Distinguishing between paradigmatic semantic relations across word classes : human ratings and distributional similarity

• Autorzy: Schulte im Walde Sabine

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.15398/jlm.v8i1.199

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

This article explores the distinction between paradigmatic semantic relations, both from a cognitive and a computational linguistic perspective. Focusing on an existing dataset of German synonyms, antonyms and hypernyms across the word classes of nouns, verbs and adjectives, we assess human ratings and a supervised classification model using window-based and pattern-based distributional vector spaces. Both perspectives suggest differences in relation distinction across word classes, but easy vs. difficult class-relation combinations differ, exhibiting stronger ties between ease and naturalness of class-dependent relations for humans than for computational models. In addition, we demonstrate that distributional information is indeed a difficult starting point for distinguishing between paradigmatic relations but that even a simple classification model is able to manage this task. The fact that the most salient vector spaces and their success vary across word classes and paradigmatic relations suggests that combining feature types for relation distinction is better than applying them in isolation.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

semantic relations; human ratings; distributional semantics; automatic classification

• Wydawca: Instytut Podstaw Informatyki PAN
• Czasopismo: Journal of Language Modelling
• Rocznik: 2020
• Tom: Vol. 8, No. 1
• Strony: 53--101
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 111 poz., tab., wykr.

Twórcy

autor

Schulte im Walde Sabine

• Institut für Maschinelle Sprachverarbeitung, Universität Stuttgart, Pfaffenwaldring 5B, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany

Bibliografia

• [1] Heike ADEL and Hinrich SCHÜTZE (2014), Using mined coreference chains as a resource for a semantic task, in Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 1447-1452, Doha, Qatar.
• [2] Henriette BAGGER NISSEN and Birgit HENRIKSEN (2006), Word class influence on word association test results, International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16 (3): 389-408.
• [3] Marco BARONI and Alessandro LENCI (2011), How we BLESSed distributional semantic evaluation, in Proceedings of the EMNLP Workshop on Geometrical Models for Natural Language Semantics, pp. 1-10, Edinburgh, UK.
• [4] Alexander BUDANITSKY and Graeme HIRST (2006), Evaluating WordNet-based measures of lexical semantic relatedness, Computational Linguistics, 32 (1): 13-47.
• [5] John A. BULLINARIA and Joseph P. LEVY (2007), Extracting semantic representations from word co-occurrence statistics: a computational study, Behavior Research Methods, 39 (3): 510-526.
• [6] Sharon A. CARABALLO (2001), Automatic acquisition of a hypernym-labeled noun hierarchy from text, Ph.D. thesis, Brown University.
• [7] Roger CHAFFIN and Arnold GLASS (1990), A comparison of hyponym and synonym decisions, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 19 (4): 265-280.
• [8] Roger CHAFFIN and Douglas HERRMANN (1981), Comprehension of semantic relationships and the generality of categorization models, Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 17 (2): 69-72.
• [9] Roger CHAFFIN and Douglas HERRMANN (1984), The similarity and diversity of semantic relations, Memory and Cognition, 12 (2): 134-141.
• [10] Kai-Wei CHANG, Wen-tau YIH, and Christopher MEEK (2013), Multi-Relational Latent Semantic Analysis, in Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 1602-1612, Seattle, WA, USA.
• [11] Walter CHARLES and George MILLER (1989), Contexts of antonymous adjectives, Applied Psycholinguistics, 10: 357-375.
• [12] Timothy CHKLOVSKI and Patrick PANTEL (2004), VerbOcean: mining the Web for fine-grained semantic verb relations, in Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 33-40, Barcelona, Spain.
• [13] Philipp CIMIANO, Lars SCHMIDT-THIEME, Aleksander PIVK, and Steffen STAAB (2004), Learning taxonomic relations from heterogeneous evidence, in Proceedings of the ECAI Workshop on Ontology Learning and Population, Valencia, Spain.
• [14] Herbert H. CLARK (1971), Word associations and linguistic theory, in John LYONS, editor, New Horizon in Linguistics, chapter 15, pp. 271-286, Penguin.
• [15] D. Allan CRUSE (1986), Lexical semantics, Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
• [16] James CURRAN (2002), Ensemble methods for automatic thesaurus extraction, in Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 222-229, Philadelphia, PA.
• [17] James CURRAN (2003), From distributional to semantic similarity, Ph.D. thesis, Institute for Communicating and Collaborative Systems, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh.
• [18] Benjamin DAVID (2014), Comparison and combination of feature types for the automatic classification of semantic relation pairs, Diplomarbeit, Institut für Maschinelle Sprachverarbeitung, Universität Stuttgart.
• [19] Simon DE DEYNE, Daniel J. NAVARRO, and Gert STORMS (2013), Better explanations of lexical and semantic cognition using networks derived from continued rather than single word associations, Behavior Research Methods, 45 (2): 480-498.
• [20] Marie-Catherine DE MARNEFFE, Anna N. RAFFERTY, and Christopher D. MANNING (2008), Finding contradictions in text, in Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pp. 1039-1047, Columbus, OH.
• [21] Ferdinand DE SAUSSURE (1916), Cours de linguistique générale, Payot.
• [22] James DEESE (1965), The structure of associations in language and thought, The John Hopkins Press, Baltimore, MD.
• [23] Philip EDMONDS (1997), Choosing the word most typical in context using a lexical co-occurrence netword, in Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 507-509, Madrid, Spain.
• [24] Philip EDMONDS (1998), Translating near-synonyms: possibilities and preferences in the interlingua, in Proceedings of the AMTA/SIG-IL 2nd Workshop on Interlinguas, pp. 23-30, Langhorne, PA.
• [25] Philip EDMONDS (1999), Semantic representations of near-synonyms for automatic lexical choice, Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, published as technical report CSRI-399.
• [26] Philip EDMONDS and Graeme HIRST (2002), Near-synonymy and lexical choice, Computational Linguistics, 28 (2): 105-144.
• [27] Katrin ERK and Sebastian PADÓ (2008), A structured vector space model for word meaning in context, in Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning, pp. 897-906, Waikiki, Hawaii, USA.
• [28] Stefan EVERT (2005), The statistics of word co-occurrences: word pairs and collocations, Ph.D. thesis, Institut für Maschinelle Sprachverarbeitung, Universität Stuttgart.
• [29] Gertrud FAAß and Kerstin ECKART (2013), SdeWaC – a corpus of parsable sentences from the Web, in Proceedings of the International Conference of the German Society for Computational Linguistics and Language Technology, pp. 61-68, Darmstadt, Germany.
• [30] Christiane FELLBAUM (1990), English verbs as a semantic net, Journal of Lexicography, 3 (4): 278-301.
• [31] Christiane FELLBAUM (1995), Co-occurrence and antonymy, Lexicography, 8 (4): 281-303.
• [32] Christiane FELLBAUM (1998a), A semantic network of English verbs, in Fellbaum (1998b), pp. 69-104.
• [33] Christiane FELLBAUM, editor (1998b), WordNet – an electronic lexical database, Language, Speech, and Communication, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.
• [34] Christiane FELLBAUM and Roger CHAFFIN (1990), Some principles of the organization of verbs in the mental lexicon, in Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society of America, pp. 420-427.
• [35] Lev FINKELSTEIN, Evgeniy GABRILOVICH, Yossi MATIAS, Ehud RIVLIN, Zach SOLAN, Gadi WOLFMAN, and Eytan RUPPIN (2002), Placing search in context: the concept revisited, ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 20 (1): 116-131.
• [36] John R. FIRTH (1957), Papers in Linguistics 1934-51, Longmans, London, UK.
• [37] Roxana GIRJU (2003), Automatic detection of causal relations for question answering, in Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Multilingual Summarization and Question Answering – Machine Learning and Beyond, pp. 76-83, Sapporo, Japan.
• [38] Roxana GIRJU, Adriana BADULESCU, and Dan MOLDOVAN (2006), Automatic discovery of part-whole relations, Computational Linguistics, 32 (1): 83-135.
• [39] Derek GROSS, Ute FISCHER, and George A. MILLER (1989), Antonymy and the representation of adjectival meanings, Memory and Language, 28 (1): 92-106.
• [40] Derek GROSS and Katherine J. MILLER (1990), Adjectives in WordNet, International Journal of Lexicography, 3 (4): 265-277.
• [41] Annamaria GUIDA and Alessandro LENCI (2007), Semantic properties of word associations to Italian verbs, Italian Journal of Linguistics, 19 (2): 293-326.
• [42] Iryna GUREVYCH (2005), Using the structure of a conceptual network in computing semantic relatedness, in Proceedings of the 2nd International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pp. 767-778, Jeju Island, Korea.
• [43] Birgit HAMP and Helmut FELDWEG (1997), GermaNet – a lexical-semantic net for German, in Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Automatic Information Extraction and Building Lexical Semantic Resources for NLP Applications, pp. 9-15, Madrid, Spain.
• [44] Sanda M. HARABAGIU, Andrew HICKL, and Finley LACATUSU (2006), Negation, contrast and contradiction in text processing, in Proceedings of the 21st National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 755-762, Boston, MA, USA.
• [45] Zellig HARRIS (1954), Distributional Structure, Word, 10 (23): 146-162.
• [46] Marti HEARST (1992), Automatic acquisition of hyponyms from large text corpora, in Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pp. 539-545, Nantes, France.
• [47] Hans Jürgen HERINGER (1986), The verb and its semantic power: association as the basis for valence, Journal of Semantics, 4: 79-99.
• [48] Felix HILL, Roi REICHART, and Anna KORHONEN (2015), SimLex-999: evaluating semantic models with (genuine) similarity estimation, Computational Linguistics, 41 (4): 665-695.
• [49] Steven JONES, M. Lynne MURPHY, Carita PARADIS, and Caroline WILLNERS (2012), Antonyms in English: construals, constructions and canonicity, Studies in English Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
• [50] John S. JUSTESON and Slava M. KATZ (1991), Co-occurrence of antonymous adjectives and their contexts, Computational Linguistics, 17: 1-19.
• [51] John S. JUSTESON and Slava M. KATZ (1992), Redefining antonymy: the textual structure of a semantic relation, Literary and Linguistic Computing, 7 (3): 176-184.
• [52] Grace Helen KENT and Aaron J. ROSANOFF (1910), A study of association in insanity, American Journal of Insanity, 67 (37-96): 317-390.
• [53] George R. KISS, Christine ARMSTRONG, Robert MILROY, and James PIPER (1973), An associative thesaurus of English and its computer analysis, in The computer and literary studies, Edinburgh University Press, http://www.eat.rl.ac.uk/.
• [54] Claudia KUNZE (2000), Extension and use of GermaNet, a lexical-semantic database, in Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, pp. 999-1002, Athens, Greece.
• [55] Claudia KUNZE and Andreas WAGNER (1999), Integrating GermaNet into EuroWordNet, a multilingual lexical-semantic database, Sprache und Datenverarbeitung, 23 (2): 5-19.
• [56] Thomas K. LANDAUER and Susan T. DUMAIS (1997), A solution to Plato’s Problem: the latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction and representation of knowledge, Psychological Review, 104 (2): 211-240.
• [57] Adrienne LEHRER and Keith LEHRER (1982), Antonymy, Linguistics and Philosophy, 5: 483-501.
• [58] Lothar LEMNITZER and Claudia KUNZE (2007), Computerlexikographie, Gunter Narr Verlag, Tübingen, Germany.
• [59] Alessandro LENCI and Giulia BENOTTO (2012), Identifying hypernyms in distributional semantic spaces, in Proceedings of the 1st Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, pp. 75-79, Montréal, Canada.
• [60] Omer LEVY, Steffen REMUS, Chris BIEMANN, and Ido DAGAN (2015), Do supervised distributional methods really learn lexical inference relations?, in Proceedings of the Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pp. 970-976.
• [61] Dekang LIN, Shaojun ZHAO, Lijuan QIN, and Ming ZHOU (2003), Identifying synonyms among distributionally similar words, in Proceedings of the International Conferences on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1492-1493, Acapulco, Mexico.
• [62] Cupertino LUCERTO, David PINTO, and Héctor JIMÉNEZ-SALAZAR (2004), An automatic method to identify antonymy relations, in Proceedings of the IBERAMIA Workshop on Lexical Resources and the Web for Word Sense Disambiguation, pp. 105-111, Puebla, Mexico.
• [63] John LYONS (1968), Introduction to theoretical linguistics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
• [64] John LYONS (1977), Semantics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
• [65] Christopher D. MANNING, Prabhakar RAGHAVAN, and Hinrich SCHÜTZE (2008), Introduction to information retrieval, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
• [66] Tomas MIKOLOV, Wen TAU YIH, and Geoffrey ZWEIG (2013), Linguistic regularities in continuous space word representations, in Proceedings of the Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pp. 746-751, Atlanta, GA, USA.
• [67] George A. MILLER, Richard BECKWITH, Christiane FELLBAUM, Derek GROSS, and Katherine J. MILLER (1990), Introduction to WordNet: an on-line lexical database, International Journal of Lexicography, 3 (4): 235-244.
• [68] George A. MILLER and Walter G. CHARLES (1991), Contextual correlates of semantic similarity, Language and Cognitive Processes, 6 (1): 1-28.
• [69] George A. MILLER and Christiane FELLBAUM (1991), Semantic networks of English, Cognition, 41: 197-229.
• [70] Saif MOHAMMAD, Bonnie DORR, and Graeme HIRST (2008), Computing word-pair antonymy, in Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning, pp. 982-991, Waikiki, Hawaii, USA.
• [71] Saif M. MOHAMMAD, Bonnie J. DORR, Graeme HIRST, and Peter D. TURNEY (2013), Computing lexical contrast, Computational Linguistics, 39 (3).
• [72] Saif M. MOHAMMAD, Iryna GUREVYCH, Graeme HIRST, and Torsten ZESCH (2007), Cross-lingual distributional profiles of concepts for measuring semantic distance, in Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning, pp. 571-580, Prague, Czech Republic.
• [73] Gregory L. MURPHY and Jane M. ANDREW (1993), The conceptual basis of antonymy and synonymy in adjectives, Journal of Memory and Language, 32 (3): 1-19.
• [74] M. Lynne MURPHY (2003), Semantic relations and the lexicon, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
• [75] Douglas L. NELSON, Cathy L. MCEVOY, and Thomas A. SCHREIBER (1998), The University of South Florida word association, rhyme, and word fragment norms, http://www.usf.edu/FreeAssociation/.
• [76] Kim Anh NGUYEN, Maximilian KÖPER, Sabine SCHULTE IM WALDE, and Ngoc Thang VU (2017), Hierarchical embeddings for hypernymy detection and directionality, in Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 233-243, Copenhagen, Denmark.
• [77] Kim-Anh NGUYEN, Sabine SCHULTE IM WALDE, and Thang VU (2016a), Integrating distributional lexical contrast into word embeddings for antonym-synonym distinction, in Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 454-459, Berlin, Germany.
• [78] Kim-Anh NGUYEN, Sabine SCHULTE IM WALDE, and Thang VU (2016b), Neural-based noise filtering from word embeddings, in Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pp. 2699-2707, Osaka, Japan.
• [79] Masataka ONO, Makoto MIWA, and Yutaka SASAKI (2015), Word embedding-based antonym detection using thesauri and distributional information, in Proceedings of the Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pp. 984-989, Denver, Colorado, USA.
• [80] David S. PALERMO and James J. JENKINS (1964), Word association norms: grade school through college, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, USA.
• [81] Patrick PANTEL and Marco PENNACCHIOTTI (2006), Espresso: leveraging generic patterns for automatically harvesting semantic relations, in Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Computational Linguistics and the 44th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 113-120, Sydney, Australia.
• [82] Carita PARADIS (2016), Corpus methods for the investigation of antonyms across languages, in Päivi V. JUVONEN and Maria KOPTJEVSKAJA-TAMM, editors, The lexical typology of semantic shifts, volume 58 of Cognitive Linguistics Research, pp. 131-156, Mouton de Gruyter.
• [83] Carita PARADIS, Caroline WILLNERS, and Steven JONES (2009), Good and bad opposites: using textual and experimental techniques to measure antonym canonicity, The Mental Lexicon, 4 (3): 380-429.
• [84] Nghia The PHAM, Angeliki LAZARIDOU, and Marco BARONI (2015), A multitask objective to inject lexical contrast into distributional semantics, in Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pp. 21-26, Beijing, China.
• [85] Philip RESNIK (1995), Using information content to evaluate semantic similarity in a taxonomy, in Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 448-453, San Francisco, CA, USA.
• [86] Michael ROTH and Sabine SCHULTE IM WALDE (2014), Combining word patterns and discourse markers for paradigmatic relation classification, in Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 524-530, Baltimore, MD, USA.
• [87] Herbert RUBENSTEIN and John B. GOODENOUGH (1965), Contextual correlates of synonymy, Communications of the ACM, 8 (10): 627-633.
• [88] Wallace A. RUSSELL (1970), The complete German language norms for responses to 100 words from the Kent-Rosanoff Word Association Test, in Leo POSTMAN and Geoffrey KEPPEL, editors, Norms of word association, pp. 53-94, Academic Press, New York, USA.
• [89] Wallace A. RUSSELL and O. R. MESECK (1959), Der Einfluss der Assoziation auf das Erinnern von Worten in der deutschen, französischen und englischen Sprache, Zeitschrift für Experimentelle und Angewandte Psychologie, 6: 191-211.
• [90] Enrico SANTUS, Alessandro LENCI, Qin LU, and Sabine SCHULTE IM WALDE (2014a), Chasing hypernyms in vector spaces with entropy, in Proceedings of the 14th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 38-42, Gothenburg, Sweden.
• [91] Enrico SANTUS, Qin LU, Alessandro LENCI, and Chu-Ren HUANG (2014b), Taking antonymy mask off in vector space, in Proceedings of the 28th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation, Phuket, Thailand.
• [92] Enrico SANTUS, Qin LU, Alessandro LENCI, and Chu-Ren HUANG (2014c), Unsupervised antonym-synonym discrimination in vector space, in Atti della Conferenza di Linguistica Computazionale Italiana, Pisa, Italy.
• [93] Enrico SANTUS, Frances YUNG, Alessandro LENCI, and Chu-Ren HUANG (2015), EVALution 1.0: an evolving semantic dataset for training and evaluation of distributional semantic models, in Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Linked Data in Linguistics, pp. 64-69, Beijing, China.
• [94] Roland SCHÄFER and Felix BILDHAUER (2012), Building large corpora from the Web using a new efficient tool chain, in Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, pp. 486-493, Istanbul, Turkey.
• [95] Silke SCHEIBLE and Sabine SCHULTE IM WALDE (2014), A database of paradigmatic semantic relation pairs for German nouns, verbs and adjectives, in Proceedings of the COLING Workshop on Lexical and Grammatical Resources for Language Processing, pp. 111-119, Dublin, Ireland.
• [96] Silke SCHEIBLE, Sabine SCHULTE IM WALDE, and Sylvia SPRINGORUM (2013), Uncovering distributional differences between synonyms and antonyms in a word space model, in Proceedings of the 6th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pp. 489-497, Nagoya, Japan.
• [97] Helmut SCHMID (1994), Probabilistic part-of-speech tagging using decision trees, in Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on New Methods in Language Processing.
• [98] Sebastian SCHMIDT, Philipp SCHOLL, Christoph RENSING, and Ralf STEINMETZ (2011), Cross-lingual recommendations in a resource-based learning scenario, in Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning, pp. 356-369, Palermo, Italy.
• [99] Sabine SCHULTE IM WALDE and Maximilian KÖPER (2013), Pattern-based distinction of paradigmatic relations for German nouns, verbs, adjectives, in Proceedings of the 25th International Conference of the German Society for Computational Linguistics and Language Technology, pp. 184-198, Darmstadt, Germany.
• [100] Sabine SCHULTE IM WALDE, Alissa MELINGER, Michael ROTH, and Andrea WEBER (2008), An empirical characterisation of response types in German association norms, Research on Language and Computation, 6 (2): 205-238.
• [101] Vered SHWARTZ, Yoav GOLDBERG, and Ido DAGAN (2016), Improving hypernymy detection with an integrated path-based and distributional method, in Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 2389-2398, Berlin, Germany.
• [102] Rion SNOW, Daniel JURAFSKY, and Andrew Y. NG (2004), Learning syntactic patterns for automatic hypernym discovery, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 17: 1297-1304.
• [103] Rion SNOW, Daniel JURAFSKY, and Andrew Y. NG (2006), Semantic taxonomy induction from heterogenous evidence, in Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 801-808, Sydney, Australia.
• [104] Peter D. TURNEY (2008), A uniform approach to analogies, synonyms, antonyms, and associations, in Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pp. 905-912, Manchester, UK.
• [105] Peter D. TURNEY and Patrick PANTEL (2010), From frequency to meaning: vector space models of semantics, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 37: 141-188.
• [106] Lonneke VAN DER PLAS and Jörg TIEDEMANN (2006), Finding synonyms using automatic word alignment and measures of distributional similarity, in Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Computational Linguistics and the 44th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 866-873, Sydney, Australia.
• [107] Paola VELARDI, Paolo FABRIANI, and Michele MISSIKOFF (2001), Using text processing techniques to automatically enrich a domain ontology, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems, pp. 270-284, Ogunquit, ME.
• [108] Julie WEEDS, David WEIR, and Diana MCCARTHY (2004), Characterising measures of lexical distributional similarity, in Proceedings of the 20th International Conference of Computational Linguistics, pp. 1015-1021, Geneva, Switzerland.
• [109] Morton E. WINSTON, Roger CHAFFIN, and Douglas HERRMANN (1987), A taxonymy of part-whole relations, Cognitive Science, 11: 417-444.
• [110] Willy YAP and Timothy BALDWIN (2009), Experiments on pattern-based relation learning, in Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pp. 1657-1660, Hong Kong.
• [111] Wen-Tau YIH, Geoffrey ZWEIG, and John C. PLATT (2012), Polarity inducing latent semantic analysis, in Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning, pp. 1212-1222, Jeju Island, Korea.