Türkçe ˙Için Ba˘glamdan Ba˘gımsız Dil Temsili

Biçimsel gramerler, yapay zekanın bir dalı olan do˘gal dil i¸sleme alanındaki en önemli geli¸smelerden biridir. Dillerin matematiksel modellerle ifade edildi˘gi bu gramer yapıları 1950’li yıllarda Chomsky tarafından ortaya atılmı¸stır. Dünyada kullanılan pek çok do˘gal dilde bulunma bildiren, ayrılma bildiren, kaynak bildiren öbekler ve isim, sıfat, zarf gibi ortak sözcük sınıfları kullanılmaktadır. Pek çok ortak özelli˘ge ra˘gman özellikle farklı dil ailesinden olan dillerin dil bilgisi kuralları arasında önemli farklılıklar bulunmaktadır. Çalı¸smamızda Türkçeyi temsil eden en uygun biçimsel dil kuralları incelenmi¸s ve önerilen gramer kurallarının do˘grulu˘gu farklı derlemler üzerinde sınanmı¸stır. Bu çalı¸sma 2016’da UBMK Bilgisayar Mühendisli˘gi Bölüm Ba¸skanları Toplantısında sunulan “Türkçe Hal Ekleri ve Öbekleri Kapsayan Ba˘glamdan Ba˘gımsız Dil Temsili” çalı¸smamızın [1] geni¸sletilmi¸s ve tüm sözcük türlerini içeren ve tüm cümle yapılarını kapsayan halidir. ˙Ilk çalı¸smadan farklı olarak edatlar ve sıfatlar sözcük tipleri ve içinde isim ve fiil barındıran tamlama yapıları dikkate alınmı¸stır. Bu çalı¸smada isim öbe˘gi kavramı daha detaylı bir ¸sekilde incelenip tanımlanmı¸stır. Alıntılanmı¸s ve eksiltili cümle tipleri ve soru cümleleri çalı¸smaya dahil edilmi¸stir.

Contex Free Grammer For Turkish

Formal Grammar which is introduced by Chomsky is one of the most importantdevelopment in Natural Language Processing, a branch of Artificial Intelligence. Themathematical reresentation of languages can be possible using Formal Grammars. Almostall natural languages have word classes such as noun, adjective, verb. In addition to thisone sentence consist of noun phrase and verb phrase. Noun phrase may consist of location,destination and source elements. Despite many similarities between the languages, thereexist important dissimilarities in grammar rules of the languages belonging to differentlanguage families. In our study the most appropriate formal grammar representing Turkishlanguage is investigated. Accuracy of the suggested grammars’ rules is evaluated intwo different corpus. This study is the enhanced version of “Turkish Context FreeGrammar Rules with Case Suffix and Phrase Relation” that was presented on UBMK2016 International Conference on Computer Science & Engineering [1]. Different fromthe first study, this study includes all word and sentence types of Turkish. Adjectives andprepositions are considered. The quoted sentences, incomplete sentences and questionsentences are included. The genitive phrase structures including verbal word are included.In this study, the noun phrases are also defined in detail.

PDF

___

Dönmez, ˙I., & Adalı, E. 2017. Türkçe Hal Ekleri ve Öbekleri Kapsayan Ba˘glamdan Ba˘gımsız Dil Temsili Kuralları. Türkiye Bili¸sim Vakfı Bilgisayar Bilimleri ve Mühendisli˘gi Dergisi, 10(1), 33-40.
Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. Greenwood Publishing Group.
Chomsky, N. 2002. On nature and language. Cambridge University Press.
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.
Pinker, S., & Jackendoff, R. 2005. The faculty of language: what’s special about it?. Cognition, 95(2), 201-236.
Chomsky, N. 2006. Language and mind. Cambridge University Press.
Charniak, E. 1996. Statistical language learning. MIT press.
Harris, Z. S. 1968. Mathematical structures of language.
Montague, R. 1970. Universal grammar. Theoria, 36(3), 373-398.
Chomsky, N. 1959. On certain formal properties of grammars. Information and control, 2(2), 137-167.
Chomsky, N. 1963. Formal properties of grammars.
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.
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.
Lambek, J. 2014. From Rules of Grammar to Laws of Nature. Novinka.
Charniak, E. 1997. Statistical parsing with a context-free grammar and word statistics. AAAI/IAAI, 2005(598-603), 18.
Jurafsky, D. 2000. Speech and language processing: An introduction to natural language processing. Computational linguistics, and speech recognition.
Murase, T. et all. 2001. Incremental CFG Parsing with Statistical Lexical Dependencies. In NLPRS pp. 351-358.
Oates, T. et all. 2003. Leveraging Lexical Semantics to Infer Context-Free Grammars. In ECML Workshop on Learning Contex-Free Grammars pp. 65-76.
Güngördü, Z., & Oflazer, K. 1995. Parsing Turkish using the lexical functional grammar formalism. Machine Translation, 10(4), 293-319.
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)
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).
Cakici, R. 2009. A wide-coverage morphemic CCG lexicon for Turkish. In Parsing with Categorial Grammars Workshop ESSLLI 2009 Bordeaux, France Book of Abstracts.
Istek, Ö. 2006. A link grammar for Turkish. Bilkent Universitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Doktora Tezi, Ankara.
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
Durrant, P. 2013. Formulaicity in an agglutinating language: The case of Turkish. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 9(1), 1-38.
˙I ¸sgüder- ¸ Sahin, 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
Dönmez, ˙I., & 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.
Hoffman, B. 1995. The computational analysis of the syntax and interpretation of" free" word order in Turkish. IRCS Technical Reports Series, 130.
Pullum, G. K., & Scholz, B. C. 2010. Recursion and the infinitude claim. Recursion in human language, 104, 113-38.
van der Hulst, H. 2010. Recursion and human language (Vol. 104). Walter de Gruyter.
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).
Kunduracı, A., & Göksel, A. 2016. Morphology: the base processor. In Mediterranean Morphology Meetings Vol.10, 88-97
Goldsmith, J. 2011. The evaluation metric in generative grammar. 50th anniversary celebration for the MIT Department of Linguistics.
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.
Aksan, J. et all. 2012. Construction of the Turkish National Corpus (TNC). In LREC pp. 3223-3227.