Contex Free Grammer For Turkish

Year 2018, Volume: 22 Issue: 2, 552 - 561, 15.08.2018

İlknur Dönmez Eşref Adalı

Abstract

Formal Grammar which is introduced by Chomsky is one of the most important development in Natural Language Processing, a branch of Artificial Intelligence. The mathematical reresentation of languages can be possible using Formal Grammars. Almost all natural languages have word classes such as noun, adjective, verb. In addition to this one sentence consist of noun phrase and verb phrase. Noun phrase may consist of location, destination and source elements. Despite many similarities between the languages, there exist important dissimilarities in grammar rules of the languages belonging to different language families.  In our study the most appropriate formal grammar representing Turkish language is investigated. Accuracy of the suggested grammars’ rules is evaluated in two different corpus. This study is the enhanced version of “Turkish Context Free Grammar Rules with Case Suffix and Phrase Relation” that was presented on UBMK 2016 International Conference on Computer Science \& Engineering \cite{ilk}. Different from the first study, this study includes all word and sentence types of Turkish. Adjectives and prepositions are considered. The quoted sentences, incomplete sentences and question sentences are included. The genitive phrase structures including verbal word are included. In this study, the noun phrases are also defined in detail.

Keywords

Natural language processing, Formal language theory; Turkish context free grammar; CFG rules for Turkish

References

• [1] Dönmez, I., & Adalı, E. 2017. Türkçe Hal Ekleri ve Öbekleri Kapsayan Bağlamdan Bağımsız Dil Temsili Kuralları. Türkiye Bilişim Vakfı Bilgisayar Bilimleri ve Mühendisliği Dergisi, 10(1), 33-40.
• [2] Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. Greenwood Publishing Group.
• [3] Chomsky, N. 2002. On nature and language. Cambridge University Press.
• [4] Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., & Fitch,W. T. 2002. The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve?. science, 298(5598), 1569-1579.
• [5] Pinker, S., & Jackendoff, R. 2005. The faculty of language: what’s special about it?. Cognition, 95(2), 201-236.
• [6] Chomsky, N. 2006. Language and mind. Cambridge University Press.
• [7] Charniak, E. 1996. Statistical language learning. MIT press.
• [8] Harris, Z. S. 1968. Mathematical structures of language.
• [9] Montague, R. 1970. Universal grammar. Theoria, 36(3), 373-398.
• [10] Chomsky, N. 1959. On certain formal properties of grammars. Information and control, 2(2), 137-167.
• [11] Chomsky, N. 1963. Formal properties of grammars.
• [12] Blackburn, P., & Gardent, C. 1995. A specification language for lexical functional grammars. ss. 39-44. Blackburn, P., & Gardent, C. 1995. In Proceedings of the seventh conference on European chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.
• [13] Everett, D., et all. 2005. Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Piraha: Another look at the design features of human language. Current anthropology, 46(4), 621-646.
• [14] Lambek, J. 2014. From Rules of Grammar to Laws of Nature. Novinka.
• [15] Charniak, E. 1997. Statistical parsing with a context-free grammar and word statistics. AAAI/IAAI, 2005(598-603), 18.
• [16] Jurafsky, D. 2000. Speech and language processing: An introduction to natural language processing. Computational linguistics, and speech recognition.
• [17] Murase, T. et all. 2001. Incremental CFG Parsing with Statistical Lexical Dependencies. In NLPRS pp. 351-358.
• [18] Oates, T. et all. 2003. Leveraging Lexical Semantics to Infer Context-Free Grammars. In ECML Workshop on Learning Contex-Free Grammars pp. 65-76.
• [19] Güngördü, Z., & Oflazer, K. 1995. Parsing Turkish using the lexical functional grammar formalism. Machine Translation, 10(4), 293-319.
• [20] Güngör, T., & Kuru, S. 1993. Representation of Turkish morphology in ATN. In Proceedings of Second Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Artificial Neural Networks (92-104)
• [21] Cakici, R. 2005. Automatic induction of a CCG grammar for Turkish. In Proceedings of the ACL student research workshop Association for Computational Linguistics.(73-78).
• [22] Cakici, R. 2009. A wide-coverage morphemic CCG lexicon for Turkish. In Parsing with Categorial Grammars Workshop ESSLLI 2009 Bordeaux, France Book of Abstracts.
• [23] İstek, Ö. 2006. A link grammar for Turkish. Bilkent Universitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Doktora Tezi, Ankara.
• [24] Meral, H. M., et all. 2007. Syntactic tools for text watermarking. In Security, Steganography, and Watermarking of Multimedia Contents IX.International Society for Optics and Photonics. Vol. 6505, p. 65050X
• [25] Durrant, P. 2013. Formulaicity in an agglutinating language: The case of Turkish. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 9(1), 1-38.
• [26] İşgüder- Şahin, G. G., & Adali, E. 2014. A pilot study on automatic inference rule discovery from Turkish text. In Application of Information and Communication Technologies (AICT), 2014 IEEE 8th International Conference on IEEE 1-5
• [27] Dönmez, İ., & Adali, E. 2015. Extracting phrasecontent pairs for Turkish sentences. In Application of Information and Communication Technologies (AICT), 2015 9th International Conference on IEEE, 128-132.
• [28] Hoffman, B. 1995. The computational analysis of the syntax and interpretation of" free" word order in Turkish. IRCS Technical Reports Series, 130.
• [29] Pullum, G. K., & Scholz, B. C. 2010. Recursion and the infinitude claim. Recursion in human language, 104, 113-38.
• [30] van der Hulst, H. 2010. Recursion and human language (Vol. 104). Walter de Gruyter.
• [31] Arslan, E., & Orhan, U. 2016. Graph-based lemmatization of Turkish words by using morphological similarity. In INnovations in Intelligent SysTems and Applications (INISTA), 2016 International Symposium on IEEE (1-5).
• [32] Kunduracı, A., & Göksel, A. 2016. Morphology: the base processor. In Mediterranean Morphology Meetings Vol.10, 88-97
• [33] Goldsmith, J. 2011. The evaluation metric in generative grammar. 50th anniversary celebration for the MIT Department of Linguistics.
• [34] Tantug, A. C. et all. 2014. The effect of parallel corpus quality vs size in English-to-Turkish SMT. In Sixth International Conference on Web services & Semantic Technology Chennai.
• [35] Aksan, J. et all. 2012. Construction of the Turkish National Corpus (TNC). In LREC pp. 3223-3227.