I’ve searched the partnership between observable cues and semantic characteristics to own adjectives, and you may, especially, brand new morphology–semantics and you may syntax–semantics interfaces
This will be in contrast to opportunities for example POS tagging otherwise syntactic parsing, where seemingly higher inter-coder arrangement score try reached
An alternative instantiation of the second design could use flaccid clustering (Pereira, Tishby, and Lee 1993; Rooth mais aussi al. 1999; Korhonen, Krymolowski, and you will ), which assigns a probability to every of one’s groups and that is therefore not bound to an arduous yes/zero choice, as the our approach really does. Off a theoretical attitude (and also for of many basic purposes eg dictionary framework), but not, a big difference anywhere between monosemous and you will polysemous terms and conditions are desirable, and this adds a further factor to-be optimized into the a silky clustering mode. Overlapping clustering (Banerjee ainsi que al. 2005), which enables to have membership in the several groups, stops that it problem. One another steps feel the virtue which they don’t guess versatility of one’s behavior. The absolute most significant problem with the tests demonstrated on this page, not, create allegedly even be an issue of these configurations: The reality that the newest skewed feel shipment of several conditions produces challenging to distinguish evidence getting a certain group from audio. On softer clustering setting, as an example, it will be tough to differentiate whether ten% facts having classification A and you will 90% to own group B represents polysemy which have good skewed shipments, so you’re able to looks throughout the study, or simply just to a keen untypical such. …