Advertisement

Lexical Rules is Italicized

  • Stephen C. Helmreich
  • David L. Farwell
Part of the Text, Speech and Language Technology book series (TLTB, volume 10)

Abstract

In this paper we argue that the phenomenon of lexical polysemy (lexical sense extension) should be treated pragmatically rather than through the mechanism of lexical rules. We show that what have been termed lexical rules are better stated as rules of reference transfer, that is, as applying to objects and relations in the world rather than to lexical items. We suggest also that such lexical rules cannot be extended to account for novel uses, whereas a pragmatic approach, based on inference in context, can. We also examine the evidence in favor of a lexical approach, particularly the phenomena of blocking and pre-emption, and show that these are not incompatible with a pragmatic approach to polysemy.

Keywords

Noun Phrase Lexical Item Head Noun Morphological Process Mass Noun 
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. Briscoe, E. J. and A. Copestake. 1991. Sense extensions as lexical rules. In the Proceedings of the IJCAI Workshop on Computational Approaches to Non-Literal Language, Sydney, Australia, pp. 12–20.Google Scholar
  2. Briscoe, E. J., A. Copestake and A. Lascarides. 1995. Blocking. In P. Saint-Dizier and E. Viegas (eds.), Computational Lexical Semantics. Cambridge, UK.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Copestake, A. and T. Briscoe. 1991. Lexical operations in a Unification-based Framework. In J. Pustejovsky and S. Bergler (eds.) Lexical Semantics and Knowledge Representation, Proceedings of a Workshop Sponsored by the Special Interest Group on the Lexicon of the ACL: pp. 88–101. 17 June 1991. University of California, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  4. Copestake, A. and T. Briscoe. 1995. Semi-productive polysemy and sense extension. Journal of Semantics 12, pp. 15–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dowty, D. 1979. Word Meaning in Montague Grammar. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel.Google Scholar
  6. Fass, D. 1988. Collative Semantics: A Semantics for Natural Language Processing. MCCS-88–11. Memoranda in Computer and Cognitive Science. New Mexico State University: Computing Research Laboratory.Google Scholar
  7. Fauconnier, G. 1985. Mental spaces. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and Conversation. In P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds.) Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, pp. 51–58.Google Scholar
  9. Hobbs, J., W. Croft, T. Davies, E. Edwards, E. and K. Law. 1987. Commonsense metaphysics and lexical semantics. Computational Linguistics 13: pp. 241–250.Google Scholar
  10. Iverson, E. and S. Helmreich. 1992. Metallel: an Integrated Approach to Non-literal Phrase Interpretation. Computational Intelligence, 8 (3): pp. 477–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Levin, B. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations. A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  13. Martin, J. 1990. A Computational Model of Metaphor Interpretation. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  14. Morgan, J. L. 1978. Two types of convention in indirect speech acts. In Cole, P. (ed.) Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  15. Na, Y. 1986. The Conventionalization of Semantic Distinctions. In the Proceedings of the 22st Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, pp. 166–178. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  16. Nirenburg, S. and V. Raskin. 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
  17. Nunberg, G. 1978. Pragmatics of Reference. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
  18. Nunberg, G. 1979. The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: polysemy. Linguistics and Philosophy, 3: 145–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nunberg, G. and A. Zaenen. 1992. Systematic Polysemy in Lexicology and Lexicography. In H. Tommola, K. Varantola, T. Tolonen and J. Schopp (eds.) Proceeding of Euralex II, Tempere, Finland.Google Scholar
  20. Ostler, N. and B. T. S. Atkins. 1991. Predictable Meaning Shifts: Some Linguistic Properties of Lexical Implication Rules. In J. Pustejovsky and S. Bergler (eds.) Lexical Semantics and Knowledge Representation, Proceedings of a Workshop Sponsored by the Special Interest Group on the Lexicon of the ACL: 76–87. 17 June 1991. University of California, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  21. Postal, P. 1974. On Raising. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Pustejovsky, J. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Pustejovsky, J. and S. Bergler (eds.) 1992. Lexical Semantics and Knowledge Representation. Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  24. Saint-Dizier, P. and E. Viegas. 1995. Computational Lexical Semantics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Viegas, E. and S. Nirenburg. 1995. The Semantic Recovery of Event Ellipsis: its Computational Treatment. In the Proceedings of Working Notes of the IJCAI-95 Workshop on Context in Natural Language Processing, pp. 155–163. August, 1995, Montréal, Canada.Google Scholar
  26. Viegas, E., B. Onyshkevych, V Raskin and S. Nirenburg. 1996. From Submit to Submitted via Submission: On Lexical Rules in Large-scale Lexicon Acquisition. In the Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Santa Cruz, CA. June, 1996.Google Scholar
  27. Wakao, T. and S. Helmreich. 1993. Translation of Metonymy in an Interlingual MT System. In the Proceedings of the Pacific Association for Computational Linguistics (PA CLING). Vancouver, British Columbia.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen C. Helmreich
    • 1
  • David L. Farwell
    • 1
  1. 1.Computing Research LaboratoryNew Mexico State UniversityLas CrucesUSA

Personalised recommendations