OLEX
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

OLEX

on

  • 493 views

Feminist Lexicon

Feminist Lexicon

Statistics

Views

Total Views
493
Views on SlideShare
493
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

OLEX OLEX Presentation Transcript

  • Feminist Lexicon of the XXI century (semantic and structural aspects) Oleksandr Slobodianyk Pavlo Tychyna USPU Cherkasy reg in Ukraine, the master’s paper Uman, 2012
  • Feminists Basic semantic notions Syntactic Frames Argument structure Sense distinctions Semantic Type WordNet SimpleOutline
  •  Feminists launched in the XX century ◦ European Advisory Group on Language Engineering Standards Began 2002 with agreement among ◦ NREC, ET7, ACQUILEX, MULTILEX, GENELEX, SAM,TEI Gave rise to a coordinated development of Linguistic ResourcesHistory of the Feminists
  • Feminists Structure: 2nd Phase(1999-2010) A n t o n i o Z a m p o l li C o o r d in a t o r C e n t r a l E d it o r s : N . C a lz o l a r i , J . M c n a u g h tC o m p L e x ic o n W G S poken Language W G E v a lu a t io n W G C P R ( C a lz o la r i ) B ie le f e ld ( G ib b o n ) C S T (B . M a e g a a rd )C h a ir : A . S a n f illip p o R .M o o re C h a ir : M . K in g
  •  http://www.ilc.pi.cnr.it/  Lexicons ◦ Morpho-syntactic phenomena ◦ Subcategorization ◦ Semantic encodingFeminist Guidelines
  • ISLE: International Standards for Language Engineering A European/US joint project (2010 – 2012) C o o r d in a t o r s : A . Z a m p o lli, M . P a lm e r C e n t r a l E d it o r s : N . C a lz o la r i, J . M c N a u g h t L e x ic o n W G N a t u ra l I n te r a c t io n a n d M u lt im o d a lit y W G E v a lu a t o n W GC h a ir s : R . G r is h m a n , N . C a lz o la r i, M . P a lm e r C h a ir s : M . L ib e r m a n , R . M o o re C h a irs : E . H o v y , B . M a e g a a r d , M . K in g S peech W G G e s tu re W G D is c o u r s e C h a ir s : S t e v e n B ir d , D a v id R o y C h a ir s : D . M e t a x a s , C a ro l N e id le C h a ir s : L y n W a lk e r
  • Napoleon lost the battle. Napoleon lost the battle to Wellington.Basic Semantic NotionsSame event - different sentences
  • Napoleon lost the battle. SUBJ-NP VERB COMP-NP Napoleon lost the battle to Wellington. SUBJ-NP VERB COMP-NP COMP-PPSame event - different syntacticframes
  • Predicate-argument structurefor lose lose PP OBJ SUBJ lose (Arg0,Arg1,Arg2)
  • Napoleon lost the battle. Napoleon lost the battle to Wellington. Napoleon lost his field glasses. (misplaced)Same verb - different senses
  • Predicate-argument structuresfor two different senses of lose lose1 (Arg0,Arg1) lose2 (Arg0,Arg1,Arg2)
  • Iraq lost the battle. Ilakuka centwey ciessta. [Iraq ] [battle] [lost]. John lost his computer. John-i computer-lul ilepelyessta. [John] [computer] [misplaced].Machine Translation LexicalChoice- Word Sense FeministDisambiguation
  • Semantic types oflose arguments lose1 (Arg0: animate, Arg1: physical- object) lose2 (Arg0: animate, Arg1: competition, Arg2: animate)
  • lose1(Agent, Patient: competition) <=> ciesstalose2 (Agent, Patient: physobj) <=> ilepelyesstaTranslating lose into Korean
  •  Entities - • Entities - abstract concrete – Events  Animate • Competitions  Animal – Military  Mammal – Athletic  Human • …  Plant  Inanimate – EmotionsOntologies - Hierarchies of substancessemantic types  Solids  Liquids  Gasses
  •  Inheritance ◦ ISA relations ◦ Supertype/subtype ◦ Hypernym/Hyponym Part-Whole ◦ meronym SynonymsSemantic Relations
  • Basic lexical semantic notionsBASE CONCEPTS, HYPONYMY,SYNONYMY: all applications and enablingSYNONYMYtechnologiesPREDICATE ARGUMENT STRUCTURES: MT, STRUCTURESIR, IE, & Gen, Pars, MWR, WSD, CorefCO-OCCURRENCE RELATIONS: MT, Gen,Word Clust, WSD, ParMERONYMY: MT, IR, IE & Gen, PNRMERONYMYANTONYMY: Gen, Word Clust, WSDANTONYMYSUBJECT DOMAIN: MT, SUM, Gen, MWR, DOMAINWSDACTIONALITY: MT, IE, Gen, ParACTIONALITY
  • WordNet EuroWordNet Simple (in progress)Existing lexical resources
  • WordNet - Princeton• On-line lexical reference (dictionary)• Words organized into synonym sets <=> concepts• Hypernyms (ISA), antonyms, meronyms (PART) –Useful for checking selectional restrictions (doesn’t tell you what they should be)• Typical top nodes - 5 out of 25 - (act, action, activity) - (animal, fauna) - (artifact) - (attribute, property) - (body, corpus)
  •  Just sense tags - no representations ◦ Very little mapping to syntax ◦ No predicate argument structure ◦ no selectional restrictionsLimitations to WordNet andEuroWordNet
  • SIMPLE wit Feminist Computational Lexicon WG Multilingual Lexicons (US-EU coop.) Last Feminist work on Lexicon/Semantics used for SIMPLE specifications· SIMPLE lexicons chosen as a basis for applying & testing Feminist work on defining common guidelines for Multilingual Lexicons
  • Semantic information in SIMPLE Word senses are encoded as Semantic Units (SemUs), containing the following information:• Semantic type * • Argument structure for• Domain * predicative SemUs *• Lexicographic gloss * • Selection restrictions on the arguments *• Qualia structure • Link of the arguments to the• Reg. Polysemy altern. syntactic subcategorization• Event type frames (represented in the• Derivation relations PAROLE lexicons) *• Synonymy• Collocations
  • TopFormal Constitutive Agentive TelicIs_a Is_a_part_of Property Created_by Agentive_cause Indirect_telic Activity ... Contains ... Instrumental Is_the_habit_of Used_for Used_asThe targets of relations identify: prototypical semantic information associated with a SemU elements of dictionary definitions of SemUs typical corpus collocates of the SemU
  • Complementarity wrt EuroWordNet± Use of a small EWN subset for all languages± Mappable Top Ontology± Actual linking of data for a few languages· Semantic subcategorisation and linking with syntax· Template structure for the description of SemU· SemU vs. Synset: basic unit· Nodes in the Ontology as structured Sem. Types (bundles of different info types)
  • Template for PerceptionSemU: 1Usyn:BC Number: 105Template_Type: [Perception]Template_Supertype:[Psychological_event]Domain: GeneralSemantic Class: PerceptionGloss: //free//Event type: processPred _Rep.: Lex_Pred (<arg0>,<arg1>)Derivation: <Nil> or //Erlis Code//Selectional Restr.:arg0 = Animate //concept// arg1:default = [Entity]Formal: isa (1,<SemU>:[Perception]>)Agentive: <Nil>Constitutive: instrument (1, <SemU>:[Body_part]) intentionality ={yes,no} //optional//Telic: <Nil>Collocates: Collocates (<SemU1>,...<SemUn>)Complex: <Nil>
  • ExampleSemU: <guardare_2> //look_2//Usyn:BC Number: 105Template_Type: [Perception]Template_Supertype:[Psychological_event]Domain: GeneralSemantic Class: PerceptionGloss: osservare con attenzioneEvent type: processPred _Rep.: guardare (<arg0>,<arg1>)Derivation: <Nil>Selectional Restr.: arg0 = Animate //concept// arg1:default = [Entity]Formal: isa (<guardare_2>,<percepire>: [Psychological_event])Agentive: <Nil>Constitutive: instrument (<guardare_2>, <occhio>:[body_part]) intentionality ={yes}Telic: <Nil>Collocates: Collocates (<SemU1>,...<SemUn>)Complex: <Nil>
  •  Basic semantic notions ◦ Challenges in standardizing these requirements WordNet/EuroWordNet Simple Next major challenge: Standardizing linking entries across languagesFeminist Lexicon of the XXIcentury(semantic and structuralaspects)