A Wordnet from the Ground Up

170 Chapter 5. Polish WordNet Today and Tomorrowthan for substantive lemmas. Nevertheless, valuable suggestions – of use to linguists– have been generated most of the new lemmas, including even those relatively rare.5.2 plWordNet at ThreeThe present state of plWordNet – version 1.0 – is the effect of the productive semiautomaticexpansion discussed in Section 4.5.3. We note that it was the linguists whohave introduced all new synsets and instances of lexico-semantic relations, followingautomatically generated suggestions.As discussed in Section 2.5, we chose to measure the size of plWordNet in lemmasand lexical units, but Table 5.1 4 shows synset numbers too. This facilitates thecomparison with other wordnet descriptions in the literature.Nouns Verbs Adjectives AllLemmasAll 14131 3497 2636 20223Monosemous 10839 2777 1924 15477Polysemous 3292 720 712 4746LUs 18611 4498 3881 26990Synsets 13675 1860 2160 17695Table 5.1: The size of plWordNet, version 1.0Adverbial LUs have not been included in the first version of plWordNet. Instead,we increased the number of nominal and verbal LUs, with the strong emphasis onthe former: there are 1.54 times more nominal lemmas than verbal and adjectivallemmas together. The corresponding ratio in PWN is still much higher (“WordNet3.0 database statistics” in (Miller et al., 2007)): there are 3.57 times more nominal“strings” than verbal and adjectival ones together. The data collected from the jointcorpus (Section 4.5.4), automatically processed by a morphosyntactic tagger, showthe ratio: 1.45 nominal lemma (including several hundred multiword LUs from thelist prepared for expanding plWordNet, cf Section 4.5.4) per one verbal or adjectivallemma. There is only a moderate nominal LU bias in plWordNet, compared to thestate in PWN and the corpus.There are more LUs in plWordNet than synsets. That is because one LU belongsto exactly one synset but a synset can group several LUs (Table 5.1). Reporting thedistinction between the monosemous and polysemous lemmas follows the practice ofPWN (Miller et al., 2007).4 The counts describe the state of plWordNet at the moment of writing the book. See plwordnet.pwr.wroc.pl for the up-to-date numbers.