Cover not available
Article published In:
Language and Linguistics
Vol. 19:1 (2018) ► pp.61–79

Filtered collocations as features in verbal polysemy disambiguation

A case study of the Chinese verb kao ‘bake’

 | National Taiwan University
In Generative Lexicon Theory (glt) (Pustejovsky 1995), co-composition is one of the generative devices proposed to explain the cases of verbal polysemous behavior where more than one function application is allowed. The English baking verbs were used as examples to illustrate how their arguments co-specify the verb with qualia unification. Some studies (Blutner 2002; Carston 2002; Falkum 2007) stated that the information of pragmatics and world knowledge need to be considered as well. Therefore, this study would like to examine whether glt could be practiced in a real-world Natural Language Processing (nlp) application using collocations. We have conducted a fine-grained logical polysemy disambiguation task, taking the open-sourced Leiden Weibo Corpus as resource and computing with Support Vector Machine (svm) classifier. Within the classifier, we have taken collocated verbs under glt as main features. In addition, measure words and syntactic patterns are extracted as additional features for comparison. Our study investigates the logical polysemy of the Chinese verb kao ‘bake’. We find that glt could help in identifying logically polysemous cases; additional features would help the classifier achieve a higher performance.
Keywords: Generative Lexicon Theory, co-composition, baking verb, logical polysemy, collocation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Co-composition and qualia structure in glt
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Data collection
    • 3.2Filtering nouns as seeds
    • 3.3Selection of collocated features: verbs, measure words and syntactic constructions
      • 3.3.1Collocated verbs and measure words
      • 3.3.2Collocated syntactic patterns
    • 3.4Constructing a data frame with features for svm classification
    • 3.5 svm classification
  • 4.Analysis and discussion
    • 4.1The collocated verbs with measure words
      • 4.1.1Features for nouns with change of state senses
      • 4.1.2Features for nouns with creation senses
      • 4.2.3Others
    • 4.2Pattern 3+4
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 5 January 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lali.00003.cha
References (24)
References
Apresjan, Jurij D. 1973. Regular polysemy. Linguistics 1421. 5–32.Google Scholar
Atkins, Beryl T. & Kegl, Judy & Levin, Beth. 1988. Anatomy of a verb entry: From linguistic theory to lexicographic practice. International Journal of Lexicography 11. 84–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blutner, Reinhard. 2002. Lexical semantics and pragmatics. Linguistische Berichte 101. 27–58.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chinese Knowledge Information Processing Group. 1993. Technical report no. 93–05: Zhongwen cilei fenxi (sanban) [ The analysis of Chinese parts of speech (the third version) ]. Taipei: Institute of Information Science, Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
Davis, Anthony R. & Koenig, Jean-Pierre. 2000. Linking as constraints on word classes in a hierarchical lexicon. Language 76(1). 56–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Falkum, Ingrid Lossius. 2007. Generativity, relevance and the problem of polysemy. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 191. 205–234.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A. & Lepore, Ernie. 1998. The emptiness of the lexicon: Reflections on James Pustejovsky’s ‘The generative lexicon’. Linguistic Inquiry 29(2). 269–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gale, William A. & Church, Kenneth W. & Yarowsky, David. 1993. A method for disambiguating word senses in a large corpus. Computers and the Humanities 261. 415–439. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goddard, Cliff. 1998. Semantic analysis: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kamp, Hans & Partee, Barbara. 1995. Prototype theory and compositionality. Cognition 57(2). 129–191. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth & Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 2005. Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moravcsik, Julius M. 1975. Aitia as generative factor in Aristotle’s philosophy. Dialogue 141. 622–636. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1992. Syntactic categories and semantic type. In Rosner, Michael & Johnson, Roderick (eds.), Computational linguistics and formal semantics, 97–126. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Princeton University: About WordNet. 2010–2016. WordNet. ([URL]) (Accessed 2014-09-01.)
Pustejovsky, James. 1991. The generative lexicon. Computational Linguistics 17(4). 409–441.Google Scholar
. 1995. The generative lexicon. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2005. A survey of dot objects. Waltham: Brandeis University. (Manuscript.)Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deirdre. 1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition. 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
van Esch, Daan. 2012. Leiden Weibo Corpus. ([URL]) (Accessed 2014-09-03.)
van ValinJr., Robert D. 2005. Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel. 1964. Webster’s third: A critique of its semantics. International Journal of American Linguistics 301. 405–409. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1996. Semantics: Primes and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar