Scribd
Upload
68 views

Syntax Slides

The document provides an introduction to modeling syntax, including: - Phrase structure and context-free grammars which organize words into hierarchical phrases and constituents - Dependency structure which represents syntactic relations through word-word dependencies - Syntactic ambiguities that can arise from prepositional phrase attachment, particles vs. prepositions, and other structures - Constituency tests like pro-form substitution, cleft formation, and topicalization that are used to determine phrase structure - Treebanks which contain annotated syntactic trees that can be explored using tree search tools.

Uploaded by

Mhonz Limbing
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
68 views

Syntax Slides

The document provides an introduction to modeling syntax, including: - Phrase structure and context-free grammars which organize words into hierarchical phrases and constituents - Dependency structure which represents syntactic relations through word-word dependencies - Syntactic ambiguities that can arise from prepositional phrase attachment, particles vs. prepositions, and other structures - Constituency tests like pro-form substitution, cleft formation, and topicalization that are used to determine phrase structure - Treebanks which contain annotated syntactic trees that can be explored using tree search tools.

Uploaded by

Mhonz Limbing
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 16

Syntax: introduction

Roger Levy

UC San Diego
Department of Linguistics

February 1, 2008
Modeling Syntax

Today we’re going to cover:


◮ Basic idea of phrase structure
◮ Context-free grammars
◮ Dependency structure
◮ Syntactic Ambiguity
◮ Treebanks
◮ Investigating the data: tree search
. . . this is all with an eye toward eventually doing full-blown
syntactic parsing
Phrase structure parsing

S
◮ Phrase structure organizes
words into phrases, often NPsg VPsg
called constituents DT NN PP VBZ
◮ This organization is The velocity IN NPsg rises
hierarchical and thus nested
of DT JJ NNS
◮ There are arguments in
linguistics about the proper the seismic waves
representations
◮ For a given string there is
usually ambiguity as to the
correct phrase structure
◮ This ambiguity often
corresponds to semantic
ambiguity
Context-free grammars, formally

A context-free grammar (CFG) consists of a tuple (N, V , S, R)


such that:
◮ N is a finite set of non-terminal symbols;
◮ V is a finite set of terminal symbols;
◮ S is the start symbol;
◮ R is a finite set of rules of the form X → α where X ∈ N
and α is a sequence of symbols drawn from N ∪ V ;
Simple example of a CFG

◮ Take the non-terminal set N = {S, NP, VP, V }


◮ . . . and the terminal set V = {cats, dogs, meow, like}
◮ Let the start symbol be S
◮ . . . and the rule set be: S → NP VP NP → cats
VP → V NP → dogs
VP → V NP V → meow
V → like
◮ This context-free grammar licenses a finite number of
tree-sentences (all unambiguous), including:
S S S S

NP VP NP VP NP VP NP VP

cats V dogs V cats V NP dogs V NP

meow meow like dogs meow dogs


Constituency tests

◮ How do linguists build a grammar?


◮ How do we determine what nodes go into a tree?
◮ Answer: classic constituency tests
Constituency tests

◮ pro-form substitution for noun phrases (NPs)


The children ate with a spoon ⇒ They ate with a spoon
⇒ The children ate with it
◮ Cleft formation
Pat ate with a spoon ⇒ It was with a spoon that Pat ate
Pat ate with a spoon H ⇒


H It was with a that Pat ate spoon
◮ Topicalization:
Pat ate with a spoon ⇒ A spoon, Pat ate with.
Pat ate with a spoon H ⇒


H Ate with, Pat (did) a spoon
◮ . . . there are other tests too.
Constituency tests

◮ pro-form substitution for noun phrases (NPs)


The children ate with a spoon ⇒ They ate with a spoon
⇒ The children ate with it
◮ Cleft formation
Pat ate with a spoon ⇒ It was with a spoon that Pat ate
Pat ate with a spoon H ⇒


H It was with a that Pat ate spoon
◮ Topicalization:
Pat ate with a spoon ⇒ A spoon, Pat ate with.
Pat ate with a spoon H ⇒


H Ate with, Pat (did) a spoon
◮ . . . there are other tests too.
Constituency tests

◮ pro-form substitution for noun phrases (NPs)


The children ate with a spoon ⇒ They ate with a spoon
⇒ The children ate with it
◮ Cleft formation
Pat ate with a spoon ⇒ It was with a spoon that Pat ate
Pat ate with a spoon H ⇒


H It was with a that Pat ate spoon
◮ Topicalization:
Pat ate with a spoon ⇒ A spoon, Pat ate with.
Pat ate with a spoon H ⇒


H Ate with, Pat (did) a spoon
◮ . . . there are other tests too.
Attachment ambiguity
S

NP VP

Det N V NP PP

The children ate Det N P NP

the cake with Det N

a spoon
S

NP VP

Det N V NP

The children ate NP PP

Det N P NP

the cake with Det N

a candle
Dependency Structure
◮ Another major way of representing syntactic relations is
through word-word dependency structure:
After dinner, a musician who was hired for the wedding arrived
◮ This turns out to be homologous to context-free
phrase-structure trees for which each node has a head
daughter:
S

PP NP VP

P N NP RC V

After dinner Det N WHNP S arrived


NP
a musician who
VP

V VP

was V PP

hired P NP

for Det N

the wedding
Syntactic Ambiguities

◮ Prepositional phrases: They cooked the beans in the pot


on the stove with handles.
◮ Particle vs. preposition: A good pharmacist dispenses with
accuracy. The puppy tore up the staircase.
◮ Complement structures: The tourists objected to the guide
that they couldn’t hear. She knows you like the back of her
hand.
◮ Gerund vs. participial adjective. Visiting relatives can be
boring. Changing schedules frequently confused
passengers.
More syntactic ambiguities

◮ Modifier scope within NPs: impractical design


requirements
plastic cup holder
◮ Multiple gap constructions: The chicken is ready to eat.
The contractors are rich enough to sue.
◮ Coordination scope: Small rats and mice can squeeze into
holes or cracks in the wall.
Syntactic attachment underspecifies semantics

◮ Semantic role (more on this later!)


I cleaned the dishes in the sink
I cleaned the dishes with detergent
I cleaned the dishes with enthusiasm
◮ Scope ambiguity
Every person in the room speaks two languages
Treebank Sentences

(show the sentence here...)


S

PP NP-SBJ VP .

TO NP NNS CC NNS MD VP .

To PRP peanuts and emeralds would VB VP

her have VBN NP-PRD

been RB ADJP NN

just RB JJ blubber

so much
Exploring syntax: Tree search

◮ tgrep2
◮ tregex

You might also like