"I don't believe in word senses"
Adam Kilgarriff (ITRI, University of Brighton)

TL;DR
This paper critiques the concept of fixed word senses, arguing that they are context-dependent clusters of citations rather than inherent entities, and that disambiguation depends on specific tasks.
Contribution
It challenges traditional notions of word senses, proposing that senses are task-dependent clusters of corpus citations rather than fixed entities.
Findings
Word senses are abstractions from citation clusters.
Senses depend on clustering purposes and are not inherent.
Disambiguation requires task-specific sense sets.
Abstract
Word sense disambiguation assumes word senses. Within the lexicography and linguistics literature, they are known to be very slippery entities. The paper looks at problems with existing accounts of `word sense' and describes the various kinds of ways in which a word's meaning can deviate from its core meaning. An analysis is presented in which word senses are abstractions from clusters of corpus citations, in accordance with current lexicographic practice. The corpus citations, not the word senses, are the basic objects in the ontology. The corpus citations will be clustered into senses according to the purposes of whoever or whatever does the clustering. In the absence of such purposes, word senses do not exist. Word sense disambiguation also needs a set of word senses to disambiguate between. In most recent work, the set has been taken from a general-purpose lexical resource, with…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsNatural Language Processing Techniques · Lexicography and Language Studies · linguistics and terminology studies
