Cited by 1Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationNatural Language Processing TechniquesTopic Modeling

CxLM: a construction and context-aware language model

Open access
Tseng, Yu-Hsiang, Shih, Cing-Fang, Chen, Pin-Er, Chou, Hsin-Yu, Ku, Mao-Chang, Hsieh, Shu-Kai·2022·Proceedings of the Language Resources and Evaluation Conference

Abstract

Constructions are direct form-meaning pairs with possible schematic slots.These slots are simultaneously constrained by the embedded construction itself and the sentential context.We propose that the constraint could be described by a conditional probability distribution.However, as this conditional probability is inevitably complex, we utilize language models to capture this distribution.Therefore, we build CxLM, a deep learning-based masked language model explicitly tuned to constructions' schematic slots.We first compile a construction dataset consisting of over ten thousand constructions in Taiwan Mandarin.Next, an experiment is conducted on the dataset to examine to what extent a pretrained masked language model is aware of the constructions.We then fine-tune the model specifically to perform a cloze task on the opening slots.We find that the fine-tuned model predicts masked slots more accurately than baselines and generates both structurally and semantically plausible word samples.Finally, we release CxLM and its dataset as publicly available resources and hope to serve as new quantitative tools in studying construction grammar.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.63317/3crwcjzrqfhc

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. Boas, H. C. (2013). Cognitive construction gram- mar. In The Oxford handbook of construction grammar. Oxford University Press.
  2. Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: the mind's response to repetition. Language, 82(4):711-733.
  3. Clark, K., Luong, M.-T., Le, Q. V., and Manning, C. D. (2020). ELECTRA: Pre-training text en- coders as discriminators rather than generators. In ICLR.
  4. Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Ox- ford University Press on Demand.
  5. Dunn, J. (2017). Computational learning of con- struction grammars. Language and cognition, 9(2):254-292. Publisher: Cambridge University Press.
  6. Fillmore, C. J. (1988). The mechanisms of "con- struction grammar". In Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, volume 14, pages 35-55.
  7. Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press on Demand.
  8. Goodfellow, I., Pouget-Abadie, J., Mirza, M., Xu, B., Warde-Farley, D., Ozair, S., Courville, A., and Bengio, Y. (2014). Generative adversarial nets. In Z. Ghahramani, et al., editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol- ume 27.
  9. Gries, S. T. and Stefanowitsch, A. (2004). Extend- ing collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective onalternations'. International jour- nal of corpus linguistics, 9(1):97-129.
  10. Gui, J., Sun, Z., Wen, Y., Tao, D., and Ye, J. (2021). A review on generative adversarial net- works: Algorithms, theory, and applications. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data En- gineering, pages 1-1.
  11. Guo, J., Lu, S., Cai, H., Zhang, W., Yu, Y., and Wang, J. (2018). Long text generation via ad- versarial training with leaked information. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Arti- ficial Intelligence, volume 32.
  12. Hanna, P., Stewart, D., Smith, F. J., et al. (2006). Reduced n-gram models for english and chinese corpora. In Proceedings of the COLING/ACL 2006 Main Conference Poster Sessions, pages 309-315.
  13. Hoffmann, T. and Trousdale, G. (2013). Construc- tion Grammar. Oxford University Press, De- cember.
  14. Kaschak, M. P. and Glenberg, A. M. (2000). Constructing meaning: The role of affordances and grammatical constructions in sentence com- prehension. Journal of memory and language, 43(3):508-529. Publisher: Elsevier.
  15. Liu, T.-J. (2014). Ptt corpus: Construction and applications. Master's thesis, National Taiwan University.
  16. Madabushi, H. T., Romain, L., Divjak, D., and Milin, P. (2020). CxGBERT: BERT meets Construction Grammar. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.04134. · arXiv
  17. Manning, C. D., Clark, K., Hewitt, J., Khandel- wal, U., and Levy, O. (2020). Emergent linguis- tic structure in artificial neural networks trained by self-supervision. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(48):30046-30054.
  18. McMahon, J. and Smith, F. J. (1998). A review of statistical language processing techniques. Arti- ficial Intelligence Review, 12(5):347-391.
  19. Salimans, T., Goodfellow, I., Zaremba, W., Che- ung, V., Radford, A., and Chen, X. (2016). Im- proved techniques for training gans. Advances in neural information processing systems, 29:2234- 2242.
  20. Schmid, H.-J. (2010). Does frequency in text in- stantiate entrenchment in the cognitive system? In Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches, pages 101-134.
  21. Stefanowitsch, A. and Gries, S. T. (2003). Col- lostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International journal of corpus linguistics, 8(2):209-243.
  22. Stefanowitsch, A. (2013). Collostructional Analy- sis. Oxford University Press, December.
  23. Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, Ł., and Polo- sukhin, I. (2017). Attention is all you need. In Advances in neural information processing sys- tems, pages 5998-6008.
  24. Wolf, T., Debut, L., Sanh, V., Chaumond, J., De- langue, C., Moi, A., Cistac, P., Rault, T., Louf, R., Funtowicz, M., Davison, J., Shleifer, S., von Platen, P., Ma, C., Jernite, Y., Plu, J., Xu, C., Scao, T. L., Gugger, S., Drame, M., Lhoest, Q., and Rush, A. M. (2020). Transformers: State- of-the-art natural language processing. In Pro- ceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: Sys- tem Demonstrations, pages 38-45, Online, Octo- ber. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  25. Zhan, W. (2017). Some Key Issues on Building A Knowledge Database of Chinese Construc- tions. Journal of Chinese Information Process- ing, 31(1):230-238.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tseng, Y.-H., Shih, C.-F., Chen, P.-E., Chou, H.-Y., Ku, M.-C., & Hsieh, S.-K.
Affiliations
National Taiwan University (TW)
Venue
Proceedings of the Language Resources and Evaluation Conference
Published
2022-06
Pages
6361-6369
ISSN
2522-2686
OpenAlex
W7160241332
Cited by
0
References
1
FWCI
0.00
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
construction grammar

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review