Advertisement

Qualia Structure and the Compositional Interpretation of Compounds

  • Michael Johnston
  • Federica Busa
Chapter
Part of the Text, Speech and Language Technology book series (TLTB, volume 10)

Abstract

The analysis of nominal compound constructions has proven to be a recalcitrant problem for linguistic semantics and poses serious challenges for natural language processing systems. We argue for a compositional treatment of compound constructions which limits the need for listing of compounds in the lexicon. The Generative Lexicon (Pustejovsky, 1995) provides us with a model of the lexicon which couples sufficiently expressive lexical semantic representations with mechanisms which capture the relationship between those representations and their syntactic expression. In our approach, the qualia structures of the nouns in a compound provide relational structure enabling compositional interpretation of the modification of the head noun by the modifying noun. This brings compound interpretation under the same rubric as other forms of composition in natural language, including argument selection, adjectival modification, and type coercion. We examine data from both English and Italian and develop analyses for both languages which use phrase structure schemata to account for the connections between lexical semantic representation and syntactic expression. In addition to applications in natural language understanding, machine translation, and generation, the model of compound interpretation developed here can be applied to multi-lingual information extraction tasks.

Keywords

Machine Translation Head Noun Lemon Juice Revolving Door Lexical Rule 
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. Alshawi, H. 1987. Memory and Context for Language Interpretation. Studies in Natural Language Processing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Beard, R. 1996. Head Operations and Head-Modifier Ordering in Nominal Compounds. Presentation at 1996 Linguistic Society of America Meeting, San Diego, California.Google Scholar
  3. Bergsten, N. 1911. A Study on Compound Substantives in English. Almquist and Wiksell, Uppsala.Google Scholar
  4. Bouillon, P. 1995. The Semantics of Adjectival Modification. ms. ISSCO, Geneva. Bouillon, P., K. Bösefeldt and G. Russell. 1992. Compound Nouns in a Unification-BasedGoogle Scholar
  5. MT System. In the Proceedings of the Third Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing, pp. 209-215. Trento, Italy.Google Scholar
  6. Busa, F. 1996. Compositionality and the Semantics of Nominals. Ph.D. Thesis. Brandeis University.Google Scholar
  7. Busa, F. and M. Johnston. 1996. Cross-linguistic Semantics for Complex Nominals in the Generative Lexicon. In the Proceedings of the AISB Workshop on Multilinguality in the Lexicon. University of Sussex, Brighton, England, April 1996.Google Scholar
  8. Carpenter, R. 1990. Typed feature structures: Inheritance, (In)equality, and Extensional ity. In W. Daelemans and G. Gazdar (eds.) Inheritance in Natural Language Processing, Proceedings of the ITK Workshop. Tilburg. Institute for Language Technology and Artificial Intelligence, Tilburg University, pp. 9 - 18.Google Scholar
  9. Carpenter, R. 1992. The logic of typed feature structures. Cambridge, UK.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Copestake, A. 1995. Representing Lexical Polysemy. Working Notes of AAAI Spring Symposium on the Representation and Acquisition of Lexical Knowledge,Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. Google Scholar
  11. Copestake, A. and T. Briscoe. 1995. Semi-productive Polysemy and Sense Extension. Journal of Semantics 12.Google Scholar
  12. Copestake, A. and A. Lascarides. 1997. Integrating Symbolic and Statistical Representations: The Lexicon Pragmatics Interface. In the Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. New Jersey: ACL Press. Google Scholar
  13. Downing, P. 1977. On the Creation and Use of English Compound Nouns. Language 53,pp. 810-842. Google Scholar
  14. Finin, T. W. 1980. The Semantic Interpretation of Compound Nominals. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
  15. Flickinger, D. 1987. Lexical Rules in the Hierarchical Lexicon. Ph.D. Thesis. Stanford University.Google Scholar
  16. Hobbs, J. R., M. E. Stickel, D. E. Appelt and P. Martin. 1993. Interpretation as Abduction. In F. C. N. Pereira and B. Grosz (eds.) Natural Language Processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Isabelle, P. 1984. Another Look at Nominal Compounds. In the Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computational Linguistics and the 22nd Meeting of the ACL,pp. 509-516. Google Scholar
  18. Jespersen, O. 1942. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, IV. Munksgaard, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  19. Jones, B. 1995. Nominal Compounds and Lexical Rules. Working Notes of the Acquilex Workshop on Lexical Rules. Cambridge, England, August 1995. Google Scholar
  20. Johnston, M., B. Boguraev and J. Pustejovsky. 1995. The Acquisition and Interpretation of Complex Nominals. Working Notes of AAAI Spring Symposium on the Representation and Acquisition of Lexical Knowledge,Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. Google Scholar
  21. Lees, R. 1970. Problems in the Grammatical Analysis of English Nominal Compounds. In Bierwisch and Heidolph (eds.) Progress in Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  22. Levi, J. N. 1978. The Syntax and Semantics of Complex Nominals. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  23. Marchand, H. 1969. The Categories and Types of Present Day English Word Formation. Munich: C.H. Becksche. Google Scholar
  24. McDonald, D. 1995. Lexical Discontinuities in the Functional Meaning of Words. Working Notes of Multilingual Text Generation Workshop. IJCAI, August 20 - 21, Montréal, Quebec.Google Scholar
  25. McDonald, D. B. 1982. Understanding Noun Compounds. CMU Technical Report CS-82-102.Google Scholar
  26. Pollard, C. and I. Sag. 1987. Information-based Syntax and Semantics, Volume 1: Fundamentals. CSLI Lecture Notes Series No.13. Centre for the Study of Language and Information. Stanford University. Google Scholar
  27. Pollard, C. and I. Sag. 1994. Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  28. Pustejovsky, J. 1991. The Generative Lexicon. Computational Linguistics, 17. 4.Google Scholar
  29. Pustejovsky, J. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Warren, B. 1987. Semantic Patterns of Noun-Noun Compounds. Gothenburg Studies in English 41. Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Johnston
    • 1
  • Federica Busa
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringOregon Graduate InstitutePortlandUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceBrandeis UniversityWalthamUSA

Personalised recommendations