Analysing the Usage of Spatial Prepositions in Short Messages

  • André Dittrich
  • Daniela Richter
  • Christian Lucas
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography book series (LNGC)

Abstract

Spatial prepositions such as in, on and near are important to describe where things are located in relation to other geographic features. Location-based services (LBS) usually disregard such spatial prepositions. Their automatic detection and interpretation is challenging, because prepositions are quite often used in non-spatial context (e.g., “in the afternoon”). This paper analyses spatial relations in short messages. Short messages typically have special characteristics (e.g., slang, abbreviations, etc.) and thus represent a special type of natural language. A sample corpus of short messages was used to extract descriptions based on spatial prepositions and to analyse their commonness of use. A frequency-based probability for each term to be spatial was calculated, which can serve as an indicator of a verbal spatial description and support the development of intelligent spatial language interpretation in automatic systems.

Keywords

Spatial relations Prepositions Verbal spatial descriptions 

References

  1. Carlson LA, Van Deman SR (2004) The space in spatial language. J Mem Lang 51(3):418–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Coventry KR, Garrod SC (2004) Saying, seeing and acting: the psychological semantics of spatial prepositions. Psychology Press, U KGoogle Scholar
  3. Crooks A, Croitoru A, Stefanidis A, Radzikowski J (2013) #Earthquake: Twitter as a distributed sensor system. Trans GIS 17(1):124–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cunningham H (2002) GATE, a general architecture for text engineering. Comput Humanit 36(2):223–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Finin T, Murnane W, Karandikar A, Keller N, Martineau J, Dredze M (2010) Annotating named entities in Twitter data with crowdsourcing. Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010. California Association for Computational Linguistics, Los Angeles. pp 80–88Google Scholar
  6. Garrod S, Ferrier G, Campbell S (1999) In and on: investigating the functional geometry of spatial prepositions. Cognition 72:167–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hall M, Jones C (2008) Quantifying spatial prepositions: an experimental study. ACM GIS Irvine, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  8. Herskovits A (1980) On the spatial uses of Prepositions. 18th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USAGoogle Scholar
  9. Holmes KJ, Wolff P (2013) When is language a window into the mind? Looking beyond words to infer conceptual categories. 35th annual conference of the cognitive science society, Austin, TXGoogle Scholar
  10. Java A, Song X, Finin T, Tseng B (2007) Why we twitter: understanding microblogging usage and communities. Proceedings of the 9th WebKDD San Jose, California ACM. pp 56–65Google Scholar
  11. Kordjamshidi P, van Otterlo M, Moens M-F, Kordjamshidi P (2010) From language towards formal spatial calculi. Proceedings of the workshop on computational models of spatial language interpretation at spatial cognition, Oregon, USAGoogle Scholar
  12. Landau B, Jackendoff R (1993) “What” and “where” in spatial language and spatial cognition. Behav Brain Sci 16(2):217–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Levinson SC (2004) Space in language and cognition. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Retz-Schmidt G (1988) Various views on spatial prepositions. AI Magazine 9:2Google Scholar
  15. Richter D, Winter S, Richter K-F, Stirling L (2013) Granularity of locations referred to by place descriptions. Comput Environ Urban Syst 41:88–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Tenbrink T (2005) Semantics and application of spatial dimensional terms in English and German. Collaborative Research Center SFB/TR 8Google Scholar
  17. Tversky B, Lee PU (1998) How space structures language. An interdisciplinary approach to representing and processing spatial knowledge. Spatial cognition. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  18. Vasardani M, Winter S, Richter K-F, Stirling L, Richter D (2012) Spatial interpretations of preposition “at”. Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGSPATIAL, California ACM. pp 46–53Google Scholar
  19. Zhang C, Zhang X, Jiang W, Shen Q, Zhang S (2009) Rule-based extraction of spatial relations in natural language text. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Software Engineering (CiSE), Wuhan, ChinaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • André Dittrich
    • 1
  • Daniela Richter
    • 1
  • Christian Lucas
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Photogrammetry and Remote SensingKarlsruhe Institute of TechnologyKarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations