Assessing Corpus Evidence for Formal and Psycholinguistic Constraints on Nonprojectivity

IF 3.7 2区 计算机科学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE Computational Linguistics Pub Date : 2022-03-07 DOI:10.1162/coli_a_00437
Himanshu Yadav, Samar Husain, Richard Futrell
{"title":"Assessing Corpus Evidence for Formal and Psycholinguistic Constraints on Nonprojectivity","authors":"Himanshu Yadav, Samar Husain, Richard Futrell","doi":"10.1162/coli_a_00437","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Formal constraints on crossing dependencies have played a large role in research on the formal complexity of natural language grammars and parsing. Here we ask whether the apparent evidence for constraints on crossing dependencies in treebanks might arise because of independent constraints on trees, such as low arity and dependency length minimization. We address this question using two sets of experiments. In Experiment 1, we compare the distribution of formal properties of crossing dependencies, such as gap degree, between real trees and baseline trees matched for rate of crossing dependencies and various other properties. In Experiment 2, we model whether two dependencies cross, given certain psycholinguistic properties of the dependencies. We find surprisingly weak evidence for constraints originating from the mild context-sensitivity literature (gap degree and well-nestedness) beyond what can be explained by constraints on rate of crossing dependencies, topological properties of the trees, and dependency length. However, measures that have emerged from the parsing literature (e.g., edge degree, end-point crossings, and heads’ depth difference) differ strongly between real and random trees. Modeling results show that cognitive metrics relating to information locality and working-memory limitations affect whether two dependencies cross or not, but they do not fully explain the distribution of crossing dependencies in natural languages. Together these results suggest that crossing constraints are better characterized by processing pressures than by mildly context-sensitive constraints.","PeriodicalId":55229,"journal":{"name":"Computational Linguistics","volume":"48 1","pages":"375-401"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computational Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/coli_a_00437","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Abstract Formal constraints on crossing dependencies have played a large role in research on the formal complexity of natural language grammars and parsing. Here we ask whether the apparent evidence for constraints on crossing dependencies in treebanks might arise because of independent constraints on trees, such as low arity and dependency length minimization. We address this question using two sets of experiments. In Experiment 1, we compare the distribution of formal properties of crossing dependencies, such as gap degree, between real trees and baseline trees matched for rate of crossing dependencies and various other properties. In Experiment 2, we model whether two dependencies cross, given certain psycholinguistic properties of the dependencies. We find surprisingly weak evidence for constraints originating from the mild context-sensitivity literature (gap degree and well-nestedness) beyond what can be explained by constraints on rate of crossing dependencies, topological properties of the trees, and dependency length. However, measures that have emerged from the parsing literature (e.g., edge degree, end-point crossings, and heads’ depth difference) differ strongly between real and random trees. Modeling results show that cognitive metrics relating to information locality and working-memory limitations affect whether two dependencies cross or not, but they do not fully explain the distribution of crossing dependencies in natural languages. Together these results suggest that crossing constraints are better characterized by processing pressures than by mildly context-sensitive constraints.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估语料库证据对非投射性的形式和心理语言学约束
摘要交叉依赖的形式约束在自然语言语法和解析的形式复杂性研究中发挥了重要作用。在这里,我们询问树库中交叉依赖性约束的明显证据是否可能是因为树上的独立约束而出现的,例如低arity和依赖长度最小化。我们用两组实验来解决这个问题。在实验1中,我们比较了真实树和基线树之间交叉依赖关系的形式性质的分布,如间隙度,这些树与交叉依赖关系率和其他各种性质相匹配。在实验2中,我们对两个依赖关系是否交叉进行建模,给定依赖关系的某些心理语言学特性。我们发现,来自温和上下文敏感性文献的约束(间隙度和良好嵌套性)的证据出奇地弱,超出了交叉依赖率、树的拓扑性质和依赖长度的约束所能解释的范围。然而,解析文献中出现的度量(例如,边缘度、端点交叉和头部深度差)在真实树和随机树之间存在很大差异。建模结果表明,与信息局部性和工作记忆限制相关的认知指标会影响两种依赖关系是否交叉,但它们并不能完全解释交叉依赖关系在自然语言中的分布。总之,这些结果表明,处理压力比轻度上下文敏感的约束更能表征交叉约束。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Computational Linguistics
Computational Linguistics 工程技术-计算机:跨学科应用
CiteScore
15.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
45
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Computational Linguistics, the longest-running publication dedicated solely to the computational and mathematical aspects of language and the design of natural language processing systems, provides university and industry linguists, computational linguists, AI and machine learning researchers, cognitive scientists, speech specialists, and philosophers with the latest insights into the computational aspects of language research.
期刊最新文献
Generation and Polynomial Parsing of Graph Languages with Non-Structural Reentrancies Languages through the Looking Glass of BPE Compression Capturing Fine-Grained Regional Differences in Language Use through Voting Precinct Embeddings Machine Learning for Ancient Languages: A Survey Statistical Methods for Annotation Analysis by Silviu Paun, Ron Artstein, and Massimo Poesio
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1