Measuring Word Meaning in Context

Word sense disambiguation (WSD) is an old and important task in computational linguistics that still remains challenging, to machines as well as to human annotators. Recently there have been several proposals for representing word meaning in context that diverge from the traditional use of a single best sense for each occurrence. They represent word meaning in context through multiple paraphrases, as points in vector space, or as distributions over latent senses. New methods of evaluating and comparing these different representations are needed.In this paper we propose two novel annotation schemes that characterize word meaning in context in a graded fashion. In WSsim annotation, the applicability of each dictionary sense is rated on an ordinal scale. Usim annotation directly rates the similarity of pairs of usages of the same lemma, again on a scale. We find that the novel annotation schemes show good inter-annotator agreement, as well as a strong correlation with traditional single-sense annotation and with annotation of multiple lexical paraphrases. Annotators make use of the whole ordinal scale, and give very fine-grained judgments that “mix and match” senses for each individual usage. We also find that the Usim ratings obey the triangle inequality, justifying models that treat usage similarity as metric.There has recently been much work on grouping senses into coarse-grained groups. We demonstrate that graded WSsim and Usim ratings can be used to analyze existing coarse-grained sense groupings to identify sense groups that may not match intuitions of untrained native speakers. In the course of the comparison, we also show that the WSsim ratings are not subsumed by any static sense grouping.

[1]  Mitchell P. Marcus,et al.  OntoNotes: The 90% Solution , 2006, NAACL.

[2]  George A. Miller,et al.  A Semantic Concordance , 1993, HLT.

[3]  Katrin Erk,et al.  The SALSA Corpus: a German Corpus Resource for Lexical Semantics , 2006, LREC.

[4]  Christopher Stokoe Differentiating Homonymy and Polysemy in Information Retrieval , 2005, HLT/EMNLP.

[5]  Stephen Clark,et al.  Mathematical Foundations for a Compositional Distributional Model of Meaning , 2010, ArXiv.

[6]  Stefan Thater,et al.  Contextualizing Semantic Representations Using Syntactically Enriched Vector Models , 2010, ACL.

[7]  Krister Lindén Word Senses , 2005 .

[8]  Hinrich Sch Automatic Word Sense Discrimination , 1998 .

[9]  Rada Mihalcea,et al.  SemEval-2010 Task 2: Cross-Lingual Lexical Substitution , 2009, SemEval@ACL.

[10]  James A. Hampton,et al.  Typicality, Graded Membership, and Vagueness , 2007, Cogn. Sci..

[11]  Thierry Poibeau,et al.  Latent Vector Weighting for Word Meaning in Context , 2011, EMNLP.

[12]  Roberto Navigli,et al.  Word sense disambiguation: A survey , 2009, CSUR.

[13]  Nancy Ide,et al.  Word Sense Annotation of Polysemous Words by Multiple Annotators , 2010, LREC.

[14]  Gregory L. Murphy Meaning and concepts , 1991 .

[15]  John N. Williams Processing polysemous words in context: Evidence for interrelated meanings , 1992 .

[16]  Walter Kintsch,et al.  Meaning in Context , 2007 .

[17]  G. Murphy,et al.  The Big Book of Concepts , 2002 .

[18]  Patrick Hanks,et al.  Do Word Meanings Exist? , 2000, Comput. Humanit..

[19]  Mirella Lapata,et al.  Vector-based Models of Semantic Composition , 2008, ACL.

[20]  Véronique Hoste,et al.  SemEval-2010 Task 3: Cross-Lingual Word Sense Disambiguation , 2010, SemEval@ACL.

[21]  D. Titone,et al.  Making sense of word senses: the comprehension of polysemy depends on sense overlap. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[22]  Eneko Agirre,et al.  Word Sense Disambiguation: Algorithms and Applications , 2007 .

[23]  Katrin Erk,et al.  Graded Word Sense Assignment , 2009, EMNLP.

[24]  T. McNamara Semantic Priming: Perspectives from Memory and Word Recognition , 2005 .

[25]  Katrin Erk,et al.  Investigations on Word Senses and Word Usages , 2009, ACL.

[26]  Hwee Tou Ng,et al.  Word Sense Disambiguation Using OntoNotes: An Empirical Study , 2008, EMNLP.

[27]  Roberto Navigli,et al.  SemEval-2007 Task 10: English Lexical Substitution Task , 2007, Fourth International Workshop on Semantic Evaluations (SemEval-2007).

[28]  A. Tversky,et al.  Similarity, separability, and the triangle inequality. , 1982, Psychological review.

[29]  Hwee Tou Ng,et al.  It Makes Sense: A Wide-Coverage Word Sense Disambiguation System for Free Text , 2010, ACL.

[30]  Eneko Agirre,et al.  Computational semantic analysis of language: SemEval-2007 and beyond , 2009, Lang. Resour. Evaluation.

[31]  E. Rosch,et al.  Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[32]  Roberto Navigli,et al.  The English lexical substitution task , 2009, Lang. Resour. Evaluation.

[33]  D. Gentner,et al.  Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. , 1997 .

[34]  Ekaterini Klepousniotou The Processing of Lexical Ambiguity: Homonymy and Polysemy in the Mental Lexicon , 2002, Brain and Language.

[35]  M. Pickering,et al.  Processing ambiguous verbs: evidence from eye movements. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[36]  Yorick Wilks,et al.  Making Sense About Sense , 2007 .

[37]  Roberto Navigli,et al.  SemEval-2007 Task 07: Coarse-Grained English All-Words Task , 2007, Fourth International Workshop on Semantic Evaluations (SemEval-2007).

[38]  Rada Mihalcea,et al.  Open Mind Word Expert: Creating Large Annotated Data Collections with Web Users’ Help , 2003, LINC@EACL.

[39]  Martha Palmer,et al.  Improving English verb sense disambiguation performance with linguistically motivated features and clear sense distinction boundaries , 2009, Lang. Resour. Evaluation.

[40]  Christiane Fellbaum,et al.  Building Semantic Concordances , 1998 .

[41]  Christiane Fellbaum,et al.  Making fine-grained and coarse-grained sense distinctions, both manually and automatically , 2006, Natural Language Engineering.

[42]  Katrin Erk,et al.  A Structured Vector Space Model for Word Meaning in Context , 2008, EMNLP.

[43]  Martha Palmer,et al.  SemEval-2007 Task-17: English Lexical Sample, SRL and All Words , 2007, Fourth International Workshop on Semantic Evaluations (SemEval-2007).

[44]  Justin Washtell,et al.  Expectation Vectors: A Semiotics Inspired Approach to Geometric Lexical-Semantic Representation , 2010 .

[45]  Mirella Lapata,et al.  Measuring Distributional Similarity in Context , 2010, EMNLP.

[46]  Adam Kilgarriff,et al.  Framework and Results for English SENSEVAL , 2000, Comput. Humanit..

[47]  Eneko Agirre,et al.  Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluations , 2007 .

[48]  Diana McCarthy,et al.  Lexical Substitution as a Task for WSD Evaluation , 2002, SENSEVAL.

[49]  Ted Briscoe,et al.  Semi-productive Polysemy and Sense Extension , 1995, J. Semant..

[50]  Ramesh Krishnamurthy,et al.  Peeling an Onion: The Lexicographer's Experience ofManual Sense-Tagging , 2000, Comput. Humanit..

[51]  Paul Kay,et al.  Prototype semantics: The English Word Lie , 1981 .

[52]  Jeffrey Pennington,et al.  Dynamic Pooling and Unfolding Recursive Autoencoders for Paraphrase Detection , 2011, NIPS.

[53]  Katrin Erk,et al.  An inference-based model of word meaning in context as a paraphrase distribution , 2013, TIST.

[54]  Adam Kilgarriff,et al.  "I Don’t Believe in Word Senses" , 1997, Comput. Humanit..

[55]  Mirella Lapata,et al.  Composition in Distributional Models of Semantics , 2010, Cogn. Sci..

[56]  B. Abbott,et al.  The Psychology of Word Meanings. , 1992 .

[57]  D. A. Cruse,et al.  Computational lexical semantics: Polysemy and related phenomena from a cognitive linguistic viewpoint , 1995 .

[58]  Adam Kilgarriff,et al.  The Senseval-3 English lexical sample task , 2004, SENSEVAL@ACL.

[59]  Hinrich Schütze,et al.  Automatic Word Sense Discrimination , 1998, Comput. Linguistics.

[60]  David Tuggy Ambiguity, polysemy, and vagueness , 1993 .

[61]  E. Rosch Cognitive Representations of Semantic Categories. , 1975 .

[62]  Martha Palmer,et al.  The English all-words task , 2004, SENSEVAL@ACL.

[63]  James Pustejovsky,et al.  The Generative Lexicon , 1995, CL.

[64]  Suresh Manandhar,et al.  Dynamic and Static Prototype Vectors for Semantic Composition , 2011, IJCNLP.

[65]  Marine Carpuat,et al.  Improving Statistical Machine Translation Using Word Sense Disambiguation , 2007, EMNLP.

[66]  Susan Windisch Brown,et al.  Finding Meaning: Sense Inventories for Improved Word Sense Disambiguation. , 2010 .

[67]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  Taking on semantic commitments: Processing multiple meanings vs. multiple senses ☆ , 1990 .

[68]  G. Murphy,et al.  The Representation of Polysemous Words , 2001 .

[69]  J. Hampton Polymorphous Concepts in Semantic Memory , 1979 .

[70]  G. Murphy,et al.  Paper has been my ruin: Conceptual relations of polysemous senses , 2002 .

[71]  David Yarowsky,et al.  Distinguishing systems and distinguishing senses: new evaluation methods for Word Sense Disambiguation , 1999, Natural Language Engineering.

[72]  Marie-Francine Moens,et al.  Semi-supervised Semantic Role Labeling Using the Latent Words Language Model , 2009, EMNLP.

[73]  Marine Carpuat,et al.  How phrase sense disambiguation outperforms word sense disambiguation for statistical machine translation , 2007, TMI.

[74]  Katrin Erk,et al.  Exemplar-Based Models for Word Meaning in Context , 2010, ACL.

[75]  Raymond J. Mooney,et al.  Multi-Prototype Vector-Space Models of Word Meaning , 2010, NAACL.

[76]  Marco Baroni,et al.  Nouns are Vectors, Adjectives are Matrices: Representing Adjective-Noun Constructions in Semantic Space , 2010, EMNLP.

[77]  Inderjit S. Dhillon,et al.  Information-theoretic metric learning , 2006, ICML '07.

[78]  Mehrnoosh Sadrzadeh,et al.  Experimental Support for a Categorical Compositional Distributional Model of Meaning , 2011, EMNLP.

[79]  Susan Windisch Brown,et al.  Choosing Sense Distinctions for WSD: Psycholinguistic Evidence , 2008, ACL.

[80]  T. Landauer,et al.  A Solution to Plato's Problem: The Latent Semantic Analysis Theory of Acquisition, Induction, and Representation of Knowledge. , 1997 .

[81]  A. Tversky Features of Similarity , 1977 .

[82]  D. Gentner,et al.  Structural alignment facilitates the noticing of differences , 2001, Memory & cognition.