Search for: All records

Treebanks traditionally treat punctuation marks as ordinary words, but linguists have suggested that a tree’s “true” punctuation marks are not observed (Nunberg, 1990). These latent “underlying” marks serve to delimit or separate constituents in the syntax tree. When the tree’s yield is rendered as a written sentence, a string rewriting mechanism transduces the underlying marks into “surface” marks, which are part of the observed (surface) string but should not be regarded as part of the tree. We formalize this idea in a generative model of punctuation that admits efficient dynamic programming. We train it without observing the underlying marks, by locally maximizing the incomplete data likelihood (similarly to the EM algorithm). When we use the trained model to reconstruct the tree’s underlying punctuation, the results appear plausible across 5 languages, and in particular are consistent with Nunberg’s analysis of English. We show that our generative model can be used to beat baselines on punctuation restoration. Also, our reconstruction of a sentence’s underlying punctuation lets us appropriately render the surface punctuation (via our trained underlying-to-surface mechanism) when we syntactically transform the sentence. 

We show how the spellings of known words can help us deal with unknown words in open-vocabulary NLP tasks. The method we propose can be used to extend any closedvocabulary generative model, but in this paper we specifically consider the case of neural language modeling. Our Bayesian generative story combines a standard RNN language model (generating the word tokens in each sentence) with an RNNbased spelling model (generating the letters in each word type). These two RNNs respectively capture sentence structure and word structure, and are kept separate as in linguistics. By invoking the second RNN to generate spellings for novel words in context, we obtain an open-vocabulary language model. For known words, embeddings are naturally inferred by combining evidence from type spelling and token context. Comparing to baselines (including a novel strong baseline), we beat previous work and establish state-of-the-art results on multiple datasets. 

We quantify the linguistic complexity of different languages’ morphological systems. We verify that there is a statistically significant empirical trade-off between paradigm size and irregularity: A language’s inflectional paradigms may be either large in size or highly irregular, but never both. We define a new measure of paradigm irregularity based on the conditional entropy of the surface realization of a paradigm— how hard it is to jointly predict all the word forms in a paradigm from the lemma. We estimate irregularity by training a predictive model. Our measurements are taken on large morphological paradigms from 36 typologically diverse languages. 

We introduce a novel framework for delexicalized dependency parsing in a new language. We show that useful features of the target language can be extracted automatically from an unparsed corpus, which consists only of gold part-of-speech (POS) sequences. Providing these features to our neural parser enables it to parse sequences like those in the corpus. Strikingly, our system has no supervision in the target language. Rather, it is a multilingual system that is trained end-to-end on a variety of other languages, so it learns a feature extractor that works well. We show experimentally across multiple languages: (1) Features computed from the unparsed corpus improve parsing accuracy. (2) Including thousands of synthetic languages in the training yields further improvement. (3) Despite being computed from unparsed corpora, our learned task-specific features beat previous work’s interpretable typological features that require parsed corpora or expert categorization of the language. Our best method improved attachment scores on held-out test languages by an average of 5.6 percentage points over past work that does not inspect the unparsed data (McDonald et al., 2011), and by 20.7 points over past “grammar induction” work that does not use training languages (Naseem et al., 2010).