Source PaperYearLineSentence
W96-0309 1996 1
The analysis of nominal compound constructions has proven to be a recalcitrant problem for linguis- tic semantics (Bergsten 1911, Jespersen 1942, Marchand 1970, Lees 1970, Downing 1977, Levi 1978, Warren 1987), and their analysis has presented a serious challenge for natural anguage processing systems (Finin 1980, McDonald 1982, Isabelle 1984, Alshawi 1987, Hobbs et al1993, Bouillon et al 1992, Jones 1995, Johnston, Boguraev, and Pustejovsky 1995)
C96-1062 1996 65
These nouns are uni-relationM nouns that can appear as the head of "N1 of N2" groups, where N2 is a syn- tactic argument of N1 (e.g. height of the desk) (Isabelle, 1984)
W03-1801 2003 5
Whilst thenumber of syntactic possibilities increase exponentially with word length (Isabelle, 1984), semantic in terpretation is at best contextually dependent and inthe worst cases determined by extra-linguistic (prag matic) factors
P03-2035 2003 8
The previous work proposed semantic approaches based on semantic categories (Levi, 1978; Isabelle,1984; Iida et al, 1984) had proposed detailed analy sis of relations between constituents in compoundnouns
W09-2416 2009 62
In some previous computational work on NC interpretation, manually constructed dictionaries provided typical activitiesor functions associated with nouns (Finin, 1980; Isabelle, 1984; Johnston and Busa, 1996)