Extensible Dependency Grammar: A Modular Grammar Formalism Based On - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

SLIDE 1

Extensible Dependency Grammar

Extensible Dependency Grammar: A Modular Grammar Formalism Based On Multigraph Description

Ralph Debusmann

Programming Systems Lab, Saarbrücken, Germany

Promotionskolloquium, November 3, 2006

SLIDE 2

Extensible Dependency Grammar

What the thesis is about

Extensible Dependency Grammar (XDG) new grammar formalism for natural language explores the combination of:

1

dependency grammar

2

model theory

3

parallel architecture

results:

1

modularity: grammars can be extended by any linguistic aspect, each modeled independently

2

emergence: complex linguistic phenomena emerge as the intersection of the linguistic aspects

SLIDE 3

Extensible Dependency Grammar

Overview

1

Introduction

2

Formalization

3

Implementation

4

Application

5

Conclusions

SLIDE 4

Extensible Dependency Grammar Introduction

Overview

1

Introduction

2

Formalization

3

Implementation

4

Application

5

Conclusions

SLIDE 5

Extensible Dependency Grammar Introduction Dependency Grammar

Dependency Grammar

traditional (Chomsky 1957): syntax of natural language analyzed in terms of phrase structure grammar:

hierarchically arranges substrings called phrases nodes labeled by syntactic categories S NP Det N VP V Every baby wants Part V VP to eat

SLIDE 6

Extensible Dependency Grammar Introduction Dependency Grammar

Dependency Grammar

dependency grammar (Tesnière 1959):

hierarchically arranges words edges labeled by grammatical functions mothers: heads, daughters: dependents Every baby wants to eat p a r t vinf s u b j d e t

SLIDE 7

Extensible Dependency Grammar Introduction Dependency Grammar

Advantages

flexibility: dependency analyses need not be trees but can be arbitrary graphs need not be ordered perfectly suited for modeling linguistic aspects other than syntax, e.g. predicate-argument structure, where the models are unordered DAGs

SLIDE 8

Extensible Dependency Grammar Introduction Model Theory

Model Theory

traditional: generative perspective on grammar (Chomsky 1957):

1

start with the empty set

2

use production rules to generate the well-formed models

SLIDE 9

Extensible Dependency Grammar Introduction Model Theory

Model Theory

traditional: generative perspective on grammar (Chomsky 1957):

1

start with the empty set

2

use production rules to generate the well-formed models

Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det

SLIDE 10

Extensible Dependency Grammar Introduction Model Theory

Model Theory

traditional: generative perspective on grammar (Chomsky 1957):

1

start with the empty set

2

use production rules to generate the well-formed models

Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det

SLIDE 11

Extensible Dependency Grammar Introduction Model Theory

Model Theory

traditional: generative perspective on grammar (Chomsky 1957):

1

start with the empty set

2

use production rules to generate the well-formed models

Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det

SLIDE 12

Extensible Dependency Grammar Introduction Model Theory

Model Theory

traditional: generative perspective on grammar (Chomsky 1957):

1

start with the empty set

2

use production rules to generate the well-formed models

Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det

SLIDE 13

Extensible Dependency Grammar Introduction Model Theory

Model Theory

model theory: eliminative perspective (Rogers 1996):

1

start with the set of all possible models

2

use well-formedness conditions to eliminate all non-well-formed models

Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det

SLIDE 14

Extensible Dependency Grammar Introduction Model Theory

Model Theory

model theory: eliminative perspective (Rogers 1996):

1

start with the set of all possible models

2

use well-formedness conditions to eliminate all non-well-formed models

Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det

SLIDE 15

Extensible Dependency Grammar Introduction Model Theory

Model Theory

model theory: eliminative perspective (Rogers 1996):

1

start with the set of all possible models

2

use well-formedness conditions to eliminate all non-well-formed models

Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det

SLIDE 16

Extensible Dependency Grammar Introduction Model Theory

Model Theory

model theory: eliminative perspective (Rogers 1996):

1

start with the set of all possible models

2

use well-formedness conditions to eliminate all non-well-formed models

Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det

SLIDE 17

Extensible Dependency Grammar Introduction Model Theory

Model Theory

model theory: eliminative perspective (Rogers 1996):

1

start with the set of all possible models

2

use well-formedness conditions to eliminate all non-well-formed models

Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det Every baby wants to eat part vinf s u b j det

SLIDE 18

Extensible Dependency Grammar Introduction Model Theory

Advantage

declarativity: constraints describe the well-formed models independently of any underlying mechanisms

SLIDE 19

Extensible Dependency Grammar Introduction Parallel Architecture

Parallel Architecture

traditional: syntacto-centric architecture (Chomsky 1965):

• nly syntax modeled independently
• ther linguistic aspects obtained by functional interfaces

interface interface Phonology Syntax Semantics syntactic well−formedness

SLIDE 20

Extensible Dependency Grammar Introduction Parallel Architecture

Parallel Architecture

parallel architecture (Jackendoff 2002), (Sadock 1991):

all linguistic aspects modeled independently relational interfaces interface interface Phonology Syntax Semantics syntactic well−formedness semantic well−formedness interface phonological well−formedness

SLIDE 21

Extensible Dependency Grammar Introduction Parallel Architecture

Advantages

modularity: linguistic aspects can be modeled largely independently of each other emergence: complex phenomena emerge as the intersection

• f the linguistic aspects

SLIDE 22

Extensible Dependency Grammar Introduction Extensible Dependency Grammar (XDG)

Extensible Dependency Grammar (XDG)

combines:

1

flexibility from dependency grammar

2

declarativity from model theory

3

modularity and emergence from the parallel architecture

models: dependency multigraphs, i.e. tuples of dependency graphs share the same set of nodes arbitrary many components called dimensions

SLIDE 23

Extensible Dependency Grammar Introduction Extensible Dependency Grammar (XDG)

Example Multigraph

SYN

Every

in = {det?}

• ut = {}

...

• baby

in = {subj?,obj?,...}

• ut = {det!,adj∗,...}

...

• wants

in = {root?}

• ut = {subj!,vinf!,...}

...

• to

in = {part?}

• ut = {}

...

• eat

in = {vinf?}

• ut = {part!,adv∗,...}

...

• part

det vinf subj

SEM

Every

in = {det!}

• ut = {}

...

• baby

in = {ag∗,pat∗,...}

• ut = {det!}

...

• wants

in = {root!,th∗,...}

• ut = {ag!,th!}

...

• to

in = {del!}

• ut = {}

...

• eat

in = {root!,th∗,...}

• ut = {ag!}

...

• a

g th a g det

SLIDE 24

Extensible Dependency Grammar Introduction Related Work

Related Work

phrase structure grammar:

Generative Grammar (Chomsky 1957, 1965, 1981, 1995) Tree Adjoining Grammar (Joshi 1987) Combinatory Categorial Grammar (Steedman 2000) Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (Pollard/Sag 1994) Lexical-Functional Grammar (Bresnan 2001)

dependency grammar:

Functional Generative Description (Sgall et al. 1986) Meaning Text Theory (Mel’ˇ cuk 1988) Constraint Dependency Grammar (Menzel/Schröder 1998) Topological Dependency Grammar (Duchier/Debusmann 2001)

SLIDE 25

Extensible Dependency Grammar Formalization

Overview

1

Introduction

2

Formalization

3

Implementation

4

Application

5

Conclusions

SLIDE 26

Extensible Dependency Grammar Formalization Dependency Multigraphs

Dependency Multigraphs

tuples (V,D,W,w,L,E,A,a)

SYN

1 Every

in = {det?}

• ut = {}

...

• 2

baby

in = {subj?,obj?,...}

• ut = {det!,adj∗,...}

...

• 3

wants

in = {root?}

• ut = {subj!,vinf!,...}

...

• 4

to

in = {part?}

• ut = {}

...

• 5

eat

in = {vinf?}

• ut = {part!,adv∗,...}

...

• part

det vinf subj

SEM

1 Every

in = {det!}

• ut = {}

...

• 2

baby

in = {ag∗,pat∗,...}

• ut = {det!}

...

• 3

wants

in = {root!,th∗,...}

• ut = {ag!,th!}

...

• 4

to

in = {del!}

• ut = {}

...

• 5

eat

in = {root!,th∗,...}

• ut = {ag!}

...

• a

g th a g det

SLIDE 27

Extensible Dependency Grammar Formalization Dependency Multigraphs

Relations

3 relations:

1

labeled edge

2

strict dominance

3

precedence

SYN

1 Every

in = {det?}

• ut = {}

...

• 2

baby

in = {subj?,obj?,...}

• ut = {det!,adj∗,...}

...

• 3

wants

in = {root?}

• ut = {subj!,vinf!,...}

...

• 4

to

in = {part?}

• ut = {}

...

• 5

eat

in = {vinf?}

• ut = {part!,adv∗,...}

...

• part

d e t vinf subj

SEM

1 Every

in = {det!}

• ut = {}
• 2

baby

in = {ag∗,pat∗,...}

• ut = {det!}
• 3

wants

in = {root!,th∗,...}

• ut = {ag!,th!}
• 4

to

in = {del!}

• ut = {}
• 5

eat

in = {root!,th∗,...}

• ut = {ag!}
• ag

th a g det

SLIDE 28

Extensible Dependency Grammar Formalization Dependency Multigraphs

Grammar

G = (MT,P), characterizes set of multigraphs:

1

MT: multigraph type determining dimensions, words, edge labels

2

P: set of principles constraining the set of well-formed multigraphs of type MT principles P formulated in a higher order logic signature determined by MT

SLIDE 29

Extensible Dependency Grammar Formalization Dependency Multigraphs

Models and String Language

the models of G = (MT,P) are all multigraphs which:

1

have multigraph type MT

2

satisfy all principles P

the string language of a grammar G are all strings s such that:

1

there is a model of G with as many nodes as words in s

2

concatenation of the words of the nodes yields s

SLIDE 30

Extensible Dependency Grammar Formalization Principles

Principles

formulas in higher order logic characterize the well-formed multigraphs of a specific multigraph type predefined principle library from which grammars can be built like with lego bricks (Debusmann et al. 2005 FGMOL), e.g.:

tree principle valency principle

• rder principle

SLIDE 31

Extensible Dependency Grammar Formalization Principles

Tree Principle

given a dimension d, there must be:

1

no cycles

2

precisely one node without an incoming edge (the root)

3

each node must have at most one incoming edge

∀v : ¬(v→+

d v)

∧ ∃1v : ¬∃v′ : v′ →d v ∧ ∀v : ¬∃v′ : v′ →d v ∨ ∃1v′ : v′ →d v

SLIDE 32

Extensible Dependency Grammar Formalization Principles

Valency Principle

lexically constrains the incoming and outgoing edges of the nodes characterized by fragments, e.g.:

a a? b! a? c! ID

,

b b! ID

,

ID c! c

SLIDE 33

Extensible Dependency Grammar Formalization Principles

Grammar 1

together with the tree principle, the fragments yield our first grammar string language: equally many as, bs and cs in any order:

L1 = {w ∈ (a∪b∪c)+ | |w|a = |w|b = |w|c}

why? as arranged in a chain, each a has precisely one

• utgoing edge to b and one to c:

a a? b! a? c! ID

,

b b! ID

,

ID c! c

SLIDE 34

Extensible Dependency Grammar Formalization Principles

Example Analyses

a a? b! a? c! ID

,

b b! ID

,

ID c! c

⇓

ID

1 b 2 c 3 a c b

SLIDE 35

Extensible Dependency Grammar Formalization Principles

Example Analyses

a a? b! a? c! ID

,

b b! ID

,

ID c! c

⇓

ID

1 a 2 b 3 b 4 c 5 c 6 a c b c b a

SLIDE 36

Extensible Dependency Grammar Formalization Principles

Order Principle

lexically constrains:

1

the order of the outgoing edges of the nodes depending on their edge labels

2

the order of the mother with respect to the outgoing edges, also depending on their edge labels

characterized by ordered fragments, e.g.:

< 1 < 2 < 3 a ↓ 1* 2+ 3+ LP

SLIDE 37

Extensible Dependency Grammar Formalization Principles

Grammar 2

string language: one or more a followed by one or more bs followed by one or more cs:

L2 = {w ∈ a+b+c+}

tree, valency and order principles and the fragments below:

< 1 < 2 < 3 a ↓ 1* 2+ 3+ LP

∨

↓ 1! a LP

,

↓ LP 2! b

,

↓ LP c 3!

idea: a is always root, licensing zero or more outgoing edges labeled 1 to as, and one or more labeled 2 to bs and 3 to cs, where the as precede the bs precede the cs:

SLIDE 38

Extensible Dependency Grammar Formalization Principles

Example Analyses

< 1 < 2 < 3 a ↓ 1* 2+ 3+ LP

∨

↓ 1! a LP

,

↓ LP 2! b

,

↓ LP c 3!

⇓

LP

1 a 2 b 3 c 3 2

SLIDE 39

Extensible Dependency Grammar Formalization Principles

Example Analyses

< 1 < 2 < 3 a ↓ 1* 2+ 3+ LP

∨

↓ 1! a LP

,

↓ LP 2! b

,

↓ LP c 3!

⇓

LP

1 a 2 a 3 b 4 c 5 c 6 c 7 c 3 3 3 3 2 1

SLIDE 40

Extensible Dependency Grammar Formalization Principles

Intersection of Dimensions

intersection of the two languages L1 and L2 yields the string language of n as followed by n bs followed by n cs:

L1 ∩L2 = {w ∈ anbncn | n ≥ 1}

modeled by intersecting dimensions:

1

ID dimension of grammar 1 ensures that there are equally

many as, bs and cs

2

LP dimension of grammar 2 orders the as before the bs before

the cs

SLIDE 41

Extensible Dependency Grammar Formalization Principles

Example Analyses

< 1 < 2 < 3 a ↓ 1* 2+ 3+ LP a a? b! a? c! ID

∨

a a? b! a? c! ID ↓ 1! a LP

,

↓ LP 2! b b b! ID

,

ID c! c ↓ LP 3! c

⇓

ID

1 a 2 b 3 c c b

LP

1 a 2 b 3 c 3 2

SLIDE 42

Extensible Dependency Grammar Formalization Principles

Example Analyses

< 1 < 2 < 3 a ↓ 1* 2+ 3+ LP a a? b! a? c! ID

∨

a a? b! a? c! ID ↓ 1! a LP

,

↓ LP 2! b b b! ID

,

ID c! c ↓ LP 3! c

⇓

ID

1 a 2 a 3 b 4 b 5 c 6 c c b c b a

LP

1 a 2 a 3 b 4 b 5 c 6 c 3 3 2 2 1

SLIDE 43

Extensible Dependency Grammar Formalization Principles

Scrambling

German subordinate clauses: nouns followed by the verbs:

(dass) ein Mann Cecilia die Nilpferde füttern sah (that) a man Cecilia the hippos feed saw “(that) a man saw Cecilia feed the hippos”

all permutations of the nouns grammatical, i.e., also:

(dass) ein Mann die Nilpferde Cecilia füttern sah (dass) die Nilpferde ein Mann Cecilia füttern sah (dass) die Nilpferde Cecilia ein Mann füttern sah (dass) Cecilia ein Mann die Nilpferde füttern sah (dass) Cecilia die Nilpferde ein Mann füttern sah

SLIDE 44

Extensible Dependency Grammar Formalization Principles

Idealization

idealized language:

SCR = {σ(n[1],...,n[k])v[k]...v[1] | k ≥ 1 and σ a permutation}

grammar: ID dimension pairs verbs and nouns, LP dimension

• rders nouns before verbs

v v ID LP n! v? 2? ↓ 1* 1<2<

∨

v v ID LP n! v? v! 2! 2? ↓ 2<

,

↓ ID LP n n 1! n!

SLIDE 45

Extensible Dependency Grammar Formalization Principles

Example Analyses

v v ID LP n! v? 2? ↓ 1* 1<2<

∨

v v ID LP n! v? v! 2! 2? ↓ 2<

,

↓ ID LP n n 1! n!

⇓

ID

1 n 2 n 3 v 4 v v n n

LP

1 n 2 n 3 v 4 v 2 1 1

SLIDE 46

Extensible Dependency Grammar Formalization Principles

Example Analyses

v v ID LP n! v? 2? ↓ 1* 1<2<

∨

v v ID LP n! v? v! 2! 2? ↓ 2<

,

↓ ID LP n n 1! n!

⇓

ID

1 n 2 n 3 n 4 v 5 v 6 v v n v n n

LP

1 n 2 n 3 n 4 v 5 v 6 v 2 1 1 1 2

SLIDE 47

Extensible Dependency Grammar Formalization Expressivity

Expressivity

can model lexicalized context-free grammar (constructive proof in thesis) can go far beyond context-free grammar: anbncn already non-context free

can model TAG (Debusmann et al. 2004 TAG+7): mildly context-sensitive cross-serial dependencies (thesis): also mildly context-sensitive scrambling: beyond the mildly context-sensitive Linear Context-Free Rewriting Systems (LCFRS) (Becker et al. 1992)

put to use in an elegant account of German word order phenomena in (Duchier/Debusmann 2001), (Debusmann 2001), (Bader et al. 2004)

SLIDE 48

Extensible Dependency Grammar Formalization Complexity

Complexity

recognition problem: NP-hard (reduction to SAT in thesis) (Debusmann/Smolka 2006) restrictions on principles:

first-order: upper bound in PSPACE polynomially testable: upper bound in NP

all principles written so far first-order all principles implemented as polynomially testable constraints in Mozart/Oz i.e., practical upper bound: in NP

SLIDE 49

Extensible Dependency Grammar Implementation

Overview

1

Introduction

2

Formalization

3

Implementation

4

Application

5

Conclusions

SLIDE 50

Extensible Dependency Grammar Implementation

Implementation

how to process an NP-hard problem? constraint programming (Schulte 2002), (Apt 2003): solving of constraint satisfaction problems (CSPs) CSPs stated in terms of:

1

constraint variables, here on finite sets of integers

2

constraints on them

solutions of a CSP determined by two interleaving processes:

1

propagation: application of deterministic inference rules

2

distribution: non-deterministic choice

XDG parsing regarded as a CSP in Mozart/Oz (Smolka 1995), based on techniques developed in (Duchier 1999, 2003)

SLIDE 51

Extensible Dependency Grammar Implementation

Modeling Dependency Multigraphs

dependency graphs: nodes identified with integers, each node associated with a set of finite set of integers variables, e.g.:

1 a 2 a 3 b 4 b 5 c 6 c c b c b a

1 →                eq = {1} mothers = {} up = {} daughters = {2,3,5} down = {2,3,4,5,6} ...               

dependency multigraphs: variables duplicated for each dimension

SLIDE 52

Extensible Dependency Grammar Implementation

Modeling Principles

principles can now be transformed into constraints on finite sets of integers e.g. the tree principle:

for Node in Nodes do %% no cycles {FS.disjoint Node.eq Node.down} %% one root {FS.card Roots}=:1 %% at most one incoming edge {FS.card Node.mothers}=<:1 end

SLIDE 53

Extensible Dependency Grammar Implementation

Features

concurrent: all dimensions processed in parallel reversible: can be used for parsing and generation (Koller/Striegnitz 2002), (Debusmann 2004) supports underspecification: e.g. of quantifier scope, PP attachment (Debusmann et al. 2004 COLING) efficient for handcrafted grammars first successful experiments in large-scale parsing with the XTAG grammar (> 100.000 lexical entries) after thesis submission

SLIDE 54

Extensible Dependency Grammar Implementation

Grammar Development Kit

extensive grammar development kit built around the constraint parser (35000 code lines): XDG Development Kit (XDK) (Debusmann et al. 2004 MOZ) example grammars (24000 additional lines):

German grammar developed in (Debusmann 2001) Arabic grammar developed in (Odeh 2004) toy grammars for Czech, Dutch and French implementations of all example grammars in the thesis

graphical user interface complete documentation (200+ pages) application:

successfully used for teaching (ESSLLI 2004, FoPra) module in an engine for interactive fiction (Koller et al. 2004)

SLIDE 55

Extensible Dependency Grammar Application

Overview

1

Introduction

2

Formalization

3

Implementation

4

Application

5

Conclusions

SLIDE 56

Extensible Dependency Grammar Application

Application to Natural Language

English example grammar developed in the thesis models fragments of:

syntax semantics phonology information structure

interfaces:

relational syntax-semantics interface (Korthals/Debusmann 2002), (Debusmann et al. 2004 COLING) relational phonology-information structure interface (Debusmann et al. 2005 CICLING)

SLIDE 57

Extensible Dependency Grammar Application

Syntax

based on topological analysis of German (Duchier/Debusmann 2001)

ID dimension: models grammatical functions LP dimension: models word order using topological fields

intersection of ID/LP leads to the emergence of complex English word order phenomena:

topicalization wh-questions pied piping

SLIDE 58

Extensible Dependency Grammar Application

Topicalization

ID

1 Mary 2 Peter 3 tries 4 to 5 find subj v i n f

• bj

part

LP

1 Mary 2 Peter 3 tries 4 to 5 find r b f vf vvf vvf

SLIDE 59

Extensible Dependency Grammar Application

Semantics

PA dimension: models predicate-argument structure SC dimension: models quantifier scope

supports scope underspecification interface to the Constraint Language for Lambda Structures (CLLS) (Egg et al. 2001)

SLIDE 60

Extensible Dependency Grammar Application

Example (Weak Reading)

PA

1 Every 2 man 3 loves 4 a 5 woman det pat a g det

SC

1 Every 2 man 3 loves 4 a 5 woman s q s q

SLIDE 61

Extensible Dependency Grammar Application

Example (Strong Reading)

PA

1 Every 2 man 3 loves 4 a 5 woman det pat a g det

SC

1 Every 2 man 3 loves 4 a 5 woman s q s q

SLIDE 62

Extensible Dependency Grammar Application

Example (Underspecification)

PA

1 Every 2 man 3 loves 4 a 5 woman det pat a g det

SC

1 Every 2 man 3 loves 4 a 5 woman q q s s

SLIDE 63

Extensible Dependency Grammar Application

Phonology

PS dimension: models prosody

sentence divided into prosodic constituents marked by boundary tones prosodic constituents headed by pitch accents

SLIDE 64

Extensible Dependency Grammar Application

Example

PS

1 Marcel_L+H* 2 proves_LH% 3 completeness_H*_LL% 4 . pa1 bt1 pa2bt2

SLIDE 65

Extensible Dependency Grammar Application

Information Structure

IS dimension

sentence divided into information structural constituents using the theme/rheme dichotomy information structural constituents: divided into focus and background

SLIDE 66

Extensible Dependency Grammar Application

Example

IS

1 Marcel_L+H* 2 proves_LH% 3 completeness_H*_LL% 4 . b g rh t h

SLIDE 67

Extensible Dependency Grammar Application

Syntax-Semantics Interface

relational interface between ID and PA dimensions modular modeling: independent of word order (LP) and quantifier scope (SC) intersection of ID/PA leads to the emergence of:

control/raising auxiliary constructions (e.g. passives)

supports underspecification of PP-attachment

SLIDE 68

Extensible Dependency Grammar Application

Control/Raising and Passive Example

ID

1 Peter 2 seems 3 to 4 have 5 been 6 persuaded 7 to 8 sleep part v i n f vprt vprt part vinf s u b j

PA

1 Peter 2 seems 3 to 4 have 5 been 6 persuaded 7 to 8 sleep a g th pat th

SLIDE 69

Extensible Dependency Grammar Application

Phonology-Semantics Interface

relational interface between PS and IS dimensions modular modeling: independent of any other linguistic aspect based on the prosodic account of information structure developed in (Steedman 2000) intersection of PS and IS dimensions leads e.g. to the emergence of the unmarked theme ambiguity phenomenon

SLIDE 70

Extensible Dependency Grammar Application

Unmarked Theme Example

PS

1 Marcel_LH% 2 proves 3 completeness_H*_LL% 4 . ua bt1 pa2bt2

IS

1 Marcel_LH% 2 proves 3 completeness_H*_LL% 4 . bg rh umth

SLIDE 71

Extensible Dependency Grammar Application

Unmarked Theme Example

PS

1 Marcel_LH% 2 proves 3 completeness_H*_LL% 4 . ua bt1 pa2bt2

IS

1 Marcel_LH% 2 proves 3 completeness_H*_LL% 4 . rh umth umth

SLIDE 72

Extensible Dependency Grammar Conclusions

Overview

1

Introduction

2

Formalization

3

Implementation

4

Application

5

Conclusions

SLIDE 73

Extensible Dependency Grammar Conclusions Summary

Summary

with XDG, explored combination of dependency grammar, model theory and parallel architecture formalization:

higher order logic expressivity: far beyond context-free grammar practical complexity: NP-complete

implementation:

parser based on constraint programming in Mozart/Oz comprehensive grammar development kit (XDK)

application:

example grammar modeling fragments of natural language syntax, semantics, phonology and information structure

main results:

1

new degree of modularity

2

phenomena emerge by the intersection of individual dimensions, without further stipulation

SLIDE 74

Extensible Dependency Grammar Conclusions Selected Publications

Selected Publications I

Ralph Debusmann, Denys Duchier, Alexander Koller, Marco Kuhlmann, Gert Smolka, and Stefan Thater. A relational syntax-semantics interface based on dependency grammar. In Proceedings of COLING 2004, Geneva/CH, 2004. Ralph Debusmann, Denys Duchier, Marco Kuhlmann, and Stefan Thater. TAG as dependency grammar. In Proceedings of TAG+7, Vancouver/CA, 2004.

SLIDE 75

Extensible Dependency Grammar Conclusions Selected Publications

Selected Publications II

Ralph Debusmann, Denys Duchier, and Joachim Niehren. The XDG grammar development kit. In Proceedings of the MOZ04 Conference, volume 3389 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 190–201, Charleroi/BE, 2004. Springer. Ralph Debusmann, Denys Duchier, and Andreas Rossberg. Modular grammar design with typed parametric principles. In Proceedings of FG-MOL 2005, Edinburgh/UK, 2005. Ralph Debusmann, Oana Postolache, and Maarika Traat. A modular account of information structure in Extensible Dependency Grammar. In Proceedings of the CICLING 2005 Conference, Mexico City/MX, 2005. Springer.

SLIDE 76

Extensible Dependency Grammar Conclusions Selected Publications

Selected Publications III

Ralph Debusmann and Gert Smolka. Multi-dimensional dependency grammar as multigraph description. In Proceedings of FLAIRS-19, Melbourne Beach/US, 2006. AAAI. Alexander Koller, Ralph Debusmann, Malte Gabsdil, and Kristina Striegnitz. Put my galakmid coin into the dispenser and kick it: Computational linguistics and theorem proving in a computer game. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 13(2):187–206, 2004.

SLIDE 77

Extensible Dependency Grammar Conclusions Selected Publications

Selected Publications IV

Christian Korthals and Ralph Debusmann. Linking syntactic and semantic arguments in a dependency-based formalism. In Proceedings of COLING 2002, Taipei/TW, 2002.

SLIDE 78

Extensible Dependency Grammar Conclusions Selected Publications

Selected Publications by Other Authors I

Ondrej Bojar. Problems of inducing large coverage constraint-based dependency grammar. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Constraint Solving and Language Processing, Roskilde/DK, 2004. Peter Dienes, Alexander Koller, and Marco Kuhlmann. Statistical A* dependency parsing. In Prospects and Advances in the Syntax/Semantics Interface, Nancy/FR, 2003. Alexander Koller and Kristina Striegnitz. Generation as dependency parsing. In Proceedings of ACL 2002, Philadelphia/US, 2002.

SLIDE 79

Extensible Dependency Grammar Conclusions Selected Publications

Selected Publications by Other Authors II

Christian Korthals. Unsupervised learning of word order rules, 2003. Diploma thesis. Pierre Lison. Implémentation d’une interface sémantique-syntaxe basée sur des grammaires d’unification polarisées. Master’s thesis, Univesité Catholique de Louvain, 2006. Jorge Pelizzoni and Maria das Gracas Volpe Nunes. N:M mapping in XDG - the case for upgrading groups. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Constraint Solving and Language Processing, Sitges/ES, 2005.

SLIDE 80

Extensible Dependency Grammar Conclusions Future Work

Future Work

formalization:

strengthen relation to other grammar formalisms formalize XDG in a weaker logic than HOL, e.g. MSO

implementation:

make use of new constraint technology, e.g. Gecode (Schulte/Tack 2005) automatically generate principle propagators from EMSO-specifications (Tack et al. 2006)

SLIDE 81

Extensible Dependency Grammar Conclusions Future Work

Thank you!

SLIDE 82

Extensible Dependency Grammar References

References I

Krzysztof R. Apt. Principles of Constraint Programming. Cambridge University Press, 2003. Tilman Becker, Owen Rambow, and Michael Niv. The derivational generative power, or, scrambling is beyond LCFRS. Technical report, University of Pennsylvania, 1992. Joan Bresnan. Lexical Functional Syntax. Blackwell, 2001. Noam Chomsky. Syntactic Structures. Janua linguarum. Mouton, The Hague/NL, 1957. Noam Chomsky. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge/US, 1965. Noam Chomsky. Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Foris Publications, 1981.

SLIDE 83

Extensible Dependency Grammar References

References II

Noam Chomsky. The Minimalist Program. MIT Press, 1995. Denys Duchier. Axiomatizing dependency parsing using set constraints. In Proceedings of MOL 6, Orlando/US, 1999. Denys Duchier. Configuration of labeled trees under lexicalized constraints and principles. Research on Language and Computation, 1(3–4):307–336, 2003. Markus Egg, Alexander Koller, and Joachim Niehren. The Constraint Language for Lambda Structures. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, 2001. Ray Jackendoff. Foundations of Language. Oxford University Press, 2002. Aravind K. Joshi. An introduction to tree-adjoining grammars. In Alexis Manaster-Ramer, editor, Mathematics of Language, pages 87–115. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/NL, 1987.

SLIDE 84

Extensible Dependency Grammar References

References III

Igor Mel’ˇ cuk. Dependency Syntax: Theory and Practice. State Univ. Press of New York, Albany/US, 1988. Wolfgang Menzel and Ingo Schröder. Decision procedures for dependency parsing using graded constraints. In Proceedings of the COLING/ACL 1998 Workshop Processing of Dependency-based Grammars, Montréal/CA, 1998. Carl Pollard and Ivan A. Sag. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. University of Chicago Press, Chicago/US, 1994. James Rogers. A model-theoretic framework for theories of syntax. In Proceedings of ACL 1996, 1996. Jerrold M. Sadock. Autolexical Syntax. University of Chicago Press, 1991. Christian Schulte. Programming Constraint Services, volume 2302 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer-Verlag, 2002.

SLIDE 85

Extensible Dependency Grammar References

References IV

Christian Schulte and Guido Tack. Views and iterators for generic constraint implementations. In Christian Schulte, Fernando Silva, and Ricardo Rocha, editors, Proceedings of the Fifth International Colloqium on Implementation of Constraint and Logic Programming Systems, pages 37–48, Sitges/ES, 2005. Petr Sgall, Eva Hajicova, and Jarmila Panevova. The Meaning of the Sentence in its Semantic and Pragmatic Aspects.

• D. Reidel, Dordrecht/NL, 1986.

Gert Smolka. The Oz programming model. In Jan van Leeuwen, editor, Computer Science Today, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1000, pages 324–343. Springer-Verlag, Berlin/DE, 1995. Mark Steedman. The Syntactic Process. MIT Press, Cambridge/US, 2000. Guido Tack, Christian Schulte, and Gert Smolka. Generating propagators for finite set constraints. In Fréderic Benhamou, editor, 12th International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, volume 4204 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 575–589. Springer, 2006. Lucien Tesnière. Eléments de Syntaxe Structurale. Klincksiek, Paris/FR, 1959.