We describe a parsing system based upon a language model for English that is, in turn, based upon assigning probabilities to possible parses for a sentence. This model is used in a parsing system by finding the parse for the sentence with the highest probability. This system outperforms previous schemes. As this is the third in a series of parsers by different authors that are similar enough to invite detailed comparisons but different enough to give rise to different levels of performance, we also report on some experiments designed to identify what aspects of these systems best explain their relative performance. Introduction We present a statistical parser that induces its grammar and probabilities from a hand-parsed corpus (a tree-bank). Parsers induced from corpora are of interest both as simply exercises in machine learning and also because they are often the best parsers obtainable by any method. That is, if one desires a parser that produces trees in the tree-bank ...

The Proposition Bank project takes a practical approach to semantic representation, adding a layer of predicate-argument information, or semantic role labels, to the syntactic structures of the Penn Treebank. The resulting resource can be thought of as shallow, in that it does not represent coreference, quantification, and many other higher-order phenomena, but also broad, in that it covers every instance of every verb in the corpus and allows representative statistics to be calculated. We discuss the criteria used to define the sets of semantic roles used in the annotation process and to analyze the frequency of syntactic/semantic alternations in the corpus. We describe an automatic system for semantic role tagging trained on the corpus and discuss the effect on its performance of various types of information, including a comparison of full syntactic parsing with a flat representation and the contribution of the empty ‘‘trace’ ’ categories of the treebank.

The problems of access -- retrieving linguistic structure from some mental grammar -- and disambiguation -- choosing among these structures to correctly parse ambiguous linguistic input -- are fundamental to language understanding. The literature abounds with psychological results on lexical access, the access of idioms, syntactic rule access, parsing preferences, syntactic disambiguation, and the processing of garden-path sentences. Unfortunately, it has been difficult to combine models which account for these results to build a general, uniform model of access and disambiguation at the lexical, idiomatic, and syntactic levels. For example psycholinguistic theories of lexical access and idiom access and parsing theories of syntactic rule access have almost no commonality in methodology or coverage of psycholinguistic data. This paper presents a single probabilistic algorithm which models both the access and disambiguation of linguistic knowledge. The algorithm is based on a parallel parser which ranks constructions for access, and interpretations for disambiguation, by their conditional probability. Low-ranked constructions and interpretations are pruned through beam-search; this pruning accounts, among other things, for the garden-path effect. I show that this motivated probabilistic treatment accounts for a wide variety of psycholinguistic results, arguing for a more uniform representation of linguistic knowledge and for the use of probabilisticallyenriched grammars and interpreters as models of human knowledge of and processing of language.

Either directly or indirectly, the lexicon for a natural language specifies complementation frames or valences for open-class words such as verbs and nouns. Constructing a lexicon of complementation fram<:~s

this paper, we confine ourselves to the former issue, and refer the interested reader to Li and Abe (1996), which deals with the latter issue

m we can carve o# next. `Partial parsing' is a cover term for a range of di#erent techniques for recovering some but not all of the information contained in a traditional syntactic analysis. Partial parsing techniques, like tagging techniques, aim for reliability and robustness in the face of the vagaries of natural text, by sacrificing completeness of analysis and accepting a low but non-zero error rate. 1 Tagging The earliest taggers [35, 51] had large sets of hand-constructed rules for assigning tags on the basis of words' character patterns and on the basis of the tags assigned to preceding or following words, but they had only small lexica, primarily for exceptions to the rules. TAGGIT [35] was used to generate an initial tagging of the Brown corpus, which was then hand-edited. (Thus it provided the data that has since been used to train other taggers [20].) The tagger described by Garside [56, 34], CLAWS, was a probabilistic version of TAGGIT, and the DeRose tagger improved on

this paper, we focus on argument structure--the thematic roles assigned by a verb to its arguments--as the way in which the relational semantics of the verb is represented at the syntactic level

In the space of the last ten years, statistical methods have gone from being virtually unknown in computational linguistics to being a fundamental given. In 1996, no one can profess to be a computational linguist without a passing knowledge of statistical methods. HMM's are as de rigeur as LR tables, and anyone who cannot at least use the terminology persuasively risks being mistaken for kitchen help at the ACL banquet. More seriously, statistical techniques have brought signi cant advances in broad-coverage language processing. Statistical methods have made real progress possible on a number of issues that had previously stymied attempts to liberate systems from toy domains � issues that include disambiguation, error correction, and the induction of the sheer volume of information requisite for handling unrestricted text. And the sense of progress has generated a great deal of enthusiasm for statistical methods in computational linguistics. However, this enthusiasm has not been catching in linguistics proper. It is always dangerous to generalize about linguists, but I think it is fair to say

Manual development of large subcategorised lexicons has proved difficult because predicates change behaviour between sublanguages, domains and over time. Yet access to a comprehensive subcategorization lexicon is vital for successful parsing capable of recovering predicate-argument relations, and probabilistic parsers would greatly benefit from accurate information concerning the relative likelihood of different subcategorisation frames (scfs) of a given predicate. Acquisition of subcategorization lexicons from textual corpora has recently become increasingly popular. Although this work has met with some success, resulting lexicons indicate a need for greater accuracy. One significant source of error lies in the statistical filtering used for hypothesis selection, i.e. for removing noise from automatically acquired scfs. This thesis builds on earlier work in verbal subcategorization acquisition, taking as a starting point the problem with statistical filtering. Our investigation shows that statistical filters tend to work poorly because not only is the underlying distribution zipfian, but there is also very little correlation between conditional distribution of

The lack of adequate bases of commonsense or even lexical knowledge is perhaps the main obstacle to the development of highperformance, robust tools for semantic interpretation. It is also generally accepted that, notwithstanding the increasing availability in recent years of substantial hand-coded lexical resources such as WordNet and EuroWordNet, addressing the commonsense knowledge bottleneck will eventually require the development of effective techniques for acquiring such information automatically, e.g., from corpora. We discuss research aimed at improving the performance of anaphora resolution systems by acquiring the commonsense knowledge require to resolve the more complex cases of anaphora, such as bridging references. We focus in particular on the problem of acquiring information about part-of relations.