Upload
amela-simmons
View
19
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
CSA2050: Definite Clause Grammars IV. Handling Gaps II Semantic Issues. Resum é. Relative clauses such as the book that Bertrand wrote are derived from a corresponding sentence Bertrand wrote the book [that] Bertrand wrote the book. Deriving the DCG. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
22.05.2003 CSA2050: DCG IV 1
CSA2050:Definite Clause Grammars
IVHandling Gaps IISemantic Issues
22.05.2003 CSA2050: DCG IV 2
Resumé
• Relative clauses such asthe book that Bertrand wrote are derived from a corresponding sentenceBertrand wrote the book
• [that] Bertrand wrote the book
22.05.2003 CSA2050: DCG IV 3
Deriving the DCG
• We can write down the parts of speechThe book [that] Bertrand wrote
D N RELPRON N V np(gap)
• … and try to build the grammar rules. A naïve approach is to derive DCG rule directlyNP --> D N RELPRON N V np(gap)
• A better approach isNP --> D N optrel
np(gap)
22.05.2003 CSA2050: DCG IV 4
Rules for optrel(optional relative clause)
• optrel --> [ ].An optrel is optional.
• optrel --> relpron, s(gap(np)).An optrel can be "that" followed by a sentence with a missing np object
• Next we look at rule for producing s with and without gaps, i.e. s(nogap) and s(gap(np)).
22.05.2003 CSA2050: DCG IV 5
Rules for S
• s --> s(nogap)A sentence can either have no gap
• s --> s(gap(np))or it can have a gap(np) feature. Where does S get the gap feature from?
• s(G) --> np(nogap), vp(G).It comes from the VP. Note that the subject NP cannot have a gap (i.e. be empty).
22.05.2003 CSA2050: DCG IV 6
Rules for VP
• vp(G) --> v, np(G).In the case of a transitive verb the gap feature is inherited from the object NP.
• vp(nogap) --> v.In the case of an intransitive verb, the VP has no gap.
22.05.2003 CSA2050: DCG IV 7
Rules for NP
• np(nogap) --> det, n, optrel.Normal NP case
• np(nogap) --> n.This covers case of plurals or proper nouns.
• np(gap(np)) --> [ ].The gap case – no lexical material appears on the surface
22.05.2003 CSA2050: DCG IV 8
Grammar and Lexicon
% grammars --> s(nogap).s --> s(gap(np)).s(G) --> np(nogap), vp(G).np(nogap) --> det,n,optrelnp(nogap) --> n.np(gap(np)) --> [ ].optrel --> [ ].optrel --> rel,
s(gap(np)).optrel --> rel, vp(nogap).vp(G) --> v, np(G).vp(nogap) --> v.
% lexicon
n --> [john].
n --> [bertrand].
n --> [program].
rel --> [that].
det --> [the].
v --> [halts].
v --> [wrote].
22.05.2003 CSA2050: DCG IV 9
Call: (6) s(_G395, [john, wrote], []) ? creep Call: (7) np(nogap, [john, wrote], _G459) ? creep Call: (8) det([john, wrote], _G458) ? creep Fail: (8) det([john, wrote], _G458) ? creep Redo: (7) np(nogap, [john, wrote], _G459) ? creep Call: (8) n([john, wrote], _G458) ? creep Exit: (8) n([john, wrote], [wrote]) ? creep Exit: (7) np(nogap, [john, wrote], [wrote]) ? creep Call: (7) vp(_G395, [wrote], []) ? creep Call: (8) v([wrote], _G458) ? creep Exit: (8) v([wrote], []) ? creep Call: (8) np(_G395, [], []) ? creep Call: (9) det([], _G458) ? creep Fail: (9) det([], _G458) ? creep Redo: (8) np(_G395, [], []) ? creep Call: (9) n([], []) ? creep Fail: (9) n([], []) ? creep Redo: (8) np(_G395, [], []) ? creep Exit: (8) np(gap(np), [], []) ? creep Exit: (7) vp(gap(np), [wrote], []) ? creep Exit: (6) s(gap(np), [john, wrote], []) ? creep X=gap(np)
22.05.2003 CSA2050: DCG IV 10
Handling NLP Semantics
• In order handle semantics of NL sentences we have to do at least the following:
– Decide what is meant by semantics.– Create a suitable representation to encode
the semantics.– Figure out how to compute the semantic
representation of sentences– Link this computation to the to the
grammar and lexicon.
22.05.2003 CSA2050: DCG IV 11
Remarks on DCGs
• Simple tool for encoding CFG• Arguments, variables and arbitrary
progams take it beyond CF power, but can get clumsy and yield unreadable grammars
• Reasonable for linguistic applications, but cannot handle left recursion.
• Compared to standard PLs, you get quite far quite fast.
22.05.2003 CSA2050: DCG IV 12
Semantics:
• Semantics is the study of the meaning of words, phrases, and sentences in language.
• Semantics explores the minimum of knowledge about a linguistic sign or combinations of signs such that the expression can convey a specific communicative content. [Olsen et. Al http://www2.rz.hu-berlin.de/angl/ling_pages/semantics.html]
22.05.2003 CSA2050: DCG IV 13
Semantic Theories
• Cognitive Semantics (Rosch 1973)– word/concept oriented– prototype theory: meanings are identified,
often pictorially, by characteristic instances of whatever class of objects, etc. a word denotes
• Truth Conditional Semantics (Hume, Russell, Carnap, Frege…)
22.05.2003 CSA2050: DCG IV 14
Truth Conditional Semantics
• Basic idea behind TCS is that to know the meaning of a sentence is know exactly the conditions under which it is true.
• So for example you know the meaning of "Gianni ate fish yesterday" if you know exactly how to apply it to the real world and decide whether it is true or false.
• On this view, the task of semantic theory is to define the truth conditions of sentences.
22.05.2003 CSA2050: DCG IV 15
Expressing Truth Conditions
• If semantics identifies truth conditions, how can they be expressed: i.e, how are they written down?
• Logical form (LF) is the notation we use formalism we use to write down the truth conditions.
• One example of logical form is first order logic (FOL)
22.05.2003 CSA2050: DCG IV 16
word POS Logic Representation
Mike proper noun individual constant
mike
cow common noun
1 place predicate
cow(x)
red adjective 1 place predicate
red(x)
big red car adj/noun 1 place predicate
big(x) & red(x) & car(x)
sleeps intrans verb 1 place predicate
sleep (x)
kicks trans. verb 2 place predicate
kick(x,,y)
gives ditrans verb 3 place pred give(x,y,z)
22.05.2003 CSA2050: DCG IV 17
Logical Forms of Sentences
• John kicked Fido:kick(john,fido)
• Every student wrote a programall(x,student(x) => exist(y, program(y)& write(x,y))).
exist(y, program(y) all(x,student(x) => write(x,y))).
• Ambiguity• Relation between semantics of sentence and
subphrases
22.05.2003 CSA2050: DCG IV 18
Compositional Semantics Frege's Principle of Compositionality
• The semantics of the whole sentence can be computed from the semantics of the subphrases, i.e.
• Given the syntactic rule X Y Z.• Suppose [Y], [Z] are the LFs of Y, and
Z respectively.• Then [X] = ([Y],[Z]) where is some
function for semantic combination
22.05.2003 CSA2050: DCG IV 19
Richard Montague:Rule to Rule Hypothesis
• Each context free syntax rules is associated with a semantic rule that describes how the LF of the LHS category is composed from the LF of its subconstituents
• 1:1 corrspondence between syntax and semantics. Can and does lead to difficulties.
• Functional composition proposed as the mechanism for descibing the composition.
• Lambda calculus.
22.05.2003 CSA2050: DCG IV 20
Sentence Rule
• Syntactic Rule:S NP VP
• Semantic Rule:[S] = [VP]([NP])i.e. the LF of S is obtained by "applying" the LF of VP to the LF of NP.
• For this to be possible [VP] must be a function, and [NP] the argument to the function.
22.05.2003 CSA2050: DCG IV 21
Swrite(bertrand,principia)
NPbertand
VPy.write(y,principia)
Vx.y.write(y,x)
NPprincipia
bertrand
writes principia
Parse Tree with Logical Forms
22.05.2003 CSA2050: DCG IV 22
Problems
• Truth Conditional Semantics problems: not all sentences have a truth value.questions; orders; speech acts.
• Determiners and Quantification: exact truth conditions are hard to formulateyou can fool most of the people most of the time.
• Lambda calculus is too powerful.