Hyeju Jang
ABSTRACT
We present the PONG method to compute selectional preferences using part-of-speech (POS) N-grams. From a corpus labeled with grammatical dependencies, PONG learns the distribution of word relations for each POS N-gram. From the much larger but unlabeled Google N-grams corpus, PONG learns the distribution of POS N-grams for a given pair of words. We derive the probability that one word has a given grammatical relation to the other. PONG estimates this probability by combining both distributions, whether or not either word occurs in the labeled corpus. PONG achieves higher average precision on 16 relations than a state-of-the-art baseline in a pseudo-disambiguation task, but lower coverage and recall.
- de Marneffe, M.-C. and Manning, C. D. 2008. Stanford Typed Dependencies Manual. http://nlp.stanford.edu/software/dependencies_manual.pdf, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
- Erk, K. 2007. A Simple, Similarity-Based Model for Selectional Preferences. In Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics, Prague, Czech Republic, June, 2007, 216--223.Google Scholar
- Erk, K., Padó, S. and Padó, U. 2010. A Flexible, Corpus-Driven Model of Regular and Inverse Selectional Preferences. Computational Linguistics 36(4), 723--763. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Fano, R. 1961. Transmission O F Information: A Statistical Theory of Communications. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
- Franz, A. and Brants, T. 2006. All Our N-Gram Are Belong to You.Google Scholar
- Gale, W. A., Church, K. W. and Yarowsky, D. 1992. Work on Statistical Methods for Word Sense Disambiguation. In Proceedings of the AAAI Fall Symposium on Probabilistic Approaches to Natural Language, Cambridge, MA, October 23-25, 1992, 54--60.Google Scholar
- Gildea, D. and Jurafsky, D. 2002. Automatic Labeling of Semantic Roles. Computational Linguistics 28(3), 245--288. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gormley, M. R., Dredze, M., Durme, B. V. and Eisner, J. 2011. Shared Components Topic Models with Application to Selectional Preference, NIPS Workshop on Learning Semantics Sierra Nevada, Spain. Google ScholarDigital Library
- im Walde, S. S., Hying, C., Scheible, C. and Schmid, H. 2008. Combining Em Training and the Mdl Principle for an Automatic Verb Classification Incorporating Selectional Preferences. In Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Columbus, OH, 2008, 496--504.Google Scholar
- Klein, D. and Manning, C. D. 2003. Accurate Unlexicalized Parsing. In Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Sapporo, Japan, July 7--12, 2003, E. W. HINRICHS and D. ROTH, Eds. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Petrov, S., Das, D. and McDonald, R. T. 2011. A Universal Part-of-Speech Tagset. ArXiv 1104.2086.Google Scholar
- Resnik, P. 1996. Selectional Constraints: An Information-Theoretic Model and Its Computational Realization. Cognition 61, 127--159.Google Scholar
- Resnik, P. 1997. Selectional Preference and Sense Disambiguation. In ACL SIGLEX Workshop on Tagging Text with Lexical Semantics: Why, What, and How, Washington, DC, April 4-5, 1997, 52--57.Google Scholar
- Ritter, A., Mausam and Etzioni, O. 2010. A Latent Dirichlet Allocation Method for Selectional Preferences. In Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Uppsala, Sweden, 2010, 424--434. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rooth, M., Riezler, S., Prescher, D., Carroll, G. and Beil, F. 1999. Inducing a Semantically Annotated Lexicon Via Em-Based Clustering. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Computational Linguistics, College Park, MD, 1999, Association for Computational Linguistics, 104--111. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Schutze, H. 1992. Context Space. In Proceedings of the AAAI Fall Symposium on Intelligent Probabilistic Approaches to Natural Language, Cambridge, MA, 1992, 113--120.Google Scholar
- Toutanova, K., Klein, D., Manning, C. and Singer, Y. 2003. Feature-Rich Part-of-Speech Tagging with a Cyclic Dependency Network. In Proceedings of the Human Language Technology Conference and Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (HLT-NAACL), Edmonton, Canada, 2003, 252--259. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Zhou, G., Zhao, J., Liu, K. and Cai, L. 2011. Exploiting Web-Derived Selectional Preference to Improve Statistical Dependency Parsing. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Portland, OR, 2011, 1556--1565. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Inferring selectional preferences from part-of-speech N-grams
Recommendations
Toward an Effective Igbo Part-of-Speech Tagger
Part-of-speech (POS) tagging is a well-established technology for most Western European languages and a few other world languages, but it has not been evaluated on Igbo, an agglutinative African language. This article presents POS tagging experiments ...
Disambiguating Nouns, Verbs, and Adjectives Using Automatically Acquired Selectional Preferences
Selectional preferences have been used by word sense disambiguation (WSD) systems as one source of disambiguating information. We evaluate WSD using selectional preferences acquired for English adjective-noun, subject, and direct object grammatical ...
Extracting ontological selectional preferences for non-pertainym adjectives from the google corpus
AAAI'10: Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceWhile there has been much research into using selectional preferences for word sense disambiguation (WSD), much difficulty has been encountered. To facilitate study into this difficulty and aid in WSD in general, a database of the selectional ...
Comments