Registers in the System of Semantic Relations in Plwordnet

Registers in the System of Semantic Relations in plWordNet

Marek Maziarz Stan Szpakowicz Maciej Piasecki Institute of Computer Science Ewa Rudnicka Polish Academy of Sciences Institute of Informatics Warsaw, Poland Wrocław University of Technology & Wrocław, Poland School of Electrical Engineering [email protected] and Computer Science [email protected] University of Ottawa [email protected] Ottawa, Ontario, Canada [email protected]

Abstract Lexico-semantic relations are the principal de- terminant of lexical meaning in plWordNet. Mark- Lexicalised concepts are represented in wordnets ing often constrains those relations; some of them by word-sense pairs. The strength of markedness cannot hold between LUs of incompatible regis- is one of the factors which influence word use. ters. Semantics can constrain derivationally based Stylistically unmarked words are largely context- relations, e.g., femininity is limited to the nouns neutral. Technical terms, obsolete words, “of- denoting animals and humans. Among verbs ficialese”, slangs, obscenities and so on are all there are also relations limited to the particular as- marked, often strongly, and that limits their use con- pect or verb class, like hyponymy or inchoativity siderably. We discuss the position of register and (Maziarz et al., 2013, section 4). markedness in wordnets with respect to semantic Registers, semantic domains and verb classes relations, and we list typical values of register. We are attributes. It is far from obvious how to put at- illustrate the discussion with the system of regis- tributive information into an inherently relational ters in plWordNet, the largest Polish wordnet. We structure of a wordnet. Princeton WordNet (PWN) present a decision tree for the assignment of mark- represents semantic domains by synsets in two ing labels, and examine the consistency of the edit- roles: elements of the lexical system and meta- ing decisions based on that tree. information which characterises those elements. To associate a synset with a domain, a domain re- 1 Introduction lation links it with another synset which represents that domain. Attributes of LUs can also be rep- A dense network of lexico-semantic relations is resented by sub-dividing those LUs into classes. the feature that best differentiates a wordnet from This mechanism has been present in PWN from other types of dictionaries and thesauri. Word- the beginning. There are, e.g., separate bases for nets are organised into synsets and lexical units parts of speech or semantic domains, represented (LUs), whose meaning is crucially determined just by the so-called lexicographers’ files. by such relations. The inventories of relations, Registers have a major role to play in shap- usually based on the findings in lexical semantics, ing the structure of plWordNet. We will con- seem largely comparable across wordnets, but spe- tinue the practice of making registers figure in cific definitions and strategies of applications vary. the definitions of lexico-semantic relations, but we Wordnets also vary in the amount of typical dictio- will analyse them, and introduce register values nary information encoded. An apt example of such into plWordNet, very systematically. To begin variation is the treatment of stylistic registers, as with, we need an appropriate set of marking la- well as broad semantic domains, to which a given bels. It should streamline the description of lexico- synset or LU belongs. semantic relations, facilitate future plWordNet applications, and ensure the consistency of the lin- LUs. The construction is discussed in (Maziarz et guists’ decisions. al., 2013); the focus of this paper is on the prop- Section 2 of the paper recaps the model of the erties which help constitutive lexico-semantic re- semantic relation system in plWordNet. Section 3 lations determine synsets. serves as an overview of related work insofar as The constitutive relations in plWordNet are hy- it contributes to our intended use of the marking ponymy, hypernymy, meronymy and holonymy, labels for the enrichment of the wordnet-based de- plus verb-specific relations of presupposition, pre- scription of lexical meaning. Section 4 presents ceding, cause, processuality, state, iterativity and the details of the markedness labelling in plWord- inchoativity (Maziarz et al. (2011) discuss the de- Net. Section 5 reports on a small, carefully ar- tails), and adjective-specific relations of value (of ranged experiment meant to determine how con- an attribute), gradation and modifier (Maziarz et sistent marking can be expected given a precise al., 2012b). They are supplemented by constitu- procedure in the form of a decision tree. Section 6 tive features: verb aspect and semantic class, and offers a few conclusions based on our experience, register. and briefly discusses our expectations for the on- A wordnet describes lexical meaning primarily going development of plWordNet. via semantic relations, so it is important for a constitutive relation to be fairly widespread in the net- 2 Constitutive relations and registers work. A high degree of sharing among groups A wordnet is founded on synonymy. Its basic unit, of LUs is necessary because a constitutive rela- the synset, is a group of lexical units (LUs).1 Al- tion underlies grouping LUs into synsets. It also though synonymy is undoubtedly key, wordnets helps if a constitutive relation is well established in vary as to how it is defined and applied. The cre- linguistics: linguists who are wordnet editors will ators of PWN (Miller et al., 1993; Fellbaum, 1998) encounter fewer misunderstanding. Finally, a con- adopt a very strict definition of synonymy usu- stitutive relations which accords with the wordnet ally attributed to Leibniz,2 but realistically make practice will make for better compatibility among it context-dependent. The effect is a take on syn- wordnets (Maziarz et al., 2013). onymy which is linguistically satisfying but insuf- Verbs of different aspect participate in different ficiently accurate: the wordnet authors’ intuition lexico-semantic relations, e.g., a hypernym cannot largely dictates what LUs go into a synset. More- be replaced by the other element of its aspectual over, a synset is often understood as a set of syn- pair. The value of aspect thus constrains selected onymous LUs, while synonymous LUs are under- verb relations (Maziarz et al., 2012a). Semantic stood as elements of the same synset. Such circu- verb classes also restrict links for some verb rela- larity is hard to make operational. tions. The verb classification is based on a Vend- The interdependence of the notions of syn- lerian typology. A hierarchy of verb classes has onymy and synset, and the subjectivity of autho- been implemented in plWordNet as a hypernymy rial judgement, can be avoided. Maziarz et al. hierarchy of artificial lexical units, each naming (2013) propose a different perspective. The LU, a different class. Verbs in a given class are hy- rather than the synset, becomes the basic structure ponyms of the corresponding artificial LU. in plWordNet. As Vossen (2002) notes, the cen- Stylistic registers have been introduced into tral relations – synonymy, hyponymy, hypernymy, plWordNet relation definitions; they appear in meronymy and holonymy – are lexical: they hold guidelines and in some substitution tests. With ev- between words, not between concepts. A PWN ery editing decision a linguist must recognise the synset denotes a lexicalized concept, and con- registers of the LUs and synsets to be linked. The ceptual relations link synsets, but those relations marking labels represent pragmatic features of LU have a lexico-semantic origin. Our model derives usage, so it seems natural to have register values synset content and synonymy from a carefully encoded explicitly. constructed set of constitutive relations between A synset in plWordNet is a set of lexical units 1We understand the lexical unit informally as a lemma- which are connected to the rest of the network by sense pair. the same set of instances of constitutive relations, 2“Two words are said to be synonyms if one can be used in a statement in place of the other without changing the mean- and have compatible values of the constitutive fea- ing of the statement.” tures. Note how this definition does not refer to synonymy. Once synset membership has been decided, its elements are understood to be in the re- urządzenie elektroniczne lation of synonymy. èlectronic device’ It now becomes crucial to recognise accurately the connectivity afforded by the constitutive relations. Linguists who build the wordnet are as- komputer mózg elektronowy sisted by conditions in the definitions of relations `computer’ èlectronic brain’ (such conditions often refer to registers and semantic classes) and by substitution tests. Vossen (2002) discusses tests for semantic correspon- dence, which did not take into account the differ- komputer cyfrowy hyponymy ences in register or usage, often essential for the `digital computer’ inter-register synonymy possibility of contextual interchangeability. Lexical units which have nearly the same sense but significantly differ in register are put into sep- Figure 1: Inter-register synonymy between LUs arate synsets, but the proximity is not lost: those from different registers. synsets become linked by inter-register synonymy. That relation is weaker than synonymy with re- tive principles of the ontology. The wordnet de- spect to sharing. Synsets linked by inter-register scribes lexico-semantic relation of varying, possi- synonymy share a hypernym, but not hyponym bly complex, background and origin, while the on- sets, and clearly have different register values. tology mapping shows a possible relation between Consider an example: komputer ‘computer’ the lexical system and the internal cognitive struc- has an obsolete inter-register synonym mózg elek- ture of concepts. A potential plus is the possibility tronowy ‘electronic brain’. Figure 1 shows hy- of considering different ontologies as the mapping ponymy to urz ˛adzenieelektroniczne ‘electronic target, and so different interpretations of the lexi- 3 device’, which is shared. There is, however, a cal dependencies. hyponym komputer cyfrowy ‘digital computer’, a specialist term which should not be linked to the 3 Markedness in lexicography obsolete term for a computer.4 The terms kom- and in Princeton WordNet puter and mózg elektronowy have the same deno- tation but different linguistic contexts of use. Svensén (2009) notes that lexicographers refer as The model and the development of plWord- marked to the part of the vocabulary with addi- Net comply with a form of minimal commitment tional pragmatic features which narrow the usage principle: make as few assumptions as possible to a specific context or group of speakers. Such about the construction process. First of all, the distinction includes, but is not limited to, differ- model avoids references to theories of cognition ent stylistic registers. Svensén adopts the classi- and specific theories of lexical semantics. By min- fication of “diasystematic marking in a contem- imising the theoretical underpinning and ground- porary general purpose dictionary” (Hausmann, ing all editing decisions on the language data ob- 1989), organised along 11 criteria: time, place, na- servable in a corpus, we try to focus on the lexical tionality, medium, socio-cultural, formality, text system regardless of the reasons why it is organ- type, technicality, frequency, attitude and norma- tivity. An unmarked centre and a marked periph- ised as it is. We thus hope to make the wordnet 5 theory-neutral and ready for use in a wide range ery are established for each criterion. The main of applications. peripheries include “archaism-neologism; regionalism, dialect word; foreign word; spoken-written Minimal commitment does not preclude a map- sociolects; formal-informal; poetic, literary, jour- ping to an ontology. Such a mapping supplements nalese; technical language; rare; connoted; and the linguistic dependencies recorded in the word- incorrect”. In a dictionary, the location of a lex- net with a theoretical interpretation: the cogni- ical item in a periphery is signalled by a label, 3In plWordNet, a hyponymy link from X to Y means “X e.g., arch ‘archaic’, AmE ‘American English’ or is a hyponym of Y” rather than “X has a hyponym Y”. 4The substitution test “If it is a digital computer, then it 5or peripheries, because for some criteria there can be must be an electronic brain.” sounds distinctly funny. more than one periphery poet ‘poetic’. do dictionaries label the same lexical units differ- Wordnets vary with respect to the ways and de- ently (Engelking et al., 1989), but the label lists gree of coding markedness. PWN signals marked- vary significantly (exemplum (Dubisz, 2006) and ness with a special DOMAIN - MEMBEROFADO- (Kurkiewicz, 2007)). There also are too many la- MAIN relation with three sub-types: TOPIC, RE- bels (ca. 20-30 main and more than 100 secondary GION and USAGE. It can be established between categories), so it is virtually impossible to mark synsets in the same grammatical category or be- the semantico-pragmatic constraints with any de- tween cateories. The subtype names correspond gree of consensus. to the criteria of marking (Hausmann, 1989). Sur- Several sets of criteria have emerged during the prisingly, noun synsets play the role of specific la- lexicographic debates in Poland. We find the set bels within particular subtypes. PWN 3.0 has 438 proposed by Buttler and Markowski (1998) to be labels pertaining to DOMAINTERMTOPIC, 166 la- the most interesting. Three semantico-pragmatic bels to DOMAINTERMREGION, and 29 labels to features are posited: official, specialist, DOMAINTERMUSAGE. emotional (or emotionally marked, or A closer look at the specific label instances expressive). Their +/- (present/absent values) within the selected domains shows that some of define a space in which all language variants them belong to different peripheries of Sven- or styles can be placed. Thus, general lan- sén (2009) / Hausmann (1989). The TOPIC do- guage could be characterised by {-official, main includes such labels as, e.g., ‘archeology’, -specialist, -emotional}, and liter- ‘Arthurian legend’ or ‘auto racing’. The USAGE ary style by {+official, -specialist, domain includes, e.g., ‘archaism’, ‘African Amer- -emotional}. ican Vernacular English’ and ‘colloquialism’. RE- 4 Registers in plWordNet GION seems to be built most consistently: in principle it concerns dialectal names. It could thus be Although in plWordNet 2.0 registers did influence treated as an equivalent of the ‘regionalism-dialect relations, they were not introduced explicitly. In word’ periphery. Yet, some of those links sig- order to gain high consistency, we have decided to nal only geographical membership, but not dialec- mark labels explicitly, and to create detailed guide- tal variation. Consider, for example, the relation lines for the lexicographers. DOMAINTERMREGION between {Polynesia} and The set of plWordNet marking labels is in- {Austronesia}. It is clearly not the case that Poly- spired by Buttler and Markowski (1998) and by nesia is a dialect word used mainly in, or coming Kurkiewicz (2007). As does the Great Dictionary from, Austronesia. of Polish (Kurkiewicz, 2007; Zmigrodzki,˙ 2012), Polish lexicography distinguishes groups of we aim to lower the overall number of labels by marking (register) labels not unlike those we about an order of magnitude. In the end, we have showed above: diachronic, stylistic, emotional, distinguished nine marking labels, with general terminological (professional, scientific), diastratic, (unmarked) language as the tenth register:7 diatopic (geographical), diafrequential (Dubisz, 2006; Engelking et al., 1989). The consistency • obsolete – this label marks LUs which are of marking is low. Lexicographers point out mis- outdated, typically used only by elderly or takes and dubious decisions in the dictionary- (rarely) middle-aged people; 6 making process (Kurkiewicz, 2007). Not only • regional – LUs from a dialect, well known to (but not used by) almost all Poles; 6Consider metal ‘one listening to heavy metal music’ and wywiad ‘interview’. Dubisz (2006) labels the former youth language, the latter – journalism. Zmigrodzki˙ (2012) • terminological {+off, +spec, -emo}– assigns music to the former and no label to the latter. LUs used by specialists, scientists, engineers, This is not only the malady of Polish lexicography. In En- glish and German dictionaries, words also carry assorted reg- For example, Oxford English Dictionary (Simpson, 2013) ister labels. Svensén (2009, p. 316) notes: “Different dictio- equips the word malady with the label literary, while naries may use different labels, and the categories represented Cambridge Dictionaries Online (Heacock, 1995 2011) con- by the labels may have different ranges in different dictionar- sider it formal. The word freak is informal in (Simpson, ies. Moreover, there may be differences in labelling practice, 2013), but has no label (!) in (Heacock, 1995 2011). so that, in one dictionary, fewer or more lexical items are re- 7We abbreviate the three features from (Buttler and garded as formal or informal, correct or incorrect, etc., than Markowski, 1998) as off = official, spec = specialist, emo in another one (Haussman 1989: 650).” = emotional. and generally professionals; LU -off +spec +emo + • argot/slang { , , } – LUs obsolete obs? used by a particular social group or a – small/local community; + regional reg? • literary {+off, -spec, ±emo} – this label – + marks high style vocabulary, especially LUs terminological spec? used only in literature or in speeches; – + ic? argot • official {+off, -spec, -emo} – LUs used – on official and formal occasions, mainly in + – communication between citizens and repre- lit? sentatives of state institutions;8

literary • vulgar -off -spec +emo + { , , } – crude vo- off? cabulary, LUs with very restricted acceptable – usage; inst?

• popular {-off, -spec, +emo} – LUs which might be used in a familiar context, but – + normally not acceptable in other situations; official + unc? • colloquial {-off, -spec, +emo} – vocab- + ulary used informally, in a free style, but with – +++emo? low acceptability in ofﬁcial situations; vulgar –

• general {±off, -spec, -emo} – LUs + popular ++emo? which could be used virtually in every situ- – ation. + To help plWordNet editors maintain consis- colloquial +emo? tency, we have designed a series of substitution – tests in the form of a decision tree. The editor general systematically inspects the semantic features ±spec, ±off and ±emo for a given LU, as well as more speciﬁc pragmatic features. The tree Figure 2: Substitution tests for markedness in appears in Figure 2. Consider Example 1 (the plWordNet. Legend: +++emo = emotionally prerequisite is italicised, the actual test is set in marked LU unacceptable in most situations (that roman): includes vulgarity), ++emo = emotionally marked LU acceptable only in familiar situations, +emo = Example 1 (regional) emotionally marked LU acceptable in some familiar situations and when talking to strangers, ic = Test. The LU pyra ‘potato’ may have LU from a slang or argot, inst = LU used only equivalents in other regions of Poland or in communication with state institutions, lit = in general language. The Poles know LU used only in literature, obs = used by the el- the LU pyra and recognise it as re- derly, off = language suitable for ofﬁcial situa- gional.9 tions, reg = regional LU, spec = LU used only by specialists, unc = LU unsuitable for common The test is applied right after the diachronic cri- communication. terion (Figure 2, obs). If the prerequisite and the test proper both hold, the LU pyra is marked as

8Such language develops around any bureaucracy. regional. The test fails if either part disagrees with 9It is used in Greater Poland. the plWordNet editor’s intuition. Example 2 shows a two-step test: consider Frequency a (possibly) vulgar noun first in an unofficial 0 50 100 150 situation of talking to a stranger, and then in a 162 terminology very official situation. 146

108 general Example 2 (vulgar) 113

58 Test 1. Imagine that you meet a stranger literary in the street and talk a while. You have 63 skurwiel 24 just used the LU ‘son of colloquial a bitch’. Your interlocutor will most 44 likely think that you are crude. 12 obsolete 9 Test 2. Imagine yourself in the mid- 5 argot dle of a very ofﬁcial or public situa- 5 tion (you are in the presence of an el- 4 official der, your superior, president of the Pol- 1 ish Republic, a professor, a bishop, or 9 you are being interviewed on TV news). popular 3 You have just used the LU skurwiel 3 ‘son of a bitch’. Your interlocutor – or regional 1 TV viewer – will most likely think that 0 you are crude. vulgar 0

The substitution tests are applied in a cascade #1 #2 of filters. An LU which passes through all filters must land in the final bin – the general register. Figure 3: Counts of stylistic register values in a 5 The stability of the substitution tests 385-LU sample from plWordNet, with two raters. To ensure that the marking labels introduced in Section 4 can be applied with sufficient consis- 1 • 12 in the colloquial style, tency, we examined the inter-rater agreement be- 1 tween two plWordNet editors who independently • 12 in the remaining registers. marked a sample of LUs. They were given a docu- The annotators are in reasonable agreement, as ment with detailed guidelines and complete tests, measured by Cohen’s kappa: κ = 0.645 with the and a spreadsheet with 385 noun LUs randomly confidence interval 0.586-0.722 (Table 1).10 Ac- drawn from plWordNet (a simple random sample, cording to Landis and Koch (1977, p. 165), the proper names and gerunds excluded). confidence interval covers two values of agree- Figure 3 presents the histograms of the counts ment strength: moderate and substantial. of marking labels in the 385-LU sample. The most It is commonly assumed that only κ ≥ 0.8 guar- frequently assigned registers are terminology, gen- antees reliable results in computational linguistics, eral language, and literary and colloquial styles. and κ in 0.67-0.8 is tolerable. Reidsma and Car- These four account for more than 90% of the sam- letta (2007) show that this rule of thumb does not ple. Both editors found terminology to be the most always work. Sometimes lower κ makes the re- vulgar frequent register, and neither found the la- sults reliable, sometimes even κ ≥ 0.8 does not bel necessary. If we were to extrapolate, we could suffice. The authors recommend checking whether venture a broad guess on the approximate distribu- differences between annotators are systematic or tion of register values of LUs in plWordNet: random,11 so we have decided also to put our data 2 • 5 in the terminology register, 10The confidence interval was calculated by simple percentile bootstrap (DiCiccio and Efron, 1996; DiCiccio and 1 • 3 in the general register, Romano, 1988) suitable for Cohen’s κ (Artstein and Poesio, 2008). 1 11 • 6 in the literary style, The former is a real problem for computational methods, label Cohen’s confidence p-value Registers appear to be particularly important, be- system κ interval of κ of χ2 test cause they characterise all parts of speech covered 10 labels 0.645 0.586-0.722 0.03962 by plWordNet, and they link the pragmatics of us- 5 labels 0.722 0.657-0.785 0.02686 age in a simple manner with the lexico-semantic description in the relational paradigm. That is why Table 1: Inter-rater agreement of two annotators registers in plWordNet will now explicitly charac- assigning marking labels to nouns from plWord- terise LUs. Net. Confidence intervals are calculated by the A review of the linguistic study of registers has percentile bootstrap method, n = 10000 resam- suggested a set of ten registers, including the de- plings, α = 0.05. P-values are calculated for the fault unmarked register. We have also designed χ2 tests of independence. The 10-label system was rules for register identification in the form of a described in Section 4. The 5-label system equates decision tree, and made them a mandatory ele- compatible labels, as described in this section. ment of the guidelines for wordnet editors. We ran an annotation experiment in which two linguists independently assigned register values to through a non-parametric χ2 test of independence. a representative sample. We conclude that LUs The p-value is 0.03962, so we do not reject the null can be given register labels with acceptable inter- hypothesis that the plWordNet editors’ choices are annotator agreement. distributed similarly at 1% significance level. Our wordnet model follows the minimal com- The Cohen’s κ value will increase if there are mitment principle. We only consider a small set fewer marking labels. One fairly obvious way of of homogeneous and quite carefully specified ba- doing that is to consider as compatible those mark- sic notions. The whole system of semantic rela- ing label bins whose definitions are close; see the tions and synsets in a wordnet is directly derived decision tree in Figure 2: from the linguistic lexico-semantic relations and • general ≈ literary ≈ colloquial, from language data. The structure of the wordnet is closer to language facts, because it is derived • official ≈ terminology ≈ argot, from the lexico-semantic relations between LUs • vulgar ≈ popular. which can largely be observed directly in corpus data. That is why the adopted wordnet model fa- This boosts Cohen’s kappa to 0.722 with a very cilitates semi-automated wordnet expansion using good confidence interval of 0.657-0.785. Now the knowledge extracted from corpora. The system- κ is in the area of substantial agreement of Landis atic introduction of registers allows us to take into 2 and Koch. The χ test for the new labelling sys- account elements of pragmatics without giving up tem again leads us to the fortunate assumption that the conceptual simplicity of the model. distributions of editor choices are similar at 1% significance level (so none of the editors has any Acknowledgment bias). Fewer labels, narrow and high inter-rater Co-financed by the Polish Ministry of Education agreement, but somewhat less information. . . and Science, Project CLARIN-PL, and the Eu- 6 Conclusions ropean Innovative Economy Programme project POIG.01.01.02-14-013/09. The model proposed for plWordNet bases the grouping of lexical units (LUs) into synsets on constitutive relations. In order to match the lan- References guage data even more accurately, we enriched the Ron Artstein and Massimo Poesio. 2008. Inter-Coder definitions of some of the semantic relations. We Agreement for Computational Linguistics. Compu- added constraints which refer to verb aspect, verb tational Linguistics, 34(4):555–596. semantic classes and registers. Those features play Danuta Buttler and Andrzej Markowski. 1998. Słown- a central role in shaping the wordnet relation struc- ictwo wspólnoodmianowe, ksi ˛azkowe˙ i potoczne ture, so we named them constitutive features.12 współczesnej polszczyzny [The general, bookish and colloquial vocabulary of contemporary Polish]. the latter it not a threat. 12It is attributive information in an inherently relational helps constrain semantic relations, which remain the princi- system, but there is no contradiction. This information only pal vehicle for the description of lexical meaning. J˛ezyk a Kultura [Language and Culture], 1:179– Marek Maziarz, Stanisław Szpakowicz, and Maciej Pi- 203. asecki. 2012b. Semantic Relations among Adjec- tives in Polish WordNet 2.0: A New Relation Set, Thomas J. DiCiccio and Bradley Efron. 1996. Boot- Discussion and Evaluation. Cognitive Studies, 12. strap Confidence Intervals. Statistical Science, 11(3):189–212. Marek Maziarz, Maciej Piasecki, and Stanisław Sz- pakowicz. 2013. The chicken-and-egg problem in Thomas J. DiCiccio and Joseph P. Romano. 1988. A wordnet design: synonymy, synsets and constitu- Review of Bootstrap Confidence Intervals. Journal tive relations. Language Resources and Evaluation, of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Method- 47(3):769–796. ological), 50(3):338–354. George A. Miller, Richard Beckwith, Christiane Fell- baum, Derek Gross, and Katherine J. Miller. Stanisław Dubisz. 2006. Wst˛ep [introduction]. 1993. Introduction to WordNet: an on-line lexi- In Stanisław Dubisz, editor, Uniwersalny słownik cal database. Unpublished, one of “Five Papers” j˛ezyka polskiego PWN. Wersja 3.0 (elektroniczna hftp://ftp.cogsci.princeton.edu/pub/wordnet/5papers.psi. na CD) [A universal dictionary of Polish. Version 3.0 (electronic on CD)]. Polish Scientific Publishers Dennis Reidsma and Jean Carletta. 2007. Reliabil- PWN. ity measurement without limits. Computational Lin- guistics, 1(1):1–8. Anna Engelking, Andrzej Markowski, and Elzbieta˙ Weiss. 1989. Kwalifikatory w słownikach – próba John Simpson. 2013. Oxford English Dictionary. Ox- systematyzacji [Qualifiers in dictionaries – an at- ford University Press. hwww.oed.com/i. tempt to systematise]. Poradnik J˛ezykowy [Lan- guage Guide], pages 300–309. Bo Svensén. 2009. A handbook of lexicography: the theory and practice of dictionary-making. Cam- Christiane Fellbaum, editor. 1998. WordNet – An Elec- bridge University Press. tronic Lexical Database. The MIT Press. Piek Vossen. 2002. EuroWordNet General Document Version 3. Technical report, University of Amster- Franz Josef Hausmann. 1989. Die Markierung im dam. allgemeinen einsprachigen Wörterbuch: eine Über- sicht. In Franz Josef Hausmann, Oskar Reichmann, Piotr Zmigrodzki,˙ editor. 2012. Wielki słownik j˛ezyka Herbert Ernst Wiegand, and Ladislav Zgusta, edi- polskiego: Zasady opracowania [A great dictionary tors, Wörterbücher. Ein internationales Handbuch of Polish: The principles of compilation]. Institute zur Lexikographie, volume 5.1, pages 649–657. De of Polish Language, Polish Academy of Sciences. Gruyter.

Paul Heacock, editor. 1995-2011. Cambridge Dictio- naries Online. Cambridge University Press.

Juliusz Kurkiewicz. 2007. Kwalifikatory w wielkim słowniku j˛ezyka polskiego [Qualifiers in the great dictionary of Polish]. In Piotr Zmi-˙ grodzki and Renata Przybylska, editors, Nowe stu- dia leksykograficzne [New lexicographic studies]. Wydawnictwo Lexis.

J. Richard Landis and Gary G. Koch. 1977. The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categor- ical Data. Biometrics, 33(1):159–174.

Marek Maziarz, Maciej Piasecki, Stanisław Szpakow- icz, Joanna Rabiega-Wisniewska,´ and Bozena˙ Ho- jka. 2011. Semantic Relations between Verbs in Polish Wordnet 2.0. Cognitive Studies, 11.

Marek Maziarz, Maciej Piasecki, and Stan Sz- pakowicz. 2012a. An Implementation of a System of Verb Relations in plWordNet 2.0. In Christiane Fellbaum and Piek Vossen, editors, Proc. 6th International Global Wordnet Conference, pages 181–188, Matsue, Japan, January. The Global WordNet Association. hwww.globalwordnet.org/gwa/proceedings/gwc2012.pdfi.