Damián E. Blasí

Damián Blasi, Antonios Anastasopoulos, Graham Neubig

Natural language processing (NLP) systems have become a central technology in communication, education, medicine, artificial intelligence, and many other domains of research and development. While the performance of NLP methods has grown enormously over the last decade, this progress has been restricted to a minuscule subset of the world's 6,500 languages. We introduce a framework for estimating the global utility of language technologies as revealed in a comprehensive snapshot of recent publications in NLP. Our analyses involve the field at large, but also more in-depth studies on both user-facing technologies (machine translation, language understanding, question answering, text-to-speech synthesis) as well as more linguistic NLP tasks (dependency parsing, morphological inflection). In the process, we (1) quantify disparities in the current state of NLP research, (2) explore some of its associated societal and academic factors, and (3) produce tailored recommendations for evidence-based policy making aimed at promoting more global and equitable language technologies.

Tiago Pimentel, Clara Meister, Elizabeth Salesky et al.

While there exist scores of natural languages, each with its unique features and idiosyncrasies, they all share a unifying theme: enabling human communication. We may thus reasonably predict that human cognition shapes how these languages evolve and are used. Assuming that the capacity to process information is roughly constant across human populations, we expect a surprisal--duration trade-off to arise both across and within languages. We analyse this trade-off using a corpus of 600 languages and, after controlling for several potential confounds, we find strong supporting evidence in both settings. Specifically, we find that, on average, phones are produced faster in languages where they are less surprising, and vice versa. Further, we confirm that more surprising phones are longer, on average, in 319 languages out of the 600. We thus conclude that there is strong evidence of a surprisal--duration trade-off in operation, both across and within the world's languages.

Irene Nikkarinen, Tiago Pimentel, Damián E. Blasi et al.

The unigram distribution is the non-contextual probability of finding a specific word form in a corpus. While of central importance to the study of language, it is commonly approximated by each word's sample frequency in the corpus. This approach, being highly dependent on sample size, assigns zero probability to any out-of-vocabulary (oov) word form. As a result, it produces negatively biased probabilities for any oov word form, while positively biased probabilities to in-corpus words. In this work, we argue in favor of properly modeling the unigram distribution -- claiming it should be a central task in natural language processing. With this in mind, we present a novel model for estimating it in a language (a neuralization of Goldwater et al.'s (2011) model) and show it produces much better estimates across a diverse set of 7 languages than the naïve use of neural character-level language models.

Sílvia Casacuberta, Karina Halevy, Damián E. Blasi

We introduce categorical modularity, a novel low-resource intrinsic metric to evaluate word embedding quality. Categorical modularity is a graph modularity metric based on the $k$-nearest neighbor graph constructed with embedding vectors of words from a fixed set of semantic categories, in which the goal is to measure the proportion of words that have nearest neighbors within the same categories. We use a core set of 500 words belonging to 59 neurobiologically motivated semantic categories in 29 languages and analyze three word embedding models per language (FastText, MUSE, and subs2vec). We find moderate to strong positive correlations between categorical modularity and performance on the monolingual tasks of sentiment analysis and word similarity calculation and on the cross-lingual task of bilingual lexicon induction both to and from English. Overall, we suggest that categorical modularity provides non-trivial predictive information about downstream task performance, with breakdowns of correlations by model suggesting some meta-predictive properties about semantic information loss as well.

Tiago Pimentel, Irene Nikkarinen, Kyle Mahowald et al.

The mapping of lexical meanings to wordforms is a major feature of natural languages. While usage pressures might assign short words to frequent meanings (Zipf's law of abbreviation), the need for a productive and open-ended vocabulary, local constraints on sequences of symbols, and various other factors all shape the lexicons of the world's languages. Despite their importance in shaping lexical structure, the relative contributions of these factors have not been fully quantified. Taking a coding-theoretic view of the lexicon and making use of a novel generative statistical model, we define upper bounds for the compressibility of the lexicon under various constraints. Examining corpora from 7 typologically diverse languages, we use those upper bounds to quantify the lexicon's optimality and to explore the relative costs of major constraints on natural codes. We find that (compositional) morphology and graphotactics can sufficiently account for most of the complexity of natural codes -- as measured by code length.

Francisco Valentini, Germán Rosati, Damián Blasi et al.

In recent years, word embeddings have been widely used to measure biases in texts. Even if they have proven to be effective in detecting a wide variety of biases, metrics based on word embeddings lack transparency and interpretability. We analyze an alternative PMI-based metric to quantify biases in texts. It can be expressed as a function of conditional probabilities, which provides a simple interpretation in terms of word co-occurrences. We also prove that it can be approximated by an odds ratio, which allows estimating confidence intervals and statistical significance of textual biases. This approach produces similar results to metrics based on word embeddings when capturing gender gaps of the real world embedded in large corpora.

Tiago Pimentel, Brian Roark, Søren Wichmann et al.

This work presents an information-theoretic operationalisation of cross-linguistic non-arbitrariness. It is not a new idea that there are small, cross-linguistic associations between the forms and meanings of words. For instance, it has been claimed (Blasi et al., 2016) that the word for "tongue" is more likely than chance to contain the phone [l]. By controlling for the influence of language family and geographic proximity within a very large concept-aligned, cross-lingual lexicon, we extend methods previously used to detect within language non-arbitrariness (Pimentel et al., 2019) to measure cross-linguistic associations. We find that there is a significant effect of non-arbitrariness, but it is unsurprisingly small (less than 0.5% on average according to our information-theoretic estimate). We also provide a concept-level analysis which shows that a quarter of the concepts considered in our work exhibit a significant level of cross-linguistic non-arbitrariness. In sum, the paper provides new methods to detect cross-linguistic associations at scale, and confirms their effects are minor.

Tiago Pimentel, Rowan Hall Maudslay, Damián Blasi et al.

Lexical ambiguity is widespread in language, allowing for the reuse of economical word forms and therefore making language more efficient. If ambiguous words cannot be disambiguated from context, however, this gain in efficiency might make language less clear -- resulting in frequent miscommunication. For a language to be clear and efficiently encoded, we posit that the lexical ambiguity of a word type should correlate with how much information context provides about it, on average. To investigate whether this is the case, we operationalise the lexical ambiguity of a word as the entropy of meanings it can take, and provide two ways to estimate this -- one which requires human annotation (using WordNet), and one which does not (using BERT), making it readily applicable to a large number of languages. We validate these measures by showing that, on six high-resource languages, there are significant Pearson correlations between our BERT-based estimate of ambiguity and the number of synonyms a word has in WordNet (e.g. $ρ= 0.40$ in English). We then test our main hypothesis -- that a word's lexical ambiguity should negatively correlate with its contextual uncertainty -- and find significant correlations on all 18 typologically diverse languages we analyse. This suggests that, in the presence of ambiguity, speakers compensate by making contexts more informative.

Adina Williams, Ryan Cotterell, Lawrence Wolf-Sonkin et al.

We use large-scale corpora in six different gendered languages, along with tools from NLP and information theory, to test whether there is a relationship between the grammatical genders of inanimate nouns and the adjectives used to describe those nouns. For all six languages, we find that there is a statistically significant relationship. We also find that there are statistically significant relationships between the grammatical genders of inanimate nouns and the verbs that take those nouns as direct objects, as indirect objects, and as subjects. We defer a deeper investigation of these relationships for future work.

Adina Williams, Ryan Cotterell, Lawrence Wolf-Sonkin et al.

Many of the world's languages employ grammatical gender on the lexeme. For example, in Spanish, the word for 'house' (casa) is feminine, whereas the word for 'paper' (papel) is masculine. To a speaker of a genderless language, this assignment seems to exist with neither rhyme nor reason. But is the assignment of inanimate nouns to grammatical genders truly arbitrary? We present the first large-scale investigation of the arbitrariness of noun-gender assignments. To that end, we use canonical correlation analysis to correlate the grammatical gender of inanimate nouns with an externally grounded definition of their lexical semantics. We find that 18 languages exhibit a significant correlation between grammatical gender and lexical semantics.

Tiago Pimentel, Arya D. McCarthy, Damián E. Blasi et al.

A longstanding debate in semiotics centers on the relationship between linguistic signs and their corresponding semantics: is there an arbitrary relationship between a word form and its meaning, or does some systematic phenomenon pervade? For instance, does the character bigram \textit{gl} have any systematic relationship to the meaning of words like \textit{glisten}, \textit{gleam} and \textit{glow}? In this work, we offer a holistic quantification of the systematicity of the sign using mutual information and recurrent neural networks. We employ these in a data-driven and massively multilingual approach to the question, examining 106 languages. We find a statistically significant reduction in entropy when modeling a word form conditioned on its semantic representation. Encouragingly, we also recover well-attested English examples of systematic affixes. We conclude with the meta-point: Our approximate effect size (measured in bits) is quite small---despite some amount of systematicity between form and meaning, an arbitrary relationship and its resulting benefits dominate human language.