Advertisement

Lexical Rules and Lexical Organization: Productivity in the Lexicon

  • Onur T. Sehitoglu
  • Cem Bozsahin
Part of the Text, Speech and Language Technology book series (TLTB, volume 10)

Abstract

In this paper we outline a lexical organization for Turkish that makes use of lexical rules for inflections, semantically predictable derivations, and lexical category changes to control the proliferation of lexical entries. Lexical rules handle changes in grammatical roles, enforce type constraints, and control the mapping of subcategorization frames in valencychanging operations. A lexical inheritance hierarchy facilitates the enforcement of type constraints. The resulting grammar architecture has morphology embedded in the lexicon.

The design has been tested as part of an HPSG grammar for Turkish. Rebracketing in compounds and phrasal scope in affixation present formidable difficulties for lexical rules. In terms of performance, run-time execution of the rules seems to be a far better alternative than precompilation. The latter causes exponential growth in the lexicon due to intensive use of inflections and derivations in Turkish.

Keywords

Lexical Item Lexical Entry Computational Linguistics Categorial Grammar Derivational Morphology 
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. Anderson, S. R. 1992. A-morphous Morphology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Aronoff, M. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bozsahin, C. 1998. Deriving the Predicate-Argument Structure for a Free Word Order Language. In the Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Linguistics and the Association for Computational Linguistics’98. Montréal, Canada.Google Scholar
  4. Bozsahin, C. and E. Göçmen. 1995. A Categorial Framework for Composition in Multiple Linguistic Domains. In the Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Cognitive Science of NLP (CSNLP’95). Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
  5. Briscoe, T. and A. Copestake. 1996. Controlling the Application of Lexical Rules. In E. Viegas (ed.): Breadth and Depth of Semantic Lexicons. SIGLEX96 Proceedings, Santa Cruz, California.Google Scholar
  6. Butterworth, B. 1983. Lexical Representation. Language Production, vol. II. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. Carpenter, R. and G. Penn. 1994. The Attribute Logic Engine User’s Guide, Version 2.0. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  8. Comrie, B. 1976. The syntax of causative constructions: cross-language similarities and divergences. In Shibatani and Masayoshi (eds.) Syntax and Semantics 6: The grammar of causative constructions. Academic Press.Google Scholar
  9. Dowty, D. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fass, D. 1993. Lexical Semantic Constraints. In J. Pustejovsky (ed.) Semantics and the Lexicon. Kluwer Academic Press.Google Scholar
  11. G iksel, A. 1993. Levels of Representation and Argument Structure in Turkish. Ph.D. Thesis, SOAS.Google Scholar
  12. Güngördii, Z. and K. Oflazer. 1995. Parsing Turkish Using the Lexical-Functional Grammar Formalism. Machine Translation 10, 293–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hankamer, J. 1989. Morphological parsing and the Lexicon. In W. Marslen-Wilson (ed.): Lexical Representation and Process. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Heimreich, S. and D. Farwell. 1999. Lexical Rules is Italicized. In E. Viegas (ed.): Breadth and Depth of Semantic Lexicons. Kluwer Academic Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hoeksema, J. and R. D. Janda. 1988. Implications of process-morphology for Categorial Grammar. In D. W. R. T. Oehrle and E. Bach (eds.) Categorial Grammars and Natural Language Structures. Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  16. Johnson, M. and J. Dorre. 1995. Memoization of Coroutined Constraints. In the Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  17. Levin, B. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. Lewis, G. L. 1967. Turkish Grammar. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Lieber, R. 1992. Deconstructing Morphology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Meurers, W. and G. Minnen. 1995. A Computational Treatment of HPSG Lexical Rules asGoogle Scholar
  20. Covariation in Lexical Entries. In the Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshopon Natural Language Understanding and Logic Programming. Lisbon. van NoordGoogle Scholar
  21. G. and G. Bouma. 1994. Adjuncts and the Processing of Lexical Rules. In the Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Linguistics’94. Kyoto.Google Scholar
  22. Oflazer, K. and G. Tür. 1997. Morphological Disambiguation by Voting Constraints. In the Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Madrid, Spain.Google Scholar
  23. Pollard, C. and I. A. Sag. 1994. Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. CSLI Chicago. Pustejovsky, J. 1991. The generative lexicon. Computational Linguistics 17(4),pp. 409441.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Onur T. Sehitoglu
    • 1
  • Cem Bozsahin
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer EngineeringMiddle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations