Content Differences in Syntactic and Semantic Representations

Syntactic analysis plays an important role in semantic parsing, but the nature of this role remains a topic of ongoing debate. The debate has been constrained by the scarcity of empirical comparative studies between syntactic and semantic schemes, which hinders the development of parsing methods informed by the details of target schemes and constructions. We target this gap, and take Universal Dependencies (UD) and UCCA as a test case. After abstracting away from differences of convention or formalism, we find that most content divergences can be ascribed to: (1) UCCA's distinction between a Scene and a non-Scene; (2) UCCA's distinction between primary relations, secondary ones and participants; (3) different treatment of multi-word expressions, and (4) different treatment of inter-clause linkage. We further discuss the long tail of cases where the two schemes take markedly different approaches. Finally, we show that the proposed comparison methodology can be used for fine-grained evaluation of UCCA parsing, highlighting both challenges and potential sources for improvement. The substantial differences between the schemes suggest that semantic parsers are likely to benefit downstream text understanding applications beyond their syntactic counterparts.Comment: NAACL-HLT 2019 camera read

Translating near-synonyms: Possibilities and preferences in the interlingua

This paper argues that an interlingual representation must explicitly represent some parts of the meaning of a situation as possibilities (or preferences), not as necessary or definite components of meaning (or constraints). Possibilities enable the analysis and generation of nuance, something required for faithful translation. Furthermore, the representation of the meaning of words, especially of near-synonyms, is crucial, because it specifies which nuances words can convey in which contexts.Comment: 8 pages, LaTeX2e, 1 eps figure, uses colacl.sty, epsfig.sty, avm.sty, times.st

Lexical typology : a programmatic sketch

The present paper is an attempt to lay the foundation for Lexical Typology as a new kind of linguistic typology.1 The goal of Lexical Typology is to investigate crosslinguistically significant patterns of interaction between lexicon and grammar

Improving the translation environment for professional translators

When using computer-aided translation systems in a typical, professional translation workflow, there are several stages at which there is room for improvement. The SCATE (Smart Computer-Aided Translation Environment) project investigated several of these aspects, both from a human-computer interaction point of view, as well as from a purely technological side. This paper describes the SCATE research with respect to improved fuzzy matching, parallel treebanks, the integration of translation memories with machine translation, quality estimation, terminology extraction from comparable texts, the use of speech recognition in the translation process, and human computer interaction and interface design for the professional translation environment. For each of these topics, we describe the experiments we performed and the conclusions drawn, providing an overview of the highlights of the entire SCATE project

XL-AMR: Enabling Cross-Lingual AMR Parsing with Transfer Learning Techniques

Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) is a popular formalism of natural language that represents the meaning of a sentence as a semantic graph. It is agnostic about how to derive meanings from strings and for this reason it lends itself well to the encoding of semantics across languages. However, cross-lingual AMR parsing is a hard task, because training data are scarce in languages other than English and the existing English AMR parsers are not directly suited to being used in a cross-lingual setting. In this work we tackle these two problems so as to enable cross-lingual AMR parsing: we explore different transfer learning techniques for producing automatic AMR annotations across languages and develop a cross-lingual AMR parser, XL-AMR. This can be trained on the produced data and does not rely on AMR aligners or source-copy mechanisms as is commonly the case in English AMR parsing. The results of XL-AMR significantly surpass those previously reported in Chinese, German, Italian and Spanish. Finally we provide a qualitative analysis which sheds light on the suitability of AMR across languages. We release XL-AMR at github.com/SapienzaNLP/xl-amr