skip to main content
research-article

Sanskrit Parsing Following Indian Theories of Verbal Cognition

Published:15 April 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Pāṇini’s grammar is an important milestone in the Indian grammatical tradition. Unlike grammars of other languages, it is almost exhaustive and together with the theories of śābdabodha (verbal cognition), this grammar provides a system for language analysis as well as generation. The theories of śābdabodha describe three conditions necessary for verbal cognition. They are ākāṅkṣā (expectancy), yogyatā (meaning congruity), and sannidhi (proximity). We examine them from a computational viewpoint and provide appropriate computational models for their representation. Next, we describe the design of a parser following the theories of śābdabodha and present three algorithms for solving the constraints imposed by the theories of śābdabodha. The first algorithm is modeled as a constraint satisfaction problem, the second one as a vertex-centric graph traversal, and the third one as an edge-centric binary join, each one being an improvement over the previous one.

References

  1. Giuseppe Attardi. 2006. Experiments with a multilanguage non-projective dependency parser. In Proceedings of the Conference on Natural Language Learning (CoNLL’06). 166–170. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. B. Bhanumati. 1989. An Approach to Machine Translation Among Indian Languages. Technical Report. Dept. of CSE, IIT Kanpur.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Akshar Bharati, Vineet Chaitanya, and Rajeev Sangal. 1995. Natural Language Processing: A Paninian Perspective. Prentice-Hall, New Delhi.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Akshar Bharati and Amba Kulkarni. 2010. Information coding in a language: Some insights from Paninian grammar. Dhīmahi, J. Chinmaya Int. Found. Shodha Sansthan I, 1 (2010), 77–91.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Riyaz Ahmad Bhat, Irshad Ahmad Bhat, and Dipti Misra Sharma. 2017. Improving transition-based dependency parsing of Hindi and Urdu by modeling syntactically relevant phenomena. ACM Trans. Asian Low-Resour. Lang. Info. Process. 16, 3, Article 17 (Jan. 2017), 35 pages. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3005447 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Pushpak Bhattacharyya. 1986. A System for Sanskrit to Hindi Translation. Master’s thesis. IIT Kanpur.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. M. Bodirsky, M. Kuhlmann, and M. Möhl. 2005. Well-nested drawings as models of syntactic structure. In Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Formal Grammar and Ninth Meeting on Mathematics of Language. University of Edinburgh, 195–203.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Madhav M. Deshpande. 2007. The Meaning of Nouns. DK Printworld(P) Ltd., Delhi.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Brendan S. Gillon. 1996. Word order in classical Sanskrit. Indian Ling. 57, 1 (1996), 1–35.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. J. Havelka. 2005. Projectivity in totally ordered rooted trees. Prague Bull. Math. Ling. 84 (2005), 13–30.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. R. Hudson. 1984. Word Grammar. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Gérard Huet. 2007. Shallow syntax analysis in Sanskrit guided by semantic nets constraints. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Research Issues in Digital Libraries, Majumdar, Mitra, and Parui (Eds.). ACM Digital Library, New York NY USA. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1364742.1364750 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Gérard Huet. 2009. Formal structure of Sanskrit text: Requirements analysis for a mechanical Sanskrit processor. In Sanskrit Computational Linguistics 1 & 2, Gérard Huet, Amba Kulkarni, and Peter Scharf (Eds.). Springer-Verlag LNAI 5402. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Gérard Huet and Pawan Goyal. 2016. Design and analysis of a lean interface for Sanskrit corpus annotation. J. Ling. Model. 4, Number 2 (2016), 145–182.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Madhusoodan Pai J. 2020. Sanskrit Sentence Generator: A Prototype. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Atmaram Narayan Jere. 2002. Kārikāvalī. Chowkamba krishnadas academy, Varanasi.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. K. R. Joshi. 1985. Nyāyasiddhāntamuktāvalī. Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. J. J. Katz and J. A. Fodor. 1963. The structure of a semantic theory. Language 39 (1963), 170–210.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Paul Kiparsky. 2009. On the architecture of Panini grammar. In Sanskrit Computational Linguistics 1 & 2, Gérard Huet, Amba Kulkarni, and Peter Scharf (Eds.). Springer-Verlag LNAI 5402, 33–94. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. G.-J. M. Kruijff. 2002. Formal and Computational Aspects of Dependency Grammar: History and Development of Dependency Grammar. Technical Report.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Amba Kulkarni. 2013. A deterministic dependency parser with dynamic programming for Sanskrit. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Dependency Linguistics (DepLing’13). Charles University in Prague Matfyzpress Prague Czech Republic, Prague, Czech Republic, 157–166. Retrieved from http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W13-3718.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Amba Kulkarni. 2016. The languages and linguistics of South Asia: A comprehensive guide. De Gruyter, Chapter Application of Modern Technology to South Asian Languages, 744–747.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Amba Kulkarni. 2019. Sanskrit Parsing Based on the Theories of śābdabodha. Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla and D. K. Publishers(P) Ltd.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Amba Kulkarni. 2020. Appropriate dependency tagset for Sanskrit analysis and generation. Acta Orientalia forthcoming 80 (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Amba Kulkarni, Sheetal Pokar, and Devanand Shukl. 2010. Designing a constraint based parser for Sanskrit. In Proceedings of the 4th International Sanskrit Computational Linguistics Symposium, G. N. Jha (Ed.). Springer-Verlag, LNAI 6465, 70–90.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Amba Kulkarni and K. V. Ramakrishnamacharyulu. 2013. Parsing Sanskrit texts: Some relation specific issues. In Proceedings of the 5th International Sanskrit Computational Linguistics Symposium, Malhar Kulkarni (Ed.). DK Printworld(P) Ltd.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Amba P. Kulkarni, Preeti Shukla, Pavankumar Satuluri, and Devanand Shukl. 2015. How free is the “free” word order in Sanskrit. In Sanskrit Syntax, Peter Scharf (Ed.). Sanskrit Library, 269–304.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. K. Kunjunni Raja. 1963. Indian Theories of Meaning. Adayar Library and Research Center, Madras.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Ryan Mcdonald and Joakim Nivre. 2007. Characterizating the errors of data-driven dependency parsing models. In Proceedings of the Joint Conferences Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning (EMNLP-CoNLL’07). 122–131.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Ryan McDonald, Fernando Pereira, Kiril Ribarov, and Jan Hajiç. 2005. Non-projective dependency parsing using spanning tree algorithms. In Proceedings of the Joint Conferences on Human Language Technology and Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (HLT/EMNLP’05). 523–530. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Ignor Mel’čuk. 1988. Dependency Syntax: Theory and Practice. The SUNY Press, Albany, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Tetsuji Nakagawa. 2007. Multilingual dependency parsing using global features. In Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning (EMNLP-CoNLL’07).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. J. Nivre. 2006. Constraints on non-projective dependency parsing. In Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL’06). acl, 73–80.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Sanjeev Pachal and Amba Kulkarni. 2019. Co-ordination in Sanskrit. Indian Ling. 80, 1–2 (2019), 59–176.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Sanjeev Panchal. 2020. Modelling Ākāṁkṣā following Pāṇinian Grammar for Sanskrit Sentential Parsing. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Sanjeev Panchal and Amba Kulkarni. 2018. Yogyatā as an absence of non-congruity. In Computational Sanskrit and Digital Humanities, Gérard Huet and Amba Kulkarni (Eds.). DK Printworld.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. K. V. Ramakrishnamacaryulu. 2009. Annotating Sanskrit texts based on Śābdabodha systems. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Sanskrit Computational Linguistics Symposium, Amba Kulkarni and Gérard Huet (Eds.). Springer-Verlag LNAI 5406, Hyderabad India, 26–39. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Bhā. Va. Rāmapriya and V. Saumyanārāyaṇa. 2001. Saṅgaṇakayantre Nyāyaśāstrīyaśābdabodhaḥ. J. Found. Res. VI, 1–2 (2001), 61–68.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Phillip Resnik. 1993. Semantic classes and syntactic ambiguity. In Proceedings of the ARRPA Workshop on Human Language Technology. Princeton. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Gangadhara Sastri. 1903. Tantravārtikam. Chowkamba Sanskrit Book Depot.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Peter Scharf. 1990. The Denotation of Generic Terms in Ancient Indian Grammar, Nyāya and Mīmāṃsā. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Pennsylvania.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. J. Fritz Staal. 1967. Word Order in Sanskrit and Universal Grammar. Dordrecht Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Veluri Subbarao. 1969. The Philosophy of a Sentence and Its Parts. Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Lucien Tesnière (Ed.). 1959. Éléments de Syntaxe Structurale. Klincksieck Paris.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Yorick Wilks. 1975. A preferential, pattern-seeking, semantics for natural language interface. Artific. Intell. 6 (1975), 53–74. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. H. Yamada and Y. Matsumoto. 2003. Statistical dependency analysis with support vector machines. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Parsing Technologies (IWPT’03). 195–206Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Sanskrit Parsing Following Indian Theories of Verbal Cognition

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)27
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format
    About Cookies On This Site

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

    Learn more

    Got it!