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.
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- B. Bhanumati. 1989. An Approach to Machine Translation Among Indian Languages. Technical Report. Dept. of CSE, IIT Kanpur.Google Scholar
- Akshar Bharati, Vineet Chaitanya, and Rajeev Sangal. 1995. Natural Language Processing: A Paninian Perspective. Prentice-Hall, New Delhi.Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- Pushpak Bhattacharyya. 1986. A System for Sanskrit to Hindi Translation. Master’s thesis. IIT Kanpur.Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- Madhav M. Deshpande. 2007. The Meaning of Nouns. DK Printworld(P) Ltd., Delhi.Google Scholar
- Brendan S. Gillon. 1996. Word order in classical Sanskrit. Indian Ling. 57, 1 (1996), 1–35.Google Scholar
- J. Havelka. 2005. Projectivity in totally ordered rooted trees. Prague Bull. Math. Ling. 84 (2005), 13–30.Google Scholar
- R. Hudson. 1984. Word Grammar. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
- Madhusoodan Pai J. 2020. Sanskrit Sentence Generator: A Prototype. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad.Google Scholar
- Atmaram Narayan Jere. 2002. Kārikāvalī. Chowkamba krishnadas academy, Varanasi.Google Scholar
- K. R. Joshi. 1985. Nyāyasiddhāntamuktāvalī. Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune.Google Scholar
- J. J. Katz and J. A. Fodor. 1963. The structure of a semantic theory. Language 39 (1963), 170–210.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- G.-J. M. Kruijff. 2002. Formal and Computational Aspects of Dependency Grammar: History and Development of Dependency Grammar. Technical Report.Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- Amba Kulkarni. 2019. Sanskrit Parsing Based on the Theories of śābdabodha. Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla and D. K. Publishers(P) Ltd.Google Scholar
- Amba Kulkarni. 2020. Appropriate dependency tagset for Sanskrit analysis and generation. Acta Orientalia forthcoming 80 (2020).Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- K. Kunjunni Raja. 1963. Indian Theories of Meaning. Adayar Library and Research Center, Madras.Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- Ignor Mel’čuk. 1988. Dependency Syntax: Theory and Practice. The SUNY Press, Albany, New York.Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- Sanjeev Pachal and Amba Kulkarni. 2019. Co-ordination in Sanskrit. Indian Ling. 80, 1–2 (2019), 59–176.Google Scholar
- Sanjeev Panchal. 2020. Modelling Ākāṁkṣā following Pāṇinian Grammar for Sanskrit Sentential Parsing. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad.Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- Bhā. Va. Rāmapriya and V. Saumyanārāyaṇa. 2001. Saṅgaṇakayantre Nyāyaśāstrīyaśābdabodhaḥ. J. Found. Res. VI, 1–2 (2001), 61–68.Google Scholar
- Phillip Resnik. 1993. Semantic classes and syntactic ambiguity. In Proceedings of the ARRPA Workshop on Human Language Technology. Princeton. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Gangadhara Sastri. 1903. Tantravārtikam. Chowkamba Sanskrit Book Depot.Google Scholar
- Peter Scharf. 1990. The Denotation of Generic Terms in Ancient Indian Grammar, Nyāya and Mīmāṃsā. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
- J. Fritz Staal. 1967. Word Order in Sanskrit and Universal Grammar. Dordrecht Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
- Veluri Subbarao. 1969. The Philosophy of a Sentence and Its Parts. Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi.Google Scholar
- Lucien Tesnière (Ed.). 1959. Éléments de Syntaxe Structurale. Klincksieck Paris.Google Scholar
- Yorick Wilks. 1975. A preferential, pattern-seeking, semantics for natural language interface. Artific. Intell. 6 (1975), 53–74. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Index Terms
Sanskrit Parsing Following Indian Theories of Verbal Cognition
Recommendations
English to Sanskrit machine translation
ICWET '11: Proceedings of the International Conference & Workshop on Emerging Trends in TechnologyMachine Translation is one of the most challenging tasks in natural language processing. Statistical machine translation (SMT) looks into the translation of natural language as a machine learning problem. Since, the advent of globalization need for ...
Handling of Infinitives in English to Sanskrit Machine Translation
The development of Machine Translation (MT) system for ancient language like Sanskrit is a fascinating and challenging task. In this paper, the authors handle the infinitive type of English sentences in the English to Sanskrit machine translation (EST) ...
Sanskrit to universal networking language EnConverter system based on deep learning and context-free grammar
AbstractMachine Translation is a mechanism of transforming text from one language to another with the help of computer technology. Earlier in 2018, a machine translation system had been developed by the authors that translate Sanskrit text to Universal ...






Comments