The Past, Present, and Future of Typological Databases in NLP

Emi Baylor, Esther Ploeger, Johannes Bjerva
10/20/2023
cs.CL

No confident code implementation found for this paper.

Abstract

Typological information has the potential to be beneficial in the development of NLP models, particularly for low-resource languages. Unfortunately, current large-scale typological databases, notably WALS and Grambank, are inconsistent both with each other and with other sources of typological information, such as linguistic grammars. Some of these inconsistencies stem from coding errors or linguistic variation, but many of the disagreements are due to the discrete categorical nature of these databases. We shed light on this issue by systematically exploring disagreements across typological databases and resources, and their uses in NLP, covering the past and present. We next investigate the future of such work, offering an argument that a continuous view of typological features is clearly beneficial, echoing recommendations from linguistics. We propose that such a view of typology has significant potential in the future, including in language modeling in low-resource scenarios.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. Any repos shown below are weak matches — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{baylor2023past,
  title  = {The Past, Present, and Future of Typological Databases in NLP},
  author = {Emi Baylor and Esther Ploeger and Johannes Bjerva},
  year   = {2023},
  eprint = {2310.13440},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.13440v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2310.13440.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2310.13440)

Discussion