Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:30:05.994Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Semantic composition of AT-LOCATION relation with other relations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2011

HAKKI C. CANKAYA ,
EDUARDO BLANCO  and
DAN MOLDOVAN
HAKKI C. CANKAYA
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Engineering, Izmir University of Economics, Izmir 35330, Turkey email: [email protected]
EDUARDO BLANCO
Affiliation:
Human Language Technology Research Institute, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX 75080, USA emails: [email protected], [email protected]
DAN MOLDOVAN
Affiliation:
Human Language Technology Research Institute, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX 75080, USA emails: [email protected], [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents a method for the composition of at-location with other semantic relations. The method is based on inference axioms that combine two semantic relations yielding another relation that otherwise is not expressed. An experimental study conducted on PropBank, WordNet, and eXtended WordNet shows that inferences have high accuracy. The method is applicable to combining other semantic relations and it is beneficial to many semantically intense applications.

Type
Articles
Information
Natural Language Engineering , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , July 2012 , pp. 343 - 374
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Badulescu, A. and Srikanth, M. 2007 (June). Lcc-srn: Lcc's srn system for semeval 2007 task 4. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Semantic Evaluations (SemEval-2007), pp. 215–8, Prague, Czech Republic: Association for Computational Linguistics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, C. F., Fillmore, C. J. and Lowe, J. B. 1998. The Berkeley FrameNet project. In Proceedings of ACL/COLING, Montreal, Canada, pp. 86–90.Google Scholar
Beamer, B. and Girju, R. 2009. Using a bigram event model to predict causal potential. In 10th International Conference on Intelligent Text Processing and Computational Linguistics (CICLING), Mexico City, Mexico, pp. 430–41.Google Scholar
Bethard, S. and Martin, J. H. 2008. Learning semantic links from a corpus of parallel temporal and causal relations. In Proceedings of ACL-08: HLT, Short Papers, pp. 177–80. Columbus, OH: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Blaheta, D. and Charniak, E. 2000. Assigning function tags to parsed text. In Proceedings of the 1st North American chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics conference, pp. 234–40. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
Carreras, X. and Màrquez, L. 2004. Introduction to the conll-2004 shared task: semantic role labeling. In Ng, H. T., and Riloff, E. (eds.), HLT-NAACL 2004 Workshop: Eighth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL-2004), pp. 89–97. Boston, MA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Chang, D. S. and Choi, K. S. 2006. Incremental cue phrase learning and bootstrapping method for causality extraction using cue phrase and word pair probabilities. Information Processing & Management 42 (3): 662–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, J. and Rambow, O. 2003. Use of deep linguistic features for the recognition and labeling of semantic arguments. In Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Empirical methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 41–8. Morristown, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culotta, A., McCallum, A., and Betz, J. 2006. Integrating probabilistic extraction models and data mining to discover relations and patterns in text. In In Proceedings of HLT-NAACL'06, New York City, pp. 296–303.Google Scholar
Dang, H. T. and Palmer, M. 2005. The role of semantic roles in disambiguating verb senses. In Proceedings of ACL, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. 1971. Some problems for case grammar. Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics 24: 35–6.Google Scholar
Giampiccolo, D., Magnini, B., Dagan, I. and Dolan, B. 2007. The third pascal recognizing textual entailment challenge. In Proceedings of the ACL-PASCAL Workshop on Textual Entailment and Paraphrasing, pp. 1–9. Prague, Czech Republic: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Girju, R., Nakov, P., Nastase, V., Szpakowicz, S., Turney, P., and Yuret, D. 2007. Semeval-2007 task 04: classification of semantic relations between nominals. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Semantic Evaluations (SemEval-2007), pp. 13–8. Prague, Czech Republic: Association for Computational Linguistics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giuglea, A. M. and Moschitti, A. 2006. Semantic role labeling via FrameNet, VerbNet and PropBank. In ACL-44: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Computational Linguistics and the 44th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 929–36. Morristown, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Golledge, R. G., Gale, N., Pellegrino, J. W. and Doherty, S. 1992. Spatial knowledge acquisition by children: route learning and relational distances. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 82 (2): 223–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halsbury, Lord. 1962. Professor Waddington's naturalistic ethics. Philosophy 37 (139): 63–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harabagiu, S. 1998. Deriving metonymic coercions from WordNet. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Usage of WordNet in Natural Language Processing Systems, COLING-ACL'98, Montréal/Canada, pp. 142–8.Google Scholar
Harabagiu, S. and Moldovan, D. 1998. WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database and Some of its Applications. Knowledge processing on extended WordNet, ch. 17, pp. 684–714. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Heft, H. and Wohwill, J., 1987. Handbook of Environmental Pyschology, pp. 175–204. John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Helbig, H. 2005. Knowledge Representation and the Semantics of Natural Language. Springer.Google Scholar
Hendrickx, I., Kim, S. N., Kozareva, Z., Nakov, P., Séaghdha, D., Padó, S., Pennacchiotti, M., Romano, L., and Szpakowicz, S. 2010. SemEval-2010 task 8: Multi-Way classification of semantic relations between pairs of nominals. In Proceedings of the 5th SIGLEX Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (ACL 2010), Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kenny, A. 1966. Intention and purpose. The Journal of Philosophy 63 (20): 642–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingsbury, P., Palmer, M. and Marcus, M. 2002. Adding semantic annotation to the Penn TreeBank. In In Proceedings of the Human Language Technology Conference, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. 1996. Language and space. Annual Review of Anthropology 25: 353–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcus, M., Santorini, B. and Marcinkiewicz, M. A. 1994. Building a large annotated corpus of English: the penn treebank. Computational Linguistics 19 (2): 313–30.Google Scholar
Màrquez, L., Carreras, X., Litkowski, K. C., and Stevenson, S. 2008. Semantic role labeling: an introduction to the special issue. Computational Linguistics 34 (2): 145–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mihalcea, R. and Moldovan, D. 2001. eXtended WordNet: progress report. In Proceedings of NAACL Workshop on WordNet and Other Lexical Resources, Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
Mihalcea, R. and Shi, L. 2005. Putting pieces together: combining FrameNet, VerbNet and WordNet for robust semantic parsing. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Intelligent Text Processing and Computational Linguistics, Mexico City, Mexico.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A. 1995. WordNet: a lexical database for english. Communications of the ACM 38 (11): 39–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. A. and Johnson-Laird, P. N. 1976. Language and Perception. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moldovan, D., Badulescu, A., Tatu, M., Antohe, D., and Girju, R. 2004. Models for the semantic classification of noun phrases. In In HLT-NAACL 2004: Workshop on Computational Lexical Semantics, Boston, MA, pp. 60–7.Google Scholar
Palmer, M., Gildea, D. and Kingsbury, P. 2005. The proposition bank: an annotated corpus of semantic roles. Computational Linguistics 31 (1): 71–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piaget, J. 1952. The Child's Conception of Number. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Translated by Gattegno, C. and Hodgson, F.M..Google Scholar
Ponzetto, S. P. and Strube, M. 2006. Semantic role labeling for coreference resolution. In EACL '06: Proceedings of the Eleventh Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Posters & Demonstrations, pp. 143–6. Morristown, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Pradhan, S. S., Ward, W. H., Hacioglu, K., Martin, J. H. and Jurafsky, D. 2004. Shallow semantic parsing using support vector machines. In Dumais, D. M. S., and Roukos, S. (eds.) HLT-NAACL 2004: Main Proceedings, pp. 233–40, Boston, MA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Srikumar, V., Reichart, R., Sammons, M., Rappoport, A., and Roth, D. 2008. Extraction of entailed semantic relations through syntax-based comma resolution. In Proceedings of ACL-08: HLT, pages 1030–8. Columbus, OH: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Szpakowicz, S. and Barker, K. 1995. Interactive semantic analysis of clause-level relationships. In Proceedings of the Second Conference of the Pacific Association for Computational Linguistics, Brisbane, pp. 22–30.Google Scholar
Tatu, M. 2007. Intentions in Text and Semantic Calculus. PhD. thesis, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX.Google Scholar
Tatu, M. and Moldovan, D. 2007. Cogex at rte 3. In In Proceedings of the ACL-PASCAL Workshop on Textual Entailment and Paraphrasing, Prague, Czech Republic, pp. 22–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turney, P. D. 2006. Expressing implicit semantic relations without supervision. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 44th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 313–20. Sydney, Australia: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Whiteman, M. 1967. Philosophy of Space and Time and the Inner Constitution of Nature; a Phenomenological Study. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Winston, M. E., Chaffin, R. and Herrmann, D. 1987. A taxonomy of part-whole relations. Cognitive Science 11 (4): 417–44.Google Scholar
Wu, D. and Fung, P. 2009. Semantic roles for SMT: a hybrid two-pass model. In NAACL '09: Proceedings of Human Language Technologies: The 2009 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Companion Volume: Short Papers, pp. 13–6. Morristown, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar