The other relations—relatively frequent if counted together—are crucial in determining semantically motivated groupings of verbal LUs. Thus all such relations can be used as constitutive wordnet relations. That, to some degree, is the case of plWordNet. The expansion of plWordNet with new LUs is based on the idea of topological identity of synonyms in a complex net of words.
They are among the relations which we now call constitutive. Every editing decision is preceded by the presentation of substitution tests defined for a given relation and instantiated by lemma pairs taken from two synsets under consideration.
The editor can select only a subset of pairs, or even skip this step. A detailed analysis of many relation instances can be time-consuming. As a compromise, substitution tests for synonymy are also included in the plWordNet editor guidelines.
Experienced editors can create or modify synsets without laborious tests. Let us present substitution tests for the two instances of hyponymy. Indeed, they both have more hyponyms and common hypernyms, not shown in Fig. Frequency of wordnet relation instances in plWordNet 1. For nouns, we count both meronymy and holonymy, because in plWordNet the relations are not mutual inverses.
Hyponymy , hypernymy Meronymy , holonymy 9.
Verbal and nominal relations differ non-trivially. Nominal hyponymy and hypernymy are better defined, and more widespread. They account for Hyponymy and hypernymy make up It is similar for meronymy and holonymy. Meronymy is much harder to define for verbs than for nouns. Relation frequencies show that meronymy and holonymy are more popular for nouns It was necessary to supplement the list of constitutive verbal relations in order to make the system more efficient in differentiating verb LUs which otherwise would be grouped, unintuitively, in the same synsets. Apart from derivational relations, few lexico-semantic relations have been added: causality 2.
The relational paradigm of lexical semantics, as implemented in a wordnet, has an intrinsically limited expressive power.
For one thing, senses are not defined in a formal language which might support inference. One can expect, however, that the structure of synset relations is a basis only for conclusions acceptable to a native speaker.
A hyponym, for example, can be exchanged with any of its even remote hypernyms without causing abnormality of the given language expression—but even the most elaborate system of constitutive relations does not guarantee this property. We can observe semantic oppositions which systematically go across large parts of the lexicon and influence contextual behaviour of LUs; that includes differences in stylistic register, aspect or verb class. The topological definition of the synset based on relation-sharing does not eliminate all inappropriate LU grouping in the same synset, if they differ with respect to one of those features.
Turning to the third example, a similar dependency can be found in verb classes assumed in plWordNet and lexico-semantic relations. Aspect and verb classes will be discussed in Section 5. It would be almost unthinkable for publicity material for tourism in Scotland to refer to the geographic features through which rivers run as valleys , although that is precisely what they are: the Scottish dialect word glen is de rigueur, because of its rich evoked meaning.
Did you do it with her? In the same humorous-informal category as bonk , we find willie cf. We understand register as a property of text or smaller language expression. Homogeneity in language is rare. Halliday Halliday and Hasan in his popular theory of stylistic variation of language distinguishes between field subject matter, area of discourse , tenor style, degree of formality and mode of discourse written or spoken Cruse , p. Note that these tests are devised to detect semantic relations only and are not intended to cover differences in register, style or dialect between words Vossen , p.
Anomalies in our contextual tests arise simply from the fact that register is directly connected with pragmatics. Pragmatics states that propositional synonymy 29 has its limitations: words can be exchanged in a particular context to some degree of acceptability Cruse , pp. We check interchangeability of a given pair of words in testing contexts not in all contexts , but the tests often lead to nonsensical sentences. Consider an example of a synset from Vossen , p.
A police captain is a pig with certain properties. It is a police captain and therefore also a pig. If it is a police captain then it must be a pig. In PWN 3. The reaction to these test stimuli is not obvious—and if it is not, then what premises can guide editing decisions? We have decided to introduce lexical registers to avoid confusing our linguists, wordnet editors, with the ambiguous substitution tests. The latter is important, because the absence of different hyponyms may be accidental. That was the case of our example: szalet , pisuar and latryna were put in plWordNet later than their hypernyms.
In order to avoid constantly rebuilding plWordNet structure, we decided to strengthen our wordnet with register values. This takes another achievement verb, reach , as a genus proximum. It is not surprising that look also has an activity interpretation. In Slavic languages this property of verbs is even more pronounced because of the higher prominence of aspect.
Semantic classes do not seem to be overtly present in the criteria typically defined for wordnet development, but they have definitely been implicitly taken into account in editing decisions made in most wordnets. A comparison of semantic verb classes in plWordNet with those of Laskowski and Paducheva modelled after Vendler. For synonymous and hyponymous verbs, we have introduced the requirement of the identity of aspect and semantic class. Thus verbs of achievement which are perfective cannot be synonyms or hyponyms of verbs of accomplishment neither perfective nor imperfective and vice versa.
The top-level synsets, mostly non-lexical, represent imperfective state verbs and activities , perfective achievements and atelic non-momentary change of state situations , and perfective or imperfective accomplishments. Most verbs are linked via hyponymy to those artificial synsets or to their hyponyms. It is therefore impossible to put verbs from different semantic classes into one synset. To ensure that it indeed never happens, we have introduced the requirement of semantic class identity between candidates for synonyms: it supplements the set of constitutive relations and register identity requirement.
The three form the skeleton of plWordNet. We introduce constitutive wordnet relations which—supplemented by aspect, register and semantic verb class—determine the structure of a Polish wordnet. Our list of constitutive relations serves its purpose well. Nonetheless, we have had to select among more lexical-semantic relations and lexical properties which could also have been acceptable.
As any informed selection, ours has been guided by objective criteria as far as possible.
We need relations which allow the wordnet editor to shun the rather controversial synonymy but still indirectly capture its intuition. We want to avoid putting in one synset two words which a consensus of native speakers would never consider synonymous.
The constitutive relations aptly differentiate units with a significant difference of meaning, yet do not require a continual introspection on near-identity of meaning. Instances of part-whole or subclass-superclass relations are easier to recognize and less skewed by subjectivity. In the end, we replace a less tractable relation with a carefully constructed set of more tractable relations.
We illustrate our deliberations with examples from Princeton WordNet, EuroWordNet, plWordNet and a few other well-known wordnets, as well as several dictionaries. The overall effect is a reduced conceptual base of our wordnet: by bypassing synonymy as a major design criterion, we have made plWordNet less dependent on complex semantic considerations. No paper can be complete without a note on future plans. Here is ours: we will continue our work on plWordNet , both on its design including the theory and practice of lexical-semantic relations and on the systematic growth of its coverage.
In general, nodes in semantic networks may be labelled with abstract names, not necessarily with valid natural language tokens. Femininity , as in actor — actress , is a representative example. Technically, we define lexical units as lemma-sense pairs, where sense is represented by a number. We assume that one lexical unit belongs to exactly one synset and the synset represents the sense.
Most existing ontologies, wordnets included, turn to English for labels for concepts, relations, attributes, values and so on. This tends to blur very strongly the distinction between formal abstractions and expressions in natural language. The Appendix presents a formalisation of our idea of relation sharing among LUs as the reason for forming synsets.
Predictably, the minimal-commitment approach to synset definition was met with a challenge. The language data processed during the construction of plWordNet have dictated an expansion: we had to cope, among others, with semantic opposition resulting from differences in stylistic registers or from the effect of semantic verb classes and aspect. We will come back to these issues in Sections 4 , 5. For now, they will stay in the background, so we can keep the presentation simple.
We use the term antonymy in a broader sense. It covers complementaries , proper antonyms , reversives and converses Cruse , pp. They are often called conceptual relations , a term which we prefer to avoid—along with whatever implicit assumptions may underlie whatever theories of meaning. The names of PWN relations follow the terminology listed at wordnet. For verbal hyponymy, Lyons proposed a similar test [ to X is to Y in certain way —see also Murphy , p.
Cruse proposes to test verbal hyponymy via nominalization: Xing is a way of Ying , see also Murphy , pp.
The Printable WordNet English Dictionary ((Volume 3. O - Z)) eBook: XUHUA CHEN: lyachelmoco.tk: Kindle Store. Dictionary ((Volume 3. O - Z)) Kindle Edition. The Printable WordNet English Dictionary ((Volume 3. O - Z)) - Kindle edition by XUHUA CHEN. Download it once and read it on your Kindle device, PC.
The classical analytical definition stipulates that the hypernym play a vital role as a head of definiens Geeraerts , p. In the Katzian model of hyponymy Katz and Fodor a definition of hyponym of any word class includes a definition of hypernym of the same word class Geeraerts , pp.
The idea of identifying a head of verbal definition with hypernym is known to the EWN authors Vossen , p. The relation of entailment is kept for the case of backward presupposition.