Özlem Çetinoǧlu
ABSTRACT
This paper investigates the use of sublexical units as a solution to handling the complex morphology with productive derivational processes, in the development of a lexical functional grammar for Turkish. Such sublexical units make it possible to expose the internal structure of words with multiple derivations to the grammar rules in a uniform manner. This in turn leads to more succinct and manageable rules. Further, the semantics of the derivations can also be systematically reflected in a compositional way by constructing PRED values on the fly. We illustrate how we use sublexical units for handling simple productive derivational morphology and more interesting cases such as causativization, etc., which change verb valency. Our priority is to handle several linguistic phenomena in order to observe the effects of our approach on both the c-structure and the f-structure representation, and grammar writing, leaving the coverage and evaluation issues aside for the moment.
- Chris Barker, Jorge Hankamer, and John Moore, 1990. Grammatical Relations, chapter Wa and Ga in Turkish. CSLI.Google Scholar
- Cem Bozşahin. 2002. The combinatory morphemic lexicon. Computational Linguistics, 28(2):145--186. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Miriam Butt and Tracey Holloway King. 2005. Restriction for morphological valency alternations: The Urdu causative. In Proceedings of The 10th International LFG Conference, Bergen, Norway. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
- Ruken Çakici. 2005. Automatic induction of a CCG grammar for Turkish. In Proceedings of the ACL Student Research Workshop, pages 73--78, Ann Arbor, Michigan, June. Association for Computational Linguistics. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mary Dalrymple. 2001. Lexical Functional Grammar, volume 34 of Syntax and Semantics. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
- Gülşen Eryiğit and Kemal Oflazer. 2006. Statistical dependency parsing for turkish. In Proceedings of EACL 2006 - The 11th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Trento, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
- Anette Frank, Louisa Sadler, Josef van Genabith, and Andy Way. 2003. From treebank resources to LFG f-structures:automatic f-structure annotation of tree-bank trees and CFGs extracted from treebanks. In Anne Abeille, editor, Treebanks. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
- Zelal Güngördü and Elisabeth Engdahl. 1998. A relational approach to relativization in Turkish. In Joint Conference on Formal Grammar, HPSG and Categorial Grammar, Saarbrücken, Germany, August.Google Scholar
- Zelal Güngördü and Kemal Oflazer. 1995. Parsing Turkish using the Lexical Functional Grammar formalism. Machine Translation, 10(4):515--544.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bariş. Kabak. 2007. Turkish suspended affixation. Linguistics, 45. (to appear).Google Scholar
- Ronald M. Kaplan and Joan Bresnan. 1982. Lexical-functional grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation. In Joan Bresnan, editor, The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, pages 173--281. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
- Ronald M. Kaplan and Annie Zaenen. 1988. Long-distance dependencies, constituent structure, and functional uncertainty. In M. Baitin and A. Kroch, editors, Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
- John T. Maxwell III and Ronald M. Kaplan. 1996. An efficient parser for LFG. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King, editors, The Proceedings of the LFG '96 Conference, Rank Xerox, Grenoble.Google Scholar
- Ruth O'Donovan, Michael Burke, Aoife Cahill, Josef van Genabith, and Andy Way. 2005. Large-scale induction and evaluation of lexical resources from the Penn-II and Penn-III Treebanks. Computational Linguistics, 31(3):329--365. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kemal Oflazer, Bilge Say, Dilek Zeynep Hakkani-Tür, and Gökhan Tür. 2003. Building a Turkish treebank. In Anne Abeille, editor, Building and Exploiting Syntactically-annotated Corpora. Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
- Kemal Oflazer. 1994. Two-level description of Turkish morphology. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 9(2):137--148.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kemal Oflazer. 2003. Dependency parsing with an extended finite-state approach. Computational Linguistics, 29(4):515--544. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Morphology-syntax interface for Turkish LFG
Recommendations
Exploiting Morphology and Local Word Reordering in English-to-Turkish Phrase-Based Statistical Machine Translation
In this paper, we present the results of our work on the development of a phrase-based statistical machine translation prototype from English to Turkish-an agglutinative language with very productive inflectional and derivational morphology. We ...
Turkish Language Resources: Morphological Parser, Morphological Disambiguator and Web Corpus
GoTAL '08: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Advances in Natural Language ProcessingIn this paper, we propose a set of language resources for building Turkish language processing applications. Specifically, we present a finite-state implementation of a morphological parser, an averaged perceptron-based morphological disambiguator, and ...
Syntax-to-morphology mapping in factored phrase-based statistical machine translation from English to Turkish
ACL '10: Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational LinguisticsWe present a novel scheme to apply factored phrase-based SMT to a language pair with very disparate morphological structures. Our approach relies on syntactic analysis on the source side (English) and then encodes a wide variety of local and non-local ...
Comments