3 ms·
> The problem is slippery though, people always reuse words to express different ideas : > "We can't buy any bread because we haven't got any bread." As long a
by danieldk 12y ago
> The problem is slippery though, people always reuse words to express different ideas :
> "We can't buy any bread because we haven't got any bread."
As long as we are talking about syntactic parsing, this is not a problem as long as the attachment is the same. In both cases 'bread' is the direct object of the main verb.
Of course, there are cases where a particular word can be used both as a direct object and a subject of a particular verb. E.g.:
The man ate the pig.
The pig ate the apple.
Of course, what such systems are learning are not rules, but probability distributions that combine information about the distributions of word orders, association strengths between heads and dependent with a particular dependency relation, configurations of dependent pairs, etc.
- psygnisfive 12y agoI think they're saying tho that in one case "bread" means a kind of food, and in the other, it means money. If the different uses were more directly connected to particular words that could disambiguate, it wouldn't be too hard -- head features typically can do this -- but the disambiguation here is far more conceptual in original. You know that you need money to buy things, and so you know that not having money is a good reason for not being able to buy things. But bread-the-food is not needed to buy things, so not having it isn't a good reason for not being able to buy things. So probably the second "bread" is the bread-money version. This kind of disambiguation is super tricky without broader world knowledge.