Some thoughts on mapping MRSs to Wordnet sense (mainly illustrated with the ERG and PWN). Examples use a variant of the indexed MRS to save space (part of the work on Lexical Semantics).
Contents
Single Words
In straight forward cases like this, each open class predicate maps to a wordnet sense.
The cat_{cat_n1} ate_{eat_v1} a dog_{dog_n1}.
e3:
_1:_the_q⟨0:3⟩[BV x6]
x6:_cat_n_1⟨4:7⟩[]
e3:_eat_v_1⟨8:11⟩[ARG1 x6, ARG2 x9]
_2:_a_q⟨12:13⟩[BV x9]
x9:_dog_n_1⟨14:18⟩[]
Mapping the predicates to lemmas gives us directly:
x6:_cat_n_1 = cat_n1
e3:_eat_v_1 = eat_v1
x9:_dog_n_1 = dog_n1
Note that quantifiers are sometimes in wordnet, sometimes not:
Each_{each_a1} cat_{cat_n1} ate_{eat_v1} a dog_{dog_n1}.
e3:
_1:_each_q⟨0:4⟩[BV x5]
x5:_cat_n_1⟨5:8⟩[]
e3:_eat_v_1⟨9:12⟩[ARG1 x5, ARG2 x9]
_2:_a_q⟨13:14⟩[BV x9]
x9:_dog_n_1⟨15:19⟩[]
Here we also have:
_1:_each_q = each_a1
(with a non matching pos a <> q)
Proper Nouns
For proper nouns (and numbers and a few others), the predicate is an abstraction like named_rel, and the value is in the CARG:
Bast_{Bast_n1} ate_{eat_v1} a dog_{dog_n1}.
e3:
_1:proper_q⟨0:4⟩[BV x6]
x6:named⟨0:4⟩("Bast")[]
e3:_eat_v_1⟨5:8⟩[ARG1 x6, ARG2 x9]
_2:_a_q⟨9:10⟩[BV x9]
x9:_dog_n_1⟨11:15⟩[]
We want:
x6:named = Bast_1
Decomposed nouns
Some words are given complex semantics:
A cat_{cat_n1} ate_{eat_v1} here_{here_a1}
e3:
_1:_a_q⟨0:1⟩[BV x6]
x6:_cat_n_1⟨2:5⟩[]
e3:_eat_v_1⟨6:9⟩[ARG1 x6]
e10:loc_nonsp⟨10:15⟩[ARG1 e3, ARG2 x11]
x11:place_n⟨10:15⟩[]
_2:def_implicit_q⟨10:15⟩[BV x11]
e16:_here_a_1⟨10:15⟩[ARG1 x11]
here is given semantics equivalent to “in this place”. Ideally, we would like a mapping such as:
e10:loc_nonsp = here_a1
x11:place_n = here_n1
with “e16:_here_a_1” unmapped. “in this place” = here_a1 and “this place” = hear_n1
There are not so many of these, it should be possible to do them with exception handling
Superlatives
Wordnet has some superlatives (linked through domain usage to superlative_n_1): best, worst, least, …
As far as I can tell, they are not actually linked to the relevant adjectives!
I think we should tag these with the relvant adjective (good, bad, less; , …) and distinguish if need be by the presence of the superlative predicate.
Different POS
ERG collapses many adjective/adverb distinctions: they are all ‘a’. Wordnet often has them as different entries, linked with derivation links. I lean towards collapsing them :-).
Multiple Words
Sometimes both the ERG and PWN treat a MWE as a single concept, and then it is easy.
The cat_{cat_n1} gobbled_{gobble up_v1} a dog_{dog_n1} up_{gobble up_v1}.
e3:
_1:_the_q⟨0:3⟩[BV x6]
x6:_cat_n_1⟨4:7⟩[]
e3:_gobble_v_up⟨8:15⟩[ARG1 x6, ARG2 x9]
_2:_a_q⟨16:17⟩[BV x9]
x9:_dog_n_1⟨18:21⟩[]
The character mapping is a bit less direct, but the final mapping should be just:
x6:_cat_n_1 = cat_n1
e3:_gobble_v_up = gobble_up_v1
x9:_dog_n_1 = dog_n1
PROBLEM sometimes they will disagree. Postpone mapping for now.
Compositional Compound Nouns
The cat_{cat_n1} ate_{eat_v1} a guard_{guard_dog_n1} dog_{guard_dog_n1}.
e3:
_1:_the_q⟨0:3⟩[BV x6]
x6:_cat_n_1⟨4:7⟩[]
e3:_eat_v_1⟨8:11⟩[ARG1 x6, ARG2 x9]
_2:_a_q⟨12:13⟩[BV x9]
e15:compound⟨14:23⟩[ARG1 x9, ARG2 x14]
_3:udef_q⟨14:19⟩[BV x14]
x14:_guard_n_1⟨14:19⟩[]
x9:_dog_n_1⟨20:23⟩[]
NTU WN tags just MWE in this case, SemCor maps only the MWE I think we want:
x6:_cat_n_1 = cat_n1
e3:_eat_v_1 = eat_v1
x9:_dog_n_1 = guard_dog_n1
x14:_guard_n_1 = x
We get this in two steps. First we get the compositional reading from the ERG’s treebanking (really we get guard_n_per, which also includes basketball guard, …):
x6:_cat_n_1 = cat_n1
e3:_eat_v_1 = eat_v1
x9:_dog_n_1 = dog_n1
x14:_guard_n_1 = guard_n2 'a person who keeps watch over something or someone'
Then we write an (optional) mtr, that rewrites the compound to a single noun (hopefully dealing with modifiers correctly).
<guard_n2, compound, dog_n1> =>
It would be good to also link these in wordnet: we should have guard_dog_n1 is_a dog_n1, we also want ‘guard_n2’ internally modifies ‘dog_n1’ in ‘guard_dog_n1’.
One could instead think of something like this:
x6:_cat_n_1 = cat_n1
e3:_eat_v_1 = eat_v1
x9:_dog_n_1 = dog_n1
x14:_guard_n_1 = guard_n1
e15:compound = guard_dog_n1
But this isn’t quite right: too many predicates, compound is not a noun, …
Non Compositional Compound Nouns
The cat_{cat_n1} ate_{eat_v1} a guard_{hot_dog_n1} dog_{hot_dog_n1}.
e3:
_1:_the_q⟨0:3⟩[BV x6]
x6:_cat_n_1⟨4:7⟩[]
e3:_eat_v_1⟨8:11⟩[ARG1 x6, ARG2 x9]
_2:_a_q⟨12:13⟩[BV x9]
e14:_hot_a_1⟨14:17⟩[ARG1 x9]
x9:_dog_n_1⟨18:21⟩[]
Here, we don’t want the semantics “a dog that is hot”, so:
x6:_cat_n_1 = cat_n1
e3:_eat_v_1 = eat_v1
x9:_dog_n_1 = hot+dog_n1
Ideally, the ERG should contain “hot dog” as a single entry, so that things map even better.
Idioms
X keeps tabs on Y
We don’t really know how to mark the whole idiom (although the ERG recognizes it)
But we can write a machine translation rule to rewrite it.
X doesn’t know X’s arse from X’s elbow “X is an idiot.” ?Postprocess
How should we show this?
Phrases
Coordination
grass and brown snakes grass_snakes and brown_snakes ?Postprocess
Light Verbs
give a start give_start? Do we just make entries for all light verbs?
Many more corner cases to come :-): “Sleeping Beauty: is sleep v or n”, more complex MWEs, … .
Last update: 2023-02-23 by Francis Bond [edit]