LINGUIST List 21.2736|
Mon Jun 28 2010
Qs: Automated Antecedent Constituency Tests
Editor for this issue: Danielle St. Jean
We'd like to remind readers that the responses to queries are usually best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is then strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list. This policy was instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems appropriate.
In addition to posting a summary, we'd like to remind people that it is usually a good idea to personally thank those individuals who have taken the trouble to respond to the query.
To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.cfm.
Automated Antecedent Constituency Tests
Message 1: Automated Antecedent Constituency Tests
From: Rose Hendricks <rohendricksvassar.edu>
Subject: Automated Antecedent Constituency Tests
E-mail this message to a friend
Dear LINGUIST List subscribers,
I am currently doing a linguistic internship at MIT, and I am working with
a computer program that simplifies sentences by breaking them into
smaller ones. However, the program has trouble identifying the
antecedent of a relative clause when it is preceded by NP1 prep NP2. It
automatically considers NP2 to be the antecedent, which is problematic
for sentences such as:
"It was an extremely detailed search of the vehicle which recovered
I think that if the program could identify constituents, it would
realize that "search of the vehicle" is one, and could then identify
"search" as the antecedent. Are there any constituency tests that do
not require serious semantic knowledge (i.e., are there any that a
computer program could be taught to do)? It seems that a test like "can
it be the answer to a question?" is too complicated for a computer.
Vassar College 2013
Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
Page Updated: 28-Jun-2010
While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed
on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.