What are good starting points for someone interest

问题:

Question

So I've recently came up with some new possible projects that would have to deal with deriving 'meaning' from text submitted and generated by users.

Natural language processing is the field that deals with these kinds of issues, and after some initial research I found the OpenNLP Hub and university collaborations like the attempto project. And stackoverflow has this.

If anyone could link me to some good resources, from reseach papers and introductionary texts to apis, I'd be happier than a 6 year-old kid opening his christmas presents!

Update

Through one of your recommendations I've found opencyc ('the world's largest and most complete general knowledge base and commonsense reasoning engine'). Even more amazing still, there's a project that is a distilled version of opencyc called UMBEL. It features semantic data in rdf/owl/skos n3 syntax.

I've also stumbled upon antlr, a parser generator for 'constructing recognizers, interpreters, compilers, and translators from grammatical descriptions'.

And there's a question on here by me, that lists tons of free and open data.

Thanks stackoverflow community!

回答1:

Tough call, NLP is a much wider field than most people think it is. Basically, language can be split up into several categories, which will require you to learn totally different things.

Before I start, let me tell you that I doubt you'll have any notable success (as a professional, at least) without having a degree in some (closely related) field. There is a lot of theory involved, most of it is dry stuff and hard to learn. You'll need a lot of endurance and most of all: time.

If you're interested in the meaning of text, well, that's the Next Big Thing. Semantic search engines are predicted as initiating Web 3.0, but we're far from 'there' yet. Extracting logic from a text is dependant on several steps:

• Tokenization, Chunking
• Disambiguation on a lexical level (Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana.)
• Syntactic Parsing
• Morphological analysis (tense, aspect, case, number, whatnot)

A small list, off the top of my head. There's more :-), and many more details to each point. For example, when I say "parsing", what is this? There are many different parsing algorithms, and there are just as many parsing formalisms. Among the most powerful are Tree-adjoining grammar and Head-driven phrase structure grammar. But both of them are hardly used in the field (for now). Usually, you'll be dealing with some half-baked generative approach, and will have to conduct morphological analysis yourself.

Going from there to semantics is a big step. A Syntax/Semantics interface is dependant both, on the syntactic and semantic framework employed, and there is no single working solution yet. On the semantic side, there's classic generative semantics, then there is Discourse Representation Theory, dynamic semantics, and many more. Even the logical formalism everything is based on is still not well-defined. Some say one should use first-order logic, but that hardly seems sufficient; then there is intensional logic, as used by Montague, but that seems overly complex, and computationally unfeasible. There also is dynamic logic (Groenendijk and Stokhof have pioneered this stuff. Great stuff!) and very recently, this summer actually, Jeroen Groenendijk presented a new formalism, Inquisitive Semantics, also very interesting.

If you want to get started on a very simple level, read Blackburn and Bos (2005), it's great stuff, and the de-facto introduction to Computational Semantics! I recently extended their system to cover the partition-theory of questions (question answering is a beast!), as proposed by Groenendijk and Stokhof (1982), but unfortunately, the theory has a complexity of O(n²) over the domain of individuals. While doing so, I found B&B's implementation to be a bit, erhm… hackish, at places. Still, it is going to really, really help you dive into computational semantics, and it is still a very impressive showcase of what can be done. Also, they deserve extra cool-points for implementing a grammar that is settled in Pulp Fiction (the movie).

And while I'm at it, pick up Prolog. A lot of research in computational semantics is based on Prolog. Learn Prolog Now! is a good intro. I can also recommend "The Art of Prolog" and Covington's "Prolog Programming in Depth" and "Natural Language Processing for Prolog Programmers", the former of which is available for free online.

回答2:

Chomsky is totally the wrong source to look to for NLP (and he'd say as much himself, emphatically)--see: "Statistical Methods and Linguistics" by Abney.

Jurafsky and Martin, mentioned above, is a standard reference, but I myself prefer Manning and Schütze. If you're serious about NLP you'll probably want to read both. There are videos of one of Manning's courses available online.

回答3:

If you get through Prolog until the DCG chapter in Learn Prolog Now! mentioned by Mr. Dimitrov above, you'll have a good beginning at getting some semantics into your system, since Prolog gives you a very simple way of maintaining a database of knowledge and belief, which can be updated through question-answering.

As regards the literature, I have one major recommendation for you: run out and buy Speech and Language Processing by Jurafsky & Martin. It is pretty much the book on NLP (the first chapter is available online); used in a frillion university courses but also very readable for the non-linguist and practically oriented, while at the same time going fairly deep into the linguistics problems. I really cannot recommend it enough. Chapters 17, 18 and 21 seem to be what you're looking for (14, 15 and 18 in the first edition); they show you simple lambda notation which translates pretty well to Prolog DCG's with features.

Oh, btw, on getting the masters in linguistics; if NL semantics is what you're into, I'd rather recommend taking all the AI-related courses you can find (although any courses on "plain" linguistic semantics, logic, logical semantics, DRT, LFG/HPSG/CCG, NL parsing, formal linguistic theory, etc. wouldn't hurt...)

Reading Chomsky's original literature is not really useful; as far as I know there are no current implementations that directly correspond to his theories, all the useful stuff of his is pretty much subsumed by other theories (and anyone who stays near linguists for any matter of time will absorb knowledge of Chomsky by osmosis).

回答4:

I'd highly recommend playing around with the NLTK and reading the NLTK Book. The NLTK is very powerful and easy to get into.

回答5:

You could try reading up a bit on phrase structured grammers, which is basically the mathematics behind much language processessing. It's actually not that heavy, being largely based on set and graph theory. I studied it many moons ago as part of a discrete math course, and I guess there are many good references available at this stage.

Edit:Not as much as I expected on google, although this one looks like a good learning source.

回答6:

One of the early explorers into NLP is Noam Chomsky; he wrote small books on the subject in the 50s through the 70s. You may find that engaging reading.

回答7:

Cycorp have a short description of how their Cyc knowledge base derives meaning from sentences.

By utilising a massive knowledge base of common facts, the system can determine the most logical parse of a sentence.

回答8:

A simpler place to begin with the building blocks is the look at the documentation for a package that attempts to do it. I'd recommend the Python [Natural Language Toolkit (NLTK)1, particularly because of their well-written, free book, which is filled with examples. It won't get you all the way to what you want (which is an AI-hard problem), but it will give you a good footing. NLTK has parsers, chunkers, context-free grammars, and more.

回答9:

This is really hard stuff. I'd start off by getting at least a Masters in Linguistics, and then work towards my PhD in computer science, concentrating on NLP.

The problem is that most of us don't have the understanding of what language is. And without that understanding, it's bloody tough to implement a solution.

Other comments give some readings, which are probably fine if you want to get started playing around with a small subset of the problem, but in order to come up with a really robust solution, then there are no shortcuts. You need the academic background in both disciplines.

回答10:

A very enjoyable readable introduction is The Language Instinct by Steven Pinker. It goes into the Chomsky stuff and also tells interesting stories from the evolutionary biology angle. Might be worth starting with something like that before diving into Chomsky's papers and related work, if you're new to the subject.