1 / 59

The Global Wordnet Grid: anchoring languages to universal meaning

The Global Wordnet Grid: anchoring languages to universal meaning. Piek Vossen Irion Technologies/Free University of Amsterdam and Christiane Fellbaum Princeton University. Overview. Wordnet, EuroWordNet background Architecture of the Global Wordnet Grid Mapping wordnets to the Grid

sbowling
Download Presentation

The Global Wordnet Grid: anchoring languages to universal meaning

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. The Global Wordnet Grid: anchoring languages to universal meaning Piek Vossen Irion Technologies/Free University of Amsterdam and Christiane Fellbaum Princeton University

  2. Overview • Wordnet, EuroWordNet background • Architecture of the Global Wordnet Grid • Mapping wordnets to the Grid • Kyoto: an implementation of the Grid

  3. WordNet1.5 • Developed at Princeton by George Miller and his team as a model of the mental lexicon. • Semantic network in which concepts are defined in terms of relations to other concepts. • Structure: • organized around the notion of synsets (sets of synonymous words) • basic semantic relations between these synsets • http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/~wn/w3wn.html

  4. Structure of WordNet

  5. EuroWordNet • The development of a multilingual database with wordnets for several European languages • Funded by the European Commission, DG XIII, Luxembourg as projects LE2-4003 and LE4-8328 • March 1996 - September 1999 • 2.5 Million EURO. • http://www.hum.uva.nl/~ewn • http://www.illc.uva.nl/EuroWordNet/finalresults-ewn.html

  6. Domains Transport Road Water Air vehicle 1 car train 2 English Words 3 3 EuroWordnet architecture Top Ontology Fahrzeug 1 Object Auto Zug voertuig Device 1 2 auto trein TransportDevice German Words 4 2 liiklusvahend Dutch Words ENGLISH Car … Train … Vehicle 1 auto killavoor vehículo 2 1 Estonian Words véhicule auto tren 1 veicolo voiture train 1 2 Inter-Lingual-Index Spanish Words auto treno 2 dopravníprostředník French Words 2 1 Italian Words auto vlak 2 Czech Words

  7. EuroWordNet • Wordnets are unique language-specific structures: • different lexicalizations • differences in synonymy and homonymy • different relations between synsets • same organizational principles: synset structure and same set of semantic relations. • Language independent knowledge is assigned to the ILI and can thus be shared for all language linked to the ILI: both an ontology and domain hierarchy

  8. object artifact, artefact (a man-made object) natural object (an object occurring naturally) block instrumentality body box spoon bag device implement container tool instrument Autonomous & Language-Specific Wordnet1.5 Dutch Wordnet voorwerp {object} blok {block} lichaam {body} werktuig{tool} bak {box} lepel {spoon} tas {bag}

  9. Linguistic versus Artificial Ontologies • Artificial ontology: • better control or performance, or a more compact and coherent structure. • introduce artificial levels for concepts which are not lexicalized in a language (e.g. instrumentality, hand tool), • neglect levels which are lexicalized but not relevant for the purpose of the ontology (e.g. tableware, silverware, merchandise). • What properties can we infer for spoons? • spoon -> container; artifact; hand tool; object; made of metal or plastic; for eating, pouring or cooking

  10. Linguistic versus Artificial Ontologies Linguistic ontology: • Exactly reflects the relations between all the lexicalized words and expressions in a language. • Captures valuable information about the lexical capacity of languages: what is the available fund of words and expressions in a language. What words can be used to name spoons? spoon -> object, tableware, silverware, merchandise, cutlery,

  11. Wordnets versus ontologies • Wordnets: • autonomous language-specific lexicalization patterns in a relational network. • Usage: to predict substitution in text for information retrieval, • text generation, machine translation, word-sense-disambiguation. • Ontologies: • data structure with formally defined concepts. • Usage: making semantic inferences.

  12. The Multilingual Design • Inter-Lingual-Index: unstructured fund of concepts to provide an efficient mapping across the languages; • Index-records are mainly based on WordNet synsets and consist of synonyms, glosses and source references; • Various types of complex equivalence relations are distinguished; • Equivalence relations from synsets to index records: not on a word-to-word basis; • Indirect matching of synsets linked to the same index items;

  13. Equivalent Near Synonym • 1. Multiple Targets (1:many) • Dutch wordnet: schoonmaken (to clean) matches with 4 senses of clean in WordNet1.5: • make clean by removing dirt, filth, or unwanted substances from • remove unwanted substances from, such as feathers or pits, as of chickens or fruit • remove in making clean; "Clean the spots off the rug" • remove unwanted substances from - (as in chemistry) • 2. Multiple Sources (many:1) • Dutch wordnet: versiersel near_synonym versiering ILI-Record: decoration. • 3. Multiple Targets and Sources (many:many) • Dutch wordnet: toestel near_synonym apparaat ILI-records: machine; device; apparatus; tool

  14. Equivalent Hyperonymy Typically used for gaps in English WordNet: • genuine, cultural gaps for things not known in English culture: • Dutch: klunen, to walk on skates over land from one frozen water to the other • Dutch:citroenjenever, which is a kind of gin made out of lemon skin, • pragmatic, in the sense that the concept is known but is not expressed by a single lexicalized form in English: • Dutch: kunstproduct = artifact substance <=> artifact object • Dutch: hoofd = human head and Dutch: kop = animal head, English uses head for both.

  15. From EuroWordNet to Global WordNet • Currently, wordnets exist for more than 40 languages, including: • Arabic, Bantu, Basque, Chinese, Bulgarian, Estonian, Hebrew, Icelandic, Japanese, Kannada, Korean, Latvian, Nepali, Persian, Romanian, Sanskrit, Tamil, Thai, Turkish, Zulu... • Many languages are genetically and typologically unrelated • http://www.globalwordnet.org

  16. Some downsides • Construction is not done uniformly • Coverage differs • Not all wordnets can communicate with one another • Proprietary rights restrict free access and usage • A lot of semantics is duplicated • Complex and obscure equivalence relations due to linguistic differences between English and other languages

  17. Fahrzeug 1 Auto Zug 2 vehicle German Words 1 car train 2 English Words 3 3 vehículo 1 auto tren veicolo 1 2 Spanish Words auto treno 2 Italian Words Next step: Global WordNet Grid Inter-Lingual Ontology voertuig 1 auto trein Object 2 liiklusvahend Dutch Words 1 Device auto killavoor TransportDevice 2 Estonian Words véhicule 1 voiture train 2 dopravníprostředník French Words 1 auto vlak 2 Czech Words

  18. GWNG: Main Features • Construct separate wordnets for each Grid language • Contributors from each language encode the same core set of concepts plus culture/language-specific ones • Synsets (concepts) can be mapped crosslinguistically via an ontology • No license constraints, freely available

  19. The Ontology: Main Features • Formal, artificial ontology serves as universal index of concepts • List of concepts is not just based on the lexicon of a particular language (unlike in EuroWordNet) but uses ontological observations • Concepts are related in a type hierarchy • Concepts are defined with axioms

  20. The Ontology: Main Features • In addition to high-level (“primitive”) concept ontology needs to express low-level concepts lexicalized in the Grid languages • Additional concepts can be defined with expressions in Knowledge Interchange Format (KIF) based on first order predicate calculus and atomic element

  21. The Ontology: Main Features • Minimal set of concepts (Reductionist view): • to express equivalence across languages • to support inferencing • Ontology must be powerful enough to encode all concepts that are lexically expressed in any of the Grid languages

  22. The Ontology: Main Features • Ontology need not and cannot provide a linguistic encoding for all concepts found in the Grid languages • Lexicalization in a language is not sufficient to warrant inclusion in the ontology • Lexicalization in all or many languages may be sufficient • Ontological observations will be used to define the concepts in the ontology

  23. Ontological observations • Identity criteria as used in OntoClean (Guarino & Welty 2002), : • rigidity: to what extent are properties true for entities in all worlds? You are always a human, but you can be a student for a short while. • essence: what properties are essential for an entity? Shape is essential for a statue but not for the clay it is made of. • unicity:what represents a whole and what entities are parts of these wholes? An ocean is a whole but the water it contains is not.

  24. Type-role distinction • Current WordNet treatment: (1) a husky is a kind of dog(type) (2) a husky is a kind of working dog (role) • What’s wrong? (2) is defeasible, (1) is not: *This husky is not a dog This husky is not a working dog Other roles: watchdog, sheepdog, herding dog, lapdog, etc….

  25. Ontology and lexicon • Hierarchy of disjunct types: Canine  PoodleDog; NewfoundlandDog; GermanShepherdDog; Husky • Lexicon: • NAMES for TYPES: {poodle}EN, {poedel}NL, {pudoru}JP • ((instance x Poodle) • LABELS for ROLES: {watchdog}EN, {waakhond}NL, {banken}JP ((instance x Canine) and (role x GuardingProcess))

  26. Ontology and lexicon • Hierarchy of disjunct types: River; Clay; etc… • Lexicon: • NAMES for TYPES: {river}EN, {rivier, stroom}NL • ((instance x River) • LABELS for dependent concepts: {rivierwater}NL (water from a river => water is not Unit) ((instance x water) and (instance y River) and (portion x y) {kleibrok}NL (irregularly shared piece of clay=>Non-essential) ((instance x Object) and (instance y Clay) and (portion x y) and (shape X Irregular))

  27. Rigidity • The “primitive” concepts represented in the ontology are rigid types • Entities with non-rigid properties will be represented with KIF statements • But: ontology may include some universal, core concepts referring to roles like father, mother

  28. Properties of the Ontology • Minimal: terms are distinguished by essential properties only • Comprehensive: includes all distinct concepts types of all Grid languages • Allows definitions via KIF of all lexemes that express non-rigid, non-essential properties of types • Logically valid, allows inferencing

  29. Mapping Grid Languages onto the Ontology • Explicit and precise equivalence relations among synsets in different languages, which is somehow easier: • type hierarchy is minimal • subtle differences can be encoded in KIF expressions • Grid database contains wordnets with synsets that label • either “primitive” types in the hierarchies, • or words relating to these types in ways made explicit in KIF expressions • If 2 lgs. create the same KIF expression, this is a statement of equivalence!

  30. How to construct the GWNG • Take an existing ontology as starting point; • Use English WordNet to maximize the number of disjunct types in the ontology; • Link English WordNet synsets as names to the disjunct types; • Provide KIF expressions for all other English words and synsets

  31. How to construct the GWNG • Copy the relation from the English Wordnet to the ontology to other languages, including KIF statements built for English • Revise KIF statements to make the mapping more precise • Map all words and synsets that are and cannot be mapped to English WordNet to the ontology: • propose extensions to the type hierarchy • create KIF expressions for all non-rigid concepts

  32. Initial Ontology: SUMO (Niles and Pease) SUMO = Suggested Upper Merged Ontology --consistent with good ontological practice --fully mapped to WordNet(s): 1000 equivalence mappings, the rest through subsumption --freely and publicly available --allows data interoperability --allows NLP --allows reasoning/inferencing

  33. Mapping Grid languages onto the Ontology • Check existing SUMO mappings to Princeton WordNet -> extend the ontology with rigid types for specific concepts • Extend it to many other WordNet synsets • Observe OntoClean principles! (Synsets referring to non-rigid, non-essential, non-unicitous concepts must be expressed in KIF)

  34. Lexicalizations not mapped to WordNet • Not added to the type hierarchy: {straathond}NL (a dog that lives in the streets) • ((instance x Canine) and (habitat x Street)) • Added to the type hierarchy: {klunen}NL (to walk on skates from one frozen body to the next over land) KluunProcess => WalkProcess Axioms: (and (instance x Human) (instance y Walk) (instance z Skates) (wear x z) (instance s1 Skate) (instance s2 Skate) (before s1 y) (before y s2) etc… • National dishes, customs, games,....

  35. Most mismatching concepts are not new types • Refer to sets of types in specific circumstances or to concept that are dependent on these types, next to {rivierwater}NL there are many others: {theewater}NL (water used for making tea) {koffiewater}NL (water used for making coffee) {bluswater}NL (water used for making extinguishing file) • Relate to linguistic phenomena: • gender, perspective, aspect, diminutives, politeness, pejoratives, part-of-speech constraints

  36. KIF expression for gender marking • {teacher}EN ((instance x Human) and (agent x TeachingProcess)) • {Lehrer}DE ((instance x Man) and (agent x TeachingProcess)) • {Lehrerin}DE ((instance x Woman) and (agent x TeachingProcess))

  37. KIF expression for perspective sell: subj(x), direct obj(z),indirect obj(y) versus buy: subj(y), direct obj(z),indirect obj(x) (and (instance x Human)(instance y Human) (instance z Entity) (instance e FinancialTransaction) (source x e) (destination y e) (patient e) The same process but a different perspective by subject and object realization: marry in Russian two verbs, apprendre in French can mean teach and learn

  38. Part-of-speech mismatches • {bankdrukken-V}NL vs.{bench press-N}EN • {gehuil-N}NL vs. {cry-V}EN • {afsluiting-N}NL vs. {close-V}EN • Process in the ontology is neutral with respect to POS!

  39. Parallel Noun and Verb hierarchy Encoded once as a Process in the ontology! • event • act • deed • sail • promise • change • movement • change of location • to happen • to act • to do • to sell • a promise • to change • to move • to move position

  40. Mixed Noun and Adjective hierarchy • Colour: red, blue, green, etc. • Height: high, low • Size: big, small • Emotion: sad, angry, happy, anxious • etc. Encoded once as a attributes in the ontology!

  41. Aspectual variants • Slavic languages: two members of a verb pair for an ongoing event and a completed event. • English: can mark perfectivity with particles, as in the phrasal verbs eat up and read through. • Romance languages: mark aspect by verb conjugations on the same verb. • Dutch, verbs with marked aspect can be created by prefixing a verb with door: doorademen, dooreten, doorfietsen, doorlezen, doorpraten(continue to breathe/eat/bike/read/talk). • These verbs are restrictions on phases of the same process • Which does NOT warrant the extension of the ontology with separate processes for each aspectual variant

  42. Aspectual lexicalization • Regular compositional verb structures: doorademen: (lit. through+breath, continue to breath) doorbetalen: (lit. through+pay, continue to pay) doorlopen: (lit. through+walk, continue to walk) doorfietsen: (lit. through+walk, continue to walk) doorrijden: (lit. through+walk, continue to walk) (and (instance x BreathProcess)(instance y Time) (instance z Time) (end x z) (expected (end x y) (after z y))

  43. Lexicalization of Resultatives • MORE GENERAL VERBS: openmaken: (lit. open+make, to cause to be open); dichtmaken: (lit. close+make, to cause to be open); • MORE SPECIFIC VERBS: openknijpen (lit. open+squeeze, to open by squeezing) has_hyperonym knijpen (squeeze) & openmaken (to open) opendraaien (lit. open+turn, to open by turning) has_hyperonym draaien (to turn) & openmaken (to open) dichtknijpen: (lit. closed+squeeze, to close by squeezing) has_hyperonym knijpen (squeeze) & dichtmaken (to close) dichtdraaien: (lit. closed +turn, to close by turning) has_hyperonym draaien (to turn) & dichtmaken (to close)

  44. Kinship relations in Arabic • عَم(Eam~) father's brother, paternal uncle. • خَال (xaAl) mother's brother, maternal uncle. • عَمَّة (Eam~ap) father's sister, paternal aunt. • خَالَة (xaAlap) mother's sister, maternal aunt

  45. Kinship relations in Arabic • ......... • شَقِيقَة ($aqiyqapfull) sister, sister on the paternal and maternal side (as distinct from أُخْت(>uxot): 'sister' which may refer to a 'sister' from paternal or maternal side, or both sides). • ثَكْلان (vakolAna) father bereaved of a child (as opposed to يَتِيم(yatiym) or يَتِيمَة(yatiymap) for feminine: 'orphan' a person whose father or mother died or both father and mother died). • ثَكْلَى (vakolaYa) other bereaved of a child (as opposed to يَتِيم or يَتِيمَة for feminine: 'orphan' a person whose father or mother died or both father and mother died).

  46. Complex Kinship concepts father's brother, paternal uncle WORDNET paternal uncle => uncle => brother of ....???? ONTOLOGY (=> (paternalUncle ?P ?UNC) (exists (?F) (and (father ?P ?F) (brother ?F ?UNC))))

  47. Fine tune equivalence relations • {rivier}NL  (and (instance x River) (instance y RiverMouth) (instance z Country) (part y x) (location y z) • {stroom}NL  (and (instance x River) (instance y RiverMouth) (instance p RiverPart) (not (equal p y) (instance z Country) (location p z) (not (location y z))

  48. Universality as evidence • If lexicalization of the specific process is more universal it can be seen as evidence that the specific processes should be listed in the ontology and not the generic verb: • English verb cut abstracts from the precise process but there are troponyms that implicate the manner : snip, clip imply scissors, chop and hack a large knife or an axe • Dutch there is no general verb but only specific verbs: knippen “clip, snip, cut with scissors or a scissor-like tool'”, snijden “cut with a knife or knife-like tool”, hakken “chop, hack, to cut with an axe, or similar tool”). • If Father is lexicalized in most languages we add it to the ontology even when it is NOT Rigid!

  49. Universality as evidence • Artifact substance is lexicalized in Dutch and other languages => ArtifactObject in SUMO needs to be generalized to Artifact so that it can be applied to both substances and objects

  50. Open Questions/Challenges • What is a word, i.e., a lexical unit? • What is the status of complex lexemes like English lightning rod, word of mouth, find out, kick the bucket? • What is the status of compounds in Germanic languages and Chinese? • "hottentottententententoonstelling" (exposition of tents of the "hottentotten" (African tribe)) • What is a semantic unit, i.e. a concept?

More Related