<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="W02-0805">
  <Title>Polysemy and Sense Proximity in the Senseval-2 Test Suite. Irina Chugur irina@lsi.uned.es</Title>
  <Section position="3" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="intro">
    <SectionTitle>
3 Typology of polysemic relations
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> According to (Resnik and Yarowsky, 1999), the cross-lingual estimate of sense proximity introduced above is highly consistent with the sense groupings of the Hector database, as used in the Senseval-1 evaluation. However, in our opinion, the hierarchical structure of senses in Hector (and dictionaries in general) does not necessarily reflect sense proximity. Metaphorical sense extensions of a word meaning are a good example: while they are closely related (in such hierarchical arrangement of senses) to the source meaning, the metaphorical sense usually belongs to a different semantic field. If the cross-lingual measure of sense proximity is also high for such metaphors, that would mean that they are highly generalized across languages, but not that the meanings are related.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> In addition, WordNet 1.7, which replaces Hector as sense inventory in Senseval-2, does not provide such an explicit arrangement of word senses.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> Thus, we decided to classify sense pairs according to a simple typology of sense extensions (including homonymy as absence of relation) and to verify that the proximity measure is in agreement with such classification.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> We have considered three types of semantic relation, previously introduced in (Gonzalo et al., 2000): a0 metonymy (semantic contiguity), for example, yew-tree and yew-wood or post-letters and postsystem. null a0 metaphor (similarity), for example, child-kid and child-immature.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> a0 specialization/generalization (based on extending or reducing the scope of the original sense), for example, fine-greeting and fine-ok.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> a0 homonymy (no relation). For example, barlaw and bar-unit of pressure.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>