<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C94-2109">
  <Title>THE NATURE OF NEAR-SYNONYMIC RELATIONS</Title>
  <Section position="3" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
2 Previous research
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> As a first st;eli , whi(;h we des(:ribed in \[l)iMar(:o, llirst, ~u,d Ste&lt;le 1993\], we carried out a. stu&lt;ly o1' dictiona,ry usage notes in order to compile a. list. of the kinds of dime, nsions flint axe used frequently ~s (lenotat;iw; or connot~tive dil\[erentiae. We i)r(,duced zt l&gt;relimina, ry list; of 26 (lenota.tional dimensions and 12 eonnota,tive dimensions (including a few l;h~t we aAded from the discussion on lexi(:a,l a.sl)e(:ts t)y Viua.y m~d l)a.rl)eltmt \[1958\]). (This set is not, yet; complete 1)1' definitive, of course, bul; we h;we mamtge(t to in(:lu(le ~ fairly (:ompre Imnsive selection of the most common diffexences between ne~r-synonyms.) Some of the dimensions ~re sin@e l)in~u'y choices; others are continuous.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> We show ;~ representative sa, ml)le in Table 1. l)3a(:h line of the taPSle shows ~ dimension of differentialion followed by ex~unple sentences in which two i)lesionyms vary a.long th,~t dimension.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="4" start_page="0" end_page="692" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
3 Chafl\]u and Herrmalan
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"/>
    <Section position="1" start_page="0" end_page="691" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
3.1. Basic theory
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> (\]ha,\[fin ++nd llerrma.n n \[1988\] lt~+ve provMed ++ the,oreti(:a,1 ~q)pro~(:h for accounting for sem~ntie re l~ttions th~tt we will apply to near-synonymic rely&gt; t, ions. They desert be ~ systematic study o\[' the nature o\[&amp;quot; semmltic relations, beginning with a, (:a,ta,h)gue o\[ the relatlion properties that an a.dequ~te theory o{&amp;quot; semantic rel~,tio:ns should explain, tbls lowed I)y ~ list; of s~mlp\[e rel~Ltions. P} e, e re\]a,tio:ns (e.g., synonymity, pscudoantonym) a~re then broke,~ down into relation elen\]ents (e.g, symmel~ rical position, locative inclusion), whit:h a.re forma.lly &amp;'fined. (A al\[in and \[lerrmmm's study (:ulmina,tes with ~m explanation of how this rela.tiot&gt; ele/netlt ~tt)l)roa.ch (:~m be used to a.ccount lot each of the rela.tion propertie, s. We will undert~ke a, siniib~r kind o\[' stutly in l)rOl)osing ~ the, oretiea, I ,to:count o\[' near-synonymic relations. I\[owever, unlike (\]hattin ~md llerrmann, who begml with rea,dily recognizable semantic relations ~md then detined relation elements, we :find that in our study of ne~r-synt)nyms, it is more al)prot)riate Lo begin with tit(; rela,tion elements, which are more e~Lsily identitied, a,nd then move on to the construction of the relations, which a.re more (lif \[i(:ult 1;o detine.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> We will begin by ex~n\]itfing four properties tha.t (;ha.flin a.nd \]lerrma.un believe ~ny theory of sema.ntic rel~ttions should account for ~md we will show ttmt these prol)erties a, re a,\[so relewmt t() any theory o\[' ne,;tr-syn(tuymi(; rel~ions, t 1 Chaflin and Iterrmann iuclud.e relation discrimination, but as mlr whole study is of lexical differentiae, all our relation l)r.pert, ies have some|hing to do with discrimination. They also in(:lu(|e r,:lation w~rification, but a demonstration of this pro I) ert.y wouM inwdve psychological testing, which we |rove not yet .ln(lerl,;I.kell.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2">  Relation comparison. The primary property is relation comparison: pairs of near-synonynts can be COlnpared and judged as more, or less, similar to each other than others. For example, there is something similar in the relationship between stingy/frugal and between j'at/plump. In each case, the first word (stingy, fat) is pejorative while the second (frugal, plump) has a nuance of being admirable or attractive. This relationship would not be maintained if, for example, we replaced fat/plump by rotund/plump.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3"> Relation expressions. The second relation property is relation czpressions, which refers to people's ahility to use comnmn words and phrases to express near-synonymic relations. For exampie, mistake and era'or hoth refhr to something done incorrectly or improperly, but mistake is more general than erro% ~ceording to the usage ,tot(; in the OALD.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="4"> Relation complexity. 2 The property of relation complexity refers to the need to represent different relations between the same pair of nearsynonyms, on more than one level of complexity; we nee(l to t)e able tso inchlde nuances that are relevant to a given situation and ignore others.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="5"> Relation creativity. Chaflin and llerrmann ohserve that &amp;quot;the production and recognition of' relations is a creative ability&amp;quot;, so that the re lation between two words &amp;quot;can he readily identified although the reader may never have considered the relation of these particular terms betbre&amp;quot; \[p. 292\]. We wilt show tha, t relation ereativit 9 is equally necessary to a theory of near-synonymic relations, l'br example, the relation of 2Chatfin and'Jlerrtnann \[1988\] use the somewhat misleading terln relation ambiguity, bug we believe it is ntore accurate and less confusing to use the term relation complexi@.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="6"> arrange/organize 3 can be recognized as one that contrasts correctness with functionality, and we might then detect this same relationship for other pairs of near-synonyms (e.g., trim/shave).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="7"> In summing up the importance of these relation properties to a theory of semantic relations, Chaffm and Herrmann state that &amp;quot;these diverse phenomena must be explained by theories of relations&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;we will tind that in order to explain relations it is necessary to assume that relations are normally composed of more primitive elements that account for their characteristics and for people's abilities to make judgments about them&amp;quot; \[p. 292\]. We, believe these observations are equally true of theories of plesionymic relations and we will show that a relation-element theory of near-synonymy will account for these relation properties.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
    <Section position="2" start_page="691" end_page="692" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
3.2 Theoretical assumptions
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> In developing their theory of semantic relations, Chaflin and Herrmann make the following )'e, presentationa l assumptions \[paraphrased from  pp. 293-294\]: * A relation R, between 1;wo concepts x and y is composed of a set o\[&amp;quot; dyadic reb~tion eh,,ments (&amp;,...,&amp;): ~:l~?j --~ (E~, ..., i,;, )4 * I~.elation elements may be hierarchically organized so that the presence of one element  depends on the presence of another, o1' elements may be independent of one attother. In the following representation, independent  3 &amp;quot;Arrange is to put in a pleasing or correct order ... Organize is to put into a working system&amp;quot; (fi'om the usage note in tile OALI)).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> 4 This notation should be read as &amp;quot;the relation I~ decomposes to the relation elements ... &amp;quot;,  s(2.ma, rll;ie relations a r(2 ,Wl~o~ym, il@ a, tld p,s, clsdoantonym, which they delin(2 in t(2rrl\[s of th(2 fol lowing sets of r(21a.tiol:l (2hmmnts: \[~ synonymity: inters(2.ction (inch,shin (I,ila,t(2r~d)) paeudoa?ztonym: dhn(2nsion (bipola, r, (;OlillO|;a,live) null We will ada,pt th(2se r(2l)r(!s(2n t a, tiona;l a,ssun\[ptions 'l 1,0 our study of I)l(2sionyuiy a, lld |is(2 tii(2ni ill (;otisti'u(;tiiig lt(~;u'-syl\[ollytrii(', r(2bttions \['l:OPd the r(2hl,I;hm (2l(2iilelits to t)(2 (tefi\[i(2(i below.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
  </Section>
  <Section position="5" start_page="692" end_page="692" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
4 The relation elements
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Ch~dlh/a,nd lIerrm~nn define a, s(2t o\[' relation c,h&gt; mcnl,v of which s(2n:lanl, ie rel~tions am(2 eonipos(!\[I.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> These relation (2\[(2til(2iiis a,ro d(2scrih(2d a,s &amp;quot;(;le inents tha, t the l'(2l~tions h~(l ill commoli ~ll(I (21(&gt; ments theft distinguistl(2d t he r(;l~tions from (2a, ch oth('r&amp;quot; \[p. 301\]. We ol)serv(2 tlia,t, for oitr pill'l)OS(2s~ a, i'el~:~tion e\](21Ii(211t is a, (tonol,~tiona,I or (:eli nota,tiv(2 li;at\[u'(2 tha,t is pa,rt (or a, ll) of a (les\[::\['il)lion ()f~ I\[(2~+U ' .SyilOtlylilig i:cla,tion; a,ll(i ti(211(;(2 i\](2{l,l'synonymi(: r(;l~tions can be dif\[or(2ntial;(2(l t)y |,h(;se va;rious (2\](2nlellts. '\['hlls~ gi V(211 t h is ol)s(2rvlt|,iOll, we ca, n consider our f(2gtttrcs or (li\[r(2r('nti~tion, ~ts illustr~tted in Ta, lil(2 1, to be exa, nlt)l(2s of the  elelnent sl&gt;\['llCl~lll'(~s! \])II~D il~ iS llOl, nOC(~SSDA'y for undersl,&amp;iiding {lie work we wi\]l pi'esenl..</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> 7(~ha|Iin and Iierrmann ,Mso make processing assumpl.ions, inchldhlg one th~tt rel~tes to psyc\]lological verification of their re|&amp;l~ions; we do li(l|, iisc I~l).()st: ;tssuull)tions ill I, his plqmr.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="6" start_page="692" end_page="692" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
5 The relations
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> We will work through several exa, mpl(2s, showing how neaA'-syltotlyltli(; l'(2\]~l, tiollS (;~1,i1 I)(2 construct(2xl from r(2.h~tion (2lem(2nts. All the word d(2scrii)tions in th(2 (2xampl(2s b(210w will I)(2 taken from usa+t,;(2.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> not(2s in the OA LD. Our first ex+mlt)l(2 is the r(2.pr(2s(2nt~d, ion of the distinction betw(2en ask and beSCCC\]~: null \[Ask\] is tile most usua,l ~md ilffortmd wor(I ... besee,:h \[is\] strong;(2r a,|ld Irlol(2 form M t h~m beg.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> Fron/this usa,g(2 |lot(2, a, lld our owt\[ na,tiv(2 speld~(2r knowledge., we identify the i'(2h~l;ion (11(2m(2nts tha, t distinguish (2.~u:h word: a,~i~: g(2n(2r~d; inforniaJ bc,~eceh: fm'raa,l; fore(2fill This rtota, tion (:m~ be r(2;~d a,s &amp;quot;a:;k is move g(2n  A quarrel is a sharp, often angry, exchange of words between people ... A row is angry and may involve shouting, usually tbr a short time ... A row can also take place between public figures or organizations.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> \[\['here are two ways we can construct the relation between quarrel and row, depending on whether the argument is between people or inanimate organizations: null quarrel/~vw: (Ibrceful, fbrlnalji, emotionalji(vectorialjl)) quarrel/row: (forceful, \[nan\[mat ell (forlnalji)) The tirst relation states that row is more formal and more emotional; quarrel is more forceflll. It also indicates that the greater emotion of a row is linked to a difference in scale, the vectorial element, which in this case refers to the diff&gt;rent lengths of time of a quar~vl and a row. The second relation notes that a row can inw)lve inanintate entities but, if it does, then the effect is more formal. Thus, we can have different relations between plesionyms, depending on the different usages of the words.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> By following the same kind of approach, we can (:onstruct relations for some other pairs of nearsynonyms: null flvwn/,qrirnaee: (general (formalji, torcefn\]jl) mistake/blunder: (general (formalji, fornefi~lji, carelessji)) fat/plump: (general (forcefifl (politqi(attractivejl)))) We observe that the same or similar relation (:an hold between different pairs of near-synonyms, for example, ask/beseech, thin/ernaeiated, and ffow~@rirnace. This is mta.logous to the case of semantic relations, which, as Chaffin and Herrmann note, are readily recognizable and nameable. Near-synonymic relations cannot be so easily labelled, but we can still see that some basic set of relations might be defined and could be used to construct new relations, l?k)r example, we showed that the relation between ask and beseech couhl be represented by the following structure: ask/beseech: (geuera\] (forxnal.ii, forcefulji)) We saw how this basic relation could also apply to thin/emaciated and fl'own/grimace; this sug-. gests that, lor lexical-choice processing, we will want to keep a catalogue of existing relations from which new relations could be built. Another pair of near-synonyms, mistake and blunder, share the same distinctions, except that blunder is often the result of carelessness (OALD). So we add to the existing specification to obtain the following relation: null re\[sick, c/blunder: (general (formal\[l, fo:rcefulj~, carelessji)) Imstty, dependencies can lead to quite complicated relations, as iu the case of fat/plu'mp, where the distinction of politeness (intpoliteness) is related to different dependencies for each nearsynonynu the nuances of force and impoliteness are interdependent, as are those of politeness and a.ttrantiveness.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="7" start_page="692" end_page="694" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
6 The relation properties
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> In Section 3.11, we set out a list of relation 1)roperties that any theory of i,ear-synonymic relations should be able to account lot'. In tlhis section, we discuss how a relation-element approach addresses these issues.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Relation comparison. By breaking down the relations between ptesionyms into relation elements, we can obtain a finer degree ot' discrimination between similar words for the task of lexical choice in generation. As we discuss in \[l)i-Marco, \[first, and Stede 1993\], many of the semantic distinctions between plesionyms do not \]end themselvns to neat, taxonomic differentiation; ratlher, they are fuzzy, with plesionyms often having an area of overlap. For exa,mple, the boundary between forest and wood is vague, and there are some situations it, which either word might be equally appropriate. The i)roblem is compounded when we are dealing with more than one language, for the %veakpoint' between small and large tracts of trees is different for different languages. For multilingual generation, we can compare plesionyms in different languages in terms of their different elelnent structures, so that it shouhl be easier to choose the particular word iu a particular language that tits a given situation.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> Relation expressions. We have seen thai; o\[: ten the distinctions between near-synonyms need to be expressed using common words and phrases.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> But we have shown that there are ways of expressing relations using fairly common vocabulary to represent these distinctions. The ease of relation identilic,~tion may contribute towards relation veritication: we ('an anticipate that psychological tests, of the soN, Chaffin and IIerrmann carried out lbr semantic relations, could be used to verify our relations and relation elements, as we can meaningfidly and precisely represent the subjects' intuitions about the distinctions between n ear- syn onyms.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4">  Relation complexity. R,elations may need to be de.scribed ~1; more= than one hwel of c&lt;)ml)lexity, so that the distinctions between two words may be identified in more than one way. We have shown how a relation-elenteut approacll allows us to detine difl'erent relation structures for the same 1)air of neaa: synonyms (e.g., quarrel/row).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> Relation creativity. We have noted in previous work \[DiMarco, \]lirst, and S1;ede 1993\] that the rel)resentation of 1;he distinctions be= tween near-synonyms would seeln to reqllire a constrained, bul; not finite, vocalmlary. With a relation-element approa&lt;-h, we have seen how a hasi(: set of relations might be constru(:te(I; new relation eleme.n.ts nlay be a&lt;lde(\[, but we may be able to incorporate them into existing relations, so that tim ('al;alogue of relations need not grow uncontrollably. Tbus, we (;an \])roduee new relations by elaborating on existing, well-known relations or by concatenating existiug relations \[p. 3221.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="8" start_page="694" end_page="694" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
7 hnplementing near-synonymic
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> relations We are currently invesl, igating (lilferent systems for implementing a relational theory o\[ near: synonymy. The first system that we al'e looking at is WordNe(; \[Miller et al :1990), whi&lt;;h s('ems p~rti(;uhtrly relew~nt as words are organized both by semantic relations and by &amp;quot;synsets&amp;quot; (synonym sets).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> WordNet contains delinitions of uomls, verbs, and adjectives; for now, we are COileeiitroot ing on the reI&gt;resenta,tion of adje(:tiwtl nearsynonyms. In keel)log with the l)hilosol)hy of WordNet, we envisage the use &lt;)f a i)ointer for each type (&gt;\[&amp;quot; near-synonymic relation in our cal;alogue, so that we might tel)resent the relations betwee.n plesionyms as follows:</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> r3: (general (favon,'abh b forcefulji)) Currently, the coding of a, synse.t of adjectives wouhl look as lbllows in Word Net: { thin, slender, erase.fated, thin1, &amp; } where &amp;quot;thinl, &amp;&amp;quot; indicates that members of this syltset are related to the '(:&lt;)n(:e.l&gt;t' thin/ I&gt;y the simila,rity relation.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> We can imagine iml)&lt;)siug additional structure on a synset and malting use of a catah)gue of near-synonymic relations to obtain the f&lt;)llowing coding: null { \[thin, sh;nder, rl\], \[thin, eros.elated, r21, \[shin&lt;let, emaciated, r3\], thin1, &amp; }s 8In WordNet, square brackets are used to indicate a lexical While such a representation of near synonymic relations would be very easy and natural in Word. Net, it relies on the solution of a uunll)er of chah lenging probh~ms, speeili('ally, how to generate a comt&gt;lete set of near-synonymic rehLtion elenl(utts, and how to define a constrained and reusa, ble cataJogue of nea.r- synonymic relations.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>