Unsupervised Acquisition of Axioms to Paraphrase Noun Compounds and Genitives

  • Anselmo Peñas
  • Ekaterina Ovchinnikova
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7181)


A predicate is usually omitted from text when it is highly predictable from the context. This omission is due to the effort optimization that humans perform during the language generation process. Authors omit the information that they know the addressee is able to recover effortlessly. Most noun-noun structures including genitives and compounds are result of this process. The goal of this work is to generate automatically and without supervision the paraphrases that make explicit the omitted predicate in these noun-noun structures. The method is general enough to address also the cases were components are Named Entities. The resulting paraphrasing axioms are necessary for recovering the semantics of a text, and therefore, useful for applications such as Question Answering.


Paraphrasing Background Knowledge Acquisition Noun compounds Proposition Stores 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Pustejovsky, J.: The Generative Lexicon. Computational Linguistics 17(4) (1991)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lapata, M., Lascarides, A.: A probabilistic account of logical metonymy. Computational Linguistics 29(2) (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Van Durme, B., Schubert, L.: Open Knowledge Extraction through Compositional Language Processing. In: Symposium on Semantics in Systems for Text Processing (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clark, P., Harrison, P.: Large-scale extraction and use of knowledge from text. In: The Fifth International Conference on Knowledge Capture, K-CAP 2009 (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Peñas, A., Hovy, E.: Semantic Enrichment of Text with Background Knowledge. In: 1st International FAM-LbRWorkshop, NAACL 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Levi, J.N.: The Syntax and Semantics of Complex Nominals. Academic Press (1978)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Downing, P.: On the creation and use of English compound nouns. Language 53(4) (1977)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Finin, T.: The Semantic Interpretation of Compound Nominals. Ph.D. thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign (1980)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lauer, M.: Corpus statistics meet the compound noun. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (1995)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    McDonald, D.B.: Understanding Noun Compounds. Tech. rep., CMU TechnicalReport CS-82-102 (1982)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Alshawi, H.: Memory and Context for Language Interpretation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1987)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fan, J., Barker, K., Porter, B.W.: The knowledge required to interpret noun compounds. In: 18th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Warren, B.: Semantic Patterns of Noun-Noun Compounds. Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, Goteborg (1978)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Barker, K., Szpakowicz, S.: Semi-automatic recognition of noun modifier relationships. In: Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the ACL (1998)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Girju, R., Moldovan, D., Tatu, M., Antohe, D.: On the semantics of noun compounds. Computer Speech and Language 19(4) (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tratz, S., Hovy, E.: Taxonomy, Dataset, and Classifier for Automatic Noun Compound Interpretation. In: Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the ACL (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hendrickx, I., et al.: SemEval-2010 Task 8: Multi-Way Classification of Semantic Relations Between Pairs of Nominals. In: Proceedings of SemEval 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nakov, P., Hearst, M.A.: Using Verbs to Characterize Noun-Noun Relations. In: Euzenat, J., Domingue, J. (eds.) AIMSA 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4183, pp. 233–244. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Butnariu, C., Kim, S.N., Nakov, P., Seaghdha, D.O., Szpakowicz, S., Veale, T.: Semeval-2 task 9: The interpretation of noun compounds using paraphrasing verbs and prepositions. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Peñas, A., Hovy, E.: Filling Knowledge Gaps in Text for Machine Reading. In: 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics, COLING 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Klein, D., Manning, C.D.: Accurate Unlexicalized Parsing. In: Proceedings of the 41st Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 423–430 (2003)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Marneffe, M., Manning, C.D.: The Stanford typed dependencies representation. In: COLING 2008 Workshop on Cross-framework and Cross-domain Parser Evaluation (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bar-Haim, R., Dagan, I., Dolan, B., Ferro, L., Giampiccolo, D., Magnini, B., Szpektor, I.: The second PASCAL Recognising Textual Entailment challenge. In: Proceedings of the Second PASCAL Challenges Workshop on Recognising Textual Entailment (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anselmo Peñas
    • 1
  • Ekaterina Ovchinnikova
    • 2
  1. 1.NLP & IR GroupUNEDMadridSpain
  2. 2.USC/ISIMarina del ReyUSA

Personalised recommendations