Advertisement

Analyzing the Sense Distribution of Concordances Obtained by Web as Corpus Approach

  • Xabier Saralegi
  • Pablo Gamallo
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7816)

Abstract

In corpus-based lexicography and natural language processing fields some authors have proposed using the Internet as a source of corpora for obtaining concordances of words. Most techniques implemented with this method are based on information retrieval-oriented web searchers. However, rankings of concordances obtained by these search engines are not built according to linguistic criteria but to topic similarity or navigational oriented criteria, such as page-rank. It follows that examples or concordances could not be linguistically representative, and so, linguistic knowledge mined by these methods might not be very useful. This work analyzes the linguistic representativeness of concordances obtained by different relevance criteria based web search engines (web, blog and news search engines). The analysis consists of comparing web concordances and SemCor (the reference) with regard to the distribution of word senses. Results showed that sense distributions in concordances obtained by web search engines are, in general, quite different from those obtained from the reference corpus. Among the search engines, those that were found to be the most similar to the reference were the informational oriented engines (news and blog search engines).

Keywords

Web As Corpus Word Sense Disambiguation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Kilgarriff, A., Grefenstette, G.: Introduction to the special issue on the web as corpus. Comput. Linguist. 29, 333–347 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Morley, B.: WebCorp: A tool for Online Linguistic Information Retrieval and Analysis. In: Renouf, A., Kehoe, A. (arg.) The Changing Face of Corpus Linguistics. Rodopi (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baroni, M., Bernardini, S.: WaCky!: Working Papers on the Web as Corpus. Gedit (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Agirre, E., Ansa, O., Hovy, E., Martínez, D.: Enriching very large ontologies using the WWW. In: Proceedings of the ECAI 2000 Workshop «OntologyLearning» (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Broder, A.: A taxonomy of web search. SIGIR Forum 36, 3–10 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mihalcea, R.: Semcor semantically tagged corpus (1998), http://www.cse.unt.edu/rada/downloads.html
  7. 7.
    Martinez, D., Agirre, E.: The effect of bias on an automatically-built word sense corpus. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluations (LREC 2004), Lisbon, Portugal (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kilgarriff, A.: Getting to Know Your Corpus. In: Sojka, P., Horák, A., Kopeček, I., Pala, K. (eds.) TSD 2012. LNCS, vol. 7499, pp. 3–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nakov, P., Nakov, S.: Improved word alignments using the web as a corpus. In: Proceedings of RANLP 2007 (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kozareva, Z., Riloff, E., Hovy, E.: Semantic class learning from the web with hyponym pattern linkage graphs. In: Proceedings of ACL 2008: HLT, pp. 1048–1056 (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chen, P., Brown, D., Tran, A., Ozoka, N., Ortiz, R.: Word sense distribution in a web corpus. In: 2010 9th IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Informatics (ICCI), pp. 449–453 (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Santamaría, C., Gonzalo, J., Artiles, J.: Wikipedia as sense inventory to improve diversity in Web search results. In: Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 1357–1366. Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    McCarthy, D., Koeling, R., Weeds, J., Carroll, J.: Finding predominant word senses in untagged text. In: Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kilgarriff, A.: How Dominant Is the Commonest Sense of a Word? In: Sojka, P., Kopeček, I., Pala, K. (eds.) TSD 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3206, pp. 103–111. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xabier Saralegi
    • 1
  • Pablo Gamallo
    • 2
  1. 1.Elhuyar FoundationUsurbilSpain
  2. 2.Centro de Investigação em Tecnologias da Informação (CITIUS)Universidade de Santiago de CompostelaGalizaSpain

Personalised recommendations