Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
175 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
42 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

A Compositional Typed Semantics for Universal Dependencies (2403.01187v1)

Published 2 Mar 2024 in cs.CL

Abstract: Languages may encode similar meanings using different sentence structures. This makes it a challenge to provide a single set of formal rules that can derive meanings from sentences in many languages at once. To overcome the challenge, we can take advantage of language-general connections between meaning and syntax, and build on cross-linguistically parallel syntactic structures. We introduce UD Type Calculus, a compositional, principled, and language-independent system of semantic types and logical forms for lexical items which builds on a widely-used language-general dependency syntax framework. We explain the essential features of UD Type Calculus, which all involve giving dependency relations denotations just like those of words. These allow UD-TC to derive correct meanings for sentences with a wide range of syntactic structures by making use of dependency labels. Finally, we present evaluation results on a large existing corpus of sentences and their logical forms, showing that UD-TC can produce meanings comparable with our baseline.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (23)
  1. Bootstrapping language acquisition. Cognition, 164:116–143.
  2. The Parallel Meaning Bank: Towards a multilingual corpus of translations annotated with compositional meaning representations. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Volume 2, Short Papers, pages 242–247, Valencia, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  3. The first shared task on discourse representation structure parsing. In Proceedings of the IWCS Shared Task on Semantic Parsing, Gothenburg, Sweden. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  4. Jon Barwise and Robin Cooper. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Language and Philosophy, 4:159–219.
  5. Johan Bos. 2013. The Groningen meaning bank. In Proceedings of the Joint Symposium on Semantic Processing. Textual Inference and Structures in Corpora, page 2, Trento, Italy.
  6. Universal Dependencies. Computational Linguistics, 47(2):255–308.
  7. Christiane Fellbaum, editor. 1998. WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  8. Matthew Gotham and Dag Haug. 2018. Glue semantics for universal dependencies. In Proceedings of the LFG’19 Conference, University of Vienna, pages 208–226, Stanford, CA. CSLI Publications.
  9. Irene Heim and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar. Blackwell.
  10. Hans Kamp. 1984. A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Truth, Interpretation and Information: Selected Papers from the Third Amsterdam Colloquium, pages 1–42, Berlin, Boston. De Gruyter Mouton.
  11. Alex Lascarides and Nicholas Asher. 2007. Segmented discourse representation theory: Dynamic semantics with discourse structure. In Computing Meaning, pages 87–124, Dordrecht. Springer Netherlands.
  12. Universal Dependencies v1: A multilingual treebank collection. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’16), pages 1659–1666, Portorož, Slovenia. European Language Resources Association (ELRA).
  13. Universal Dependencies v2: An evergrowing multilingual treebank collection. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 4034–4043, Marseille, France. European Language Resources Association.
  14. Theodore C. Papaloizos. 1978. Modern Greek Part 1, 7th edition. Papaloizos Publications.
  15. Wessel Poelman. 2022. Language-neutral semantic parsing using graph transformations on universal dependencies. Master’s thesis, University of Groningen.
  16. Transparent semantic parsing with Universal Dependencies using graph transformations. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 4186–4192, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics.
  17. Stanza: A Python natural language processing toolkit for many human languages. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations.
  18. Transforming dependency structures to logical forms for semantic parsing. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 4:127–140.
  19. Universal semantic parsing. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 89–101, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  20. Minxing Shen and Kilian Evang. 2022. DRS parsing as sequence labeling. In Proceedings of the 11th Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, pages 213–225, Seattle, Washington. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  21. Mark Steedman. 2001. The Syntactic Process. The MIT Press.
  22. Evaluating scoped meaning representations. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018), Miyazaki, Japan. European Language Resources Association (ELRA).
  23. Input representations for parsing discourse representation structures: Comparing English with Chinese. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 767–775, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.