4 ms·

The beginning of the article reminds me of the quote : "Every time I fire a linguist, the performance of our speech recognition system goes up." But nowadays st

• psygnisfive 12y ago
  It really depends on what you count as syntactic and semantic information. As a linguist, to me syntactic information is tree structures, syntactic categories, etc., and semantics is formulas in some (typically higher-order) logic. But for a lot of the NLP that I see, "syntax" is pretty shallow stuff like head words and POS tag contexts, and "semantics" is at best things like word vectors maybe dependency trees. These are very different. But maybe we're thinking of different things! :)
  • danieldk 12y ago
    There have been some inflated claims, e.g. people calling their part-of-speech tagger a shallow parser or their shallow parser (e.g. chunking plus some rules) a parser :). But I think in general computational linguists would say that dependency trees are definitely syntax.
    • psygnisfive 12y ago
      It depends on the kind of dependency trees. I've seen plenty of semantic-y dependency trees and plenty of syntactic-y dependency trees. I'm not sure how common either really are ever, but on the semantics side, it's the best you get, usually, and isn't all that good for semantics. It's fine for syntax, more or less.
      • danieldk 12y ago
        I think that if you say: dependency treebank, most computational linguists will expect syntactic dependencies. I agree that the notion is blurred sometimes, e.g. by including word senses or preferring semantic attachments in some cases over semantic attachment. There may also be treebanks of the semantic-y kind, but I haven't seen or used them often.