nl-kr-request@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU (NL-KR Moderator Brad Miller) (05/17/88)
NL-KR Digest (5/16/88 18:37:01) Volume 4 Number 51 Today's Topics: robustly implemented parser wanted I'll try agian AIBI Conference proceedings? Sparse Distributed Memory Prototype being built at Stanford Re: language translator What's new with Loglan Natural languages and mathematics Exclusive and Inclusive 'or' in NLs Idioms Re: Subject extraction What are grammars (for)? Call for Papers Submissions: NL-KR@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU Requests, policy: NL-KR-REQUEST@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 2 May 88 21:40 EDT From: LEWIS@cs.umass.edu Subject: robustly implemented parser wanted This is a basic, run-of-the-mill, "We want tools" message. In particular, what we're looking for is a robust implementation of a syntactic parser. We're much more interested in a reliable piece of Common LISP software that implements a basic chart parser or something similar, than in a cutting edge piece of research software. Plusses would be large existing grammars or lexicons, hooks for semantic interpretation, or good documentation. The parser would be used for research on document retrieval by the Intelligent Information Retrieval group here at U Mass, and we would be happy to provide the authors with plenty of data on its performance on large quantities of real world text, as well as on our experiences with using the on-line Longman dictionary with it. I'd be interested in hearing from both users and authors/maintainers of such software. If there's sufficient interest, I'll summarize to the net. Thanks, David D. Lewis INTERNET: lewis@cs.umass.edu COINS Dept. BITNET: lewis@umass University of Massachusetts, Amherst Amherst, MA 01003 ph. 413-545-0728 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 8 May 88 21:06 EDT From: fosli@ifi.uio.no Subject: I'll try agian For some time ago I posted this, but without any answer: -- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 88 09:10 EDT From: fosli@ifi.uio.no Subject: Request for software which perform morphological analysis I'm working on a project to translate words and phrases from English to Norwegian. (preferably in its context) Anyone done something similar? In particular I would like: 1. A morphological analyzer to get the root and the features for a given word. 2. A dictionary to use with 1. -- (It is ment to be part of a translation assistance system for disabled students whom are unabled to look up in a ordinary dictionary, and some morphological analysis is clearly needed!) Clearly someone have done this for English. For instanse the work of Gazdar to produce a dictionary and morphological analysis system for English. Any answers would be greatly appreciated. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Oystein Fosli snail: Use ARPA Internet: fosli@ifi.uio.no P.O.Box 1059, Blindern or (from BITNET): fosli@oslo-vax.arpa N-0316 Oslo 1 voice:+47-2-45-5973 Norway ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 May 88 16:11 EDT From: Jody <gevins@paul.rutgers.edu> Subject: AIBI Conference proceedings? Will there be a way to get the Proceedings of the AIBI Conference? Thanks, Jody ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Apr 88 06:56 EDT Subject: Sparse Distributed Memory Prototype being built at Stanford [Excerpted from IRList] Pentti Kanerva did some interesting work at Stanford on how human memory physically works, and how it can be usefully modeled. His PhD thesis, _Self Propagating Search: A Unified Theory of Memory_, Report CSLI-84-7, from the Center for the Study of Language and Information, details this work. He is now involved in building a prototype digital hardware implementation of his memory model: "Sparse distributed memory is a generalized RAM for long (e.g. 1000 bit) binary words. Such words can be written into and read from the memory, and they can also be used to address the memory. The main attribute of the memory is sensitivity to similarity, meaning that a word can be read back not only by giving the original write address but also by giving one close to it as measured by the Hamming distance between addresses. "Large memories of this type are expected to have wide use in speech and scene analysis, in signal detection and verification, and in adaptive control of automated equipment -- in general, in dealing with real-world information in real time. "The memory can be realized as a simple, massively parallel computer. Digital technology has reached a point where building large memories is becoming practical. This research project is aimed at resolving major design issues that have to be faced in building the memories. This report describes the design of a prototype memory with 256-bit addresses and from 8K to 128K locations for 256-bit words. A key aspect of the design is extensive use of dynamic RAM and other standard components." Stanford technical report CSL-TR-87-338 of February 1988 describes the prototype. It is available from the Computer Systems Laboratory at Stanford. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 May 88 07:52 EDT From: Robert Stanley <roberts@cognos.uucp> Subject: Re: language translator In article <1527@hubcap.UUCP> shorne@hubcap.clemson.edu writes: >From article <808@actnyc.UUCP>, by gcf@actnyc.UUCP (Gordon Fitch): >> ... Sr. Guzman >> published a monograph several years ago on the peculiar logic of >> the Aymara language, which he found to utilize polyvalent logic, >> and theorized that it might be a vehicle -- or perhaps I should >> say catalyst -- for the machine translation of natural languages. >> If there is any interest I will dig out the book and put the address >> of its publisher (an agency of the Canadian government) on the net. >Please do put more information about this book on the net. > --Scott Horne The monograph in question was entitled "Logical and Linguistic Problems of Social Communication with the Aymara People", by Ivan Guzman de Rojas. The research was sponsored by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Ottawa, Canada, and bears the reference code: IDRC-MR66e, dated January 1985. It also bears the following legend on the cover sheet: Material contained in this series is normally reproduced as submitted without formal peer review or editing. The postal address of the IDRC is: 280 Albert Street Ottawa, Ontario CANADA Telephone: (613) 236-6163 This monograph runs to 166 pages, plus 40 odd pages of appendices and references. I must admit that I enjoyed reading it, but I am not myself convinced of the correctness of the author's views (expressed elsewhere) of the suitability of Aymara as an MT bridge language. However, that is personal bias from someone not active in the MT world; read the paper and form your own opinion. Robert_S -- Robert Stanley - Cognos Incorporated: P.O. Box 9707, 3755 Riverside Drive Compuserve: 76174,3024 Ottawa, Ontario K1G 3Z4, CANADA uucp: decvax!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!roberts Voice: (613)738-1440(Research) arpa/internet: roberts%cognos.uucp@uunet.uu.net FAX: (613)738-0002 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 May 88 15:56 EDT From: Gordon Fitch <gcf@actnyc.UUCP> Subject: Re: language translator In article <1527@hubcap.UUCP> shorne@hubcap.clemson.edu writes: >From article <808@actnyc.UUCP>, by gcf@actnyc.UUCP (Gordon Fitch): >> ... Sr. Guzman >> published a monograph several years ago on the peculiar logic of >> the Aymara language, which he found to utilize polyvalent logic, >> and theorized that it might be a vehicle -- or perhaps I should >> say catalyst -- for the machine translation of natural languages. >> If there is any interest I will dig out the book and put the address >> of its publisher (an agency of the Canadian government) on the net. > >Please do put more information about this book on the net. The title of the book, in English, is Logical and Linguistic Problems of Social Communications with the Aymara People , , by Ivan Guzman de Rojas. This is a straight translation of the Spanish title. I obtained Spanish and English versions of the book from: International Development Research Centre P.O.Box 8500 Ottawa, Ontario k1g 3h9 Canada. They have i.d. codes for the books, of course: IDRC-MR66e for the English version, and IDRC-MR66s for the Spanish. I ordered the books by telephone, but I've misplaced the number. I think they were free. I have a reprint of a New York Times article by Marlise Simons which describes the book briefly, and I'll send a copy of it to anyone who wants it and can email or post a US mail address. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 May 88 13:33 EDT From: HILLS@reston.unisys.com Subject: What's new with Loglan : In NL-KR# 46 James Meritt asked what has happened to Brown's Loglan. I am : posting this for a friend who is deeply involved in current Loglan efforts : and for those out there in netland who are interested in logical : languages. If you wish to persue this matter please contact him directly. * * * * * * * * * * * * There are now two loglan efforts. Jim Brown has been attempting to restrict loglan intellectual property rights, and has not published anything meaningful for public use in about 5 years. A second effort sprung up in 1986, and has started publishing a public, unrestricted version of the language. Computer aided-instruction tools and a textbook are being produced, and some material is available. An earlier version of the language was verified syntactically unambiguous with YACC in 1982, and the public version is currently being reverified. This will enhance computer/AI application for the version (known as lojban). Contact: Bob LeChevalier, The Logical Language Group 2904 Bean Lane Fairfax, VA 22031 (703) 385-0273 * * * * * * * * * * * * * - Fred Hills ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 May 88 11:54 EDT From: Paul Neubauer <neubauer@bsu-cs.UUCP> Subject: Natural languages and mathematics In article <579@minya.UUCP> jc@minya.UUCP (John Chambers) writes: >For just one of many examples of how bad Standard American is, >consider that mathematicians have long understood the difference >between the "exclusive or" and the "inclusive or", and understand >that the latter is the most useful concept. Not only does SAE ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ At least for mathematics, though, I think, most linguists would probably argue that the exclusive 'or' is the more useful for most natural language situations. >confuse the two concepts, but it makes the wrong one the default! >[A minor linguistic trivia question: Which languages make such >a distinction clearly? Offhand, I can't think of any.] I seem to recall having read and/or being told that Latin did make that distinction, the forms in question being _v_e_l and _a_u_t (if I remember correctly, which is dubious). >English also confuses "and" and "or". I recall some years back, >when I made the mistake of taking an intro philosophy course, >among the text's logic exercises was one asking to translate >into predicate-logic form a statement like: > Juniors and Seniors should go to room 37C for.... >I remember the fun I had trying to get the prof to understand >that his translation should have read "... (J(x) or S(x)) ...", >not "... (J(x) and S(x)) ...". Eventually I gave up and tried >to learn more than that one lesson from the class. Actually, we might reasonably argue that a better translation would be: (((ALL x) (IF J(x) THEN (x should...))) AND ((ALL x) (IF S(x) THEN (x should...)))) which does appear to preserve at least some of the meaning of the original better than the version with OR. Logical representations like this have been seriously proposed (and seriously argued against) by a fairly large number of linguists. I would venture to say that the defects in both of these proposed "translations" have led most linguists to the conclusion that standard predicate logic is at least as defective for expressing natural language as natural languages are for expressing math. -- Paul Neubauer neubauer@bsu-cs.UUCP <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee,uunet}!bsu-cs!neubauer ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 May 88 20:58 EDT From: Jeffrey Goldberg <goldberg@csli.STANFORD.EDU> Subject: Exclusive and Inclusive 'or' in NLs In article <579@minya.UUCP> jc@minya.UUCP (John Chambers) writes: >For just one of many examples of how bad Standard American is, >consider that mathematicians have long understood the difference >between the "exclusive or" and the "inclusive or", and understand >that the latter is the most useful concept. Not only does SAE >confuse the two concepts, but it makes the wrong one the default! >[A minor linguistic trivia question: Which languages make such >a distinction clearly? Offhand, I can't think of any.] It has been proposed that the 'or' in natural language is not really ambiguous between Exclusive Or and Logical Or, but is in fact really a Logical Or an the Exclusive Or default interpertation follows from general pragmatic principles. There are pragmatic principles that linguists and philosphers discuss that are responsible for the fact that if someone says something like "I have three children" we usually take that to mean that they mean that they have EXACTLY three children. However, their statement would be just as true if they had a 4 or 5 or more children. Unless you are in a situation in which three is some magic number of children (one must have at least three children to qualify for X) we as listeners to the statement "I have three children" conclude that if the speaker had more that three children he would have used the higher number (unless he wanted to mislead us). And the speaker knows that the hearer is thinking this way, so he uses "three" knowing that it strongly suggests "three and no more than three". Now consider the relationship between "and" and "or". Think of "or" as Logical Or and you will find that with that meaning it is a weaker than "and" in exactly the same way that "three" is weaker than "four". If one has four childran one certainly has three, but it is misleading to use the word "three", and if you know "X and Y" then certainly "X or Y" is true, but it is misleading to use "or" this way under normal circumstances. Thus, just as we can often take "three" to mean "three and not four" we can take "or" to mean "'or' and not 'and'". Note that there are some cases in which the use of "three" to mean "at least three". And there are probably many more cases where "or" retains the Logical Or meaning, but the pragmatic story goes a long way toward explaining why "or" is so generally exclusive. There is a paper by Gazdar in an early CLS (Chicago Linguistics Society) that discusses this and will have references to the literature. >-- >John Chambers <{adelie,ima,maynard,mit-eddie}!minya!{jc,root}> (617/484-6393) You can knock on his door, you can scream, you can shout, but >You can't make a turtle come out. > -- Malvina Reynolds -- Jeff Goldberg Internet: goldberg@csli.stanford.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 May 88 17:20 EDT From: Adnan Yaqub <acy@abvax.UUCP> Subject: Idioms I am interested in idioms from different cultures which express the same concept. For example, in English to warn someone not to make concrete plans based on a risky supposition, you would say: `Don't count your chickens before they hatch.' while in Russian you would say: `Don't divide the bear skin until you shoot the bear.' Or, to express the efficiency of an action, in English you would use the phrase: `to kill two birds with one stone' In Russian it is: `to shoot two rabbits with one shot' and in German: `to kill two flies with one swat' I find it very interesting to find the same concept expressed in different cultural terms. I was wondering, are there any studies done on this subject? Does anyone know of published references? If people E-mail submissions to me, I am willing to serve as a collector and redistributor of an ad hoc list of such idioms. -- |Adnan Yaqub ...[mandrill|pyramid|decvax|masscomp]!abvax!acy| |Allen-Bradley Company 747 Alpha Dr. Highland Hts. OH 44143 USA (216) 449-6700| ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 May 88 14:50 EDT From: Bob Frank <frank@linc.cis.upenn.edu> Subject: Re: Subject extraction In a recent article Chris Collins writes: > >Date: Wed, 27 Apr 88 02:19 EDT >From: Chris Collins <collins@srcsip.UUCP> >Subject: subject extraction > > >There might be another piece of evidence that supports an analysis of >questions where the subject does not move. Consider the following >pardigm: > 1 who does John like? > 2 whom does John like? > 3 who likes John? > 4 ?* whom likes John? > >Suppose that a NP is assigned accusative case by virtue of its being >in the object position, and nomnitive case by virtue of its being in >the subject position. Then case marking of the wh-pronoun in 3 and 4 >indicates that who is in the subject position. If on the other hand we >were to say that a empty category in the gap left by the wh-pronoun >transmitted case the the equivalence of 1 and 2 is unexplained. I don't see that your argument really make much sense. You claim that 1 and 2 are equivalent. The wh-element (in 2) is presumedly moved to COMP carrying with it its accusative case. However, why is this not the case with subjects? Might they be assigned nominative case in subject position and then moved to COMP taking their Case along for the ride? This would certainly explain why 3 is OK (there is a transmission of nominative case) and 4 is out ('whom' does not receive accusative case from anywhere). Notice that in neither situation (i.e. subject or object WH) must the wh-pronoun move for need of Case (as in NP-movement). In fact, Japanese has its Wh-pronouns in-situ. Why then are they moved to COMP in English? The standard story (in GB) has been for purposes of interpretation: The WH must have scope over its clause in logical form. In English, this requirement presumable holds at S-structure. In Japanese, then, Wh-movement is assumed to take place at Logical Form. Thus, Case has little to do with the position of Wh-pronouns (except of course from the fact that they must be part of a chain which is uniquely assigned Case). Happy trails. Bob Frank (Frank@linc.cis.upenn.edu) University of Pennsylvania ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 May 88 15:06 EDT From: HESTVIK%BRANDEIS.BITNET@MITVMA.MIT.EDU Subject: What are grammars (for)? Rick Wojcik writes: RW> I would say that most KNOWLEDGE of language follows from our RW> understanding of the circumstances under which we would USE it. Then how can you know something about sentences you have never used? For example, all English speakers "knows" Subjacency (roughly that you cannot extract out of an an NP and an S', or two S's). However, nobody ever heard a sentence violating it. How, then, can this knowledge arise from language use? Gold (1967, "Language Identification in the limit", Infornmation and Control 10) showed that language cannot be learned from positive examples only. If this is right, Subjacency cannot have been learned from language use (=positive examples), and your hypothesis is wrong. Can you think of any other effects of language use from which Subjacency would follow? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 May 88 20:15 EDT From: Isaac Balbin <munnari!goanna.oz.au!isaac@uunet.UU.NET> Subject: Call for Papers Call for Papers International Computer Science Conference '88 Hong Kong, December 19-21, 1988 Artificial Intelligence: Theory and Applications _____________________________________________________________________________ Sponsored by THE COMPUTER SOCIETY OF THE IEEE, HONG KONG CHAPTER _____________________________________________________________________________ International Computer Science Conference '88 is to be the first international conference in Hong Kong devoted to computer science. The purpose of the conference is to bring together people from academia and industry of the East and of the West, who are interested in problems related to computer science. The main focus of this conference will be on the Theory and Applications of Artificial Intelligence. Our expectation is that this conference will provide a forum for the sharing of research advances and practical experiences among those working in computer science. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to: AI Architectures Expert Systems Knowledge Engineering Logic Programming Machine Learning Natural Languages Neural Networks Pattern Recognition Robotics CAD/CAM Chinese Computing Distributed Systems Information Systems Office Automation Software Engineering Paper Submissions Submit four copies of the paper by June 15, 1988 to either of the Program Co-Chairmen: Dr. Jean-Louis Lassez Dr. Francis Y.L. Chin Room H1-A12 Centre of Computer Studies and IBM Thomas J. Watson Applications Research Center University of Hong Kong P.O. Box 218 Pokfulam Road Yorktown Heights NY Hong Kong 10598 (For papers from Pan-Pacific region U.S.A. only) e-mail: JLL@ibm.com e-mail: hkucs!chin@uunet.uu.net The first page of the paper should contain the author's name, affiliation, address, electronic address if available, phone number, 100 word abstract, and key words or phrases. Papers should be no longer than 5000 words (about 20 double-spaced pages). A submission letter that contains a commitment to present the paper at the conference if accepted should accompany the paper. Tutorials The day after the conference will be devoted to tutorials. Proposals for tutorials on Artificial Intelligence topics, especially advanced topics, are welcome. Send proposals by June 15, 1988 to the Program Co-Chairmen. Conference Timetable and Information Papers due: June 15, 1988 Tutorial proposals due: June 15, 1988 Acceptance letters sent: September 1, 1988 Camera-ready copy due: October 1, 1988 International Program Committee: J-P Adam (Paris T.Y. Chen (Melbourne & W.F. Clocksin Scientific Center) HKU) (Cambridge) A. Despain (Berkeley) J. Gallier Qingshi Gao (Academia M. Georgeff (SRI) (Pennsylvania) Sinica) R.C.T. Lee (National D. Hanson (Princeton) R. Hasegawa (ICOT) Tsin Hua) M. Maher (IBM) Z. Manna (Stanford & F. Mizoguchi (Science U. Montanari (Pisa) Weizmann) U. of Tokyo) P.C. Poole (Melbourne) K. Mukai (ICOT) H.N. Phien (AIT) C.K. Yuen (Singapore) D.S.L. Tung (CUHK) Organizing Committee Local Arrangements Publicity Chairman: Chairman: Chairman: Mr. Wanbil Lee Dr. K.W. Ng Dr. K.P. Chow Department of Computer Department of Computer Centre of Computer Studies Science Studies and Applications City Polytechnic of The Chinese University University of Hong Kong Hong Kong of Hong Kong Pokfulam Road Argyle Center, Kowloon Shatin, N.T. Hong Kong Hong Kong Hong Kong e-mail: hkucs!icsc@uunet.uu.net In Cooperation With: Center for Computing Studies and Services, Hong Kong Baptist College Centre of Computer Studies and Applications, University of Hong Kong Department of Computer Science, The Chinese University of Hong Kong Department of Computer Studies, City Polytechnic of Hong Kong Department of Computing Studies, Hong Kong Polytechnic -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of NL-KR Digest *******************