Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics - 1998
DOI: 10.3115/980691.980779
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Idiomatic object usage and support verbs

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A number of approaches focus on the extraction of specific types of collocations such as support verb constructions, svcs (Grefenstette and Teufel, 1995;Tapanainen et al, 1998). 18 They classify, to an extent, binary word combinations into svcs and "non-relevant" combinations.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A number of approaches focus on the extraction of specific types of collocations such as support verb constructions, svcs (Grefenstette and Teufel, 1995;Tapanainen et al, 1998). 18 They classify, to an extent, binary word combinations into svcs and "non-relevant" combinations.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To the best of our knowledge, no other work in the literature takes into account both specific and general properties of non-compositional MWEs for their identification and hence unlike the presented model, most available models suffer from either a low precision or a low recall. Some of the earliest works on non-compositional MWEs include Tapanainen et al [1998] who propose a method to identify non-compositional verb-object collocations 2 based on the semantic asymmetry of verb-object relation and Lin [1999] which was discussed earlier. Baldwin et al [2003] present a method that decides about the non-compositionality of English noun compounds and verb-particle constructions by comparing the vectors of their components against the vector of the phrase.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some of them are Frequency, Point-wise mutual information (Church and Hanks, 1989), Distributed frequency of object (Tapanainen et al, 1998), Distributed frequency of object using verb information (Venkatapathy and Joshi, 2005), Similarity of object in verbobject pair using the LSA model (Baldwin et al, 2003), (Venkatapathy and Joshi, 2005) and Lexical and Syntactic fixedness (Fazly and Stevenson, 2006). These features have largely been evaluated by the correlation of the compositionality value predicted by these measures with the gold standard value suggested by human judges.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some of these are mutual information (Church and Hanks, 1989), distributed frequency (Tapanainen et al, 1998) and Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) model (Baldwin et al, 2003). Even though, these measures have been shown to represent compositionality quite well, compositionality itself has not been shown to be useful in any application yet.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%