Language Resources and Evaluation

, Volume 47, Issue 3, pp 839–858 | Cite as

Using part–whole relations for automatic deduction of compound-internal relations in GermaNet

Original Paper

Abstract

This paper provides a deduction-based approach for automatically classifying compound-internal relations in GermaNet, the German version of the Princeton WordNet for English. More specifically, meronymic relations between simplex and compound nouns provide the necessary input to the deduction patterns that involve different types of compound-internal relations. The scope of these deductions extends to all four meronymic relations modeled in version 6.0 of GermaNet: component, member, substance, and portion. This deduction-based approach provides an effective method for automatically enriching the set of semantic relations included in GermaNet.

Keywords

Part–whole relations Meronymy Holonymy German wordnet GermaNet Compounds Compound-internal relations 

References

  1. Baayen, R. H., Kuperman, V., & Bertram, R. (2010). Frequency effects in compound processing. In S. Scalise & I. Vogel (Eds.), Compounding (pp. 257–270). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  2. Barker, K., & Szpakowicz, S. (1998). Semi-automatic recognition of noun modifier relationships. In Proceedings of the 17th international conference on computational linguistics (COLING 1998) (pp. 96–102).Google Scholar
  3. Baroni, M., Matiasek, J., & Trost, H. (2002). Predicting the components of German nominal compounds. In F. van Harmelen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 15th European conference on artificial intelligence (ECAI) (pp. 470–474). Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  4. Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Cruse, A. (2011). Meaning in language—an introduction to semantics and pragmatics (3rd edn.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Downing, P. (1977). On the creation and use of english compound nouns, language. Linguistic Society of America, 53(4), 810–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eisenberg, P. (2006). Das Wort—Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik (3rd edn.). Verlag J. B. Melzer, Stuttgart/Weimar, Germany.Google Scholar
  8. Fellbaum, C. (Ed.) (1998). WordNet—an electronic Lexical Database. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Finin, T. (1980). The semantic interpretation of compound nominals, PhD Thesis, Co-ordinated Science Laboratory, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
  10. Girju, R., Moldovan, D., Tatu, M., & Antohe, D. (2005). On the semantics of noun compounds. Journal of Computer Speech and Language—Special Issue on Multiword Expressions. A. Villavicencio, F. Bond, & D. McCarthy (Eds.), 19(4), 479–496.Google Scholar
  11. Girju, R., Badulescu, A.., & Moldovan, D. (2006). Automatic discovery of part–whole relations. Computational Linguistics, 32(1), 83–135.Google Scholar
  12. Henrich, V., & Hinrichs, E. (2010). GernEdiT—the GermaNet editing tool. In Proceedings of the seventh conference on international language resources and evaluation (LREC 2010) (pp. 2228–2235). Valletta, Malta.Google Scholar
  13. Henrich, V., & Hinrichs, E. (2011). Determining immediate constituents of compounds in GermaNet. In Proceedings of recent advances in natural language processing (RANLP 2011) (pp. 420–426). Hissar, Bulgaria.Google Scholar
  14. Hentschel, E., & Weydt, H. (2003). Handbuch der deutschen Grammatik. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  15. Heringer, H.-J. (1984). Wortbildung: Sinn aus dem Chaos. Deutsche Sprache 12, 1–13.Google Scholar
  16. Jespersen, O. (1922). Language, its nature, development and origin. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar
  17. Kim, S. N., & Baldwin, T. (2005). Automatic interpretation of noun compounds using WordNet similarity. In Proceedings of the 2nd international joint conference on natural language processing (pp. 945–956).Google Scholar
  18. Kunze, C., & Lemnitzer, L. (2002). GermaNet—representation, visualization, application. In Proceedings of LREC 2002, main conference, Vol V. (pp. 1485–1491).Google Scholar
  19. Lapata, M. (2002). The disambiguation of nominalizations. Computational Linguistics, 28(3), 357–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lapata, M., & Keller, F. (2004). The Web as a baseline: Evaluating the performance of unsupervised Web-based models for a range of NLP tasks. In Proceedings of the human language technology conference of the North American chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 121–128). Boston.Google Scholar
  21. Lapata, M., & Keller, F. (2005). Web-based models for natural language processing. ACM Transactions on Speech and Language Processing, 2, 1–31Google Scholar
  22. Lauer, M. (1995a). Corpus statistics meet the noun compound: Some empirical results. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL ’95) (pp. 47–54). PA, USA: Stroudsburg.Google Scholar
  23. Lauer, M. (1995b). Designing statistical language learners: Experiments on compound nouns, PhD thesis, Macquarie University.Google Scholar
  24. Leonard, R. (1984). The interpretation of english noun sequences on the computer. North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  25. Levi, J. N. (1978). The syntax and semantics of complex nominals. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  26. Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. London, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McDonald, D. B. (1982). Understanding noun compounds, PhD Thesis. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie-Mellon University.Google Scholar
  28. Moldovan, D., Badulescu, A., Tatu, M., Antohe, D., & Girju, R. (2004). Models for the semantic classification of noun phrases. In Proceedings of computational lexical semantics workshop at HLT- NAACL 2004 (pp. 60–67). Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  29. Nastase, V., & Szpakowicz, S. (2003). Exploring noun-modifier semantic relations. In Fifth international workshop on computational semantics (IWCS-5) (pp. 285–301). Tilburg, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  30. Rosario, B., & Hearst, M. (2001). Classifying the semantic relations in noun-compounds via domain-specific lexical hierarchy. In Proceedings on 2001 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP-01) (pp. 82–90).Google Scholar
  31. Rosario, B., Hearst, M., & Fillmore, C. (2002). The descent of hierarchy, and selection in relational semantics. In Proceedings on 40th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-02) (pp. 417–424). Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  32. Stephens, M., Palakal, M. J., Mukhopadhyay, S., & Raje, R. (2001). Detecting gene relations from MEDLINE abstracts. In Proceedings on sixth annual Pacific symposium on biocomputing (pp. 483–496).Google Scholar
  33. Taylor, J. R. (1989). Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  34. Vanderwende, L. (1993). SENS: The system for evaluating noun sequences. In K. Jensen, G. E. Heidorn & S. D. Richardson (Eds.), Natural language processing: The PLNLP approach (pp. 161–73). New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Winston, M., Chaffin, R., & Herrmann, D. (1987). A taxonomy of part–whole relations. Cognitive Science, 11(4), 417–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erhard Hinrichs
    • 1
  • Verena Henrich
    • 1
  • Reinhild Barkey
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of TübingenTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations