Charles and Miller propose that lexical associations between antonymous adjectives are formed via their co-occurrences within the same sentence (the co-occurrence hypothesis), rather than via their syntactic substitutability (the substitutability hypothesis), and that such cooccurrences must take place more often than expected by chance. This paper provides empirical support for the co-occurrence hypothesis, in a corpus analysis of all high-frequency adjectives and their antonyms and of a major group of morphologically derived antonyms (e.g., impossible, un-happy). We show that very high co-occurrence rates do appear to characterize all antonymous adjective pairs, supporting the precondition for the formation of the association; and we find that the syntactic contexts of these co-occurrences raise the intrinsic associability of antonyms when they do co-occur. We show that via one of these patterns, mutual substitution within otherwise repeated phrases in a sentence, the co-occurrence hypothesis captures the generalizations that were the basis for the substitutability hypothesis for the formation of antonymic associations. 1. Antonymic Association Much current research in linguistics is concerned with textual or discourse bases for

... In this paper we argue for a linguistically principled approach to disambiguation, in which relevant contextual clues are narrowly defined, in syntactic and semantic terms, and in which only highly reliable clues are exploited. Statistical methods play a definite role in this work, helping to organize and analyze data, but the disambiguation method itself does not employ statistical data or decision criteria. This approach results in improved understanding of the disambiguation problem both in general and on a word-specific basis and leads to broadly applicable and nearly errorless clues to word sense. The approach is illustrated by an experiment discriminating among the senses of adjectives, which have been relatively neglected in work on sense disambiguation. In particular, the paper assesses the potential of nouns for discriminating among the senses of adjectives that modify them. This assessment is based on an empirical study of five of the most frequent ambiguous adjectives in English: hard, light, old, right, and short. About three-quarters of all instances of these adjectives can be disambiguated almost errorlessly by the nouns they modify or by the syntactic constructions in which they occur. Such disambiguation requires only simple rules, which can be automated easily. Furthermore, a small number of semantic attributes supply a compact means of representing the noun clues in a very few rules. Clues other than nouns are required when modified nouns are not useable. The sense of an ambiguous modified noun may be needed to determine the relevant semantic attribute for disambiguation of a target adjective; and other adjectives, verbs, and grammatical constructions all show evidence of high reliability, and sometimes of high applicability, when they stand in specific, ...

Knowing the degree of antonymy between words has widespread applications in natural language processing. Manually-created lexicons have limited coverage and do not include most semantically contrasting word pairs. We present a new automatic and empirical measure of antonymy that combines corpus statistics with the structure of a published thesaurus. The approach is evaluated on a set of closest-opposite questions, obtaining a precision of over 80%. Along the way, we discuss what humans consider antonymous and how antonymy manifests itself in utterances. 1