Years ago I took Chris Manning and Dan Jurafsky‘s Coursera NLP class and it was excellent. I also own, I think, every book they have written including Jurafsky’s book on food.
It is extremely generous of top universities to make their classes available online. Of course, watching the videos and trying the homework assignments on one’s own is not the experience of going to Stanford, but it is less expensive!
Sebastian Ruder's blog has many good posts on recent advancements in NLP (literature reviews, conference highlights): http://ruder.io/
The posts are concise and accessible enough that you can skim through them quickly. Then you can go check out the paper directly if something piques your interest.
The assignments are at the class webpage too.
Quote from course page: "This year, CS224n will be taught for the first time using PyTorch rather than TensorFlow (as in previous years)."
I came across MIT OCW’s Advanced NLP - https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-compu... , but does someone has a similar or a better standalone NLP course in mind? From MIT OCW, Stanford , Coursera, Udacity, et al?
I am very much interested. Could be free or paid.
Even PDF’s of lecture notes could do.
Edit - Found one standalone NLP course by CMU, looks good - http://demo.clab.cs.cmu.edu/NLP/
While you asked for a course, checkout my introductory presentation on the subject here (PDF slides available for download):
An attendee, claiming to have read 1.5 books on NLP, called it the broadest coverage of NLP he had ever seen. Some of the attendees told me that I had inspired them to turn their careers to NLP.
But what really got me excited was that you had included 2 of Steven Pinker's books in your "Suggested References". Few weeks ago, I was going over the Wikipedia entry this book by Steven Pinker - "A Sense of Style", and wondering if it has any implications on linguistics.
So, my question to you is, does "The Sense of Style" bears any NLP-relevant context in it?
Thanks for such an awesome PDF :) Can't wait for my day to end!
I wish I had recorded the session I gave. It was several times more interesting and engaging than what the slides read on their own.
I haven't read this book, but have read a blog by Pinker on the same lines. I just also skimmed through the Wikipedia link you mentioned.
The book would not be a recommendation from NLP algorithms perspective. I am sure though that it would be a good book as Pinker is a mind-opening writer.
I'll nevertheless give you some deep food for thought relating to languages:
Check out slide 14 in my talk, especially the remark on its right side. It is a powerful thought.
There is an equilibrium process involved in the shaping of the language over the time, though language must by definition have at least some standardization for it to work, which means it would resist change.
What Pinker is saying at the high level is that the official rules of grammar sometimes deviate away from the equilibrium point. For example, technical jargon and acronyms are often easier for the speaker than the listener. A poor handwriting is likely less tiring for the writer than easier for the reader.
There would also be deviations which make it harder for both the speaker and the listener.
Yet, in both of the cases above, the language would resist change.
As writing came into being (keep in mind that we have been talking for a few million years, and writing only for a few thousand, so no comparison!), written material stands for much longer than vibrations in air molecules, or our memories, do. That further slows down language velocity as standardization now sits across time too.
We now stand where language is standardizing across the world, and getting frozen in the Internet, there's further velocity reduction involved. (Albeit, newer concepts are adding increasingly faster to the languages...)
How do you, in such cases, make the above deviations from the optimum go away?
There are some rules of language, grammar, that shouldn't be. They are like legacy code.
Pinker is educating us about such rules. He's trying to make style come back to that optimal.
Let's take a simple example. Did you know, comma classically sits inside quotes? Here's an example I picked from :
"Good morning, Frank," said Hal.
Note that the comma after Frank is inside the quotes! Why should it be that way? No wonder putting comma outside is gaining acceptance. :-)
There are even weird rules for what happens when multiple paragraphs are to be included inside a single quote. (Hints: Number of opening and closing quotes is not equal in some English dialects under this scenario. Weird, hmmm.)
These rules should just go away. It's better to choose the optimals for the language and make those cultural, style, shifts happen in our language.
Take care. Good discussion. Feel free to reach out again.
And please feel free to refer others to my slides page as you see fit. :-)
What you said above definitely sounds like Steven Pinker-ish.
I feel like I am embarking on a learning process that’s gonna stay with me for a long time, courtesy our short correspondence.
I know I will be needing you again, so I am going to save your email ID in my contacts. I will send you a Hi on your email ID , if you don’t mind?
And I am recommending your PDF to my batchmates who have enrolled for the same course :)
Muchas gracias for the wonderful explaination!
Also, feel free to connect on LinkedIn: /in/alokgovil.
Thanks for taking interest in my question and responding :)
Your paper sounds very exciting and promising, and I am going to finish reading it over the coming weekend.
"hn hn hn hn hn hn hn hn hn hn hn hn hn hn hn hn hn hn hn" in Somali gives "Serious Therapic Anxiety syndrome" on google translate.
Perhaps not surprising, but fun. The link from the slide (below) has previously been submitted to hn without notable discussion.
Some videos are already online, starting with