acl acl2013 acl2013-57 acl2013-57-reference knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: pdf
Author: Leon Bergen ; Edward Gibson ; Timothy J. O'Donnell
Abstract: We present a model for inducing sentential argument structure, which distinguishes arguments from optional modifiers. We use this model to study whether representing an argument/modifier distinction helps in learning argument structure, and whether a linguistically-natural argument/modifier distinction can be induced from distributional data alone. Our results provide evidence for both hypotheses.
David Chiang and Daniel Bikel. 2002. Recovering latent information in treebanks. In Proceedings of COLING 2002. David Chiang. 2000. Staistical parsing with an automatically–extracted tree adjoining grammar. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics. Trevor Cohn, Phil Blunsom, and Sharon Goldwater. 2010. Inducing tree–substitution grammars. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 11:3053–3096. Sharon Goldwater, Thomas L. Griffiths, and Mark Johnson. 2006. Interpolating between types and tokens by estimating power–law generators. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 18, Cambridge, Ma. MIT Press. Liliane Haegeman. 1994. Government & Binding Theory. Blackwell. Mirian Kaeshammer and Vera Demberg. 2012. German and English treebanks and lexica for tree– adjoining grammars. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Language Resources andEvaluation (LREC 2012). Mitchell P. Marcus, Beatrice Santorini, Mary Ann Marcinkiewicz, and Ann Taylor. 1999. Treebank– 3. Technical report, Linguistic Data Consortium, Philadelphia. Timothy J. O’Donnell, Jesse Snedeker, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, and Noah D. Goodman. 2011. Productivity and reuse in language. In Proceedings of the 33rdAnnual Conference ofthe Cognitive Science Society. Timothy J. O’Donnell. 2011. Productivity and Reuse in Language. Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University. Martha Palmer, P. Kingsbury, and Daniel Gildea. 2005. The proposition bank. Computational Linguistics, 31(1):71–106. Matt Post and Daniel Gildea. 2009. Bayesian learning of a tree substitution grammar. In Proceedings of the Joint Conference of the 47th Annual Meeting of the ACL and the 4th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing of the AFNLP. Owen Rambow, K. Vijay-Shanker, and David Weir. 1995. D–tree grammars. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics. Ivan A. Sag, Thomas Wasow, and Emily M. Bender. 2003. Syntactic Theory: A Formal Introduction. CSLI, Stanford, CA, 2 edition. Carson T Sch u¨tze and Edward Gibson. 1999. Argumenthood and english prepositional phrase attachment. Journal of Memory and Language, 40(3):409–431. Carson T. Sch u¨tze. 1995. PP attachment and argumenthood. Technical report, Papers on language processing and acquisition, MIT working papers in linguistics, Cambridge, Ma. Mark Steedman. MIT press. 2001. The syntactic process. The Yee Whye Teh. 2006. A Bayesian interpretation of interpolated Kneser-Ney. Technical Report TRA2/06, National University of Singapore, School of Computing. David Vadas and James Curran. 2007. Adding noun phrase structure to the penn treebank. In Proceedings of the 45th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics. 119