1. CS626-460: Language Technology for the Web/Natural Language Processing Pushpak Bhattacharyya CSE Dept., IIT Bombay Topic: More on semantic relations

2. Metonymy Associated with Metaphors which are epitomes of semantics Associated with Metaphors which are epitomes of semantics Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary definition: “The use of a word or phrase to mean something different from the literal meaning” Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary definition: “The use of a word or phrase to mean something different from the literal meaning” Does it mean Careless Usage?! Does it mean Careless Usage?!

3. Insight from Sanskritic Tradition Power of a word Power of a word –Abhidha, Lakshana, Vyanjana Meaning of Hall: Meaning of Hall: –The hall is packed (avidha) –The hall burst into laughing (lakshana) –The Hall is full (unsaid: and so we cannot enter) (vyanjana)

4. Metaphors in Indian Tradition upamana and upameya upamana and upameya –Former: object being compared –Latter: object being compared with –Puru was like a lion in the battle with Alexander (Puru: upameya; Lion: upamana)

5. Upamana, rupak, atishayokti upamana: Explicit comparison upamana: Explicit comparison –Puru was like a lion in the battle with Alexander rupak: Implicit comparison rupak: Implicit comparison –Puru was a lion in the battle with Alexander Atishayokti (exaggeration): upamana and upameya dropped Atishayokti (exaggeration): upamana and upameya dropped –Puru’s army fled. But the lion fought on.

6. Modern study (1956 onwards, Richards et. al.) Three constituents of metaphor Three constituents of metaphor –Vehicle (items used metaphorically) –Tenor (the metaphorical meaning of the former) –Ground (the basis for metaphorical extension) “The foot of the mountain” “The foot of the mountain” –Vehicle: :foot” –Tenor: “lower portion” –Ground: “spatial parallel between the relationship between the foot to the human body and the lower portion of the mountain with the rest of the mountain”

7. Interaction of semantic fields (Haas) Core vs. peripheral semantic fields Core vs. peripheral semantic fields Interaction of two words in metonymic relation brings in new semantic fields with selective inclusion of features Interaction of two words in metonymic relation brings in new semantic fields with selective inclusion of features Leg of a table Leg of a table –Does not stretch or move –Does stand and support

8. Lakoff’s (1987) contribution Source Domain Source Domain Target Domain Target Domain Mapping Relations Mapping Relations

9. Mapping Relations: ontological correspondences Anger is heat of fluid in container Anger is heat of fluid in container Heat (i) Container (ii) Agitation of fluid (iii) Limit of resistence (iv) Explosion AngerBody Agitation of mind Limit of ability to suppress Loss of control

10. Image Schemas Categories: Container Contained Categories: Container Contained Quantity Quantity –More is up, less is down: Outputs rose dramatically; accidents rates were lower –Linear scales and paths: Ram is by far the best performer Time Time –Stationary event: we are coming to exam time –Stationary observer: weeks rush by Causation: desperation drove her to exterme steps Causation: desperation drove her to exterme steps

11. Patterns of Metonymy Container for contained Container for contained –The kettle boiled (water) Possessor for possessed/attribute Possessor for possessed/attribute –Where are you parked? (car) Represented entity for representative Represented entity for representative –The government will announce new targets Whole for part Whole for part –I am going fill up the car with petrol

12. Patterns of Metonymy (contd) Part for whole Part for whole –I noticed several new faces in the class Place for institution Place for institution –Lalbaug witnessed the largest Ganapati Question: Can you have part-part metonymy

13. Purpose of Metonymy More idiomatic/natural way of expression More idiomatic/natural way of expression –More natural to say the kettle is boiling as opposed to the water in the kettle is boiling Economy Economy –Room 23 is answering (but not *is asleep) Ease of access to referent Ease of access to referent –He is in the phone book (but not *on the back of my hand) Highlighting of associated relation Highlighting of associated relation –The car in the front decided to turn right (but not *to smoke a cigarette)

14. Feature sharing not necessary In a restaurant: In a restaurant: –Jalebii ko abhi dudh chaiye (no feature sharing) –The elephant now want some coffee (feature sharing)

15. Proverbs Describes a specific event or state of affairs which is applicable metaphorically to a range of events or states of affairs provided they have the same of sufficiently similar image-schematic structure Describes a specific event or state of affairs which is applicable metaphorically to a range of events or states of affairs provided they have the same of sufficiently similar image-schematic structure

16. Formalization of WN

17. Formalization of WordNet Mathematical Formal Theory Mathematical Formal Theory Based on Formal Concept Analysis Based on Formal Concept Analysis Defines Semantic Relationships Defines Semantic Relationships Theoretical Analysis of Relationships and dependencies among them Theoretical Analysis of Relationships and dependencies among them

18. Formal Concept Analysis Formal Context K : (G,M,I) Formal Context K : (G,M,I) G : Set of Formal Objects G : Set of Formal Objects M : Set of Formal Attributes M : Set of Formal Attributes I G M I G M A pair (A,B) is a Formal Concept if, A pair (A,B) is a Formal Concept if, A = βB and B = αA A = βB and B = αA

19. Example of Formal Concept YoungOldFemaleMale Person AdultX Female Person X Male Person X ChildX WomanXX ManXX A = {Adult, Woman, Man} & B = {Old} Here (A,B) is a Formal Concept.

20. WordNet as a Formal Context Denotative Context : Denotative Context : here D is Denotata & concepts are Disambiguated Words WordNet is a Lexical Context: WordNet is a Lexical Context: here W are Disambiguated Words An equivalence relation SYN is defined on set W as, An equivalence relation SYN is defined on set W as, where syn(w) is Synset of w

21. Relational Concept Analysis Relations between concepts, i.e. Relations between concepts, i.e. Quantifiers are used to define such relationships Quantifiers are used to define such relationships as follows: Notations : Notations :

22. Meronymy Two disambiguated words are in Meronymy Relation if their denotative word concepts are in relation where m is meronymy relation among denotata i.e. Two disambiguated words are in Meronymy Relation if their denotative word concepts are in relation where m is meronymy relation among denotata i.e. Various combinations of quantifiers lead to different types of Meronymy Relations Various combinations of quantifiers lead to different types of Meronymy Relations

23. Types of Meronymy : A child can be a member of tennis club, but not all children are members of tennis club, nor do all tennis clubs have children as members. : A child can be a member of tennis club, but not all children are members of tennis club, nor do all tennis clubs have children as members. : All door-handles are part of doors, but not all doors have to have handles. : All door-handles are part of doors, but not all doors have to have handles. : All sandwitches consist of breads, but not all breads are parts of sandwitches. : All sandwitches consist of breads, but not all breads are parts of sandwitches. : Each bird feather is part of the bird and all birds have feathers. : Each bird feather is part of the bird and all birds have feathers.

24. Hyponymy and Synonymy A disambiguated word is a Hyponym of other word if the concept it denotes is subconcept of concept denoted by the other word. A disambiguated word is a Hyponym of other word if the concept it denotes is subconcept of concept denoted by the other word. Two disambiguated words are called Synonyms if they denote the same concept. Two disambiguated words are called Synonyms if they denote the same concept.

25. Inheritence of Relations : This is inherited by hypernyms of part and whole. : This is inherited by hypernyms of part and whole. : This is inherited by hypernyms of whole and hyponyms of part. : This is inherited by hypernyms of whole and hyponyms of part. : This is inherited by hyponyms of whole and hypernyms of part. : This is inherited by hyponyms of whole and hypernyms of part. : This is inherited by a particular pair hyponyms of both. : This is inherited by a particular pair hyponyms of both.