kc@beach.cis.ufl.edu (kefeng chen) (12/01/90)
I am currently interesting in natural language processing. Every one is talking about using semantics in NLP. But why is semantic information so important to NLP and why is syntactic information not enough? I have not be able to find a comprehesive article or book about this. Can anyone give me some article or book references about this? Thanks. Kefeng Chen University of Florida
mock@iris.ucdavis.edu (Kenrick J. Mock) (12/04/90)
In article <25674@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> kc@beach.cis.ufl.edu () writes: >I am currently interesting in natural language processing. >Every one is talking about using semantics in NLP. >But why is semantic information so important to NLP and why is >syntactic information not enough? I have not be >able to find a comprehesive article or book about this. >Can anyone give me some article or book references about this? Semantics are necessary to really understand what is going on. Consider the following sentences: "John gave Mary a book." "John gave Mary a kiss." "John gave Mary a beating." All of these sentences are syntactically the same, but obviously mean different things. One reference is "Scripts, Plans, Goals & Understanding" by Roger Schank and Robert Abelson. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- mock@iris.ucdavis.edu "Finally in the 5th year of my 5 year mock@alderon.lanl.gov plan at U.C. Davis...."
vjk@sps.com (Vince Kovarik) (12/05/90)
In article <8038@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>, mock@iris.ucdavis.edu (Kenrick J. Mock) replies: > > Semantics are necessary to really understand what is going on. > Consider the following sentences: > > "John gave Mary a book." > "John gave Mary a kiss." > "John gave Mary a beating." > > All of these sentences are syntactically the same, but obviously mean > different things. > Although a firm believer in the necessity of semantics, there is, nonetheless, syntactic differences in the examples provided. A book would be identified as a noun and, hence, some object which is the target of the "giving" action. Both kiss and beating are verbs but different forms (i.e. simple present and present participle). Now, although the purely syntactic parser might be able to recognize these differences, it does nothing beyond the construction of simple assertions that these different forms of the "give" event did occur. To do something *USEFUL* these events need to be represented within a semantic framework that allows the system to remember and reason about the events. Certainly some default assumptions may be made about the relationship between John and Mary based on whether the object was a "kiss" or a "beating." This type of inference is not possible in syntactic-only approaches (and if someone says it is, then they're building semantic representations but don't want to admit it).
ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) (12/05/90)
In article <285@sps.com> vjk@sps.com (Vince Kovarik) writes: In article <8038@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>, mock@iris.ucdavis.edu (Kenrick J. Mock) replies: > > Semantics are necessary to really understand what is going on. > Consider the following sentences: > > "John gave Mary a book." > "John gave Mary a kiss." > "John gave Mary a beating." > > All of these sentences are syntactically the same, but obviously mean > different things. > Although a firm believer in the necessity of semantics, there is, nonetheless, syntactic differences in the examples provided. A book would be identified as a noun and, hence, some object which is the target of the "giving" action. Both kiss and beating are verbs but different forms (i.e. simple present and present participle). book is also a verb, as kiss is also a noun. beating is of course a different animal as kenrick says. a better example would the be tiresome pair: the coach married the star. the astronomer saw the star. the coach is certainly not drawn by horses, the first star is not in the sky, and the second is probably not earthly. distinguishing these syntactically leads to a very non-perspicuous syntax which must essentially make semantic disinctions, or must be non-deterministic.
dsa@dlogics.COM (David Angulo) (12/07/90)
In article <285@sps.com>, vjk@sps.com (Vince Kovarik) writes: | In article <8038@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>, mock@iris.ucdavis.edu | (Kenrick J. Mock) replies: | | > | > Semantics are necessary to really understand what is going on. | > Consider the following sentences: | > | > "John gave Mary a book." | > "John gave Mary a kiss." | > "John gave Mary a beating." | > | > All of these sentences are syntactically the same, but obviously mean | > different things. | > | | Both kiss and beating are verbs but different forms (i.e. simple | present and present participle). | Kiss and beating CAN BE verbs but are not here. Kiss is a noun and beating is a gerund (also a noun). You may not but the article "a" before a verb. Look it up. -- David S. Angulo (312) 266-3134 Datalogics Internet: dsa@dlogics.com 441 W. Huron UUCP: ..!uunet!dlogics!dsa Chicago, Il. 60610 FAX: (312) 266-4473