EuroWordNet: A Multilingual Database With Lexical Semantic Networks 1998
DOI: 10.1007/978-94-017-1491-4_4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Compatibility in Interpretation of Relations in EuroWordNet

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…. Cruse (2004), Vossen et al (1998), Alonge et al (1998) and Bentivogli et al (2000) claim that this variation is susceptible to cases of divergence; the topic to which our research has been dedicated. According to these researchers, language is subject to four kinds of divergence: conceptual, denotative, connotative, and pragmatic.…”
Section: Lexical-semantic Concept and Correspondencementioning
confidence: 92%
“…. Cruse (2004), Vossen et al (1998), Alonge et al (1998) and Bentivogli et al (2000) claim that this variation is susceptible to cases of divergence; the topic to which our research has been dedicated. According to these researchers, language is subject to four kinds of divergence: conceptual, denotative, connotative, and pragmatic.…”
Section: Lexical-semantic Concept and Correspondencementioning
confidence: 92%
“…Another restriction is to do with language specificity. Typologically different languages appear to require slightly different relation sets; compare for example Princeton WordNet (Fellbaum 1998) and EuroWordNet (Vossen et al 1998). For the needs of plWordNet 2.0, we have investigated the existing relation sets from the standpoint of Polish inflectional and derivational morphology, Polish lexicographic tradition and, no less important, the interplay between culture and language.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%