Unni Cathrine Eiken February 2005

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2 Theoretical background In order to understand the motivation for developing an extraction and classification method as described in the present work, one needs a brief explanation of the theoretical foundation on which the method is based. In this chapter, the theoretical background of the method is described. In section 2.1 the concept of anaphora resolution and the need for context information in anaphora resolution systems is outlined. In section 2.2 the notion of using context as a means to identify semantically similar words is explained. 2.1 Anaphora resolution Most natural language texts contain an abundance of pronouns and other expressions which are referentially linked to other items in the texts. In order to understand the meaning conveyed by a text, one needs a method to find out which entities these expressions are linked to. It is difficult to determine what a pronoun refers to without taking the notion of context and real-world knowledge into account. Natural language requires a certain amount of context to be intelligible. We distinguish between linguistic context, which denotes the concrete linguistic setting that a given word occurs in, and a more general notion of context that refers to the non-linguistic setting. In the following, a background on the theoretical basics of anaphora will be given, before some approaches to anaphora resolution are briefly outlined. Anaphor and referring expression are both terms that are used for words that point back either to other words or to entities in the world. Anaphora 2 can be defined as the linguistic phenomenon of using an anaphor to point back to a previously mentioned item in a text (Mitkov 2003, p. 266). In the Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics (Matthews 1997), a referring expression is defined as a linguistic element that refers to a specific entity in the real world, termed a referent. A referring expression can be any natural language expression that is used to refer to a realworld entity, including nouns and pronouns. As such the linguistic expressions James and he in a given text may both refer to a person called “James” existing in the real world. 2 The term anaphora is in the present work used in alignment with current literature on anaphora resolution. Anaphora is the linguistic phenomenon of an anaphor pointing to another item in the text and should not be understood as the plural form of anaphor, which is anaphors. 6
The term anaphor describes a linguistic element, often a pronoun or a nominal, which is linked to another linguistic element previously presented in the text (Mitkov 2003). An anaphoric reference is usually supported by a preceding nominal, which is called an antecedent. If a referring pronoun is mentioned previous to the mentioning of its referent, the term cataphora applies (Jurafsky and Martin 2000, p. 675). Anaphora provides us with an indirect reference to a real-world entity. When a referring expression, such as James, has been introduced in a text, it allows for subsequent reference by anaphors, such as he or the boy. The original referring expression is therefore the antecedent of the subsequent referring anaphor, for example the pronoun he. If the anaphor and the antecedent it is linked to both have the same referent in the real world, they are termed coreferential (Mitkov 2003, p. 267). (2- 1) Politimannen sier at han har flere observasjoner The policeman says that he has several observations In example (2-1) above, the pronoun han (he) is an anaphor which points back to its antecedent, the referring expression politimannen (the policeman). Han and politimannen both refer to the same real-world referent, the object “the policeman”, and are therefore coreferential. There are various and complex structural conditions on the co-occurrence of an anaphor and its antecedent. This includes constraints on how far away from each other the antecedent and the referring anaphor can be without disturbing the understanding of the text. An elaborate discussion of these conditions is, however, not within the scope of the present work. Mitkov (2003, p. 268) distinguishes between the following types of anaphora: • pronominal anaphora: The anaphor is a pronoun. • lexical noun phrase anaphora: The anaphor is a definite description or proper name that gives additional information and has a meaning independent of the antecedent. • verb anaphora: The anaphor is a verb and refers to an action. • adverb anaphora: The anaphor is an adverb. • zero anaphora: The anaphor is implicitly present in the text, but physically omitted. 7
Page 1 and 2: University of Bergen Section for li
Page 3 and 4: Preface The project presented in th
Page 5 and 6: Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION AN
Page 7 and 8: 1 Introduction and problem statemen
Page 9 and 10: patterns found in a text collection
Page 11: The results obtained in this projec
Page 15 and 16: 2.1.1.1 Discourse representation th
Page 17 and 18: eferring to BT. The NP which is lin
Page 19 and 20: esolution system will not be able t
Page 21 and 22: (2- 12) REC SUBJ EXIST OBJ IND-OBJ
Page 23 and 24: Figure 1 17
Page 25 and 26: means that the algorithm would prop
Page 27 and 28: for an overview). Many of these sys
Page 29 and 30: (2- 15) a. Politiet etterlyste i da
Page 31 and 32: section. The theory dates back to t
Page 33 and 34: 2.2.2 Different types of context So
Page 35 and 36: neighbours. For example, a target w
Page 37 and 38: with it. Selectional constraints al
Page 39 and 40: 3 From text to EPAS - the extractio
Page 41 and 42: 3.2 Predicate-argument structures "
Page 43 and 44: speaker flexibility with regards to
Page 45 and 46: and woman occur together both in su
Page 47 and 48: occur with. Arguments which are unl
Page 49 and 50: 3.3.1 NorGram in outline Norsk komp
Page 51 and 52: Figure 3 The most useful structure
Page 53 and 54: 3.4 Altering the source As already
Page 55 and 56: (3- 12) (3- 13) Politiet leter ette
Page 57 and 58: ARG1 and ARG2 arrays display a valu
Page 59 and 60: (3- 20) Anne Slåtten bodde i et st
Page 61 and 62: value and highly desirable. As such
Page 63 and 64:
this project, this can be interpret
Page 65 and 66:
The process of classifying the cons
Page 67 and 68:
There are several different distanc
Page 69 and 70:
. ankomme,etterforsker,?,? ankomme,
Page 71 and 72:
Test 2 Training set: EPAS_arg1 with
Page 73 and 74:
The training and test material was
Page 75 and 76:
• level 0: words which co-occur w
Page 77 and 78:
(4- 9) avklare,obduksjon,? bede-om,
Page 79 and 80:
(4-10) below shows the output for t
Page 81 and 82:
In the introduction to this chapter
Page 83 and 84:
the EPAS can be used in the classif
Page 85 and 86:
exemption of jobbe-utfra, none of t
Page 87 and 88:
antecedent for (4-15a). In the case
Page 89 and 90:
Figure 7 Interestingly enough, howe
Page 91 and 92:
When testing on knowledge-dependent
Page 93 and 94:
Firth, J. R. (1957): A synopsis of
Page 95 and 96:
Appendix A: Ekstraktor.pl - algorit
Page 97 and 98:
finnARG2(); This function has exact
Page 99 and 100:
#legger lest linje inn i @prt derso
Page 101 and 102:
sub fjernEP{ #fjerner elementer fra
Page 103 and 104:
} splice(@ARGx); $imax = @ARG3ep; @
Page 105 and 106:
} else{ } } } push(@liste, $ARG0ep[
Page 107 and 108:
101 Appendix C: the EPAS list 23-å
Page 109 and 110:
103 obdusere,,kvinne observere,,23-
Page 111 and 112:
Appendix D: Text aligned with EPAS
Page 113 and 114:
eventualiteter. Vi varslet Kripos.
Page 115 and 116:
Etterforskerne har flere observasjo
Page 117 and 118:
# Subrutine som tar inn argumentnum
Page 119 and 120:
Appendix F: POS-based structures SE
Page 121:
Vi har ingen spesiell teori som vi
show all

Unni Cathrine Eiken February 2005

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?