Bilingualism and the single route/dual route debate

The debate between single and dual route accounts of cognitive processes has been generated predominantly by the application of connectionist modeling techniques to two areas of psycholinguistics. This paper draws an analogy between this debate and bilingual language processing. A prominent question within bilingual word recognition is whether the bilingual has functionally separate lexicons for each language, or a single system able to recognize the words in both languages. Empirical evidence has been taken to support a model which includes two separate lexicons working in parallel (Smith, 1991; Gerard and Scarborough, 1989). However, a range of interference effects has been found between the bilingual’s two sets of lexical knowledge (Thomas, 1997a). Connectionist models have been put forward which suggest that a single representational resource may deal with these data, so long as words are coded according to language membership (Thomas, 1997a, 1997b, Dijkstra and van Heuven, 1998). This paper discusses the criteria which might be used to differentiate single route and dual route models. An empirical study is introduced to address one of these criteria, parallel access, with regard to bilingual word recognition. The study fails to find support for the dual route model

Abstract Meaning Representation for Multi-Document Summarization

Generating an abstract from a collection of documents is a desirable capability for many real-world applications. However, abstractive approaches to multi-document summarization have not been thoroughly investigated. This paper studies the feasibility of using Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR), a semantic representation of natural language grounded in linguistic theory, as a form of content representation. Our approach condenses source documents to a set of summary graphs following the AMR formalism. The summary graphs are then transformed to a set of summary sentences in a surface realization step. The framework is fully data-driven and flexible. Each component can be optimized independently using small-scale, in-domain training data. We perform experiments on benchmark summarization datasets and report promising results. We also describe opportunities and challenges for advancing this line of research.Comment: 13 page

Domain transfer for deep natural language generation from abstract meaning representations

Stochastic natural language generation systems that are trained from labelled datasets are often domainspecific in their annotation and in their mapping from semantic input representations to lexical-syntactic outputs. As a result, learnt models fail to generalize across domains, heavily restricting their usability beyond single applications. In this article, we focus on the problem of domain adaptation for natural language generation. We show how linguistic knowledge from a source domain, for which labelled data is available, can be adapted to a target domain by reusing training data across domains. As a key to this, we propose to employ abstract meaning representations as a common semantic representation across domains. We model natural language generation as a long short-term memory recurrent neural network encoderdecoder, in which one recurrent neural network learns a latent representation of a semantic input, and a second recurrent neural network learns to decode it to a sequence of words. We show that the learnt representations can be transferred across domains and can be leveraged effectively to improve training on new unseen domains. Experiments in three different domains and with six datasets demonstrate that the lexical-syntactic constructions learnt in one domain can be transferred to new domains and achieve up to 75-100% of the performance of in-domain training. This is based on objective metrics such as BLEU and semantic error rate and a subjective human rating study. Training a policy from prior knowledge from a different domain is consistently better than pure in-domain training by up to 10%

Generating High-Quality Surface Realizations Using Data Augmentation and Factored Sequence Models

This work presents a new state of the art in reconstruction of surface realizations from obfuscated text. We identify the lack of sufficient training data as the major obstacle to training high-performing models, and solve this issue by generating large amounts of synthetic training data. We also propose preprocessing techniques which make the structure contained in the input features more accessible to sequence models. Our models were ranked first on all evaluation metrics in the English portion of the 2018 Surface Realization shared task

Data-Oriented Language Processing. An Overview

During the last few years, a new approach to language processing has started to emerge, which has become known under various labels such as "data-oriented parsing", "corpus-based interpretation", and "tree-bank grammar" (cf. van den Berg et al. 1994; Bod 1992-96; Bod et al. 1996a/b; Bonnema 1996; Charniak 1996a/b; Goodman 1996; Kaplan 1996; Rajman 1995a/b; Scha 1990-92; Sekine & Grishman 1995; Sima'an et al. 1994; Sima'an 1995-96; Tugwell 1995). This approach, which we will call "data-oriented processing" or "DOP", embodies the assumption that human language perception and production works with representations of concrete past language experiences, rather than with abstract linguistic rules. The models that instantiate this approach therefore maintain large corpora of linguistic representations of previously occurring utterances. When processing a new input utterance, analyses of this utterance are constructed by combining fragments from the corpus; the occurrence-frequencies of the fragments are used to estimate which analysis is the most probable one. In this paper we give an in-depth discussion of a data-oriented processing model which employs a corpus of labelled phrase-structure trees. Then we review some other models that instantiate the DOP approach. Many of these models also employ labelled phrase-structure trees, but use different criteria for extracting fragments from the corpus or employ different disambiguation strategies (Bod 1996b; Charniak 1996a/b; Goodman 1996; Rajman 1995a/b; Sekine & Grishman 1995; Sima'an 1995-96); other models use richer formalisms for their corpus annotations (van den Berg et al. 1994; Bod et al., 1996a/b; Bonnema 1996; Kaplan 1996; Tugwell 1995).Comment: 34 pages, Postscrip