Advertisement

Supply-Side and Demand-Side Lexical Semantics

  • Sergei Nirenburg
  • Victor Raskin
Part of the Text, Speech and Language Technology book series (TLTB, volume 10)

Abstract

Two methodological positions coexist in lexical semantics. The supply-side approach selects the topics of research from among the issues that are perceived as those that can be done. It relies on what is perceived as “possible” and “available” with respect to tools and resources. The demand-side places a premium on what must be done to put together a useful working application and, therefore, strives for the comprehensive coverage of a sublanguage/domain in descriptive semantic terms, licensing extensions to its methodology in the process. There are far-reaching consequences in the respective views of the two approaches on such essential issues as the relations between (computational) syntax and (computational) semantics, the feasibility and status of language-independent ontology as the basis of lexical semantics, and the amount of attention to comprehensive semantic description/representation of input text. The distinction between the two approaches is rooted both in the history of linguistics and in the philosophy of science. It is important to understand the two positions in order to match the expectations concerning practical results and declared goals of research in lexical semantics.

Keywords

Machine Translation Word Sense Word Sense Disambiguation Computational Linguistics Lexical Knowledge 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ageno, A., I. Castellon, G. Rigau, H. Rodriguez, M. F. Verdejo, M. A. Marti and M. Taule. 1992. SEISD: An environment for extraction of semantic information from online dictionaries. In the Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing ANLP92. Trento, Italy, pp. 253–255.Google Scholar
  2. Ahlswede, T. E., M. Evans, K. Rossi and J. Markowitz. 1985. Building a lexical database by parsing Webster’s Seventh Collegiate Dictionary. In the Proceedings of Advances in Lexicology. Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, pp. 65–78.Google Scholar
  3. Amsler, R. A. 1982. Computational lexicology: A Research Program. In the Proceedings of the National Computer Conference, Vol. V, AFIPS, pp. 657–663.Google Scholar
  4. Amsler, R. A. 1984a. Lexical knowledge bases. In the Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Lingusitics’84. Stanford, CA: Stanford University,:pp. 458–459.Google Scholar
  5. Amster, R. A. 1984b. Machine-readable dictionaries. In Williams, M. E. (ed.), Annual.7e-view of Information Science and Technology, Vol. 19. White Plains, N.Y.: Knowledge Industry Publications, pp. 161–209.Google Scholar
  6. Boguraev, B. and T. Briscoe. 1987. Large lexicons for natural language processing: Exploring the grammar coding system for LDOCE. Computational Linguistics 13,; pp. 203–218.Google Scholar
  7. Boguraev, B. and E. J. Briscoe. 1989. Computational Lexicography for Natural Language Processing. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  8. Boguraev, B., E. J. Briscoe, J. Carroll, D. Carter and C. Grover. 1987. The derivation of a grammatically indexed lexicon from the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. In the Proceedings of the Association for Computational Lingusitics ‘87. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, pp. 193–200.Google Scholar
  9. Bréal, M. 1897. Essai de sémantique. English Translation: Semantics: Studies and the Science of Meaning. New York: Dover, 1964.Google Scholar
  10. Briscoe, E. J. 1993. Introduction. In Briscoe et al. (eds.), pp.1–12.Google Scholar
  11. Briscoe, E. J. and A. Copestake. 1996. Controlling the application of lexical rules. In E. Viegas et al. (eds.), pp. 7–19.Google Scholar
  12. Briscoe, T., V. de Paiva and A. Copestake. 1993. Inheritance, Defaults, and the Lexic7n. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Briscoe, E. J., A. Copestake and A. Lascarides. 1995. Blocking. In P. Saint-Dizier and E. Viegas (eds.), Computational Lexical Semantics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, pp. 273–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Calzolari, N. 1984. Machine-readable dictionaries, lexical database and the lexical system. In the Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Linguistics`84. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, p. 460.Google Scholar
  15. Chodorow, M. S., R. J. Byrd and G. E. Heidorn. 1985. Extracting semantic hierarchies from a large on-line dictionary. In the Proceedings of the Association for Computational Linguistics `85. Chicago: University of Chicago, pp. 299–304.Google Scholar
  16. Chomsky, N. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  17. Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Copestake, A. 1990. An approach to building the hierarchical element of a lexical knowledge base from a machine readable dictionary. In the Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Inheritance in Natural Language Processing. Toulouse, France, pp. 19–29.Google Scholar
  19. Copestake, A. 1992. The ACQUILEX LKB: Representation issues in semi-automatic acquisition of large lexicons. In the Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing-ANLP `92. Trento, Italy, pp. 88–96.Google Scholar
  20. Copestake, A. 1995. Representing lexical polysemy. In J. Klavans et al. (eds.), pp. 21–26.Google Scholar
  21. Copestake, A., E. J. Briscoe, P. Vossen, A. Ageno, I. Castellon, F. Ribas, G. Rigau, H. Rodriguez and A. Samiotou. 1994/1995. Acquisition of lexical translation relations from MRD’s. In B. Dorr and J. Klavans (eds.) pp. 183–219.Google Scholar
  22. Darmesteter, A. 1887. La vie des mots: étudiée dans leur signification. Latest Edition: Paris: Champ Libre, 1979.Google Scholar
  23. Dorr, B. J., J. Garman and A. Weinberg. 1994/1995. From syntactic encodings to thematic roles: Building lexical entries for interlingual MT. In B. Dorr and J. Klavans (eds.), pp. 221–250.Google Scholar
  24. Dorr, B. J. and J. Klavans (eds.) 1994/1995. Special Issue: Building Lexicons for Machine Translation I. Machine Translation 9: 3–4.Google Scholar
  25. Dorr, B. J. and J. Klavans (eds.) 1995. Special Issue: Building Lexicons for Machine Translation II. Machine Translation 10: 1–2.Google Scholar
  26. Farwell, D., L. Guthrie and Y. A. Wilks. 1993. Automatically creating lexical entries for ULTRA, a multilingual MT system. Machine Translation 8: 3, pp. 127–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fillmore, C. J. and B. T. S. Atkins. 1992. Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. In A. Lehrer and E. F. Kittay, pp. 75–102.Google Scholar
  28. Fodor, J. and E. Lepore. 1998. The emptiness of the lexicon: Critical reflections on J. Pustejovsky’s The Generative Lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 29, Issue 2.Google Scholar
  29. Frawley, W. 1992. Linguistic Semantics. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. Hirst, G. 1995. Near-synonymy and the structure of lexical knowledge. In J. Klavans et al. (eds.), pp. 51–56.Google Scholar
  31. Johnston, M., B. Boguraev and J. Pustejovsky. 1995. The acquisition and interpretation of complex nominals. In J. Klavans et al.,pp. 69–74.Google Scholar
  32. Katz, J. 1972. Semantic theory and the meaning of good. Journal of Philosophy 61, pp. 736–760.Google Scholar
  33. Kay, P. 1971. Taxonomy and semantic contrast. Language 47: 4, pp. 866–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kay, P. 1992. At Least. In A. Lehrer and E. F. Kittay (eds.), pp. 309–332.Google Scholar
  35. Klavans, J., B. Boguraev, B. Levin and J. Pustejovsky (eds.) 1995. Symposium: Representation and Acquisition of Lexical Knowledge: Polysemy, Ambiguity, and Generativity. Working Notes. AAAI Spring Symposium Series. Stanford, CA: Stanford UniversityGoogle Scholar
  36. Lahav, R. 1989. Against compositionality: The case of adjectives. Philosophical Studies 57, pp. 261–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lakoff, G. 1968. Instrumental adverbs and the concept of deep structure. Foundations of Language 4, pp. 4–29.Google Scholar
  38. Lascarides, A. 1995. The pragmatics of word meaning. In J. Klavans et al. (eds.), pp. 75–80.Google Scholar
  39. Lehrer, A. and E. F. Kittay (eds.) 1992. Frames, Fields, and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  40. Levin, B. 1993. Towards a Lexical Organization of English Verbs. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  41. Lonsdale, D., T. Mitamura and E. Nyberg. 1994/1995. Acquisition of large lexicons for practical knowledge-based MT. In B. Dorr and J. Klavans (eds.), pp. 251–283.Google Scholar
  42. Mahesh, K. 1996. Ontology Development for Machine Translation: Ideology and Methodology. MCCS-96–292. Memoranda in Computer and Cognitive Science. New Mexico State University: Computing Research Laboratory.Google Scholar
  43. Mahesh, K. and S. Nirenburg. 1995. A situated ontology for practical NLP. In the Proceedings of the IJCAI `95 Workshop on Basic Ontological Issues in Knowledge Sharing. Montréal, August 19–21.Google Scholar
  44. Markowitz, J., T. Ahlswede and M. Evans. 1986. Semantically significant patterns in dictionary definitions. In the Proceedings of the Association for Computational Linguistics’86. New York, pp. 112–119.Google Scholar
  45. Marx, W. 1977. Die Kontextabhängigkeit der Assoziativen Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für experimentelle und angewandte Psychologie 24, pp. 455–462.Google Scholar
  46. Marx, W. 1983. The meaning-confining function of the adjective. In G. Rickheit and M. Bock (eds.), Psycholinguistic studies in language processing. Berlin: W. de Gruyber, pp. 70–81.Google Scholar
  47. Nirenburg, S. and L. Levin. 1992. Syntax-driven and ontology-driven lexical semantics. In J. Pustejovsky and S. Bergler, pp. 5–20.Google Scholar
  48. Nirenburg, S. and V. Raskin. 1996. Ten Choices for Lexical Semantics. MCCS-96-M4. Memoranda in Computer and Cognitive Science. New Mexico State University: Computing Research Laboratory.Google Scholar
  49. Nirenburg, S., V. Raskin and B. Onyshkevych. 1995. Apologiae ontologiae. MCCS-95281. Memoranda in Computer and Cognitive Science. New Mexico State University: Computing Research Laboratory. Reprinted in J. Klavans et al. (eds.) 1995, pp. 95–107. Reprinted in a shortened version in the Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Machine Translation. Centre for Computational Linguistics, Catholic Universities Leuven Belgium, 1995, pp. 106–114.Google Scholar
  50. Paul, H. 1886. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte, 2nd ed. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  51. Pustejovsky, J. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  52. Pustejovsky, J., S. Bergler and P. Anick. 1993. Lexical semantic techniques for corpus analysis. Computational Linguistics 19: 2, pp. 331–358.Google Scholar
  53. Raskin, V. 1994. Frawley: Linguistic Semantics. A review article. Language 70: 3, pp. 552–556.Google Scholar
  54. Raskin, V. and S. Nirenburg. 1995. Lexical semantics of adjectives: A microtheory of adjectival meaning. MCCS-95–288. Memoranda in Computer and Cognitive Science. New Mexico State University: Computing Research. Laboratory.Google Scholar
  55. Resnik, P. 1995. Disambiguating Noun Groupings with Respect to WordNet Senses. In the Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Very Large Corpora,MIT, June.Google Scholar
  56. Sanfilippo, A. and V. Poznanski. 1992. The acquisition of lexical knowledge from combined machine-readable sources. In the Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing-ANLP `92. Trento, Italy, pp. 80–88.Google Scholar
  57. Slator, B. M. and Y. A. Wilks. 1987. Towards semantic structures from dictionary entries. In the Proceedings of the Second Annual Rocky Mountain Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Boulder, CO, pp. 85–96.Google Scholar
  58. Slocum, J. and M. G. Morgan. 1986. The role of dictionaries and machine-readable lexicons in translation. Unpublished Ms.Google Scholar
  59. Szalay, L. B. and J. Deese. 1978. Subjective Meaning and Culture: An Assessment Through Word Association. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  60. Vendler, Z. 1963. The grammar of goodness. The Philosophical Review 72:4, pp. 446–465.Google Scholar
  61. Viegas, E., S. Nirenburg, B. Onyshkevych, N. Ostler, V. Raskin and A. Sanfilippo (eds.) 1996. Breadth and Depth of Semantic Lexicons. Proceedings of a Workshop Sponsored by the Special Interest Group on the Lexicon of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Supplement to 34th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Proceedings of the Conference. Santa Cruz, CA: University of California.Google Scholar
  62. Voss, C. and B. J. Dorr. 1995. Toward a lexicalized grammar for interlinguas. In B. Dorr and J. Klavans (eds.), pp. 143–184.Google Scholar
  63. Walker, D. E. 1984. Panel session: Machine-readable dictionaries. In the Proceedings of International Conference on Computational Linguistics `84. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, p. 457.Google Scholar
  64. Walker, D. E. 1987. Knowledge resource tools for accessing large text files. In S. Nirenburg (ed.), Machine Translation: Theoretical and Methodological Issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 247–261.Google Scholar
  65. Walker, D. E. and R. A. Amsler. 1986. The use of machine-readable dictionaries in sublanguage analysis. In R. Grishman and R. Kittredge (eds.), Analyzing Language in Restricted Domains. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, pp. 69–83.Google Scholar
  66. Wilks, Y. 1994. Stone Soup and the French Room. In A. Zampolli N. Calzolari and M. Palmer (eds.), Current Issues in Computational Linguistics: In Honor of Don Walker. Pisa, Italy: Giardini and Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer, pp. 585–595.Google Scholar
  67. Wilks, Y. 1996. Homography and part-of-speech tagging. Presentation at the Mikrokos- mos Workshop. Las Cruces, N.M.: Computing Research Laboratory, August 21.Google Scholar
  68. Wilks, Y. A., D. Fass, C.-M. Guo, J. E. M. McDonald, T. Plate and B. M. Slator. 1987. A tractable machine dictionary as a resource for computational semantics. In S. Nirenburg (ed.), Proceedings of Natural Language Planning Workshop. RADC: Blue Mountain Lake, N.Y., pp. 95–123.Google Scholar
  69. Wilks, Y. A., B. M. Slator and L. M. Guthrie. 1996. Electric Words: Dictionaries, Computers, and Meanings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  70. Wu, D. and X. Xia. 1994/1995. Large-scale automatic extraction of an English-Chinese translation lexicon. In B. Dorr and J. Klavans, pp. 285–313.Google Scholar
  71. Yarowsky, D. 1992. word sense disambiguation using statistical models of Roget’s categories trained on large corpora. In the Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. pp. 454–460, Nantes, France.Google Scholar
  72. Zernik, U. (ed.) 1991. Lexical Acquisition: Exploiting On-line Resources to Build a Lexicon. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  73. Ziff, P. 1960. Semantic Analysis. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sergei Nirenburg
    • 1
  • Victor Raskin
    • 1
  1. 1.Computing Research LaboratoryNew Mexico State UniversityLas CrucesUSA

Personalised recommendations