DOCSLIB.ORG

Towards Building a Multilingual Sememe Knowledge Base

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Towards Building a Multilingual Sememe Knowledge Base The Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-20) Towards Building a Multilingual Sememe Knowledge Base: Predicting Sememes for BabelNet Synsets Fanchao Qi,1∗ Liang Chang,2∗† Maosong Sun,1,3‡ Sicong Ouyang,2† Zhiyuan Liu1 1Department of Computer Science and Technology, Tsinghua University Institute for Artificial Intelligence, Tsinghua University Beijing National Research Center for Information Science and Technology 2Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications 3Jiangsu Collaborative Innovation Center for Language Ability, Jiangsu Normal University [email protected], [email protected] {sms, liuzy}@tsinghua.edu.cn, [email protected] Abstract word husband A sememe is defined as the minimum semantic unit of human languages. Sememe knowledge bases (KBs), which contain sense "married man" "carefully use" words annotated with sememes, have been successfully ap- plied to many NLP tasks. However, existing sememe KBs are built on only a few languages, which hinders their widespread human economize utilization. To address the issue, we propose to build a uni- sememe fied sememe KB for multiple languages based on BabelNet, a family male spouse multilingual encyclopedic dictionary. We first build a dataset serving as the seed of the multilingual sememe KB. It man- ually annotates sememes for over 15 thousand synsets (the entries of BabelNet). Then, we present a novel task of auto- Figure 1: Sememe annotation of the word “husband” in matic sememe prediction for synsets, aiming to expand the HowNet. seed dataset into a usable KB. We also propose two simple and effective models, which exploit different information of synsets. Finally, we conduct quantitative and qualitative anal- sememes to annotate senses of over 100 thousand Chinese yses to explore important factors and difficulties in the task. and English words. Figure 1 illustrates an example of how All the source code and data of this work can be obtained on words are annotated with sememes in HowNet. https://github.com/thunlp/BabelNet-Sememe-Prediction. Different from most linguistic KBs like WordNet (Miller 1995), which explain meanings of words by word-level re- Introduction lations, sememe KBs like HowNet provide intensional defi- nitions for words using infra-word sememes. Sememe KBs A word is the smallest element of human languages that can have two unique strengths. The first one is their sememe-to- stand by itself, but not the smallest indivisible semantic unit. word semantic compositionality, which endows them with In fact, the meaning of a word can be divided into smaller special suitability for integration into neural networks (Gu components. For example, one of the meanings of “man” et al. 2018; Qi et al. 2019a). The second one is their na- can be represented as the composition of the meanings ture that limited sememes can represent unlimited meanings, of “human”, “male” and “adult”. In linguistics, a sememe which makes sememes very useful in low data regimes, e.g., (Bloomfield 1926) is defined as the minimum semantic unit improving embeddings of low-frequency words (Sun and of human languages. Some linguists believe that meanings Chen 2016; Niu et al. 2017). In fact, sememe KBs have been of all the words in any language can be decomposed of a proven beneficial to various NLP tasks such as word sense limited set of predefined sememes, which is related to the disambiguation (Duan, Zhao, and Xu 2007) and sentiment idea of universal semantic primitives (Wierzbicka 1996). analysis (Fu et al. 2013). Sememes are implicit in words. To utilize them in practi- Most languages have no sememe KBs, which prevents cal applications, people manually annotate words with pre- NLP applications of these languages benefiting from se- defined sememes to construct sememe knowledge bases meme knowledge. However, building a sememe KB for a (KBs). HowNet (Dong and Dong 2003) is the most fa- 2, 000 new language from scratch is time-consuming and labor- mous one, which uses about language-independent intensive — the construction of HowNet takes several lin- ∗Indicates equal contribution guistic experts more than two decades. To tackle this chal- †Work done during internship at Tsinghua University lenge, Qi et al. (2018) present the task of cross-lingual lexi- ‡Corresponding author cal sememe prediction (CLSP), aiming to facilitate the con- Copyright c 2020, Association for the Advancement of Artificial struction of a new language’s sememe KB by predicting se- Intelligence (www.aaai.org). All rights reserved. memes for words in that language. However, CLSP can pre- 8624 proposing two simple and effective models and conducting bn:00045106n human detailed analyses of factors in SPBS. en: husband, hubby family zh: , , , annotate Dataset and Task Formalization fr: mari, époux, marié male de: Ehemann, Gemahl, Gatte BabelSememe Dataset …… spouse We build the BabelSememe dataset, which is expected to be the seed of a multilingual sememe KB and expanded A BabelNet synset sememes steadily by automatic sememe prediction together with ex- amination of humans. Sememe annotation in HowNet em- bodies hierarchical structures of sememes, as shown in Fig- Figure 2: Annotating sememes for the BabelNet synset ure 1. Nevertheless, considering the structures of sememes whose ID is bn:00045106n. The synset comprises words are seldom used in existing applications (Niu et al. 2017; in different languages (multilingual synonyms) having the Qi et al. 2019a) and it is very hard for ordinary people to same meaning “the man a woman is married to”, and they make structured sememe annotation, we ignore them in Ba- share the four sememes on the right part. belSememe. Thus, each BabelNet synset in BabelSememe is annotated with a set of sememes (as shown in Figure 2). In the following part, we elaborate how we build the dataset dict sememes for only one language at a time, which means and provide its statistics. repetitive efforts, including manual correctness checking conducted by native speakers, are required when construct- ing sememe KBs for multiple languages. Selecting Target Synsets We first select 20 thousand To solve this problem, we propose to build a unified se- synsets as target synsets. Each of them includes English and 1 meme KB for multiple languages, namely a multilingual Chinese synonyms annotated with sememes in HowNet, so sememe KB, based on BabelNet (Navigli and Ponzetto that we can generate candidate sememes for them. 2012a), which is a more economical and efficient way to transfer sememe knowledge to other languages. BabelNet is Generating Candidate Sememes We generate candidate a multilingual encyclopedic dictionary and comprises over sememes for each target synset using the sememes annotated 15 million entries called BabelNet synsets. Each BabelNet to its synonyms. Some sememes of the synonyms in a target synset contains words in multiple languages with the same synset should be annotated to the target synset. For exam- meaning (multilingual synonyms), and they should have the ple, the word “husband” is annotated with five sememes in same sememe annotation. Therefore, building a multilingual HowNet (Figure 1) in total, and the four sememes annotated sememe KB by annotating sememes for BabelNet synsets to the sense “married man” should be annotated to the Ba- can actually provide sememe annotation for words in multi- belNet synset bn:00045106n (Figure 2). Thus, we group the ple languages simultaneously (Figure 2 shows an example). sememes of all the synonyms in a target synset together to To advance the creation of a multilingual sememe KB, we form the candidate sememe set of the target synset. build a seed dataset named BabelSememe, which contains about 15 thousand BabelNet synsets manually annotated Annotating Appropriate Sememes We ask more than with sememes. Also, we present a novel task of automatic 100 annotation participants to select appropriate sememes sememe prediction for BabelNet synsets (SPBS), aiming to from corresponding candidate sememe set for each target gradually expand the seed dataset into a usable multilingual synset. All the participants have a good grasp of both Chi- sememe KB. In addition, we exploratively put forward two nese and English. We show them Chinese and English syn- simple and effective models for SPBS, which utilize differ- onyms as well as definitions of each synset, making sure ent information incorporated in BabelNet synsets. The first its meaning is fully understood. When annotation is fin- model exploits semantic information and recommends sim- ished, each target synset has been annotated by at least three ilar sememes to semantically close BabelNet synsets, while participants. We remove the synsets whose inter-annotator the second uses relational information and directly predicts agreement (IAA) is poor, where we use Krippendorff’s alpha relations between sememes and BabelNet synsets. In ex- coefficient (Krippendorff 2013) to measure IAA. Finally, periments, we evaluate sememe prediction performance of 15, 756 BabelNet synsets are retained, which are annotated the two models on BabelSememe, finding they achieve sat- with 43, 154 sememes selected from 104, 938 candidate se- isfying results. Moreover, the ensemble of the two models memes, and their average Krippendorff’s alpha coefficient is yield obvious performance enhancement. Finally, we con- 0.702. duct detailed quantitative and qualitative analyses to explore the factors influencing sememe prediction results, aiming to Dataset Statistics Detailed statistics of BabelNet synsets point out
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Words and Alternative Basic Units for Linguistic Analysis
    Words and alternative basic units for linguistic analysis 1 Words and alternative basic units for linguistic analysis Jens Allwood SCCIIL Interdisciplinary Center, University of Gothenburg A. P. Hendrikse, Department of Linguistics, University of South Africa, Pretoria Elisabeth Ahlsén SCCIIL Interdisciplinary Center, University of Gothenburg Abstract The paper deals with words and possible alternative to words as basic units in linguistic theory, especially in interlinguistic comparison and corpus linguistics. A number of ways of defining the word are discussed and related to the analysis of linguistic corpora and to interlinguistic comparisons between corpora of spoken interaction. Problems associated with words as the basic units and alternatives to the traditional notion of word as a basis for corpus analysis and linguistic comparisons are presented and discussed. 1. What is a word? To some extent, there is an unclear view of what counts as a linguistic word, generally, and in different language types. This paper is an attempt to examine various construals of the concept “word”, in order to see how “words” might best be made use of as units of linguistic comparison. Using intuition, we might say that a word is a basic linguistic unit that is constituted by a combination of content (meaning) and expression, where the expression can be phonetic, orthographic or gestural (deaf sign language). On closer examination, however, it turns out that the notion “word” can be analyzed and specified in several different ways. Below we will consider the following three main ways of trying to analyze and define what a word is: (i) Analysis and definitions building on observation and supposed easy discovery (ii) Analysis and definitions building on manipulability (iii) Analysis and definitions building on abstraction 2.
    [Show full text]
  • ON SOME CATEGORIES for DESCRIBING the SEMOLEXEMIC STRUCTURE by Yoshihiko Ikegami
    ON SOME CATEGORIES FOR DESCRIBING THE SEMOLEXEMIC STRUCTURE by Yoshihiko Ikegami 1. A lexeme is the minimum unit that carries meaning. Thus a lexeme can be a "word" as well as an affix (i.e., something smaller than a word) or an idiom (i.e,, something larger than a word). 2. A sememe is a unit of meaning that can be realized as a single lexeme. It is defined as a structure constituted by those features having distinctive functions (i.e., serving to distinguish the sememe in question from other semernes that contrast with it).' A question that arises at this point is whether or not one lexeme always corresponds to just one serneme and no more. Three theoretical positions are foreseeable: (I) one which holds that one lexeme always corresponds to just one sememe and no more, (2) one which holds that one lexeme corresponds to an indefinitely large number of sememes, and (3) one which holds that one lexeme corresponds to a certain limited number of sememes. These three positions wiIl be referred to as (1) the "Grundbedeutung" theory, (2) the "use" theory, and (3) the "polysemy" theory, respectively. The Grundbedeutung theory, however attractive in itself, is to be rejected as unrealistic. Suppose a preliminary analysis has revealed that a lexeme seems to be used sometimes in an "abstract" sense and sometimes in a "concrete" sense. In order to posit a Grundbedeutung under such circumstances, it is to be assumed that there is a still higher level at which "abstract" and "concrete" are neutralized-this is certainly a theoretical possibility, but it seems highly unlikely and unrealistic from a psychological point of view.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Article
    Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research (ASSEHR), volume 312 International Conference "Topical Problems of Philology and Didactics: Interdisciplinary Approach in Humanities and Social Sciences" (TPHD 2018) Methods of Identifying Members of Synonymic Row Juliya A. Litvinova Elena A. Maklakova Chair of Foreign Languages Chair of Foreign Languages Federal State Budget Educational Institution of Higher Federal State Budget Educational Institution of Higher Education Voronezh State University of Forestry and Education Voronezh State University of Forestry and Technologies named after G.F. Morozov Technologies named after G.F. Morozov Voronezh, Russia Voronezh, Russia [email protected] Affiliation): dept. name of organization Abstract— This article is devoted to identifying the criteria of analysis, method of field modeling, method of semantic synonymity of lexical items. The existence of different definitions interpretation, method of generalization of dictionary of synonymy, the selection criteria of items in the synonymic row definitions, methods of quantitative, lexicographical, indicate the insufficient study and incoherence of this contextual, psycholinguistic analysis. Data for the study were phenomenon in linguistics. The study of the semantics of lexical 2 lexical items in the Russian language (gorodok, gorodishko) items allows explaining the most accurately and authentically the integration and differentiation of lexical items close in meaning. obtained from the Russian Explanatory Dictionaries (V. I. The description of the meaning structure (sememe) is possible Dahl, D. N. Ushakov, S. I. Ozhegov, A. P. Evgenieva, S. A. through the description of its seme composition. The methods of Kuznetsov, T. F. Efremova), Russian National Corpus seme semasiology (lexicographic, psycholinguistic, contextual) (ruscorpora.ru). allow revealing various components in the sememe structure.
    [Show full text]
  • Verbs of 'Preparing Something for Eating by Heating It in a Particular
    DEPARTAMENTO DE FILOLOGÍA INGLESA Y ALEMANA Verbs of ‘preparing something for eating by heating it in a particular way’: a lexicological analysis Grado en Estudios Ingleses Fabián García Díaz Tutora: Mª del Carmen Fumero Pérez San Cristóbal de La Laguna, Tenerife 8 de septiembre de 2015 INDEX 1. Abstract ................................................................................................................................. 3 2. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 4 3. Theoretical perspective ........................................................................................................ 6 4. Analysis: verbs of to prepare something for eating by heating it in a particular way: cook, fry and roast. ................................................................................................................... 9 4.1. Corpus selection .............................................................................................................. 9 4.2. Verb selection ................................................................................................................ 11 5. Paradigmatic relations ....................................................................................................... 13 5.1. Semantic components and lexematic analysis ............................................................... 13 5.2. Lexical relations ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Improved Word Representation Learning with Sememes
    Improved Word Representation Learning with Sememes Yilin Niu1∗, Ruobing Xie1,∗ Zhiyuan Liu1;2 ,y Maosong Sun1;2 1 Department of Computer Science and Technology, State Key Lab on Intelligent Technology and Systems, National Lab for Information Science and Technology, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China 2 Jiangsu Collaborative Innovation Center for Language Ability, Jiangsu Normal University, Xuzhou 221009 China Abstract for each word. Hence, people manually annotate word sememes and build linguistic common-sense Sememes are minimum semantic units of knowledge bases. word meanings, and the meaning of each HowNet (Dong and Dong, 2003) is one of such word sense is typically composed by sev- knowledge bases, which annotates each concep- eral sememes. Since sememes are not ex- t in Chinese with one or more relevant sememes. plicit for each word, people manually an- Different from WordNet (Miller, 1995), the phi- notate word sememes and form linguistic losophy of HowNet emphasizes the significance of common-sense knowledge bases. In this part and attribute represented by sememes. paper, we present that, word sememe in- HowNet has been widely utilized in word similar- formation can improve word representa- ity computation (Liu and Li, 2002) and sentiment tion learning (WRL), which maps word- analysis (Xianghua et al., 2013), and in section 3.2 s into a low-dimensional semantic space we will give a detailed introduction to sememes, and serves as a fundamental step for many senses and words in HowNet. NLP tasks. The key idea is to utilize In this paper, we aim to incorporate word se- word sememes to capture exact meanings memes into word representation learning (WRL) of a word within specific contexts accu- and learn improved word embeddings in a low- rately.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards a Deeper Understanding of Meaning in Language
    Valentina Gavranović www.singidunum.ac.rs Valentina Gavranović TOWARDS A TOWARDS A DEEPER DEEPER UNDERSTANDING UNDERSTANDING OF MEANING OF MEANING IN LANGUAGE AIN COURSEBOOK LANGUAGE IN ENGLISH SEMANTICS A COURSEBOOK IN ENGLISH SEMANTICS is coursebook has been written for undergraduate students majoring in English, with the aim to introduce them with the main concepts found in the domain of semantics, and help them understand the complexities and dierent aspects of meaning in language. Although the book is primarily intended for students who have no previous theoretical knowledge in semantics, it can also be used by those who want to consolidate and expand on their existing learning experience in linguistics and semantics. e scope of concepts and topics covered in this book have been framed within a rounded context which oers the basics in semantics, and provides references and incentives for students’ further autonomous investigation and research. e author endeavoured to present complex linguistic issues in such a way that any language learner with no previous knowledge in this area can use the book. However, anyone who uses this book needs to read it very carefully so that they could understand the theory and apply it while tackling the examples illustrating the concepts provided in this book. Furthermore, the very nature of linguistics demands a thorough and careful reading, rereading and questioning. e book is composed of six chapters, and, within them, there are several sections and subsections. Each chapter contains theoretical explanations followed by a set of questions and exercises whose aim is to help the learners revise the theoretical concepts and apply them in practice.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards Building a Multilingual Sememe Knowledge Base
    Towards Building a Multilingual Sememe Knowledge Base: Predicting Sememes for BabelNet Synsets Fanchao Qi1∗, Liang Chang2∗y, Maosong Sun13z, Sicong Ouyang2y, Zhiyuan Liu1 1Department of Computer Science and Technology, Tsinghua University Institute for Artificial Intelligence, Tsinghua University Beijing National Research Center for Information Science and Technology 2Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications 3Jiangsu Collaborative Innovation Center for Language Ability, Jiangsu Normal University [email protected], [email protected] fsms, [email protected], [email protected] Abstract word husband A sememe is defined as the minimum semantic unit of human languages. Sememe knowledge bases (KBs), which contain sense "married man" "carefully use" words annotated with sememes, have been successfully ap- plied to many NLP tasks. However, existing sememe KBs are built on only a few languages, which hinders their widespread human economize utilization. To address the issue, we propose to build a uni- sememe fied sememe KB for multiple languages based on BabelNet, a family male spouse multilingual encyclopedic dictionary. We first build a dataset serving as the seed of the multilingual sememe KB. It man- ually annotates sememes for over 15 thousand synsets (the entries of BabelNet). Then, we present a novel task of auto- Figure 1: Sememe annotation of the word “husband” in matic sememe prediction for synsets, aiming to expand the HowNet. seed dataset into a usable KB. We also propose two simple and effective models, which exploit different information of synsets. Finally, we conduct quantitative and qualitative anal- sememes to annotate senses of over 100 thousand Chinese yses to explore important factors and difficulties in the task.
    [Show full text]
  • 10. Semic Analysis Summary
    Louis Hébert, Tools for Text and Image Analysis: An Introduction to Applied Semiotics 10. SEMIC ANALYSIS SUMMARY Semic analysis was developed within the field of semantics (the study of meaning in linguistic units). This chapter presents Rastier's interpretive semantics, and semic analysis as formulated therein. Semic analysis is performed on a semiotic act – a text, for example – by identifying the semes, that is, the elements of meaning (parts of the signified), defining clusters of semes (isotopies and molecules) and determining the relations between the clusters (relations of presupposition, comparison, etc., between the isotopies). The repetition of a seme creates an isotopy. For example, in "There was a fine ship, carved from solid gold / With azure reaching masts, on seas unknown" (Émile Nelligan, "The Golden Ship"), the words "ship", "masts" and "seas" all contain the seme /navigation/ (as well as others). The repetition of this seme creates the isotopy /navigation/. A semic molecule is a cluster of at least two semes appearing together more than once in a single semantic unit (a single word, for instance). For instance, in the poem just quoted, there is a semic molecule formed by the semes /precious/ + /dispersion/. It appears in the "streaming hair" ("cheveux épars") of the beautiful Goddess of Love (Venus) who was "spread-eagled" ("s'étalait") at the ship's prow, and also in the sinking of the ship's treasure, which the sailors "disputed amongst themselves" ("entre eux ont disputés"). 1. THEORY Semic analysis is performed on a semiotic act – such as a text – by identifying the semes (the elements of meaning), finding clusters of semes (isotopies and molecules) and determining the relations between the clusters (relations of presupposition, comparison, etc., between the isotopies).
    [Show full text]
  • International English Usage Loreto Todd & Ian Hancock
    INTERNATIONAL ENGLISH USAGE LORETO TODD & IAN HANCOCK London First published 1986 by Croom Helm This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005. “To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge's collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.” First published in paperback 1990 by Routledge 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE © 1986 Loreto Todd and Ian Hancock All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Todd, Loreto International English usage. 1. English language—Usage I. Title II. Hancock, Ian 428 PE1460 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Todd, Loreto. International English usage. Includes index. 1. English language—Usage—Handbooks, manuals, etc. I. Hancock, Ian F. II. Title. PE1460.T64 1987 428 86–28426 ISBN 0-203-97763-7 Master e-book ISBN ISBN 0-415-05102-9 (Print Edition) ISBN 0-709-94314-8 hb. Contents Introduction iv Contributors vi List of Symbols viii Pronunciation Guide ix INTERNATIONAL ENGLISH USAGE 1–587 Index 588–610 Introduction In the four centuries since the time of Shakespeare, English has changed from a relatively unimportant European language with perhaps four million speakers into an international language used in every continent by approximately eight hundred million people. It is spoken natively by large sections of the population in Australia, Canada, the Caribbean, Ireland, New Zealand, the Philippines, Southern Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States of America; it is widely spoken as a second language throughout Africa and Asia; and it is the most frequently used language of international affairs.
    [Show full text]
  • The Seme ‘Strong’ in Lexicological Definitions
    UDC 811.111’37 Boris Hlebec* University of Belgrade Faculty of Philology English Department Belgrade, Serbia THE SEME ‘STRONG’ IN LEXICOLOGICAL DEFINITIONS Abstract This is an in-depth analysis of a selection of English lexemes containing the seme ‘strong’, performed by means of the collocational method as devised and elaborated by the author in his previous articles. This kind of approach shows the way language really works and that there is no clear borderline between langue and parole, or between lexis and syntax. Key words: semantic definition, collocation, seme, sememe, classeme, cryptotype 1. Introduction Defining lexemes in a scientific way is a rigorous task, which requires insight into the whole lexical system, or at least into a large part of it. When applying our collocational method to this aim (Hlebec 2007, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c, 2010, 2011a, 2011b), the present author has come across * E-mail address: [email protected] Sources of collocations have been various: British National Corpus, Corpus of Contemporary American English, Oxford Collocational Dictionary for Students of English, The Cassell Dictionary of Appropriate Adjectives, Dictionary of Selected Collocations among the most frequently consulted. Slang, literary style and specialized terms have not been taken into account. 7 Belgrade BELLS a defining seme2 ‘strong’ as a recurrent element in quite a lot of lexemes.3 This topic merits a whole volume, and the article reveals only a part of its extensive use. ‘Strong’ is to be understood in its abstract meaning ‘of great intensity’ rather than in its concrete meaning ‘of great bodily strength’. The crucial step in the application of the collocational method is to ascertain the common content of the directive.
    [Show full text]
  • Hewson's Semantic Theory and Implicit Semantics
    HEWSON'S SEMANTIC THEORY AND IMPLICIT SEMANTICS Valeri Vassiliev Chuvash Pedagogical Institute Cheboksary, Russia ABSTRACT The problem of implicit semantics was approached in this paper with a broad understanding of presuppositions, implications, entailments, etc., as derivable information created by three different kinds of con- texts in the four stages of meaning generation. Liens are viewed as meanings implied by the speaker and/or inferred by the hearer in a real act of communication. As meaning generation is assumed to be an ac- tivity, liens are consequently treated as dynamic processes involving psychological associations, rational deductions, and imagination. Each stage of semiogenesis provides a potential possibility for a variety of liens. Most of them are dismissed and cancelled at the subsequent stages of meaning generation so that the final perceptive product-an understood utterance-appears to have only several liens which re- main relevant for a given set of linguistic, referential and situational contexts and for the majority of the speakers. 1. John Hewson's ideas on semantics, which permeate his works, ap- pear to have a considerable explanatory potential applicable to a number of semantic issues. The following is a brief outline of his semantic teaching and an attempt to demonstrate how it can be employed in the treatment of problems pertaining to implicit semantics. 1.1 Hewson's theory of meaning is based on Saussure's distinction of langue and parole, or tongue and discourse, and elaborates the view that the use of language is an activity 'whereby the underlying elements of a tongue are processed, albeit subconsciously, for use in discourse' (Hewson 1990: 27).
    [Show full text]
  • End to End Chinese Lexical Fusion Recognition with Sememe Knowledge
    End to End Chinese Lexical Fusion Recognition with Sememe Knowledge Yijiang Liu1 and Meishan Zhang2 and Donghong Ji1∗ 1Key Laboratory of Aerospace Information Security and Trusted Computing, Ministry of Education, School of Cyber Science and Engineering, Wuhan University, China 2School of New Media and Communication, Tianjin University, China fcslyj,[email protected], [email protected] Abstract In this paper, we present Chinese lexical fusion recognition, a new task which could be regarded as one kind of coreference recognition. First, we introduce the task in detail, showing the relationship with coreference recognition and differences from the existing tasks. Second, we propose an end-to-end model for the task, handling mentions as well as coreference relationship jointly. The model exploits the state-of-the-art contextualized BERT representations as the encoder, and is further enhanced with the sememe knowledge from HowNet by graph attention networks. We manually annotate a benchmark dataset for the task and then conduct experiments on it. Results demonstrate that our final model is effective and competitive for the task. Detailed analysis is offered for comprehensively understanding the new task and our proposed model. 1 Introduction Coreference is one important topic in linguistics (Gordon and Hendrick, 1998; Pinillos, 2011), and coref- erence recognition has been extensively researched in the natural language processing (NLP) community (Ng and Cardie, 2002; Lee et al., 2017; Qi et al., 2012; Fei et al., 2019). There are different kinds of coreferences, such as pronoun anaphora and abbreviation (Mitkov, 1998; Mitkov, 1999; Munoz˜ and Montoyo, 2002; Choubey and Huang, 2018). Here we examine the phenomenon of Chinese lexical fusion, also called separable coreference (Chen and Ren, 2020), where two closely related words in a paragraph are united by a fusion form of the same meaning, and the fusion word can be seen as the coreference of the two separation words.
    [Show full text]