelligence ) The Graduate School of the City University of New York Fall 2001 William Gregory Sakas Hunter College, Department of Computer Science Graduate Center, PhD Programs in Computer Science and Linguistics The City University of New York

2. 2 A Very Brief Linguistic History of Modern Syntax I: Phrase structure rules and transformation (Chomsky 1957, 1965) Movement and subject-aux inversion transformations: He will give a bone to the dog. He will give what to the dog. What will he give t to the dog? Base generated structure Surface structure But serious problem. The theory gives too many transformations without a good criteria for the learner to select among them. (However see Wexler and Culicover (1980) for an impressive formal characterization of how to learn transformations.)

3. 3 A Very Brief Linguistic History of Modern Syntax II: X-bar theory (Jackendoff, 1977) Specific internal relationships between phrasal components regardless of what the "main" or head category of the phrase is. Roughly. the underlying principles that determine how the ingredients of a noun phrase, verb phrase, prepositional phrase (etc.) interact, are identical. Moreover, these principles apply cross linguistically. In English the head of a phrase (e.g. a verb or a preposition) comes before its argument (e.g. an object), whereas in Japanese, the head follows its argument.

4. 4 A Very Brief Linguistic History of Modern Syntax II: principles and parameters (Chomsky, 1981) i.X-bar theory ii.Movement transformations (and of course the notions of base structure and surface structure) iii.Natural languages are assumed to share the same innate universal principles governing i and ii and to differ only with respect to their lexicons and the settings of a finite number of parameters. Universal Grammar (UG) = = principles and parameters. A natural language (human) grammar = = a lexicon and an array of settings (or values) of the parameters + UG.

5. 5 principles and parameters (con't) For example: all languages have subjects of some sort Overt subjects are optional (yes / no) onoff (e.g Spanish) (e.g. English) Null Subject Parameter Language acquisition is the process of selecting the correct value of each such parameter for the language the learner is exposed to.

6. 6 A Bit of review from first lecture: Why computationally model natural language acquisition? Pinker (1979) : "...it may be necessary to find out how language learning could work in order for the developmental data to tell us how is does work." [emphasis mine]

7. 7 Learnability Is the learner guaranteed to converge on the target grammar for every language in a given domain? Gold (1967), Wexler and Culicover (1980), Gibson & Wexler (1994), Kanazawa (1994) An early learnability result (Gold, 1967) Exposed to input strings of an arbitrary target language generated by grammar G targ, it is impossible to guarantee that any learner can converge on G targ if G targ is drawn from any class in the Chomsky hierarchy. (E.g. context-free grammars).

8. 8 Gold’s result is sometimes taken to be strong evidence for a nativist Universal Grammar. 1 ) Psycholinguistic research indicates that children learn grammar based on positive exemplar sentences. 2) Gold proves that G reg G cfg G cs G re can’t be learned this way. Conclude: some grammatical competence must be in place before learning commences. Gold’s result is often misapplied, but much discussion.

9. 9 Back to new stuff: Another Learnability result: All classes of grammars possible within the principles and parameters framework are learnable because each class is of finite size. In fact a simple Blind Guess Learner is guaranteed to succeed in the long run for any finite class of grammars. But, is this not-so-blind-learner guaranteed (it has a parse test) to converge on all possible targets in a P&P domain? Error-driven Blind-Guess Learner (no oracle): 1. randomly hypothesize a current grammar 2. consume and attempt to parse a sentence from the linguistic environment 3. If the sentence is parsable by the current grammar, go to 2. Otherwise go to 1.

10. 10 Feasibility Is acquisition possible within a reasonable amount of time and/or with a reasonable amount of work? Clark (1994, in press), Niyogi and Berwick (1996), Lightfoot (1989) (degree-0), Sakas(2000), Tesar and Smolensky (1996) and many PAC results concerning induction of FSA’s Feasibility measure (Sakas and Fodor, 2001) Near linear increase of the expected number of sentences consumed before a learner converges on the target grammar.