Advertisement

Molecules, Meaning and Post-Modernist Semantics

Chapter
  • 368 Downloads
Part of the Text, Speech and Language Technology book series (TLTB, volume 36)

Wilks’ early English/French Machine Translation system was based on a notion called Preference Semantics. There were two key components of Preference Semantics. First was the notion of combining elementary meaning units of some kind (in Wilks’ case effectively surrogates for Roget thesaurus’ categories) in structures of arbitrary complexity and fineness of description. Second, was the notion of meaning selection: in this case choice of translation term; being one of preferential or balanced ranking rather than absolute selection. While Wilks’ system was driven by a dictionary hand crafted in much the manner of conventional lexicographic work, Wilks’ colleagues (and specifically Spärck Jones) were very interested in what would now be called supervised and unsupervised learning of these lexical structures. Such learning is probably needed to build a practical language processing system based on these ideas. The paper looks at these notions of molecular word meaning definitions and their acquisition in terms of modern developments in supervised and unsupervised learning. It will go on to look further at the notion of preference in the light of post-modernist notions of semantics developed by Zuidervaart amongst others, and then look briefly at how one would go about constructing a Wilks-like Machine Translation system using today’s state of knowledge.

Keywords

Natural Language Processing Machine Translation Target Language Dictionary Entry Ambiguous Word 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agirre, E., O.L. de Lacalle and D. Martinez. 2005. Exploring Feature Spaces with SVD and Unlabeled Data for Word Sense Disambiguation. Proceedings of the Conference on Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing (RANLP’05), Borovets, Bulgaria.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, J. 1995. Natural Language Understanding. Redwood City, CA: Benjamin Cummings.Google Scholar
  3. Argaw, A.A. 2005. Word Sense Discrimination in Query Translation. www. dsv.su.se/∼atelach/Stat/termpaperSTAT.pdfGoogle Scholar
  4. Atkins, B. and B. Levin. 1991. Admitting Impediments. In Lexical Acquisition: Exploiting On-line Resources to Build a Lexicon, ed. U. Zernik, Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, 233–262.Google Scholar
  5. Biber, D. 1993. Co-occurrence Patterns Among Collocations: A Tool for Corpus-Based Lexical Knowledge Acquisition. Computational Linguistics 19(3): 531–538.Google Scholar
  6. Boguraev, B. and T. Briscoe (eds.) 1989. Computational Lexicography for Natural Language Processing, Longman.Google Scholar
  7. Boguraev, B.K. and K. SpärckJones. 1981 A Natural Language Analyser for Database Access. Information Technology: Research and Development 1: 23–39.Google Scholar
  8. Brown, P.F., S.A. Della Pietra, V.J. Della Pietra and R.L. Mercer. 1991. Word-Sense Disambiguation Using Statistical Methods. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 91), 18–21 June 1991, University of California, Berkeley, California. pp. 264–270.Google Scholar
  9. Carter, D. 1987. Interpreting Anaphors in Natural Language Text. Chichester, UK: Ellis Horwood.Google Scholar
  10. Chen, H.-C., T. Yim, D. Fye and B. Schatz. 1995. Automatic Thesaurus Generation for an Electronic Community System. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 46(3): 175–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Church, K.W. and P. Hanks. 1990. Word Association Norms, Mutual Information and Lexicography. Computational Linguistics 16(1): 22–29.Google Scholar
  12. Cowie, J., J. Guthrie and L. Guthrie. 1992. Lexical Disambiguation using Simulated Annealing. COLING 92: 359–365, Nantes, France.Google Scholar
  13. Daelemans, W, J. Zavrel, P. Berck and S. Gillis. 1996. MBTiA Memory-based POS Tagger generator, Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Very Large Corpora, Copenhagen, 14–27.Google Scholar
  14. Dagan, I., A. Itai and U. Schwall. 1991. Two Languages are More Informative than One. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual meeting of the ACL, 130–137.Google Scholar
  15. Dempster, A.P., N.M. Laird and D.B. Rubin. 1977. Maximum Likelihood from Incomplete Data via the EM Algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B 39:1–38.Google Scholar
  16. Fellbaum, C. 1998. WordNet, an Electronic Lexical Database. Cambridge, London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Fodor, J.A. 1998 Concepts. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Gale, W., K.W. Church and D. Yarowsky. 1992. A Method for Disambiguating Word Senses in a Large Corpus. Computers and the Humanities 26(5–6): 415–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gardner, M. (ed.) 1970. The Annotated Alice-Lewis Carroll. 2nd Edition, Middlesex, UK: Penguin, Harmondsworth.Google Scholar
  20. Garside, R., G. Leech and G. Sampson (eds.) 1987. The Computational Analysis of English, a Corpus-Based Approach, London: Longman.Google Scholar
  21. Grefenstette, C. 1994. Explorations in Automatic Thesaurus Discovery. Moston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  22. Hazewinkel, M. 1996. Bipartite Graphs and Automatic Generation of Thesauri, ERCIM News.Google Scholar
  23. Hearst, M.A. 1992. Automatic Acquisition of Hyponyms from Large Text Corpora. Proceedings of COLING, 539–545.Google Scholar
  24. Hodge, V.J. and J. Austin. 2002. Hierarchical Word Clustering – Automatic Thesaurus Generation. Neurocomputing 48: 819–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kennedy, C. and B. Boguraev. 1996. Anaphora for Everyone: Pronominal Anaphora Resolution Without a Parser. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING ’96), Copenhagen, 113–118.Google Scholar
  26. Kilgarriff, A. March 1997. I Don’t Believe in Word Sense. Computers and the Humanities 31(2): 91–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kilgarriff, A. and M. Palmer. 2000. Guest Editors of the Special Issue on SENSEVAL. Computers and the Humanities 34: 127–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lakoff, G. 1972. Linguistics and Natural logic. In D. Davison and G. Harman (eds.), Semantics and Natural Language, Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  29. Lesk, M. 1986. Automatic Sense Disambiguation Using Machine Readable Dictionaries: How to tell a Pine Cone from an Ice Cream Cone. Proceedings of the 1986 SIGDOC Conference, 24–26.Google Scholar
  30. Mihalcea, R. 2004. Co-training and Self-training for Word Sense Disambiguation. Proceedings of the Conference on Natural Language Learning (CoNLL 2004), Boston.Google Scholar
  31. Mitkov, R. 2003. Anaphora Resolution. In: The Oxford Handbook of Computational Linguistics, ed. R. Mitkov, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Papineni, K., S. Roukos, T. Ward and W.-J. Zhu. 2001. Bleu: A Method for Automatic Evaluation of Machine Translation. IBM Research Report RC22176(W0109-022) Computer Science.Google Scholar
  33. Peat, H. and P. Willett. 1991. The Limitations of Co-ocurrence Data for Query Expansion in Document Retrieval Systems. JASIS, 378–383.Google Scholar
  34. Pereira, F., N. Tishby and L. Lee. 1993. Distributional clustering of English words: In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 93), Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
  35. Pulman, S.G. 2005 “Lexical Decomposition” in Charting a new Course: Natural Language Processing and Information Retrieval – Essays in Honour of Karen Spärck Jones, J.I. Tait (ed.). Springer.Google Scholar
  36. Roget, P.M. 1852. Introduction to; Thesaurus of English Words and Phrases.Google Scholar
  37. Roussinov, D.G. and H. Chen. 1998. A Scalable Self-organizing Map Algorithm for Textual Classification: A Neural Network Approach to Thesaurus Generation. http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/460/01/A{%}5FScalable-98.htm Communication, Cognition and Artificial Intelligence, Spring.Google Scholar
  38. Ryu, P.-M. and K.-S. Choi. 2005. An Information Theoretic Approach to Taxonomy Extraction for Ontology Learning. In: Buitelaar, P., Cimiano, P. and Magnini, B. (eds.), Ontology Learning from Text: Methods, Evaluation and Applications, Amsterdam: IOS Press, 15–28.Google Scholar
  39. Sabou, M., C. Wroe, C. Goble and G. Mishne. Learning Domain Ontologies for Web Service Descriptions: An Experiment in Bioinformatics. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on the World Wide Web (WWW ’05), Chiba, Japan. May 05, 190–198.Google Scholar
  40. Salton, G. 1971. The SMART Retrieval System: Experiments in Automatic Document Processing. New Jersey: Prentice_Hall, Eaglewood Cliffs.Google Scholar
  41. Sanderson, M. 2000. Retrieving with Good Sense. Information Retrieval 2(1): 45–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Scannell, K.P. 2003. Automatic Thesaurus Generation for Minority Languages: An Irish Example. Saint Louis University. TALN 2003, Batz-sur-Mer.Google Scholar
  43. Schulte im Walde, S. 2007. The Induction of Verb Frames and Verb Classes from Corpora. To appear as chapter 61 in Lüdeling A. and Kyto, M. (eds.), Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  44. Schütze, H. and J.O. Pederson. 1995. IR based on word senses, in Fourth Annual Symposium on Document Analysis and Information Retrieval, Las Vegas, NV, 161–175.Google Scholar
  45. Schütze, H. and J.O. Pederson. 1997. A Co-occurrence-based Thesaurus and Two Applications to Information Retrieval. Information Processing and Management 33(3): 307–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shann. P. Machine Translation: A problem of Linguistic Engineering or of Cognitive Modelling? In: Machine Translation Today: The State of the Art. Proceedings of the 3rd Lugano Tutorial, Lugano, Switzerland, 2–7 April 1984, ed. Margaret King, Edinburgh University Press. 71–90.Google Scholar
  47. Spärck Jones, K. 1986 Synonymy and Semantic Classification. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Spärck Jones, K. 2000 RH Richens: Translation in the NUDE. In: W.J. Hutchins (ed.), Early Years in Machine Translation, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 263–278.Google Scholar
  49. Stevenson, M. and Wilks, Y. 2001 Interaction of Knowledge Sources in Word Sense Disambiguation. Computational Linguistics 27(3): 321–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sussna, M. 1993 Word Sense Disambiguation for Free-Text Indexing Using a Massive Semantic Network. CIKM ’93, 11/93, DC, USA. Proceedings of the second international conference on information and knowledge management (cikm-93), Arlington Virginia.Google Scholar
  51. Tait, J.I. (ed.), 2005 Charting a New Course: Natural Language Processing and Information Retrieval: Essays in Honour of Karen Spärck Jones. Springer.Google Scholar
  52. Thomas, J. and A. Wilson. 1996 Methodologies for Studying a Corpus of Doctor-Patient Interaction In: J. Thomas and M. Short (eds.), Using Corpora for Language Research, Harlow: Longman, 92–109.Google Scholar
  53. Voorhees, E. 1993 Using WordNet to Disambiguate Word Senses for Text Retrieval. ACM SIGIR ’93 Pittsburgh, PA USA, 171–180.Google Scholar
  54. Wilks, Y. Text Searching with Templates. Cambridge Language Research unit Memo ML156. 1964. Reproduced in the companion volume to this book.Google Scholar
  55. Wilks, Y. 1971 The Stanford Machine Translation Project. In: R. Rushton (ed.), Natural Language Processing, New York, NY, USA: Algorithmics Press.Google Scholar
  56. Wilks, Y. 1973 An Artificial Intelligence Approach to Machine Translation. Chapter 2 R. Schank and K.M. Colby (eds.), Computer Models of Thought and Language. San Francisco: W H Freeman and Co., 114–151.Google Scholar
  57. Wilks, Y. An Intelligent Anlayzer and Understander of English. Communications of the ACM 18(55), 1975a. Reproduced in the companion volume to this book.Google Scholar
  58. Wilks, Y. A Preferential, Pattern-Seeking, Semantics for Natural Lnguage Inference. Artifical Intelligence 6. 1975b. Reproduced in the companion volume to this book.Google Scholar
  59. Wilks, Y. 1975c Seven Thesis on Artificial Intelligence and Natural Language. Working Paper No. 17. Fondazione Dalle Molle per gli studi linguistici e di comunicazione internzionale.Google Scholar
  60. Wilks, Y. 1976 Parsing English II. In: Charniak, E. and Wilks, Y. (eds.), Computational Semantics, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 155–185.Google Scholar
  61. Wilks, Y.A. Frames, Semantics and Novelty.s 1980 In Metzing (ed.), Parsing Natural Language, 219–46.Google Scholar
  62. Wilks, Y., D. Fass, C.-M. Guo, J. McDonald, T. 1989 Plate and B. Slator. A tractable machine dictionary as a resource for computational semantic. In: Boguraev and Briscoe (eds.).Google Scholar
  63. Wilks, Y.A., B.M. Slator and L.M. Guthrie. 1996 Electric Words: Dictionaries, Computers and Meanings. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Oress.Google Scholar
  64. Wilks, Y. Senses and Texts. Computers and the Humanities 31:77–90, 1997. Reproduced in the companion volume to this book.Google Scholar
  65. Wilks, Y. and M. Stevenson. 1996 The Grammar of Sense: Is Word-Sense Tagging Much More than Part-of-Speech Tagging? Technical Report CS-96-05, University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
  66. Wilks, Y.A. and J.I. Tait. A Retrospective View of Synonymy and Semantic Classification. In Tait (2005) 1–11.Google Scholar
  67. Winograd, T. and F. Flores. 1986 Understanding Computers and Cognition: A new Foundation for Design. Norwood, NJ, USA: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
  68. Yarowsky, D. 1992 Word Sense Disambiguation Using Statistical Models of Roget’s Categories Trained on Large Corpora. Proceedings of COLING, Nantes, France, 454–460.Google Scholar
  69. Yarowsky, D. 1995 Unsupervised Word Sense Disambiguation Rivalling Supervised Methods. Proceedings of 33rd ACL (ACL-95) Cambridge, MA, 189–196.Google Scholar
  70. Zuidervaart, L. 2004 Artistic Truth: Aesthetics, Discourse and Imaginative Disclosure, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of SunderlandSunderlandUK

Personalised recommendations