Skip to main content

Specification Marks for Word Sense Disambiguation: New Development

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing (CICLing 2001)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 2004))

Abstract

This paper presents a new method for the automatic resolution of lexical ambiguity of nouns in English texts. This new method is made up of three new heuristics, which improve the previous Specification Marks Method. These heuristics rely on the use of the gloss in the semantic relations (hypernym and hyponym) and the hierarchic organization of WordNet. An evaluation of the new method was done on both the Semantic Concordance Corpus (Sem- cor) [7], and Microsoft 98 Encarta Encyclopaedia Deluxe. The percentages of correct resolutions were Semcor 66.2% and Encarta 66.3% respectively. These percentages show that successful results can be obtained with different domain corpus, and therefore our proposed method can be applied successfully on any corpus.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agirre E. and Rigau G. (1996) Word Sense Disambiguation using Conceptual Density. Proc. 16 th International Conference on COLING. Copenhagen.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cowie J., Guthrie J. and Guthrie L. (1992) Lexical disambiguation using simulated annealing. Proc. DARPA Workshop on Speech and Natural Language. 238–242. New York.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hale, Michael L. Mc. A comparison of WordNet and Rogetś taxonomy for measuring semantic similarity.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Lesk, M. (1986) Automatic sense disambiguation using machine readable dictionaries: How to tell a pine cone from an ice cream cone. Proc. 1986 SIGDOC Conference, ACM 24-26, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  5. McRoy S. (1992) Using Multiple Knowledge Sources for Word Sense Discrimination. Computational Linguistics 18 (1).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Mihalcea R. and Moldovan D. (1999) A Method for word sense disambiguation of unrestricted text. Proc.37th Annual Meeting of the ACL 152-158, Maryland, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Miller G., Leacock C., Randee T. and Bunker R. (1993) A Semantic Concordance. Proc. 3 rd DARPA Workshop on Human Language Tecnology, 303–308, Plainsboro, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Montoyo, A. and Palomar M. (2000) Word Sense Disambiguation with Specification Marks in Unrestricted Texts. Proc. 11 th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA 2000). 103–108, Greenwich, London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Montoyo, A. and Palomar M. (2000) WSD Algorithm applied to a NLP System. 5 th International Conference on Application of Natural Language to Information Systems (NLDB’2000). Versailles (France).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Resnik P. (1995) Disambiguating noun groupings with respect to WordNet senses. Proc. Third Workshop on Very Large Corpora. 54–68.Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Resnik P. (1999) Semantic similarity in a taxonomy: an information-based measure and its application to problems of ambiguity in natural lenguage. In Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 11. 95–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Rigau G., Atserias J. and Agirre E. (1997) Combining Unsupervised Lexical Knowledge Methods for Word Sense Disambiguation. Proc. 35th Annual Meeting of the ACL, 48–55, Madrid, Spain.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Stetina J., Kurohashi S. and Nagao M. (1998) General word sense disambiguation method based on full sentencial context. In Usage of WordNet in Natural Language Processing. COLING-ACL Workshop, Montreal, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Sussna M. (1993) Word sense disambiguation for free-text indexing using a massive se mantic network. Proc. Second International CIKM, 67–74, Airlington, VA.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Voorhees E. (1993) Using WordNet to disambiguation word senses for text retrieval. Proc. 16 th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 171–180, Pittsburgh, PA.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Wilks Y., Fass D., Guo C., McDonal J., Plate T. and Slator B. (1993) Providing Machine Tractablle Dictionary Tools. In Semantics and the lexicon (Pustejowsky J. Ed.) 341–401.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Yarowsky D. (1992) Word Sense disambiguation using statistical models of Roget’s categories trainined on large corpora. Proc. 14 th COLING, 454–460, Nantes, France.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2001 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Montoyo, A., Palomar, M. (2001). Specification Marks for Word Sense Disambiguation: New Development. In: Gelbukh, A. (eds) Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing. CICLing 2001. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2004. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44686-9_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44686-9_18

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-41687-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-44686-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics