A comparison of parsing technologies for the biomedical domain

This paper reports on a number of experiments which are designed to investigate the extent to which current nlp resources are able to syntactically and semantically analyse biomedical text. We address two tasks: parsing a real corpus with a hand-built widecoverage grammar, producing both syntactic analyses and logical forms; and automatically computing the interpretation of compound nouns where the head is a nominalisation (e.g., hospital arrival means an arrival at hospital, while patient arrival means an arrival of a patient). For the former task we demonstrate that exible and yet constrained `preprocessing ' techniques are crucial to success: these enable us to use part-of-speech tags to overcome inadequate lexical coverage, and to `package up' complex technical expressions prior to parsing so that they are blocked from creating misleading amounts of syntactic complexity. We argue that the xml-processing paradigm is ideally suited for automatically preparing the corpus for parsing. For the latter task, we compute interpretations of the compounds by exploiting surface cues and meaning paraphrases, which in turn are extracted from the parsed corpus. This provides an empirical setting in which we can compare the utility of a comparatively deep parser vs. a shallow one, exploring the trade-o between resolving attachment ambiguities on the one hand and generating errors in the parses on the other. We demonstrate that a model of the meaning of compound nominalisations is achievable with the aid of current broad-coverage parsers

Exploiting Lexical Conceptual Structure for paraphrase generation

Abstract. Lexical Conceptual Structure (LCS) represents verbs as semantic structures with a limited number of semantic predicates. This paper attempts to exploit how LCS can be used to explain the regularities underlying lexical and syntactic paraphrases, such as verb alternation, compound word decomposition, and lexical derivation. We propose a paraphrase generation model which transforms LCSs of verbs, and then conduct an empirical experiment taking the paraphrasing of Japanese light-verb constructions as an example. Experimental results justify that syntactic and semantic properties of verbs encoded in LCS are useful to semantically constrain the syntactic transformation in paraphrase generation.

The role of constituents in multiword expressions

Multiword expressions (MWEs), such as noun compounds (e.g. nickname in English, and Ohrwurm in German), complex verbs (e.g. give up in English, and aufgeben in German) and idioms (e.g. break the ice in English, and das Eis brechen in German), may be interpreted literally but often undergo meaning shifts with respect to their constituents. Theoretical, psycholinguistic as well as computational linguistic research remain puzzled by when and how MWEs receive literal vs. meaning-shifted interpretations, what the contributions of the MWE constituents are to the degree of semantic transparency (i.e., meaning compositionality) of the MWE, and how literal vs. meaning-shifted MWEs are processed and computed. This edited volume presents an interdisciplinary selection of seven papers on recent findings across linguistic, psycholinguistic, corpus-based and computational research fields and perspectives, discussing the interaction of constituent properties and MWE meanings, and how MWE constituents contribute to the processing and representation of MWEs. The collection is based on a workshop at the 2017 annual conference of the German Linguistic Society (DGfS) that took place at Saarland University in Saarbrücken, Germany

An interdisciplinary, cross-lingual perspective

Multiword expressions (MWEs), such as noun compounds (e.g. nickname in English, and Ohrwurm in German), complex verbs (e.g. give up in English, and aufgeben in German) and idioms (e.g. break the ice in English, and das Eis brechen in German), may be interpreted literally but often undergo meaning shifts with respect to their constituents. Theoretical, psycholinguistic as well as computational linguistic research remain puzzled by when and how MWEs receive literal vs. meaning-shifted interpretations, what the contributions of the MWE constituents are to the degree of semantic transparency (i.e., meaning compositionality) of the MWE, and how literal vs. meaning-shifted MWEs are processed and computed. This edited volume presents an interdisciplinary selection of seven papers on recent findings across linguistic, psycholinguistic, corpus-based and computational research fields and perspectives, discussing the interaction of constituent properties and MWE meanings, and how MWE constituents contribute to the processing and representation of MWEs. The collection is based on a workshop at the 2017 annual conference of the German Linguistic Society (DGfS) that took place at Saarland University in Saarbrücken, German

What's in a compound? Review article on Lieber and Štekauer (eds) 2009. 'The Oxford Handbook of Compounding'

The Oxford Handbook of Compounding surveys a variety of theoretical and descriptive issues, presenting overviews of compounding in a number of frameworks and sketches of compounding in a number of languages. Much of the book deals with Germanic noun–noun compounding. I take up some of the theoretical questions raised surrounding such constructions, in particular, the notion of attributive modification in noun-headed compounds. I focus on two issues. The first is the semantic relation between the head noun and its nominal modifier. Several authors repeat the argument that there is a small(-ish) fixed number of general semantic relations in noun–noun compounds (‘Lees's solution’), but I argue that the correct way to look at such compounds is what I call ‘Downing's solution’, in which we assume that the relation is specified pragmatically, and hence could be any relation at all. The second issue is the way that adjectives modify nouns inside compounds. Although there are languages in which compounded adjectives modify just as they do in phrases (Chukchee, Arleplog Swedish), in general the adjective has a classifier role and not that of a compositional attributive modifier. Thus, even if an English (or German) adjective–noun compound looks compositional, it isn't

The role of constituents in multiword expressions

Multiword expressions (MWEs), such as noun compounds (e.g. nickname in English, and Ohrwurm in German), complex verbs (e.g. give up in English, and aufgeben in German) and idioms (e.g. break the ice in English, and das Eis brechen in German), may be interpreted literally but often undergo meaning shifts with respect to their constituents. Theoretical, psycholinguistic as well as computational linguistic research remain puzzled by when and how MWEs receive literal vs. meaning-shifted interpretations, what the contributions of the MWE constituents are to the degree of semantic transparency (i.e., meaning compositionality) of the MWE, and how literal vs. meaning-shifted MWEs are processed and computed. This edited volume presents an interdisciplinary selection of seven papers on recent findings across linguistic, psycholinguistic, corpus-based and computational research fields and perspectives, discussing the interaction of constituent properties and MWE meanings, and how MWE constituents contribute to the processing and representation of MWEs. The collection is based on a workshop at the 2017 annual conference of the German Linguistic Society (DGfS) that took place at Saarland University in Saarbrücken, Germany

English compound and non-compound processing in bilingual and multilingual speakers: effects of dominance and sequential multilingualism

This article reports on a study investigating the relative influence of the first and dominant language on L2 and L3 morpho-lexical processing. A lexical decision task compared the responses to English NV-er compounds (e.g., taxi driver) and non-compounds provided by a group of native speakers and three groups of learners at various levels of English proficiency: L1 Spanish-L2 English sequential bilinguals and two groups of early Spanish-Basque bilinguals with English as their L3. Crucially, the two trilingual groups differed in their first and dominant language (i.e., L1 Spanish-L2 Basque vs. L1 Basque-L2 Spanish). Our materials exploit an (a)symmetry between these languages: while Basque and English pattern together in the basic structure of (productive) NV-er compounds, Spanish presents a construction that differs in directionality as well as inflection of the verbal element (V[3SG] + N). Results show between and within group differences in accuracy and response times that may be ascribable to two factors besides proficiency: the number of languages spoken by a given participant and their dominant language. An examination of response bias reveals an influence of the participants' first and dominant language on the processing of NV-er compounds. Our data suggest that morphological information in the nonnative lexicon may extend beyond morphemic structure and that, similarly to bilingualism, there are costs to sequential multilingualism in lexical retrieval

Compounds in Portuguese

In this article, Portuguese compounds are analysed according to different criteria, such as: (i) the morphological, categorial and semantic properties of their basic units, (ii) the grammatical relations linking their constituents, (iii) their syntactic atomicity and lexical opacity and (iv) the patterns of inflection. The problem of the boundaries of compoundhood, namely those existing between compounds and phrasal nouns, is also addressed, as well as the accuracy of the tests adopted to distinguish compounds (especially phrasal or prepositional compounds) from phrases. We assume that in conjunction with the criteria mentioned above, the referential identity of the entity, object, event or property denoted by the compound is a crucial dimension for the conceptual integrity of each compound lexeme. Keywords: compounding, word-formation, morphology, portuguese

Endurant vs Perdurant: Ontological Motivation for Language Variations

30th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation, PACLIC 2016, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 28-30 October 2016Modern ontology focuses on the shared structure of knowledge representation and sheds light on underling motivations of human conceptual structure. This paper addresses the issue of whether ontological structures are linguistically represented, and whether such conceptual underpinning of linguistic representation may motivate language variations. Integrating our recent work showing that the most fundamental endurant vs. perdurant ontological dichotomy is grammaticalized in Chinese and on comparable corpus based studies of variations of Chinese, I will explore the possibilit ENGLy that this basic conceptual dichotomy may in fact provide the motivation of changes of perspectives that underlies language variations. I will also discuss possible implication this approach has in accounting for other language changes and variations such as light verb's argument taking, incorporation, loss of case/agreement, and English -er/-ee asymmetry. In the process, the will resolve three linguistic puzzles and eventually show that the endurant/perdurant dichotomy may in fact be the conceptual basis of the hitherto undefined +N (i.e. nouny) vs. +V (i.e. verby) features prevalent in linguistics. Based on this proposal, the variations involving various types of denominalization and deverbalization can be accounted for.Department of Chinese and Bilingual Studies2016-2017 > Academic research: refereed > Refereed conference paperbcw