Unni Cathrine Eiken February 2005

More documents

Recommendations

Info

equires knowledge about the world (or knowledge about how predicates and arguments combine within a domain), the method can be of aid. Consider again the examples from the introduction, repeated in (4-15) below: (4- 15) a. Lensmannen som leder etterforskningen, sier at gjerningsmannen trolig kommer til å drepe igjen. Han etterlyser vitner som var i sentrum søndag kveld. The sergeant leading the investigation says that the perpetrator probably will kill again. He puts out a call for witnesses who were in the city centre Sunday evening. b. Lensmannen som leder etterforskningen, sier at gjerningsmannen trolig kommer til å drepe igjen. Han er observert i sentrum. The sergeant leading the investigation says that the perpetrator probably will kill again. He is observed in the city centre. As was established in chapters 1 and 2, the antecedent of the anaphor han (he) in (4-15b) cannot be resolved differently from the anaphor in (4-15a) without consulting some sort of knowledge source. However, the information present in the EPAS list can be used as domain knowledge in the process of resolving these anaphors. For the anaphor in (4-15a) other occurrences of the predicate etterlyse (call-for) can be consulted. This would produce the following list: (4- 16) etterlyse,?,bilfører etterlyse,politi,bilfører etterlyse,politi,person etterlyse,politi,syklist call-for,?,driver call-for,police,driver call-for,police,person call-for,police,biker It is clear from the list that etterlyse tends to co-occur with politi as its first argument, and that it does not occur with any other first arguments. Through the concept association we know that politi and lensmann (sergeant) both belong to the same concept group. Consequenntly, we also know that politi and lensmann both occur in the similar environments and thus share features. Given that the possible antecedents in (4-15a) are lensmann and gjerningsmann (perpetrator), the consultation of the EPAS list and the concept groups leads us to select lensmann as the 80
antecedent for (4-15a). In the case of (4-15b) the EPAS list is unfortunately not equally helpful. Other occurrences of observere (observe) are: (4- 17) observere,?,23-åring observere,?,bile observere,?,person observe,?,23-year-old observe,?,car observe,?,person Neither the EPAS in (4-17), nor the concept groups from section 4.2.2, give us any clues as to whether lensmann or gjerningsmann is a more likely second argument in connection with the predicate observere. This can be explained by two circumstances; firstly, the example sentences in (4-15) are constructed and therefore do not reflect examples from the data set, secondly, the small size of the data material obviously limits the extent to which one can expect that all valid patterns of the domain are in fact found in the data set. 81
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 and 12:
The results obtained in this projec
Page 13 and 14:
The term anaphor describes a lingui
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: exemption of jobbe-utfra, none of t
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?