Note: When clicking on a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) number, you will be taken to an external site maintained by the publisher.
Some full text articles may not yet be available without a charge during the embargo (administrative interval).
What is a DOI Number?
Some links on this page may take you to non-federal websites. Their policies may differ from this site.
-
Serikov, Oleg; Voloshina, Ekaterina; Postnikova, Anna; Klyachko, Elena; Neminova, Ekaterina; Vylomova, Ekaterina; Shavrina, Tatiana; Le Ferrand, Eric; Malykh, Valentin; Tyers, Francis (Ed.)In this paper, we present a straightforward technique for constructing interpretable word embeddings from morphologically analyzed examples (such as interlinear glosses) for all of the world’s languages. Currently, fewer than 300-400 languages out of approximately 7000 have have more than a trivial amount of digitized texts; of those, between 100-200 languages (most in the Indo-European language family) have enough text data for BERT embeddings of reasonable quality to be trained. The word embeddings in this paper are explicitly designed to be both linguistically interpretable and fully capable of handling the broad variety found in the world’s diverse set of 7000 languages, regardless of corpus size or morphological characteristics. We demonstrate the applicability of our representation through examples drawn from a typologically diverse set of languages whose morphology includes prefixes, suffixes, infixes, circumfixes, templatic morphemes, derivational morphemes, inflectional morphemes, and reduplication.more » « less
-
Ettinger, Allyson; Pavlich, Ellie; Prickett, Brandon (Ed.)Morphological patterns can involve simple concatenation of fixed strings (e.g., unkind, kindness) or ‘nonconcatenative’ processes such as infixation (e.g., Chamorro l-um-iʔeʔ ‘saw (actor-focus)’, Topping, 1973) and reduplication (e.g., Amele ba-bagawen ‘as he came out’, Roberts, 1987), among many others (e.g., Anderson, 1992; Inkelas, 2014). Recent work has established that deep neural networks are capable of inducing both concatenative and nonconatenative patterns (e.g., Kannand Schütze, 2017; Nelson et al., 2020). In this paper, we verify that encoder-decoder networks can learn and generalize attested types of infixation and reduplication from modest training sets. We show further that the same networks readily learn many infixation and reduplication patterns that are unattested in natural languages, raising questions about their relationship to linguistic theory and viability as models of human learning.more » « less
-
Abstract Prior studies in multilingual language modeling (e.g., Cotterell et al., 2018; Mielke et al., 2019) disagree on whether or not inflectional morphology makes languages harder to model. We attempt to resolve the disagreement and extend those studies. We compile a larger corpus of 145 Bible translations in 92 languages and a larger number of typological features.1 We fill in missing typological data for several languages and consider corpus-based measures of morphological complexity in addition to expert-produced typological features. We find that several morphological measures are significantly associated with higher surprisal when LSTM models are trained with BPE-segmented data. We also investigate linguistically motivated subword segmentation strategies like Morfessor and Finite-State Transducers (FSTs) and find that these segmentation strategies yield better performance and reduce the impact of a language’s morphology on language modeling.more » « less
-
Many techniques in modern computational linguistics and natural language processing (NLP) make the assumption that approaches that work well on English and other widely used European (and sometimes Asian) languages are “language agnostic” – that is that they will also work across the typologically diverse languages of the world. In high-resource languages, especially those that are analytic rather than synthetic, a common approach is to treat morphologically-distinct variants of a common root (such as dog and dogs) as completely independent word types. Doing so relies on two main assumptions: that there exist a limited number of morphological inflections for any given root, and that most or all of those variants will appear in a large enough corpus (conditioned on assumptions about domain, etc.) so that the model can adequately learn statistics about each variant. Approaches like stemming, lemmatization, morphological analysis, subword segmentation, or other normalization techniques are frequently used when either of those assumptions are likely to be violated, particularly in the case of synthetic languages like Czech and Russian that have more inflectional morphology than English. Within the NLP literature, agglutinative languages like Finnish and Turkish are commonly held up as extreme examples of morphological complexity that challenge common modelling assumptions. Yet, when considering all of the world’s languages, Finnish and Turkish are closer to the average case in terms of synthesis. When we consider polysynthetic languages (those at the extreme of morphological complexity), even approaches like stemming, lemmatization, or subword modelling may not suffice. These languages have very high numbers of hapax legomena (words appearing only once in a corpus), underscoring the need for appropriate morphological handling of words, without which there is no hope for a model to capture enough statistical information about those words. Moreover, many of these languages have only very small text corpora, substantially magnifying these challenges. To this end, we examine the current state-of-the-art in language modelling, machine translation, and predictive text completion in the context of four polysynthetic languages: Guaraní, St. Lawrence Island Yupik, Central Alaskan Yup’ik, and Inuktitut. We have a particular focus on Inuit-Yupik, a highly challenging family of endangered polysynthetic languages that ranges geographically from Greenland through northern Canada and Alaska to far eastern Russia. The languages in this family are extraordinarily challenging from a computational perspective, with pervasive use of derivational morphemes in addition to rich sets of inflectional suffixes and phonological challenges at morpheme boundaries. Finally, we propose a novel framework for language modelling that combines knowledge representations from finite-state morphological analyzers with Tensor Product Representations (Smolensky, 1990) in order to enable successful neural language models capable of handling the full linguistic variety of typologically variant languages.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)Many techniques in modern computational linguistics and natural language processing (NLP) make the assumption that approaches that work well on English and other widely used European (and sometimes Asian) languages are “language agnostic” – that is that they will also work across the typologically diverse languages of the world. In high-resource languages, especially those that are analytic rather than synthetic, a common approach is to treat morphologically-distinct variants of a common root (such as dog and dogs) as completely independent word types. Doing so relies on two main assumptions: that there exist a limited number of morphological inflections for any given root, and that most or all of those variants will appear in a large enough corpus (conditioned on assumptions about domain, etc.) so that the model can adequately learn statistics about each variant. Approaches like stemming, lemmatization, morphological analysis, subword segmentation, or other normalization techniques are frequently used when either of those assumptions are likely to be violated, particularly in the case of synthetic languages like Czech and Russian that have more inflectional morphology than English. Within the NLP literature, agglutinative languages like Finnish and Turkish are commonly held up as extreme examples of morphological complexity that challenge common modelling assumptions. Yet, when considering all of the world’s languages, Finnish and Turkish are closer to the average case in terms of synthesis. When we consider polysynthetic languages (those at the extreme of morphological complexity), even approaches like stemming, lemmatization, or subword modelling may not suffice. These languages have very high numbers of hapax legomena (words appearing only once in a corpus), underscoring the need for appropriate morphological handling of words, without which there is no hope for a model to capture enough statistical information about those words. Moreover, many of these languages have only very small text corpora, substantially magnifying these challenges. To this end, we examine the current state-of-the-art in language modelling, machine translation, and predictive text completion in the context of four polysynthetic languages: Guaraní, St. Lawrence Island Yupik, Central Alaskan Yup’ik, and Inuktitut. We have a particular focus on Inuit-Yupik, a highly challenging family of endangered polysynthetic languages that ranges geographically from Greenland through northern Canada and Alaska to far eastern Russia. The languages in this family are extraordinarily challenging from a computational perspective, with pervasive use of derivational morphemes in addition to rich sets of inflectional suffixes and phonological challenges at morpheme boundaries. Finally, we propose a novel framework for language modelling that combines knowledge representations from finite-state morphological analyzers with Tensor Product Representations (Smolensky, 1990) in order to enable successful neural language models capable of handling the full linguistic variety of typologically variant languages.more » « less
An official website of the United States government

Full Text Available