Neural Polysynthetic Language Modelling
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Research in natural language processing commonly assumes that approaches that work well for English and and other widely-used languages are "language agnostic". In high-resource languages, especially those that are analytic, a common approach is to treat morphologically-distinct variants of a common root as completely independent word types. This assumes, that there are limited morphological inflections per root, and that the majority will appear in a large enough corpus, so that the model can adequately learn statistics about each form. Approaches like stemming, lemmatization, or subword segmentation are often used when either of those assumptions do not hold, particularly in the case of synthetic languages like Spanish or Russian that have more inflection than English. In the literature, languages like Finnish or Turkish are held up as extreme examples of complexity that challenge common modelling assumptions. Yet, when considering all of the world's languages, Finnish and Turkish are closer to the average case. When we consider polysynthetic languages (those at the extreme of morphological complexity), approaches like stemming, lemmatization, or subword modelling may not suffice. These languages have very high numbers of hapax legomena, showing the need for appropriate morphological handling of words, without which it is not possible for a model to capture enough word statistics. We examine the current state-of-the-art in language modelling, machine translation, and text prediction for four polysynthetic languages: Guaran'i, St. Lawrence Island Yupik, Central Alaskan Yupik, and Inuktitut. We then propose a novel framework for language modelling that combines knowledge representations from finite-state morphological analyzers with Tensor Product Representations in order to enable neural language models capable of handling the full range of typologically variant languages.
Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 11 May 2020.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 2; 2022: 4; 2023: 1.
7 papers.
- 2021Between words and characters: A Brief History of Open-Vocabulary Modeling and Tokenization in NLPcited by 130
- 2021You should evaluate your language model on marginal likelihood over tokenisationscited by 29
- 2022The SIGMORPHON 2022 Shared Task on Morpheme Segmentationcited by 25
- 2022BPE vs. Morphological Segmentation: A Case Study on Machine Translation of Four Polysynthetic Languagescited by 14
- 2022Linguistically inspired roadmap for building biologically reliable protein language modelscited by 7
- 2023Neural Machine Translation for the Indigenous Languages of the Americas: An Introductioncited by 7
- 2022ImmunoLingo: Linguistics-based formalization of the antibody languagecited by 2
- 2023Neural Machine Translation for the Indigenous Languages of the Americas: An Introduction11 Jun 2023
- 2022ImmunoLingo: Linguistics-based formalization of the antibody language26 Sep 2022
- 2022Linguistically inspired roadmap for building biologically reliable protein language models3 Jul 2022
- 2022The SIGMORPHON 2022 Shared Task on Morpheme Segmentation15 Jun 2022
- 2022BPE vs. Morphological Segmentation: A Case Study on Machine Translation of Four Polysynthetic Languages16 Mar 2022
- 2021Between words and characters: A Brief History of Open-Vocabulary Modeling and Tokenization in NLP20 Dec 2021
- 2021You should evaluate your language model on marginal likelihood over tokenisations6 Sep 2021