The Tulip Project *[2ex] a partial treatment of formal ...The Tulip Project *[2ex] a partial...

Preview:

Citation preview

The Tulip Project

a partial treatment of formal analogies

László Kálmán

Research Institute for Linguistics, HASTheoretical Linguistics Department, HAS/ELTE

kalman.laszlo@nytud.mta.hu

2019

László Kálmán (MTA/ELTE) tulip 2019. 1 / 11

plan

1 why “tulip”?2 why “partial”?3 why “treatment”?

László Kálmán (MTA/ELTE) tulip 2019. 2 / 11

history

• ancient use: ‘regularity’• beginning of 19th century: exception to “sound laws”• e.g., Hungarian sirolm > siralom ∼ siralm- ⇒ sátor > sátor ∼ sátr-• de Saussure: back to the ancient view, analogy is the force that makes

linguistic systems coherent

László Kálmán (MTA/ELTE) tulip 2019. 3 / 11

analogy

exampleA : B = C : ?

A B

C ?

László Kálmán (MTA/ELTE) tulip 2019. 4 / 11

analogy

exampleA : B = C : ?

?

son sons

sin

László Kálmán (MTA/ELTE) tulip 2019. 5 / 11

analogy

exampleA : B = C : ?

son sons

sin sins

Lepage (1996)• transformation son⇝ sons• transformation son⇝ sin• composition of the two: son⇝ sins

László Kálmán (MTA/ELTE) tulip 2019. 6 / 11

motivation

Lepage was the first to offer a formal treatment of analogy, based onstring operations (deletion and insertion, just like in the calculation ofLevenshtein distances), and he has used it for finding regularities inlarge corpora.

However, this method is difficult to generalize to more sophisticatedrepresentations and operations; I felt that a more principled andabstract way of approaching analogy is called for.In what follows, I will first show, starting from this simple stringexample, what analogy means at the most abstract level.

László Kálmán (MTA/ELTE) tulip 2019. 7 / 11

tulip

analogyA : B = C : ?

A B

C ?

László Kálmán (MTA/ELTE) tulip 2019. 8 / 11

tulip

analogyA : B = C : ?

son

sin

sons

sins

László Kálmán (MTA/ELTE) tulip 2019. 9 / 11

tulip

analogyA : B = C : ?

son

sin

sons

sins

László Kálmán (MTA/ELTE) tulip 2019. 10 / 11

tulip

analogyA : B = C : ?

son sons

sin sins

metaphorically

sons \ son = -s sin \ son = -i- son ∩ sons ∩ sin = s- -n

? = -s ∪ -i- ∪ s- -n = sins

László Kálmán (MTA/ELTE) tulip 2019. 11 / 11

László Kálmán (MTA/ELTE) tulip 2019. 12 / 11

László Kálmán (MTA/ELTE) tulip 2019. 13 / 11

László Kálmán (MTA/ELTE) tulip 2019. 14 / 11

László Kálmán (MTA/ELTE) tulip 2019. 15 / 11

László Kálmán (MTA/ELTE) tulip 2019. 16 / 11

summary

It seems that the “tulip” is a suitable set theoretical metaphor, but howwill we make it operational? What should be the members of our sets?They should be something like “ingredients” or “properties” ofrepresentations, but this is too general, and the calculi of such entitiesis often non-trivial.

László Kálmán (MTA/ELTE) tulip 2019. 17 / 11

why partial?

things i cannot do (and maybe do not want to)• reduplication: tami : tatami = paya : ?• metathesis: top : pot = lead : ?

things i cannot do (but would like to)• sub- (auto-) segmental phenomena: teeth : teethe = belief : ?• semantic phenomena: sleep : slept = go : ?• true analogy is not based on individual examples, but legions of them,

with varying frequencies

László Kálmán (MTA/ELTE) tulip 2019. 18 / 11

why treatment?

elements of a solution• approach 1: strings represented as sets of binary trees with ordered

branches (“left” and “right”) with constraints as leaves• approach 1: strings represented as partial orders over subsets of a set

with an equivalence classification (corresponding to features)• difference, intersection and “union” (combination) are defined

accordingly

László Kálmán (MTA/ELTE) tulip 2019. 19 / 11

approach 1: trees

son sons

sin

László Kálmán (MTA/ELTE) tulip 2019. 20 / 11

approach 1: trees

intersection difference

difference union

László Kálmán (MTA/ELTE) tulip 2019. 21 / 11

approach2: partial orders

brief description• the universe U = ⟨E ,≡⟩ (entities with an equivalence relation ≡ ⊆ E2,

representing features)• string constraints ⟨E,≤⟩, with E ⊆ E , a partial ordering ≤ over E

• for a simple string, x(s)1 ≤ x(o)2 ≤ x

(n)3 ≤ x

(s)4

the tricky part: operations• they are defined over sets of constraints• maps from “sons” to “son” and from “sin” to “son”• difference: unmapped part; intersection: covered by both ranges• linearization also yields sets of strings• modelling sub- and autosegmental representations (partial order of

timing points that start or end an autosegment)

László Kálmán (MTA/ELTE) tulip 2019. 22 / 11

Köszönöm a figyelmet!

László Kálmán (MTA/ELTE) tulip 2019. 23 / 11

references

Lepage, Yves and Shin-ichi, Ando, 1996. “Saussurian analogy: a theoreticalaccount and its application”. Proc. COLING ’96, Vol. 2, pp. 717–722. ACL,Stroudsburg PA.

László Kálmán (MTA/ELTE) tulip 2019. 24 / 11

Recommended