2005
DOI: 10.1007/11562214_21
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Acquiring Synonyms from Monolingual Comparable Texts

Abstract: Abstract. This paper presents a method for acquiring synonyms from monolingual comparable text (MCT). MCT denotes a set of monolingual texts whose contents are similar and can be obtained automatically. Our acquisition method takes advantage of a characteristic of MCT that included words and their relations are confined. Our method uses contextual information of surrounding one word on each side of the target words. To improve acquisition precision, prevention of outside appearance is used. This method has adv… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
3
2
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For one, we do not discuss paraphrasing techniques that rely primarily on knowledge-based resources such as dictionaries (Wallis 1993;Fujita et al 2004), handwritten rules (Fujita et al 2007), and formal grammars (McKeown 1979;Dras 1999;Gardent, Amoia, and Jacquey 2004;Gardent and Kow 2005). We also refrain from discussing work on purely lexical paraphrasing which usually comprises various ways to cluster words occurring in similar contexts (Inoue 1991;Crouch and Yang 1992;Pereira, Tishby, and Lee 1993;Grefenstette 1994;Lin 1998;Gasperin et al 2001;Glickman and Dagan 2003;Shimohata and Sumita 2005). 1 Exclusion of general lexical paraphrasing methods obviously implies that other lexical methods developed just for specific applications are also excluded (Bangalore and Rambow 2000;Duclaye, Yvon, and Collin 2003;Murakami and Nasukawa 2004;Kauchak and Barzilay 2006).…”
Section: Scope Of Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For one, we do not discuss paraphrasing techniques that rely primarily on knowledge-based resources such as dictionaries (Wallis 1993;Fujita et al 2004), handwritten rules (Fujita et al 2007), and formal grammars (McKeown 1979;Dras 1999;Gardent, Amoia, and Jacquey 2004;Gardent and Kow 2005). We also refrain from discussing work on purely lexical paraphrasing which usually comprises various ways to cluster words occurring in similar contexts (Inoue 1991;Crouch and Yang 1992;Pereira, Tishby, and Lee 1993;Grefenstette 1994;Lin 1998;Gasperin et al 2001;Glickman and Dagan 2003;Shimohata and Sumita 2005). 1 Exclusion of general lexical paraphrasing methods obviously implies that other lexical methods developed just for specific applications are also excluded (Bangalore and Rambow 2000;Duclaye, Yvon, and Collin 2003;Murakami and Nasukawa 2004;Kauchak and Barzilay 2006).…”
Section: Scope Of Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We plan to do so in the context of lexical paraphrase acquisition or synonyms automatically from corpora, a task that relies heavily on this notion of distributional similarity. There has been a lot of work in this area in the past years (Pereira et al, 1993;Gasperin et al, 2001;Glickman and Dagan, 2003;Shimohata and Sumita, 2005), much of which can be easily replicated using the Python-NLTK combination. This would allow for a very hands-on treatment and would allow the students to gain insight into this important, but often omitted, idea from computational linguistics.…”
Section: Teaching Distributional Similaritymentioning
confidence: 99%