. "Maintaining consistency of monolingual verb entries with interannotator agreement"@en . "978-91-85333-42-4" . . . "0803-9313" . . . "Nordiska studier i lexikografi - Rapport fr\u00E5n Konferensen om lexikografi i Norden" . "P(7E09003), P(GAP406/10/0875), P(GBP103/12/G084), P(LC536), P(LM2010013)" . . . . . . . "Maintaining consistency of monolingual verb entries with interannotator agreement" . "Nordiska f\u00F6reningen for lexikografi" . . . "Lauschmannov\u00E1, Anna" . . "2011-05-24+02:00"^^ . "RIV/00216208:11320/12:10130038" . "Maintaining consistency of monolingual verb entries with interannotator agreement"@en . . "There is no objectively correct way to create a monolingual entry of a polysemous verb. By structuring a verb into readings, we impose our conception onto lexicon users, no matter how big a corpus we use in support. How do we make sure that our structuring is intelligible for others? We are performing an experiment with the validation of the fully corpus-based Pattern Dictionary of English Verbs (Hanks & Pustejovsky, 2005), created according to the lexical theory Corpus Pattern Analysis (CPA). The lexicon is interlinked with a large corpus, in which several hundred randomly selected concordances of each processed verb are manually annotated with numbers of their corresponding lexicon readings (%22patterns%22). It would be interesting to prove (or falsify) the leading assumption of CPA that, given the patterns are based on a large corpus, individual introspection has been minimized and most people can agree on this particular semantic structuring. We have encoded the guidelines for assigning concordances t" . . "agreement; interannotator; with; entries; verb; monolingual; consistency; maintaining"@en . . . . "Cinkov\u00E1, Silvie" . . "Th\u00E1l, Jon\u00E1\u0161" . . "12"^^ . . . . "Smejkalov\u00E1, Lenka" . . . . "Lund, Sweden" . "Holub, Martin" . "5"^^ . "There is no objectively correct way to create a monolingual entry of a polysemous verb. By structuring a verb into readings, we impose our conception onto lexicon users, no matter how big a corpus we use in support. How do we make sure that our structuring is intelligible for others? We are performing an experiment with the validation of the fully corpus-based Pattern Dictionary of English Verbs (Hanks & Pustejovsky, 2005), created according to the lexical theory Corpus Pattern Analysis (CPA). The lexicon is interlinked with a large corpus, in which several hundred randomly selected concordances of each processed verb are manually annotated with numbers of their corresponding lexicon readings (%22patterns%22). It would be interesting to prove (or falsify) the leading assumption of CPA that, given the patterns are based on a large corpus, individual introspection has been minimized and most people can agree on this particular semantic structuring. We have encoded the guidelines for assigning concordances t"@en . . "147841" . "Maintaining consistency of monolingual verb entries with interannotator agreement" . "RIV/00216208:11320/12:10130038!RIV13-GA0-11320___" . . "Lund, Sweden" . . "5"^^ . "[80F8492A960F]" . "11320" .