Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T15:55:54.373Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A semantic space approach to the computational semantics of noun compounds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 January 2013

AKIRA UTSUMI
AKIRA UTSUMI*
Affiliation:
Department of Informatics, The University of Electro-Communications, 1-5-1 Chofugaoka, Chofushi, Tokyo 182-8585, Japan e-mail: utsumi@inf.uec.ac.jp
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examines the ability of a semantic space model to represent the meaning of noun compounds such as ‘information gathering’ or ‘heart disease.’ For a semantic space model to compute the meaning and the attributional similarity (or semantic relatedness) for unfamiliar noun compounds that do not occur in a corpus, the vector for a noun compound must be computed from the vectors of its constituent words using vector composition algorithms. Six composition algorithms (i.e., centroid, multiplication, circular convolution, predication, comparison, and dilation) are compared in terms of the quality of the computation of the attributional similarity for English and Japanese noun compounds. To evaluate the performance of the computation of the similarity, this study uses three tasks (i.e., related word ranking, similarity correlation, and semantic classification), and two types of semantic spaces (i.e., latent semantic analysis-based and positive pointwise mutual information-based spaces). The result of these tasks is that the dilation algorithm is generally most effective in computing the similarity of noun compounds, while the multiplication algorithm is best suited specifically for the positive pointwise mutual information-based space. In addition, the comparison algorithm works better for unfamiliar noun compounds that do not occur in the corpus. These findings indicate that in general a semantic space model, and in particular the dilation, multiplication, and comparison algorithms have sufficient ability to compute the attributional similarity for noun compounds.

Type
Articles
Information
Natural Language Engineering , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , April 2014 , pp. 185 - 234
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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

Baldwin, T., Bannard, C., Tanaka, T., and Widdows, D. 2003. An empirical model of multiword expression decomposability. In Proceedings of the ACL 2003 Workshop on Multiword Expressions: Analysis, Acquisition and Treatment, pp. 89–96. Sapporo, Japan: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Baldwin, T., and Tanaka, T. 2004. Translation by machine of complex nominals: getting it right. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACL Workshop on Multiword Expressions: Integrating Processing, pp. 24–31. Barcelona, Spain: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Baroni, M., and Zamparelli, R. 2010. Nouns are vectors, adjectives are matrices: representing adjective–noun constructions in semantic space. In Proceedings of the 2010 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP2010), pp. 1183–93. Cambridge, MA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Becker, A. 1997. Emergent and common features influence metaphor interpretation. Metaphor and Symbol 12 (4): 243–59.Google Scholar
Bergsma, S., Pitler, E., and Lin, D. 2010. Creating robust supervised classifiers via Web-scale N-gram data. In Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-10), pp. 865–74. Uppsala, Sweden: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bullinaria, J., and Levy, J. 2007. Extracting semantic representations from word co-occurrence statistics: a computational study. Behavior Research Methods 39 (3): 510–26.Google Scholar
Burgess, C., and Lund, K. 1997. Modelling parsing constraints with high-dimensional context space. Language and Cognitive Processes 12: 177–210.Google Scholar
Butnariu, C., Kim, S. N., Nakov, P., Ó Séaghdha, D., Szpakowicz, S., and Veale, T. 2010. SemEval-2010 Task 9: the interpretation of noun compounds using paraphrasing verbs and prepositions. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, pp. 39–44. Uppsala, Sweden: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Butnariu, C., and Veale, T. 2008. A concept-centered approach to noun-compound interpretation. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 2008), pp. 81–8. Manchester, UK: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Church, K., and Hanks, P. 1990. Word association norms, mutual information, and lexicography. Computational Linguistics 16: 22–9.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V., Gelman, S. A., and Lane, N. M. 1985. Compound nouns and category structure in young children. Child Development 56: 84–94.Google Scholar
Costello, F. J., Veale, T., and Dunne, S. 2006. Using WordNet to automatically deduce relations between words in noun–noun compounds. In Proceedings of the COLING/ACL 2006 Main Conference Poster Sessions, pp. 160–7. Sydney, Australia: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Coulson, S. 2001. Semantic Leaps: Frame-Shifting and Conceptual Blending in Meaning Construction. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Foltz, P., Kintsch, W., and Landauer, T. 1998. The measurement of textual coherence with latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes 25: 285–307.Google Scholar
Gagné, C. 2000. Relation-based combinations versus property-based combinations: a test of the CARIN theory and the dual-process theory of conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language 42: 365–89.Google Scholar
Gentner, D. 1983. Structure mapping: a theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science 7: 155–70.Google Scholar
Giesbrecht, E. 2009. In search of semantic compositionality in vector spaces. In Rudolph, S., Dau, F., and Kuznetsov, S. (eds.), Conceptual Structures: Leveraging Semantic Technologies (Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Conceptual Structures, ICCS2009), pp. 173–84. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Girju, R., Beamer, B., Rozovskaya, A., Fister, A., and Bhat, S. 2010. A knowledge-rich approach to identifying semantic relations between nominals. Information Processing and Management 46: 589–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Girju, R., Moldovan, D., Tatu, M., and Antohe, D. 2005. On the semantics of noun compounds. Computer Speech and Language 19: 479–96.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 4th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluations (SemEval-2007), pp. 13–8. Prague, Czech Republic: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Girju, R., Nakov, P., Nastase, V., Szpakowicz, S., Turney, P., and Yuret, D. 2009. Classification of semantic relations between nominals. Language Resources and Evaluation 43 (2): 105–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, T., Steyvers, M., and Tenenbaum, J. 2007. Topics in semantic representation. Psychological Review 114: 211–44.Google Scholar
Guevara, E. 2011. Computing semantic compositionality in distributional semantics. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computational Semantics (IWCS-9), pp. 135–44. Oxford, UK: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Hampton, J. 1987. Inheritance of attributes in natural concept conjunctions. Memory and Cognition 15: 57–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, M. N., and Mewhort, D. J. 2007. Representing word meaning and order information in a composite holographic lexicon. Psychological Review 114 (1): 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jurafsky, D., and Martin, J. H. 2008. Speech and Language Processing: An Introduction to Natural Language Processing, Computational Linguistics, and Speech Recognition, Second Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Katz, G., and Giesbrecht, E. 2006. Automatic identification of non-compositional multi-word expressions using latent semantic analysis. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Multiword Expressions: Identifying and Exploiting Underlying Properties, pp. 12–9. Sydney, Australia: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Kim, S., and Baldwin, T. 2005. Automatic interpretation of noun compounds using WordNet similarity. In Dale, R., Wong, K., Su, J., and Kwong, O. (eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (IJCNLP2005), pp. 945–56. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Kim, S., and Baldwin, T. 2006. Interpreting semantic relations in noun compounds via verb semantics. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Computational Linguistics and the 44th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (COLING-ACL 2006) Main Conference Poster Sessions, pp. 491–8. Sydney, Australia: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Kim, S., and Baldwin, T. 2007. Disambiguating noun compounds. In Proceedings of the 22nd Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-07), pp. 901–6. Vancouver, Canada: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Kim, S. N., and Nakov, P. 2011. Large-scale noun compound interpretation: using bootstrapping and the Web as a corpus. In Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP2011), pp. 648–58. Edinburgh, UK: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Kintsch, W. 2000. Metaphor comprehension: a computational theory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 7: 257–66.Google Scholar
Kintsch, W. 2001. Predication. Cognitive Science 25 (2): 173–202.Google Scholar
Kintsch, W. 2008. How the mind computes the meaning of metaphor: a simulation based on LSA. In Gibbs, R. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, pp. 129–42. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landauer, T. K., and Dumais, S. T. 1997. A solution to Plato's problem: the latent semantic analysis theory of the acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review 104: 211–40.Google Scholar
Landauer, T., McNamara, D., Dennis, S., and Kintsch, W. 2007. Handbook of Latent Semantic Analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Lapata, M., and Keller, F. 2005. Web-based models for natural language processing. ACM Transactions on Speech and Language Processing 2 (1): 1–31.Google Scholar
Lauer, M. 1994. Conceptual association for compound noun analysis. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-94), pp. 337–9. Las Cruces, NM: Association for Computational Linguistics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lauer, M. 1995. Corpus statistics meet the noun compound: some empirical results. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-95), pp. 47–54. Cambridge, MA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Manning, C. D., Raghavan, P., and Schütze, H. 2008. Introduction to Information Retrieval. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, J., and Lapata, M. 2008. Vector-based models of semantic composition. In Proceedings of 46th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (ACL-08: HLT), pp. 236–44. Columbus, OH: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Mitchell, J., and Lapata, M. 2010. Composition in distributional models of semantics. Cognitive Science 34: 1388–429.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moldovan, D., Badulescu, A., Tatu, M., Antohe, D., and Girju, R. 2004. Models for the semantic classification of noun phrases. In Proceedings of the Computational Lexical Semantics Workshop at HLT-NAACL’2004, pp. 60–7. Boston, MA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Murphy, G. 1988. Comprehending complex concepts. Cognitive Science 12: 529–62.Google Scholar
Nakov, P. 2008. Noun compound interpretation using paraphrasing verbs: feasibility study. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence: Methodology, Systems, Applications (AIMSA’08), pp. 103–17. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Nakov, P., and Hearst, M. 2005. Search engine statistics beyond the n-gram: application to noun compound bracketing. In Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL), pp. 17–24. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Nakov, P., and Hearst, M. 2006. Using verbs to characterize noun-noun relations. In Proceedings of 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence: Methodology, Systems, Applications (AIMSA’06), LNCS vol. 4183, pp. 233–44. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Nakov, P., and Hearst, M. A. 2008. Solving relational similarity problems using the Web as a corpus. In Proceedings of 46th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (ACL-08: HLT), pp. 452–60. Columbus, OH: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Nakov, P., and Kozareva, Z. 2011. Combining relational and attributional similarity for semantic relation classification. In Proceedings of Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing (RANLP2011), pp. 323–30. Hissar, Bulgaria.Google Scholar
Nakov, P., Popova, A., and Mateev, P. 2001. Weight functions impact on LSA performance. In Proceedings of the EuroConference Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing (RANLP2001), pp. 187–93. Tzigov Chark, Bulgaria.Google Scholar
Nastase, V., and Szpakowicz, S. 2003. Exploring noun-modifier semantic relations. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Computational Semantics (IWCS-5), pp. 285–301. Tilburg, Netherlands: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Nelson, D., McEvoy, C., and Schreiber, T. 1998. The University of South Florida word association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. http://www.usf.edu/FreeAssociation/.Google Scholar
Ó Séaghdha, D., and Copestake, A. 2007. Co-occurrence contexts for noun compound interpretation. In Proceedings of the ACL-07 Workshop on A Broader Perspective on Multiword Expressions, pp. 57–64. Prague, Czech Republic: Association for Computational Linguistics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ó Séaghdha, D., and Copestake, A. 2008. Semantic classification with distributional kernels. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computational Linguisitcs (COLING 2008), pp. 649–56. Manchester, UK: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Ó Séaghdha, D., and Copestake, A. 2009. Using lexical and relational similarity to classify semantic relations. In Proceedings of the 12th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL-09), pp. 621–9. Athens, Greece: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Padó, S., and Lapata, M. 2007. Dependency-based construction of semantic space models. Computational Linguistics 33 (2): 161–99.Google Scholar
Plate, T. A. 2003. Holograhic Reduced Representation: Distributed Representation for Cognitive Structures. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Quesada, J. 2007. Creating your own LSA spaces. In Landauer, T., McNamara, D., Dennis, S., and Kintsch, W. (eds.), Handbook of Latent Semantic Analysis, pp. 71–85. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Recchia, G., and Jones, M. N. 2009. More data trumps smarter algorithms: comparing pointwise mutual information with latent semantic analysis. Behavior Research Methods 41: 647–56.Google Scholar
Reddy, S., McCarthy, D., and Manandhar, S. 2011. An empirical study on compositionality in compound nouns. In Proceedings of the 5th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (IJCNLP2011), pp. 210–8. Chiang Mai, Thailand: Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing.Google Scholar
Rosario, B., and Hearst, M. 2001. Classifying the semantic relations in noun compounds via a domain-specific lexical hierarchy. In Proceedings of the 2001 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP2001), pp. 82–90. Pittsburgh, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Rosario, B., Hearst, M., and Fillmore, C. 2002. The descent of hierarchy, and selection in relational semantics. In Proceedings of 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-02), pp. 247–54. Philadelphia, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Schone, P., and Jurafsky, D. 2001. In knowledge-free induction of multiword unit dictionary headwords a solved problem? In Proceedings of the 2001 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP2001), pp. 100–8. Pittsburgh, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Schütze, H. 1998. Automatic word sense discrimination. Computational Linguistics 24 (1): 97–123.Google Scholar
Tratz, S., and Hovy, E. 2010. A taxonomy, dataset, and classifier for automatic noun compound interpretation. In Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-10), pp. 678–87. Uppsala, Sweden: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Turney, P. D. 2006. Similarity of semantic relations. Computational Linguistics 32 (3): 379–416.Google Scholar
Turney, P. D., and Pantel, P. 2010. From frequency to meaning: vector space models of semantics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 37: 141–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Umemoto, T. 1969. Renso Kijunhyo (Free Association Norm). Tokyo: Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai.Google Scholar
Utsumi, A. 2005. The role of feature emergence in metaphor appreciation. Metaphor and Symbol 20 (3): 151–72.Google Scholar
Utsumi, A. 2011. Computational exploration of metaphor comprehension processes using a semantic space model. Cognitive Science 35 (2): 251–96.Google Scholar
Wilkenfeld, M., and Ward, T. 2001. Similarity and emergence in conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language 45 (1): 21–38.Google Scholar
Wisniewski, E. 1996. Construal and similarity in conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language 35: 434–53.Google Scholar
Yamaguchi, T. 2006. Nihongo Dai-Thesaurus CD-ROM. Tokyo: Taishukan Shoten.Google Scholar