skip to main content
10.5555/1609067.1609159dlproceedingsArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageseaclConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Free Access

A robust and extensible exemplar-based model of thematic fit

Published:30 March 2009Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper presents a new, exemplar-based model of thematic fit. In contrast to previous models, it does not approximate thematic fit as argument plausibility or 'fit with verb selectional preferences', but directly as semantic role plausibility for a verb-argument pair, through similarity-based generalization from previously seen verb-argument pairs. This makes the model very robust for data sparsity. We argue that the model is easily extensible to a model of semantic role ambiguity resolution during online sentence comprehension.

The model is evaluated on human semantic role plausibility judgments. Its predictions correlate significantly with the human judgments. It rivals two state-of-the-art models of thematic fit and exceeds their performance on previously unseen or low-frequency items.

References

  1. Thomas M. Cover and Peter E. Hart. 1967. Nearest neighbor pattern classification. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 13(1):21--27.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Waller Daelemans and Antal van den Bosch. 2005. Memory-based language processing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Charles J. Fillmore, Christopher R. Johnson, and Miriam R. L. Petruck. 2003. Background to FrameNet. International Journal of Lexicography, 16:235--250.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Evelyn Fix and Joseph L. Hodges. 1951. Discriminatory analysis---nonparametric discrimination: consistency properties. Technical Report Project 21-49-004, Report No. 4, USAF School of Aviation Medicine, Randolp Field, TX.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Lyn Frazier. 1987. Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In Max Coltheart, editor, Attention and Performance XII: The Psychology of Reading, pages 559--586. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Peter Koomen, Vasin Punyakanok, Dan Roth, and Wen-tau Yih. 2005. Generalized inference with multiple semantic role labeling systems. In Ido Dagan and Daniel Gildea, editors, Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL-2005), pages 181--184. Association for Computational Linguistics, Morris-town, NJ. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Dekang Lin. 1998. Automatic retrieval and clustering of similar words. In Christian Boitet and Pete Whitelock, editors, Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 768--774. Association for Computational Linguistics, Morristown, NJ. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Maryellen C. MacDonald and Mark S. Seidenberg. 2006. Constraint satisfaction accounts of lexical and sentence comprehension. In Matthew J. Traxler and Morton A. Gernsbacher, editors, Handbook of Psycholinguistics (Second Edition), pages 581--611. Academic Press, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Mitchell P. Marcus, Mary Ann Marcinkiewicz, and Beatrice Santorini. 1993. Building a large annotated corpus of english: the Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics, 19(2):313--330. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Ken McRae, Michael J. Spivey-Knowlton, and Michael K. Tanenhaus. 1998. Modeling the influence of thematic fit (and other constraints) in on-line sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 38(3):283--312.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Robert M. Nosofsky. 1986. Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology-General, 115(1):39--57.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Sebastian Padó and Mirella Lapata. 2007. Dependency-based construction of semantic space models. Computational Linguistics, 33(2):161--199. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Ulrike Padó, Frank Keller, and Matthew Crocker. 2006. Combining syntax and thematic fit in a probabilistic model of sentence processing. In Ron Sun and Naomi Miyake, editors, Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pages 657--662. Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Sebastian Padó, Ulrike Padó, and Katrin Erk. 2007. Flexible, corpus-based modelling of human plausibility judgements. In Jason Eisner, editor, Proceedings of the 2007 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning (EMNLP-CoNLL), pages 400--409. Association for Computational Linguistics, Morristown, NJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Martha Palmer, Daniel Gildea, and Paul Kingsbury. 2005. The Proposition Bank: An annotated corpus of semantic roles. Computational Linguistics, 31(1):71--106. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Trivellore Raghunathan. 2003. An approximate test for homogeneity of correlated correlation coefficients. Quality and Quantity, 4(1):99--110.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Philip Resnik. 1996. Selectional constraints: an information-theoretic model and its computational realization. Cognition, 61(1--2):127--159.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Roger N. Shepard. 1987. Toward a universal law of generalization for psychological science. Science, 237(4820):1317--1323.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Jakub Zavrel and Walter Daelemans. 1997. Memory-based learning: Using similarity for smoothing. In Philip R. Cohen and Wolfgang Wahlster, editors, Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 436--443. Association for Computational Linguistics, Morristown, NJ. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. A robust and extensible exemplar-based model of thematic fit

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

            Sign in
            • Published in

              cover image DL Hosted proceedings
              EACL '09: Proceedings of the 12th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics
              March 2009
              905 pages

              Publisher

              Association for Computational Linguistics

              United States

              Publication History

              • Published: 30 March 2009

              Qualifiers

              • research-article

              Acceptance Rates

              EACL '09 Paper Acceptance Rate100of360submissions,28%Overall Acceptance Rate100of360submissions,28%

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader