Advertisement

Preference Syntagmatics

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

This paper compares Yorick Wilks’s theory of preference semantics with the evidence of English usage in a large corpus and reports the rationale of a project (in progress) that attaches meanings, not to lexical items, but to contextual patterns, in which each lexical item is normally found. These contexts are based on analysis of a large corpus and stored in a Pattern Dictionary. In addition to other influences, this work is partly inspired by Wilks’s theory of semantic preferences of the 1970s, but there are significant differences. If meanings are attached to words in context instead of in isolation, the formulas needed to express them can express delicate distinctions without being excessively cumbersome. The Pattern Dictionary provides a resource for reducing lexical ambiguity in texts while maintaining interpretative delicacy. The meaning of a word in an unseen document can be estimated by matching its context to one or other of the normal contexts in the Pattern Dictionary, which are themselves explicitly linked to a meaning, called a primary implicature. In the past dozen years corpus analysis has shown with increasing clarity that, although the number of all possible syntagmatic combinations in which each word can participate is vast, and indeed perhaps unlimited, the number of normal syntagmatic combinations is manageably small. Examples are given of verb entries from the Pattern Dictionary

Keywords

Lexical Item Semantic Type Direct Object Word Sense Disambiguation Lexical Ambiguity 
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. Baker, C.F., and J. Ruppenhofer. 2002. ‘FrameNet’s Frames vs. Levin’s Verb Classes’ in J. Larson and M. Paster (eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 27–38.Google Scholar
  2. Church, K., and P. Hanks. 1990. ‘Word association norms, mutual information, and lexicography’ in Computational Linguistics 16(1).Google Scholar
  3. Hanks, P., and J. Pustejovsky. 2005. “A Pattern Dictionary for Natural Language Processing” in Revue française de linguistique appliquée 10(2).Google Scholar
  4. Katz, J.J., and J.A. Fodor. 1963. ‘The Structure of a Semantic Theory’ in Language 39.Google Scholar
  5. Kilgarriff, A., D. Tugwell, P. Rychly, and P. Smrz. 2004. ‘The Sketch Engine’ in Proceedings of Euralex, Lorient, France, July 2004, pp. 105–116.Google Scholar
  6. Kingsbury, P., and M. Palmer. 2002. ‘From Treebank to Propbank’, LREC-02: Third International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. Las Palmas.Google Scholar
  7. Krovetz, R. 1998. ‘More than One Sense per Discourse’. NEC Princeton NJ Labs. Research Memorandum.Google Scholar
  8. Lenat, D., and R.V. Guha. 1990. Building Large Knowledge-Based Systems: representation and inference in the Cyc project. New York: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  9. Levin, B. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. Procter, P., et al. 1978. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, 1st edn. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
  11. Pustejovsky, J. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Pustejovsky, J., and P. Hanks. 2001. ‘Very Large Lexical Lexical Databases’. ACL Workshop, Toulouse.Google Scholar
  13. Pustejovsky, J., P. Hanks, and A. Rumshisky. 2004. “Automated Induction of Sense in Context”. COLING 2004. Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  14. Rumshisky, A., C. Havasi, and J. Pustejovsky. 2006. ‘Constructing a Corpus-based Ontology using Model Bias’. 19th International FLAIRS Conference.Google Scholar
  15. Wilks, Y. 1972. Grammar, Meaning, and the Machine Analysis of Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Wilks, Y. 1973. ‘Understanding without Proofs’. IJCAI, pp. 270–277.Google Scholar
  17. Wilks, Y. 1975a. ‘Preference Semantics’ in E.L. Keenan (ed.), Formal Semantics of Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Wilks, Y. 1975b. “A Preferential, Pattern Seeking Semantics for Natural Language Inference” in Artificial Intelligence 6.Google Scholar
  19. Wilks, Y. 1977. ‘Good and Bad Arguments about Semantic Primitives’ in Communication and Cognition 10(3/4).Google Scholar
  20. Wilks, Y. 1978. ‘Making Preferences More Active’ in Artificial Intelligence 11(3); reprinted in N.V. Findler (ed., 1979), Associative Networks. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  21. Wilks, Y. 1980. ‘Frames, Semantics, and Novelty’ in D. Metzing (ed.), Frame Conceptions and Text Understanding. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  22. Wilks, Y., B. Slator, and L. Guthrie. 1996. Electric Words: Dictionaries, Computers, and Meanings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Wilks, Y., and R. Catizone. 2002. ‘Lexical Tuning’ in Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing (cicling 2002) Mexico City, Mexico. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2276. Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Wilks, Y., and N. Ide. 2006. ‘Making Sense about Sense’. Chapter 3 of E. Agirre and P. Edmonds (eds.), Word Sense Disambiguation: Algorithms and Applications, Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  25. Yarowsky, D., W. Gale, and K. Church. 1992. ‘One Sense Per Discourse’ in Proceedings of the 4th DARPA Speech and Natural Language Workshop.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Masaryk UniversityBrnoUSA

Personalised recommendations