Advertisement

Two Principles of Parse Preference

  • Jerry R. Hobbs
  • John Bear
Chapter
Part of the Linguistica Computazionale book series (LICO, volume 9)

Abstract

The DIALOGIC system for syntactic analysis and semantic translation has been under development for over ten years, and during that time it has been used in a number of domains in both database interface and message-processing applications. In addition, it has been tested on a number of sentences of linguistic interest. Built into the system are facilities for ranking parses according to syntactic and selectional considerations, and over the years, as various kinds of ambiguity have become apparent, heuristics have been devised for choosing the preferred parses. Our aim in this paper is first to present a compendium of many of these heuristics and second to propose two principles that seem to underlie the heuristics. The first will be useful to researchers engaged in building grammars of similarly broad coverage. The second is of psychological interest and may be a guide for estimating parse preferences for newly discovered ambiguities for which we lack the experience to decide among on a more empirical basis.

Keywords

Noun Phrase Attachment Point Parse Tree Head Noun Computational Linguistics 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Bear, John, and Jerry Hobbs, 1988. “Localizing Expression of Ambiguity”, Proceedings of the Second Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing, Austin, Texas, pp. 235–241.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Bear, John, and Patti Price, 1990. “Prosody, Syntax and Parsing”, Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 17–22.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Church, Kenneth, 1980. “On Memory Limitations in Natural Language Processing”, MIT Technical Report MIT/LCS/TR-245.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Crain, Stephen and Mark Steedman, 1984. “On Not Being Led Up the Garden Path: The Use of Context by the Psychological Syntax Processor,” in Dowty, Karttunen, and Zwicky (Eds.) Natural Language Parsing, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Ford, Marylyn, Joan Bresnan, and Ronald Kaplan, 1982. “A Competence-Based Theory of Syntactic Closure,” in J. Bresnan (Ed.) The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Frazier, Lyn and Janet Fodor, 1979. “The Sausage Machine: A New Two-Stage Parsing Model”, Cognition 6, pp. 291–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Grosz, Barbara, Norman Haas, Gary Hendrix, Jerry Hobbs, Paul Martin, Robert Moore, Jane Robinson, Stanley Rosenschein, 1982. “DIALOGIC: A Core Natural-Language Processing System”, Technical Note 270, Artificial Intelligence Center, SRI International.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Hirst, Graeme (1987) Semantic Interpretation and the Resolution of Ambiguity, Cambridge University Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Hobbs, Jerry R., Mark Stickel, Douglas Appelt, and Paul Martin, 1993. “Interpretation as Abduction”, Artificial Intelligence, No. 63, pp. 69–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Kimball, John, 1973. “Seven Principles of Surface Structure Parsing in Natural Language”, Cognition 2 (1), pp. 15–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Marcus, Mitchel, 1980. A Theory of Syntactic Recognition for Natural Language, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Pereira, Fernando, 1985. “A New Characterization of Attachment Preferences,” in D. Dowty et al. (Eds.) Natural Language Processing, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Schubert, Lenhart, 1984. “On Parsing Preferences”, Proceedings, COLING 1984, Stanford, California, pp. 247–250.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Schubert, Lenhart, 1986. “Are There Preference Trade-offs in Attachment Decisions?” Proceedings, AAA1 1986, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, pp. 601–605.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Shieber, Stuart, 1983. “Sentence Disambiguation by a Shift-Reduce Parsing Technique”, Proceedings, IJCA1 1983, Washington, D.C., pp. 699–703.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Wanner, Eric, and Michael Maratsos, 1978. “An ATN Approach to Comprehension,” in Halle, Bresnan, and Miller (Eds.) Linguistic Theory and Psychological Reality. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Whittemore, Greg, Kathleen Ferrara, and Hans Brunner, 1990. “Empirical Study of Predictive Powers of Simple Attachment Schemes for Post-modifier Prepositional Phrases”, Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 23–30.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Wilks, Yorick, XiumingHuang, and Dan Fass, 1985. “Syntax, Preference and Right Attachment”, Proceedings, IJCA11985, Los Angeles, California, pp. 779–784.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jerry R. Hobbs
    • 1
  • John Bear
    • 1
  1. 1.Artificial Intelligence CenterSRI InternationalUSA

Personalised recommendations