File size: 53,235 Bytes
6fa4bc9 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 | {
"paper_id": "P86-1013",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T09:13:05.261814Z"
},
"title": "PARSING CONJUNCTIONS DETERMINISTICALLY",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Donald",
"middle": [
"W"
],
"last": "Kosy",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "The Robotics Institute Carnegie-Mellon University Pittsburgh",
"location": {
"postCode": "15213",
"region": "Pennsylvania"
}
},
"email": ""
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "Conjunctions have always been a source of problems for natural language parsers. This paper shows how these problems may be circumvented using a rule.based, walt-and-see parsing strategy. A parser is presented which analyzes conjunction structures deterministically, and the specific rules it uses are described and illustrated. This parser appears to be faster for conjunctions than other parsers in the literature and some comparative timings are given.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "P86-1013",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "Conjunctions have always been a source of problems for natural language parsers. This paper shows how these problems may be circumvented using a rule.based, walt-and-see parsing strategy. A parser is presented which analyzes conjunction structures deterministically, and the specific rules it uses are described and illustrated. This parser appears to be faster for conjunctions than other parsers in the literature and some comparative timings are given.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "In recent years, there has been an upsurge of interest in techniques for parsing sentences containing coordinate conjunctions (and, or and but) [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9] . These techniques are intended to deal with three computational problems inherent in conjunction parsing:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 126,
"end": 143,
"text": "(and, or and but)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 144,
"end": 147,
"text": "[1,",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 150,
"text": "2,",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 153,
"text": "3,",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 156,
"text": "4,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 159,
"text": "5,",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 162,
"text": "8,",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 165,
"text": "9]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "INTRODUCTION",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "1. Since virtually any pair of constituents of the same syntactic type may be conjoined, a grammar that explicitly enumerates all the possibilities seems needlessly cluttered with a large number of conjunction rules.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "INTRODUCTION",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "2. If a parser uses a top-down analysis strategy (as is common with ATN and logic grammars), it must hypothesize a structure for the second conjunct without knowledge of its actual structure. Since this structure could be any that parallels some constituent that ends at the conjunction, the parser must generate and test all such possibilities in order to find the ones that match. In practice, the combinatorial explosion of possibilities makes this slow.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "INTRODUCTION",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "3. It is possible for a conjunct to have \"gaps\" (ellipsed elements) which are not allowed in an unconjoined constituent of the same type. These gaps must be filled with elements from the other conjunct for a proper interpretation, as in: I gave Mary a nickel and Harry a dime.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "INTRODUCTION",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The paper by Lesmo and Torasso [9] briefly reviews which tech. niques apply to which problems before presenting their own approach.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 34,
"text": "[9]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "INTRODUCTION",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Two papers in the list above [1, 3] present deterministic, \"wait. and-see\" methods for conjunction parsing. In both, however, the discussion centers around the theory and feasibility of parsers that obey the Marcus determinism hypothesis [10] and operate with a limited-length Iookahead buffer. This paper examines the other side of the coin, namely, the practical power of the waitand.see approach compared to strictly top-down or bottom-up methods. A parser is described that analyzes conjunction struc.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 32,
"text": "[1,",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
},
{
"start": 33,
"end": 35,
"text": "3]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
},
{
"start": 238,
"end": 242,
"text": "[10]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "INTRODUCTION",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "tures deterministically and produces parse trees similar to those produced by Dahl & McCord's MSG system [4] . It is much faster than either MSG or Fong & Berwick's RPM device [5] , and comparative timings are given. We conclude with some descriptive comparisons to other systems and a discussion of the reasons behind the performance observed.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 78,
"end": 108,
"text": "Dahl & McCord's MSG system [4]",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 179,
"text": "[5]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "INTRODUCTION",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "For the sake of a name, we will call the parser NEXUS since it is the syntactic component of a larger system called NEXUS. This system is being developed to study the problem of learning tech. nical concepts from expository text. The acronym stands for Non.Expert Understanding System.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "OVERVIEW OF THE PARSER",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "NEXUS is a direct descendent of READER, a parser written by Ginsparg at Stanford in the late 1970's [6] . Like all wait-and-see parsers, it incorporates a stack to hold constituent structures being built, some variables that record the state of the parse, and a set of transition rules that control the parsing process. The stack structures and state variables in NEXUS are almost the same as in READER, but the rules have been rewritten to make them cleaner, more transparent, and more complete.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 100,
"end": 103,
"text": "[6]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "OVERVIEW OF THE PARSER",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "There are two categories of rules. Segmentation rules are responsible for finding the boundaries of constituents and creating stack structures to store these results. Recombination rules are responsible for attaching one structure to another in syntactically valid ways. Segmentation operations are separate from, and always precede, recombination operations. All the rules are encoded in Lisp; there is no separate rule interpreter.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "OVERVIEW OF THE PARSER",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Segmentation rules take as input a word from the input sen. tence and a partial-parse of the sentence up to that word. The rules are organized into procedures such that each procedure implements those rules that apply to one syntactic word class. When a rule's conditions are met, it adds the input word to the partial-parse, in a way specified in the rule, and returns the new partial-parse as output.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "OVERVIEW OF THE PARSER",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "A partial-parse has three parts:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "OVERVIEW OF THE PARSER",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "A stack (not a tree) of the data structures which encode constituents. There are two types of structures in the stack, one type representing clause nuclei (the verb group, noun phrase arguments, and adverbs of a clause), and the other representing prepositional phrases. Each structure consists of a collection of slots to be filled with constituents as the parse proceeds.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The stack:",
"sec_num": "1."
},
{
"text": "A symbol specifying the last action performed on the stack. In general, this symbol will indicate the type of slot the last input word was inserted in.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The message (MSG):",
"sec_num": "2."
},
{
"text": "A list of properties of the stack as a whole (e.g. the sentence is imperative).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The stack-message (MSGI):",
"sec_num": "3."
},
{
"text": "The various types of slots comprising stack structures are defined in Figure 1 . ",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 70,
"end": 78,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The stack-message (MSGI):",
"sec_num": "3."
},
{
"text": "Segmentation rules can leave notes about a structure that will be used in ,later processing.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Notes",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "A numerical measure of the syntactic and semantic acceptability of the structure to be used in choosing between competing possible parses.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Rating",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The prepositional phrases and subordinate clauses that turn out to be adjuncts to this clause.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Adjuncts",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "An English rendering of some segmentation rules for various word classes is given in the Appendix. The tests in a rule depend on the current word, the messages, and various properties of structures in the/stack at the time the tests are made. As each word is taken fi'om the input stream, all rules in its syntactic class(es) are tried, in order, using the current partial parse. All rules that succeed are executed. However, if the execution of some rule stipulates a return, subsequent rules for that class are ignored.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Figu re 1 : Stack Structures",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The actions a rule can take are of five main types. For a given input word W, a rule can:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Figu re 1 : Stack Structures",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\u2022 continue filling a slot in the top stack structure by inserting W \u2022 begin filling a new slot in the top structure \u2022 push a new structure onto the stack and begin filling one of its slots",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Figu re 1 : Stack Structures",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\u2022 collapse the stack so that a structure below the top becomes the new top \u2022 modify a slot in the top structure based on the information provided by W",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Figu re 1 : Stack Structures",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In addition, a rule will generally change the MSG variable, and may insert or delete items in the list of stack messages.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Figu re 1 : Stack Structures",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The way the rules work is best shown by example. Suppose the input is:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Figu re 1 : Stack Structures",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The children wore the socks on their hands.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Figu re 1 : Stack Structures",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The segmentation NEXUS performs appears in Fig. 2a . On the left are the words of the sentence and their possible syntactic classes. The contribution each word makes to the development of the parse is shown to the right of the production symbol \"= ~>\". We will draw the stack upside down so that successive parsing states are reached as one reads down the page. The contents of a stack structure are indicated by the accumulation of slot values between the dashed-line delimiters (\"--.-.\"). Empty slots are not shown. Before parsing begins, the three parts of a partial-parse are initialized as shown on the first line. One structure is prestored in the stack (it will come to hold the main clause of the input sentence), the message is BEGIN, and MSG1 is empty. The parsing itself is performed by applying the word class rules for each input word to the partial-parse left after processing the previous word.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 50,
"text": "Fig. 2a",
"ref_id": "FIGREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Figu re 1 : Stack Structures",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "For example, before the word wore is processed, MSG = NOUN, MSG1 is empty, and the stack contains one clause with FUNCTION = MAIN and NP1 = the children. Wore is a verb and so the Verb rules are tried. The third rule is found to apply since there is a clause in the stack meeting the conditions. This clause is the top one so there is no collapse. (Collapse performs recombination and is described below.) The word wore is in. serted in the VERB slot, MSG is set, and the rule returns the new partial.parse.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Word",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "It is possible for the segmentation process to yield more than one new partial-parse for a given input word. This can occur in two ways. First, a word may belong to several syntactic classes and when this is so, NEXUS tries the rules for each class. If rules in more than one class succeed, more than one new partial-parse is produced. As it happens, the two words in the example that are both nouns and verbs do not produce more than one partialparse because the Verb rules don't apply when they are processed. Second, a word in a given class can often be added to a partial.parse in more than one way. The third and fifth Verb rules, for example, may both be applicable and hence can produce two new partial.parses. In order to keep track of the possibilities, all active partial.parses are kept in a list and NEXUS adds new words to each in parallel. The main segmentation control loop therefore has the following form:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Word",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "For each word w in the input sentence do For\" each wor\"d class C that w belongs to do For\" each partial parse P in the list do Try the C rules given w and P Loop Loop Store all new partial-parses in the list Loop In contrast to segmentation rules, which add structures to a partial.parse stack, recombination rules reduce a stack by joining structures together. These rules specify the types of attachment that are possible, such as the attachment of a post-modifier to a noun phrase or the attachment of an adjunct to a clause. The successful execution of a rule produces a new structure, with the attachment made, and a rating of the semantic acceptability of the attachment. The ratings are used to choose among different attachments if more than one is syntactically possible.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Word",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "There are three rating values --perfect, acceptable, and unacceptable .-and these are encoded as numbers so that there can be degrees of acceptability. When one structure is attached to another, its rating is added to the rating of the attachment and the sum becomes the rating of the new (recombined) structure. A structure's rating thus reflects the ratings of all its component constituents. Although NEXUS is designed to call upon an inter. preter module to supply the ratings, currently they must be supplied by interaction with a human interpreter. Eventually, we expect to use the procedures developed by Hirst [7] . There is also a 'no-interpreter' switch which can be set to give perfect ratings to clause attachment of right-neighbor prepositional phrases, and noun phrase (\"low\") attachment of all other post-modifiers.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 618,
"end": 621,
"text": "[7]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Word",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The order in which attachments are attempted is controlled by the col]apse procedure. Collapse is responsible for assembling an actual parse tree from the structures in a stack. After initializing the root of the tree to be the bottom stack structure, the remaining structures are considered in reverse stack order so that the constituents will be added to the tree in the order they appeared (left to right). For each structure, an attempt is made to attach it to some structure on the right frontier of the tree, starting at the lowest point and proceeding to the highest. (Looking only at the right frontier enforces the no-crossing condition of English grammar. 1 ) If a perfect attachment is found, no further possibilities are considered. Otherwise, the highest-rated attachment is selected and co11 apse goes on to attach the next structure. If no attachment is found, the input is ungrammatical with respect to the specifications in the recombination rules.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Word",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "1The no-crossing condition says that one constituent cannot be attached to a non-neighboring constituent without attaching the neighbor first. For instance, if constituents are ordered A, B, and C, then C cannot be attached to A unless B is attached to A first. Furthermore, this implies that if B and C are both attached to A, B is closed to further attachments.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Word",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "After a stack has been collapsed, a formatting procedure is called to produce the final output. This procedure is primarily responsible for labeling the grammatical roles played by NPs and for computing the tense of VERBs. It is also responsible for inserting dummy nouns in NP slots to mark the position of \"wh. gaps\" in questions and relative clauses. Figure 2b shows the tree NEXUS would derive for the example. The code PN indicates past tense, and the role names should be self-explanatory. During collapse, the interpreter would be asked to rate the acceptability of each noun phrase by itself, the acceptability of the clause with the noun phrases in it, and the acceptability of the attachment. The former ratings are necessary to detect mis.segmented constituents, e.g., to downgrade \"time flies\" as a plausible subject for the sentence Time flies like an arrow. By Hirst's procedure, the last rating should be perfect for the attachment of the on.phrase to the clause as an adjunct since, without a discourse context, there is no referent for the socks on their hands and the verb wear expects a case marked by on.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 354,
"end": 363,
"text": "Figure 2b",
"ref_id": "FIGREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Word",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "To process and and or, we need to add a coordinate conjunction word class (C) and three segmentation rules for it. 2",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "CONJUNCTION PARSING",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Push a clause with FUNCTION = w onto stack. Set MSG = CONJ and return.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "If MSG = BEGIN,",
"sec_num": "1."
},
{
"text": "2. If the topmost nonconjunct clause in the stack has VERB filled, Push a clause with FUNCTION = w onto stack. Set MSG = CONJ and return.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "If MSG = BEGIN,",
"sec_num": "1."
},
{
"text": "3. Otherwise, Push a preposition structure with PREP = w onto stack. Set MSG = PREP and return.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "If MSG = BEGIN,",
"sec_num": "1."
},
{
"text": "The first rule is for sentence-initial conjunctions, the second for potential clausal conjuncts and the third is for cases where the conjunction cannot join clauses. This last case arises when noun phrases are conjoined in the subject of a sentence: John and Mary wore socks. Note that the stack structure for a noun phrase conjunct is identical to that for a prepositional phrase.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "If MSG = BEGIN,",
"sec_num": "1."
},
{
"text": "To handle gaps, we also need to add one rule each to the Noun and Verb procedures. For Verb, the rule is:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "If MSG = BEGIN,",
"sec_num": "1."
},
{
"text": "Set NP1 = !sub, VERB = w in top structure, Set MSG = VERB and return.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "If MSG = CON J,",
"sec_num": "4."
},
{
"text": "For Noun:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "If MSG = CON J,",
"sec_num": "4."
},
{
"text": "5. If the top structure S is a clause conjunct with NP1 filled but no VERB and there is another clause C in the stack with VERB filled and more than one NG filled, Copy VERB filler from C to S's VERB slot If C has NP3 filled, Transfer S's NP1 to NP2 and set S's NP1 =/sub. Insert w as new NG in S. Set MSG = NOUN and return.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "If MSG = CON J,",
"sec_num": "4."
},
{
"text": "In both rules, !sub is a dummy placeholder for the subject of the 2The conjunction but is not syntactically interchangeable with and and or since but cannot freely conjoin noun phrases: =John but Mary wore aock$. The rules for but have not yet been developed.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "If MSG = CON J,",
"sec_num": "4."
},
{
"text": "clause. Rule 4 is for verbs that appear directly after a conjunction and rule 5 is for transitive or ditransitive conjuncts with gapped verb.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "If MSG = CON J,",
"sec_num": "4."
},
{
"text": "To specify attachments for conjuncts, we need some recombination rules. In general, elements to be conjoined must have very similar syntactic structure. They must be of the same type (noun phrase, clause, prepositional phrase, etc.). If clauses, they must serve the same function (top level assertion, infinitive, relative clause, etc.), and if non-finite clauses, any ellipsed elements (wh-gaps) must be the same. If these conditions are met, an attachment is proposed.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "If MSG = CON J,",
"sec_num": "4."
},
{
"text": "Additionally, in three situations, a recombination rule may also modify the right conjunct: Let us now examine how these rules operate by tracing through a few examples. First, suppose the sentence from the previous section were to continue with the words \"and their feet\". Rule 2 would respond to the conjunction, and the rest of the segmentation would be: The appearance of/sub in the second SUB slot tells the interpreter that the subject of the right conjunct is \u00a2creferential with the subject of the left conjunct.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "If MSG = CON J,",
"sec_num": "4."
},
{
"text": "Finally, to illustrate rule 5, consider the sentence:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Word",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The children wore the socks on their hands and John a lampshade on his head.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Word",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "When the parser comes to \"a\", rule 5 applies, the verb wore is copied over to the second conjunct, and \"a\" is inserted into NP2. Thus, the segmentation of the conjunct clause looks like this: Recombination would produce the conjunction of two complete clauses with no shared material.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Word",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Using the rules described above, NEXUS can successfully parse all the conjunction examples given in all the papers, with two exceptions. It cannot parse:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "RESULTS",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\u2022 conjoined adverbs, e.g., Slowly and stealthily, he crept toward his victim. \u2022 embedded clausal complement gaps, e.g., Max wants to try to begin to write a novel and Alex a play.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "RESULTS",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The problem with these forms lies not so much in the conjunction rules as in the rules for adverbs and clausal complements in general. These latter rules simply aren't very well developed yet.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "RESULTS",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "It is instructive to compare the NEXUS parser to that of Lesmo & Toraseo. Like theirs, NEXUS solves the first problem mentioned in the introduction by using transition rules rather than a more conventional declarative grammar. Also like theirs, NEXUS solves the third problem by means of special rules which detect gaps in conjuncts and which fill those gaps by copying constituents from the other conjunct. Unlike theirs, however, NEXUS delays recombination decisions as long as it can and so does not have to search for possible attachments in some situations where theirs does. For instance, in processing It is also instructive to compare NEXUS to the work of Church. His thesis [3] gives a detailed specification of a some fairly elegant rules for conjunction (and several other constructions) along with their linguistic and psycholinguistic justification. While most of the rules are not actually exhibited, their specification suggests that they are similar in many ways to those in NEXUS. However, Church was primarily concerned with the implications of determinism and limited memory, and so his parser, YAP, does not defer decisions as long as NEXUS does. Hence, YAP could not find, or ask for resolution of, the ambiguity in a sentence like: I know Bob and Bill left. YAP parses this as [I know Bob] and [Bill left]. NEXUS would find both parses because the third and fifth verb rules both apply when the verb left is processed. Note that these two parses are required not because of the conjunction, but because of the verb know, which can take either a noun phrase or a clause as its object. Only one parse would be needed for unambiguous variations such as I know that Bob and Bill left and I know Bob and Bill knows me. In general, the conjunction rules do not introduce any additional nondeterminism into the grammar beyond that which was there already.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 683,
"end": 686,
"text": "[3]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "RESULTS",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "With respect to efficiency, the table below gives the execution times in milliseconds for NEXUS's parsing of the sample sentences tabulated in [5] . For comparison, the times from [5] for MSG and RPM are also shown. All three systems were executed on a Dec.20 and the times shown for each are just the time taken to build parse trees: time spent on morphological analysis and post-parse transformations is not included. MSG and RPM are written in Prolog and NEXUS is written in Maclisp (compiled). NEXUS was run with the 'no-interpreter' switch turned on. In all cases, NEXUS is faster, and in the majority, it is more that twice as fast as either other system. Averaging over all the sentences, NEXUS is about 4 times faster than RPM and 3 times faster than MSG.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 143,
"end": 146,
"text": "[5]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 183,
"text": "[5]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "RESULTS",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The most innovative feature in NEXUS is its use of only two kinds of stack structures, one for clauses and one for everything else. When a structure is at the top of the stack, it represents a top.down prediction of constituents yet to come, and words from the input simply drop into the slots that are open to that class of word. When a word is encountered that cannot be inserted into the top structure nor into any structure lower in the stack, a new structure is built bottom-up, the new word inserted in it, and the parse goes on. When a word can both be inserted somewhere in the stack and also in a new structure, all possible parses are pursued in parallel. Thus, NEXUS seems to be a unique member of the wait-and-see family since it is not always deterministic and hence need not disembiguate until all information it could get from the sentence is available.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "CONCLUSIONS",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The general efficiency of the parser is due primarily to its separation of segmentation from recombination. This is a divide and conquer strategy which reduces a large search space --grammatical patterns for words in sentences --into two smaller ones: (1) the set of grammatical patterns for simple phrases and clause nuclei, and (2) the set of allowable combinations of stack structures. Of course, search is still required to resolve structural ambiguity, but the total number of combinations is much less.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "CONCLUSIONS",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "It is not clear whether the parser's speed in the particular cases above comes from divide and conquer or from the differences between Prolog and Maclisp. Nevertheless, as systems are built that require larger, more comprehensive grammars, and that must deal with longer, more complicated sentences, the efficiency of wait-and-see methods like those presented here should become increasingly important.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "CONCLUSIONS",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"back_matter": [
{
"text": "A3. The noun rules will always insert a new NP constituent into an empty NP slot if such a slot is available. Hence, they will always fill NP3 in a clause with \u2022 ditrartsitive verb, end NP2 in clause which can take a clausal complement, even if these noun phrases turn out to be the initial NPs of relative or complement clauses. Such misettachments are detected by the fourth and fifth verb rules, which respond by generating the proper structures.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "APPENDIX: SAMPLE SEGMENTATION RULES WORD CLASS",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "A clause with FUNCTION = THAT represents either a complement or a relative clause. The choice is made when the stack is collapsed.5. The word that as sole NP constituent is either the demonstrative pronoun or a placeholder for a subsequent WHAT compiemenL The choice is made when the stack is collapsed.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "4.",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "A Deterministic Parser With Broad Coverage",
"authors": [
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [
"C"
],
"last": "Berwick",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1983,
"venue": "Proceedings of/JCA/8",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "710--712",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Berwick, R.C. (1983), \"A Deterministic Parser With Broad Coverage,\" Proceedings of/JCA/8, Karlsruhe, W. Germany, pp. 710-712.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "Recognising Conjunctions Within the ATN Framework",
"authors": [
{
"first": "B",
"middle": [
"K"
],
"last": "Boguraev",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1983,
"venue": "Automatic Natural Language Parsing",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Boguraev, B.K. (1983), \"Recognising Conjunctions Within the ATN Framework,\" in K. Sparck-Jones and Y. Wilks (eds.), Automatic Natural Language Parsing, Ellis Horwood.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "On Memory Limitations in Natural Language Processing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [
"W"
],
"last": "Church",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1980,
"venue": "LCS TR.245, Laboratory for Computer Science",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Church, K.W. (1980), \"On Memory Limitations in Natural Language Processing,\" LCS TR.245, Laboratory for Com- puter Science, MIT, Cambridge, MA.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "Treating Coordination in Logic Grammars",
"authors": [
{
"first": "V",
"middle": [],
"last": "Dahl",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [
"C"
],
"last": "Mccord",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1983,
"venue": "American Journal of Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "9",
"issue": "2",
"pages": "69--91",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Dahl, V., and McCord, M.C. (1983), \"Treating Coordination in Logic Grammars,\" American Journal of Computational Linguistics, V. 9, No. 2, pp. 69-91.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "New Approaches to Parsing Conjunctions Using Prolog",
"authors": [
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Fong",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [
"C"
],
"last": "Berwick",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1985,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 23rd ACL Conference",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "118--126",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Fong, S, and Berwick, R.C. (1985), \"New Approaches to Parsing Conjunctions Using Prolog,\" Proceedings of the 23rd ACL Conference, Chicago, pp. 118-126.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "Natural Language Processing in an Automatic Programming Framework, AIM-316",
"authors": [
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ginsparg",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1978,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Ginsparg, J. (1978), Natural Language Processing in an Automatic Programming Framework, AIM-316, PhD. Thesis, Computer Science Dept., Stanford University, Stanford, CA.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "Semantic Interpretation and the Resolution of Ambiguity",
"authors": [
{
"first": "G",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hirst",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": null,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Hirst, G. (in press), Semantic Interpretation and the Resolu- tion of Ambiguity, New York: Cambridge University Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "Dealing with Conjunctions in a Machine Translation Environment",
"authors": [
{
"first": "X",
"middle": [],
"last": "Huang",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1984,
"venue": "Proceedings of COLING",
"volume": "84",
"issue": "",
"pages": "243--246",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Huang, X. (1984), \"Dealing with Conjunctions in a Machine Translation Environment,\" Proceedings of COLING 84, Stan- ford, pp. 243-246.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "Analysis of Conjunctions in a Rule.Based Parser",
"authors": [
{
"first": "L",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lesmo",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "P",
"middle": [],
"last": "Torasso",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1985,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 23rd ACL Conference",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "180--187",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Lesmo, L., and Torasso, P. (1985), \"Analysis of Conjunctions in a Rule.Based Parser\", Proceedings of the 23rd ACL Conference, Chicago, pp. 180-187.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF9": {
"ref_id": "b9",
"title": "A Theory of Syntactic Recognition for Natural Language",
"authors": [
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Marcus",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1980,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Marcus, M. (1980), A Theory of Syntactic Recognition for Natural Language, Cambridge, MA.: The MIT Press.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF0": {
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null,
"num": null,
"text": "Parse of The children wore the socks on their hands"
},
"TABREF0": {
"type_str": "table",
"text": "VERB, PREP, ADV, NOTE, and FUNCTION slots are",
"html": null,
"num": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td/><td>i</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">filled during segmentation, while CASES and MEASURE slots are</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">added during recombination. NP slots are filled with noun</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">phrases during segmentation but may subsequently be aug-</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">mented by post-modifiers during recombination.</td></tr><tr><td>CLAUSES</td><td>PREPOSITION STRUCTURES</td></tr><tr><td>VERB: verb phrase</td><td>PREP: preposition</td></tr><tr><td>ADV: adverbs</td><td>ADV: adverbs</td></tr><tr><td>NP1,NP2,NP3: noun phrases</td><td>NP: noun phrase</td></tr><tr><td>NOTE: notes</td><td>NOTE: notes</td></tr><tr><td>FUNCTION: clause function</td><td/></tr><tr><td>MEASURE: rating</td><td>MEASURE: rating</td></tr><tr><td>CASES: adjuncts</td><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">DEFINITIONS</td></tr><tr><td>Clause function</td><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">Hypothesized role of the clause in the sentence, e.g. main,</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">relative clause, infinitive adjunct, etc.</td></tr></table>"
}
}
}
} |