简单和学会区分论点和修饰语

Leon Bergen, E. Gibson, T. O’Donnell
{"title":"简单和学会区分论点和修饰语","authors":"Leon Bergen, E. Gibson, T. O’Donnell","doi":"10.15398/jlm.v10i2.263","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We present a learnability analysis of the argument-modifier distinction, asking whether there is information in the distribution of English constituents that could allow learners to identify which constituents are arguments and which are modifiers. We first develop a general description of some of the ways in which arguments and modifiers differ in distribution. We then identify two models from the literature that can capture these differences, which we call the argument-only model and the argument-modifier model. We employ these models using a common learning framework based on two simplicity biases which tradeoff against one another. The first bias favors a small lexicon with highly reusable lexical items, and the second, opposing, bias favors simple derivations of individual forms – those using small numbers of lexical items.\nOur first empirical study shows that the argument-modifier model is able to recover the argument-modifier status of many individual constituents when evaluated against a gold standard. This provides evidence in favor of our general account of the distributional differences between arguments and modifiers. It also suggests a kind of lower bound on the amount of information that a suitably equipped learner could use to identify which phrases are arguments or modifiers.\nWe then present a series of analyses investigating how and why the argument-modifier model is able to recover the argument-modifier status of some constituents. In particular, we show that the argumentmodifier model is able to provide a simpler description of the input corpus than the argument-only model, both in terms of lexicon size, and in terms of the complexity of individual derivations. Intuitively, the argument-modifier model is able to do this because it is able to ignore spurious modifier structure when learning the lexicon. These analyses further support our general account of the differences between arguments and modifiers, as well as our simplicity-based approach to learning.","PeriodicalId":403597,"journal":{"name":"J. Lang. Model.","volume":"49 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Simplicity and learning to distinguish arguments from modifiers\",\"authors\":\"Leon Bergen, E. Gibson, T. O’Donnell\",\"doi\":\"10.15398/jlm.v10i2.263\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We present a learnability analysis of the argument-modifier distinction, asking whether there is information in the distribution of English constituents that could allow learners to identify which constituents are arguments and which are modifiers. We first develop a general description of some of the ways in which arguments and modifiers differ in distribution. We then identify two models from the literature that can capture these differences, which we call the argument-only model and the argument-modifier model. We employ these models using a common learning framework based on two simplicity biases which tradeoff against one another. The first bias favors a small lexicon with highly reusable lexical items, and the second, opposing, bias favors simple derivations of individual forms – those using small numbers of lexical items.\\nOur first empirical study shows that the argument-modifier model is able to recover the argument-modifier status of many individual constituents when evaluated against a gold standard. This provides evidence in favor of our general account of the distributional differences between arguments and modifiers. It also suggests a kind of lower bound on the amount of information that a suitably equipped learner could use to identify which phrases are arguments or modifiers.\\nWe then present a series of analyses investigating how and why the argument-modifier model is able to recover the argument-modifier status of some constituents. In particular, we show that the argumentmodifier model is able to provide a simpler description of the input corpus than the argument-only model, both in terms of lexicon size, and in terms of the complexity of individual derivations. Intuitively, the argument-modifier model is able to do this because it is able to ignore spurious modifier structure when learning the lexicon. These analyses further support our general account of the differences between arguments and modifiers, as well as our simplicity-based approach to learning.\",\"PeriodicalId\":403597,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"J. Lang. Model.\",\"volume\":\"49 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"J. Lang. Model.\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15398/jlm.v10i2.263\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"J. Lang. Model.","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15398/jlm.v10i2.263","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们提出了一个可学习性分析的论点-修饰语的区别,询问是否有信息在英语成分的分布,可以让学习者识别哪些成分是论点,哪些是修饰语。我们首先对实参和修饰语在分布上的一些不同方式进行一般性描述。然后,我们从文献中确定了两个可以捕捉这些差异的模型,我们称之为仅参数模型和参数修饰符模型。我们使用基于两种相互权衡的简单性偏差的通用学习框架来使用这些模型。第一种偏见倾向于使用具有高度可重用性的词汇项的小词典,第二种相反的偏见倾向于使用少量词汇项的单个形式的简单派生。我们的第一个实证研究表明,当根据金标准进行评估时,论点-修饰语模型能够恢复许多单个成分的论点-修饰语状态。这为我们对实参和修饰语之间分布差异的一般描述提供了证据。它还提出了一种信息量的下限,一个有能力的学习者可以用它来识别哪些短语是论点或修饰语。然后,我们提出了一系列的分析,调查论证-修饰语模型如何以及为什么能够恢复某些成分的论证-修饰语状态。特别是,我们展示了argumentmodifier模型能够提供比仅参数模型更简单的输入语料库描述,无论是在词汇大小方面,还是在单个派生的复杂性方面。直观地说,参数-修饰符模型能够做到这一点,因为它能够在学习词汇时忽略虚假的修饰符结构。这些分析进一步支持了我们对论点和修饰语之间差异的一般描述,以及我们基于简单性的学习方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Simplicity and learning to distinguish arguments from modifiers
We present a learnability analysis of the argument-modifier distinction, asking whether there is information in the distribution of English constituents that could allow learners to identify which constituents are arguments and which are modifiers. We first develop a general description of some of the ways in which arguments and modifiers differ in distribution. We then identify two models from the literature that can capture these differences, which we call the argument-only model and the argument-modifier model. We employ these models using a common learning framework based on two simplicity biases which tradeoff against one another. The first bias favors a small lexicon with highly reusable lexical items, and the second, opposing, bias favors simple derivations of individual forms – those using small numbers of lexical items. Our first empirical study shows that the argument-modifier model is able to recover the argument-modifier status of many individual constituents when evaluated against a gold standard. This provides evidence in favor of our general account of the distributional differences between arguments and modifiers. It also suggests a kind of lower bound on the amount of information that a suitably equipped learner could use to identify which phrases are arguments or modifiers. We then present a series of analyses investigating how and why the argument-modifier model is able to recover the argument-modifier status of some constituents. In particular, we show that the argumentmodifier model is able to provide a simpler description of the input corpus than the argument-only model, both in terms of lexicon size, and in terms of the complexity of individual derivations. Intuitively, the argument-modifier model is able to do this because it is able to ignore spurious modifier structure when learning the lexicon. These analyses further support our general account of the differences between arguments and modifiers, as well as our simplicity-based approach to learning.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信