Pattern Analysis and Applications

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 495–507 | Cite as

Acquisition of Turkish meronym based on classification of patterns

  • Tuǧba YıldızEmail author
  • Banu Diri
  • Savaş Yıldırım
Short Paper


The identification of semantic relations from a raw text is an important problem in Natural Language Processing. This paper provides semi-automatic pattern-based extraction of part–whole relations. We utilized and adopted some lexico-syntactic patterns to disclose meronymy relation from a Turkish corpus. We applied two different approaches to prepare patterns; one is based on pre-defined patterns that are taken from the literature, second automatically produces patterns by means of bootstrapping method. While pre-defined patterns are directly applied to corpus, other patterns need to be discovered first by taking manually prepared unambiguous seeds. Then, word pairs are extracted by their occurrence in those patterns. In addition, we used statistical selection on global data that is obtaining from all results of entire patterns. It is a whole-by-part matrix on which several association metrics such as information gain, T-score, etc., are applied. We examined how all these approaches improve the system accuracy especially within corpus-based approach and distributional feature of words. Finally, we conducted a variety of experiments with a comparison analysis and showed advantage and disadvantage of the approaches with promising results.


Corpus-based method Lexico-syntactic pattern Meronym Part–whole 


  1. 1.
    Cruse AD (2003) The lexicon. In: Aronoff M, Ress-Miller J (eds) The handbook of linguistics. Blackwell Publisher Ltd., Oxford, pp 238–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Keet CM, Artale A (2008) Representing and reasoning over a taxonomy of part–whole relations. Appl Ontol 3(1–2):91–110Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pribbenow S (2002) Meronymic relationships: from classical mereology to complex part–whole relations. In: Green R, Bean CA, Myaeng SH (eds) The semantics of relationships. Springer, Netherlands, pp 35–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Croft W, Cruse D (2004) Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Simons P (1987) Parts: a study in ontology. Oxford University Press, UKGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gerstl P, Pribbenow S (1995) Midwinters, end games, and body parts: a classification of part–whole relations. Int J Hum–Comput Stud 43(5–6):865–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Iris MA, Litowitz BE, Evens M (1988) Problems of the part–whole relation. In: Evens M (ed) Relational models of the lexicon. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 261–288Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Winston ME, Chaffin R, Herrmann D (1987) A Taxonomy of part–whole relations. Cogn Sci 11(4):417–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Miller GA et al (1990) Introduction to WordNet: an on-line lexical database. Int J Lexicogr 3(4):235–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Murphy ML (2003) Semantic relations and the lexicon: antonymy, synonymy, and other paradigms. Cambridge University Press, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Artale A, Franconi E, Guarino N, Pazzi L (1996) Part–whole relations in object-centered systems: an overview. Data Knowl Eng 20(3):347–383CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Girju R, Badulescu A, Moldovan D (2006) Automatic discovery of part–whole relations. Comput Linguist 32(1):83–135Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hamon T, Natalia G (2008) How can the term compositionality be useful for acquiring elementary semantic relations? In: Nordström B, Ranta A (eds) Advances in natural language processing, LNCS 5221. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 181–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Roberts A (2005) Learning meronyms from biomedical text. In: Proceedings of the ACL student research workshop (ACLstudent ’05). Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, pp 49–54Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ling X, Clark P, Weld DS (2013) Extracting meronyms for a biology knowledge base. In: Proceedings of the 2013 workshop on automated knowledge base construction (AKBC ’13). ACM, USA, pp 7–12Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ittoo A, Bouma G, Maruster L, Wortmann H (2010) Extracting meronymy relationships from domain specific, textual corporate databases. In: Hopfe CJ, Rezgui Y, Metais E, Preece AD, Li H (eds) Natural language processing and information system, LNCS 6177. Springer, Berlin, pp 48–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pantel P, Pennacchiotti M (2006) Espresso: leveraging generic patterns for automatically harvesting semantic relations. In: Proceeding of the 21st international conference on computational linguistics and 44th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Australia, Sydney, pp 113–120Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vor der Bruck T, Helbig H (2010) Meronymy extraction using an automated theorem prover. J Lang Technol Comput Linguist 25(1):57–82Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vor der Bruck T, Helbig H (2010) Validating meronymy hypotheses with support vector machines and graph kernels. In: Proceedings of the 2010 Ninth International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications (ICMLA '10). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, pp 243–250Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Xia F, Cungen C (2014) Extracting part–whole relations from online encyclopedia. In: Shi Z, Wu Z, Leake D, Sattler U (eds) Intelligent information processing VII. IFIP advances in information and communication technology, vol 432. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 57–66Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hearst MA (1992) Automatic acquisition of hyponyms from large text corpora. In: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on computational linguistics, COLING 1992. Nantes, France, pp 539–545Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Berland M, Charniak E (1999) Finding parts in very large corpora. In: Proceedings of the 37th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Computational Linguistics, USA, pp 57–64Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Girju R, Badulescu A, Moldovan D (2003) Learning semantic constraints for the automatic discovery of part–whole relations. In: Proceedings of the human language technology conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Edmonton, Canada, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Van HWR, Kolb H, Schreiber G (2006) A method for learning part–whole relations. In: Cruz IF, Decker S, Allemang D, Preist C, Schwabe D, Mika P, Uschold M, Aroyo L (eds) International semantic web, LNCS 4273. Springer, Berlin, pp 723–735Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ittoo A, Bouma G (2010) On learning subtypes of the part–whole relation: do not mix your seeds. In: Proceedings of the 48th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL’10. Association for Computational Linguistics, Uppsala, Sweden, pp 1328–1336Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cao X, Cao C, Wang S, Lu H (2008) Extracting part–whole relations from unstructured Chinese Corpus. In: Proceedings of the 2008 5th international conference on fuzzy systems and knowledge discovery, pp 175–179Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yao T, Uszkoreit H (2005) Identifying semantic relations between named entities from Chinese texts. In: Lu R, Siekmann JH, Ullrich C (eds) Proceedings of the 2005 joint Chinese-German conference on cognitive systems, LNCS 4429. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 70–83Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Orhan Z, Pehlivan I, Uslan V, Onder P (2011) Automated extraction of semantic word relations in Turkish lexicon. Math Comput Appl 16(1):13–22Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Serbetçi A, Orhan Z, Pehlivan I (2011) Extraction of semantic word relations in Turkish from dictionary definitions. In: Proceedings of the ACL 2011 workshop on relational models of semantics, RELMS 2011. Portland, Oregon, USA, pp 11–18Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yazıcı E, Amasyalı MF (2011) Automatic extraction of semantic relationships using Turkish dictionary definitions. EMO Bilimsel Dergi, İstanbulGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yıldız T, Yıldırım S, Diri B (2013) Extraction of part–whole relations from Turkish corpora. In: Gelbukh A (ed) Computational linguistics and intelligent text processing, LNCS 7816. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 126–138Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yıldız T, Diri B, Yıldırım S (2014) Analysis of lexico-syntactic patterns for meronym extraction from a Turkish corpus. 6th Language and technology conference. Human language technologies as a challenge for computer science and linguistics, LTC, Poland, pp 429–433Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sak H, Güngör T, Saraçlar M (2008) Turkish language resources: morphological parser, morphological disambiguator and web corpus. In: Nordström B, Ranta A (eds) Advances in natural language processing, LNCS 5221. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 417–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tuǧba Yıldız
    • 1
    Email author
  • Banu Diri
    • 2
  • Savaş Yıldırım
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Engineering, Faculty of Engineeringİstanbul Bilgi UniversityEyüpTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Computer Engineering, Faculty of Electric and ElectronicYıldız Technical UniversityEsenlerTurkey

Personalised recommendations