<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="W98-0708">
  <Title>I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Linking WordNet Verb Classes to Semantic Interpretation</Title>
  <Section position="2" start_page="0" end_page="58" type="intro">
    <SectionTitle>
1 Introduction
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> We present an analysis i of some WordNet verb classes (Miller et al., 1993; Fellbaum, 1993). Its purpose is to offer a detailed analysis of some verb classes so that the reader may grasp the main ideas guiding our methodology for constructing verb predicates using the WordNet lexicon. We plan to publish a complete listing of all our predicates and subpredicates for all WordNet verb classes, once they have been fully tested. In (Gomez, 1998), the reader can find a detailed description and evaluation of the semantic interpreter algorithm that uses the lexical entries defined here. This paper complements (Gomez, 1998) in which, for space reasons, only one predicate could be analyzed.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> The hierarchical decomposition of predicates plays a central role in our methodology. A generic predicate subsumes all its subpredicates in a similar way in which the generic concept &amp;quot;book&amp;quot; subsumes all its subconcepts. A subpredicate inherits thematic roles and inferences from its super-predicate. From the point of view of the lexicographer, inheritance comes with an added bonus because it allows her/him to handle a large number of verbs by just defaulting their lexical entry to its super-predicate. In a subsequent analysis, the lexical entries can be refined by mapping some verbs which were just defaulted to a superpredicate into their own subpredicates. This top down approach and the WordNet lexicon makes possible to define predicates for every English verb in a &amp;quot;reasonable&amp;quot; amount of time. The mapping of Q XThis paper contains some material published aa report UCF-CS-TR-97-03 January-4-1997 with the same title.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2">  WordNet verb classes into generic predicates has required to define new classes and to reclassify and/or redefine some WordNet classes and subclasses. The WordNet ontology for nouns also has been reorganized and redefined in some respects in order to conform with the entries in the thematic roles of the predicates. (See (Gomez, 1998) for some details.) Two major consequences derive from anchoring verb classes in abstract semantic predicates: coalescing several WordNet synsets into a predicate, and mapping the same WordNet synset into distinct predicates. The differentia between a generic predicate and its subpredicates are given by one or more of the following: a) specific selectional restrictions for the thematic roles, b) different syntactic realizations of the thematic roles, and c) specific sets of inferences associated with the subpredicates.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> The semantic interpreter algorithm, which is an extension of the one reported in (Gomez et al., 1997), is based on the idea that the meaning of the verb depends not only on its selectional restrictions, but also on the syntactic relations that realize them. A similar view has been presented in (Pustejovsky, 1995). Semantic interpretation is delayed until the end of a clause. For every verb in a clause, WordNet provides a list of verb synsets for which we have defined predicates. These predicates are contenders for the meaning of the verb. For every syntactic relation in the clause, the interpreter checks each predicate in order to see if the predicate has a thematic role which is realized by the syntactic relation. The interpreter records this fact and gets the next syntactic relation. The predicate that realizes the most syntactic relations in the sentence is selected as the meaning of the verb. In case of ties, the predicate that has more thematic roles realized is selected.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>