| { | |
| "paper_id": "C96-1029", | |
| "header": { | |
| "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", | |
| "date_generated": "2023-01-19T12:50:27.505965Z" | |
| }, | |
| "title": "Lexical Rules: What are they?", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Andrew", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Bredenkamp", | |
| "suffix": "", | |
| "affiliation": { | |
| "laboratory": "", | |
| "institution": "University of Essex", | |
| "location": { | |
| "country": "UK" | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "email": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Stella", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Markantonatou", | |
| "suffix": "", | |
| "affiliation": { | |
| "laboratory": "", | |
| "institution": "University of Essex", | |
| "location": { | |
| "country": "UK" | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "email": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Louisa", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Sadler", | |
| "suffix": "", | |
| "affiliation": { | |
| "laboratory": "", | |
| "institution": "University of Essex", | |
| "location": { | |
| "country": "UK" | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "email": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": "", | |
| "venue": null, | |
| "identifiers": {}, | |
| "abstract": "Horizontal redundancy is inherent to lexica consisting of descriptions of fnlly formed objects. This causes an unwelcome expansion of the lexical database and increases parsing time. To eliminate it, direct relations between descriptions of fnlly formed objects are often defined. These are additional to the (Typed Multiple) Inheritance Network which already structures the lexicon. Many implementations of horizontal relations, however, fail to generate lexieal entries on a needsdriven basis, so eliminate neither the problem of lexicon expansion nor that of inefficient parsing. Alternatively, we propose that lexical entries are descriptions of objects open to contextnal specification of their properties on the basis of constraints defined within the type system. This guarantees that only those grammatical lexical entries are infered that are needed for efficient parsing. The proposal is extremely modest, making use of only basic inference power and expressivity.", | |
| "pdf_parse": { | |
| "paper_id": "C96-1029", | |
| "_pdf_hash": "", | |
| "abstract": [ | |
| { | |
| "text": "Horizontal redundancy is inherent to lexica consisting of descriptions of fnlly formed objects. This causes an unwelcome expansion of the lexical database and increases parsing time. To eliminate it, direct relations between descriptions of fnlly formed objects are often defined. These are additional to the (Typed Multiple) Inheritance Network which already structures the lexicon. Many implementations of horizontal relations, however, fail to generate lexieal entries on a needsdriven basis, so eliminate neither the problem of lexicon expansion nor that of inefficient parsing. Alternatively, we propose that lexical entries are descriptions of objects open to contextnal specification of their properties on the basis of constraints defined within the type system. This guarantees that only those grammatical lexical entries are infered that are needed for efficient parsing. The proposal is extremely modest, making use of only basic inference power and expressivity.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Abstract", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "body_text": [ | |
| { | |
| "text": "Lexical Rules: what are they?", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "1", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Within the strongly lexical framework of HPSG, lexi('al rules are used to express relations among descriptions ..... a kind of indirect \"horizontal relatedness\" (Pollard & Sag 1987, 209) which can be contrasted with the vertical relations between the type(s) of lexical elements. Type relations are, of course, captured directly as the monotonic (typed) multiple inheritance network itself, which structures the lexicon. Typical examples of horizontal redundancy in the hierarchical lexicon thus conceived arc the Alternation phenomena (e.g. Dative Shift, the Locat-ive Alternation, ctc) and word formation phenomena (inflectional and derivational morphology). In fact, Pollard and Sag also refer to declension class membership and similar facts as horizontM relations, and as we shall see, the boundary between vertical and horizontal relations is not immutably fixed once and for all.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 161, | |
| "end": 186, | |
| "text": "(Pollard & Sag 1987, 209)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "1", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The notion of lexical rule is often given some status at the level of linguistic or psychological theory. (Pollard & Sag 1987 ) make reference to a generative or procedural interpretation of lexicM rules as a deductive mechanism which can be deployed on a needs only basis, for example, to generate words from a single base form. The conception of lexical rules as essential generative devices (rather than static statements expressing (sub-) regularities), is shared in much in:llnential work (e.g. (Bresnan 1982) , (Pinker 1989) ), although it is by no means universM, even within tIPSG. Viewed from an implcmentational perspective, onthe-fly application of lexicM rules brings with it a number of distinct advantages which follow from the drastic reduction in the size of the lexicM database (lexical construction is less time consmning and parsing time should be reduced as lexical look up is less ambiguous, etc). At first sight then it appears that the benefit of adding an external Lexical l(ule component outweighs the disadvantages (external powerNl mechanisms). We will first show that their role is less clear than this suggests and certainly more problematic, before suggesting in Section 2 an alternative which eschews any extra mechanisms.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 106, | |
| "end": 125, | |
| "text": "(Pollard & Sag 1987", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF9" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 500, | |
| "end": 514, | |
| "text": "(Bresnan 1982)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF0" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 517, | |
| "end": 530, | |
| "text": "(Pinker 1989)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF8" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "1", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The parallel drawn above between vertical relatedness (expressed with the type system) and ho-rizontM relatedness among descriptions of fully formed objects is however rather misleading. Monotonic multiple inheritance networks are most naturally used to represent generalisations over the properties that (groups of) linguistic objects share -inspection of any network will eonfirin that they are usually deployed to express what is essentially a componential analysis of objects and of the relationship between them (defined on the basis of this analysis). On the other hand, horizontal relations among descriptions (very often lnodelled by means of lexical rules) are essentially relations holding directly between objects themselves. While this intuition is clear, this is much less adequate an approach for morphological relatedness, where a componential approach may often appear just as natural as an object relatedness view, especially if the formalism includes fimctionally dependent values, permitting the expression of allomorphic wtriation and the like. In fact, many putatively horizontal relations may be simply re-expressed within a type hierarchy by viewing them Dom a compouential perspective, obviating the need for expressing them on the %orizontal\" dimension which may lead 6o the use of lexical rules. 13ut this is only possible once one frees oneself from a view of lexical relatedness as something which holds essentially between words (objects which correspond to maximal types, that is types at the bottom of the type hierarchy).", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Horizontal and Vertical Redundancy", | |
| "sec_num": "1.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "llorizontal relations are perhaps most naturally captm:ed by an extra device (Ll{s) external to the lexical network and associated inference mechanism--see (Krieger gc Nerbonne 1993) and (Calcagno 1995) for recent ItPSG proposals. Some recent work ((Mem'ers 1995) and (l{iehemann 1994:)) partly departs fl:orn this view by expressing relations between objects using the vertical axis (that is, using the type system), but again tile starting point is 'complete' lexical objects.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 168, | |
| "end": 182, | |
| "text": "Nerbonne 1993)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 187, | |
| "end": 202, | |
| "text": "(Calcagno 1995)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 248, | |
| "end": 263, | |
| "text": "((Mem'ers 1995)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Horizontal and Vertical Redundancy", | |
| "sec_num": "1.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Horizontal relations have a number of undesirable features as well as requiring an external meclmnism. HorizontM relations (between objects) are in principle pretty much unconstrained. Vertical relations are more constrained becmlse they are based on componential analysis, starting out Dora the set of properties that objects have. On the other hand, any object can be related to any other object by stipulation in an external mechanism. In architectural terms, it is simply accidental (if fortuitous) that lexical rules are often used to relate minimMly different objects --they are capable of much more promiscious behaviour.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Why avoid Horizontal RelationsY", | |
| "sec_num": "1.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "This state of,affairs is amply demonstrated in the literature, which abounds with attempts to constrain horizontal relations by appeal to subsidiary principles (predicate locality in LFG, constraints of a psycholinguistic nature in the work of (Pinker 1989), etc) . Horizontal relations must be constrained to account for 'exceptional' behaviour, that is, for those words which do not participate to a given horizontal relation despite the fact that their description makes them appropriate candidares for the relation (verb alternations offer several examples of these situtation, for instance, 'giving' verbs which do not exhibit the so-called 'dative shift' phenomenon).", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 244, | |
| "end": 263, | |
| "text": "(Pinker 1989), etc)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Why avoid Horizontal RelationsY", | |
| "sec_num": "1.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Modelling of'exceptional' behaviour leads either to an extreme complexity of the type system or to non-lnonotonic solutions (Flickinger 1987 ) b(> cause it turns out that certain horizontM relations, usually defined over types, nmst be blocked for in-dividuM objects.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 124, | |
| "end": 140, | |
| "text": "(Flickinger 1987", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF3" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Why avoid Horizontal RelationsY", | |
| "sec_num": "1.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Several different implementations of horizontal relations exist. All of them add extra machinery and some add extra expressive power to the core mechanism.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "hnplementing Horizontal Relations", | |
| "sec_num": "1.3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Most frequently, horizontM relations are implemented as unary rules operating at parsing time within a dcrivationM component. Such a component is tided to the inheritance machinery fbr independent reasons, mainly because of' the limited expressivity of the type systeul. With Ll/.s, some lexical entry is considered as 'basic' and all other lexical entries are derived fl:om it introducing otherwise unjustified directionality to the grammar. In addition, the derivational implementation of horizontal relations fails to produce lexical entries a.s needed, instead, it produces lexica.l entries according to the system's internM algorithm of searching the rule space. Considerable ambiguity is introduced with unpleasant results for parsing time. Extra machinery for blocking these rules in order to account for exceptional behaviour is also necessary.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "hnplementing Horizontal Relations", | |
| "sec_num": "1.3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Alternatively, Lt{s may be compiled out bat, nnder this approach too, problems like directionality and the blocking of Ll{s as well as expensive ambiguity at parsing time remain unsolved.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "hnplementing Horizontal Relations", | |
| "sec_num": "1.3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In this paper we explore an alternative to horizontal relatedness which exploits the idea that it is often possible to conceive of the linguistic objects in such a way as to eliminate potential sources of ambiguity and additional external mechanisms.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "An alternative proposal", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "To illustrate our approach we will propose an account of a subset of Verb Alternation phenomena which rely on what are essentially underspecilled lexicM entries. The lexicon will then contain one (verbal) entry and the system will rely only on the existing resources (the type hierarchy)", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "An alternative proposal", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "to provide the different interpretations of the predicate which license the distinct eoml)lementation patterns. Analysis is incremental and deterministic and the procedure relies mainly on what we will call 'trivial type inference'. In the sections that follow [irst we discuss the linguistic at)l)roaeh underlying our proposal, second we eOmlmre our proposal to existing underspecification tq)proaches and finally, we give some details of the implementation which relies on no special fc'+~tures or external devices.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "An alternative proposal", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We will exemplify ore-approach by treating a subset of verb alternati(ms which conform to the following general schema (]). These include the so-called spray/load (locative) Mtornation, the wipe~clear a.lternation, the b~vak/hit alternation etc (l,evin 19!)a).", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "-Underspeeificatlon", | |
| "sec_num": "2.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(~) v Nl'j [l'~ Np~] -+ v NP~ [P~ Nt'.j]", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "-Underspeeificatlon", | |
| "sec_num": "2.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We adopt the view that verb l)redicatcs are open to contextual information (which ntttst I)e contrasted to the approaches whereby verb predicates are treated am fully formed objects which dictate tit+; exact nature of their dependents). Consider the predicate load:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "-Underspeeificatlon", | |
| "sec_num": "2.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(2) The peasant loaded the horses.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "-Underspeeificatlon", | |
| "sec_num": "2.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(3) The peasant loaded the horses on the boat.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "-Underspeeificatlon", | |
| "sec_num": "2.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(4) The peasant loaded tit(: horses with hay.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "-Underspeeificatlon", | |
| "sec_num": "2.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(2) is ambiguous I)ctwc,m (3)and (4:) ,inch one of which is not ambiguous. 'l'he contextual factor that resolves the ambiguity is the semantics of the head of the prepositional complement which here is tt~ken to specii~y whether the direct ob.ieet of the verb is understood as the location and the oblique complement as the locatum or v[ee versa. The crutim a.ssumption here is that prepositions have their own semantics, an idea first exploited in ((lawron 1!)86).", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "-Underspeeificatlon", | |
| "sec_num": "2.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We use/IPSG to model our approach. 5gives the fragment of the type system constraining the wdues of the SYNSEMILOC]CONTINUCLEUS path in the (word) description of prepositions which participate to the locative alternation l)henomenon.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "-Underspeeificatlon", | |
| "sec_num": "2.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "IH!'I, \u00b1 At{GI co~+tc'nt A II.G2 co;it e~tt [,++ 1[ ] ...... ......... ItEI, with ItEI, on V i+t ... AI/.G 1 (loe.atio~t) AI{GI (locat~tm) AI{G2 (locat~m) AI{G2 (location)", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "-Underspeeificatlon", | |
| "sec_num": "2.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We %rthermore assume that the semantics of the predicates include a pointer to the semantics of the prepositional complements they license. This pointer is included as an extra feature of the value of SYNSF [ (o,,.,~t[ .... . There are some theoretical reasons why we have chosen to include a \"pointer\" to prepositional semantics rather than making it compatible (uui[i-M)le) to verbal semantics as Weehsler (Wechsler 1994) has proposed, l,'irstly, if verl)al and prepositional semantics were uniliable then we would not bc able to explicitly state, in the semantics the relation which each feature structure encodes as there would be a clash of constants (relation nanms are constants). Secondly, identifying the semantics of verbs with ttmt of prepositions does not allow for expressing certain types of diverse behaviour within the class of a.lternating verbs. For instauce, both load and stuff show locative, alternation, but only the former admits optional PP complements. With to stuff the interpretation under which leeslion is a direct object admits an optional P I ) eotnplement (8) while the interpretation under u, hich Iocatum is a direct argument admits an obligatory one (9). Similarly, while both versions of to load are related to passive adjectives (loaded carl, loaded hay), only the \"location\" version is related to such an adjective in the case of to stuff (stuffed pillow, *stuffed feathers). The exact treatment of such phenomena, however, goes beyond the scope of our discussion here which concentrates on the use of underspecification.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 207, | |
| "end": 223, | |
| "text": "[ (o,,.,~t[ ....", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "-Underspeeificatlon", | |
| "sec_num": "2.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(8) Mary stuffed the pillow with feathers. (9) Mary stuffed the feathers into the pillow.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "-Underspeeificatlon", | |
| "sec_num": "2.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Optionality of PP complements can also be captured easily with this proposal. With to load (2), to load is in the lexicon and two lexical rules generate the trivalent versions. To process a trivalent version, the parser will backtrack on the bivalent version, will use a lexical rule and then, it will either succeed or it will backtrack again and use a second lexical rule. To avoid this, the following solution may be adopted. First, the type system is augmented to allow for declaring the property of being an optional or an obligatory prepositional complement, as in figure 1.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "-Underspeeificatlon", | |
| "sec_num": "2.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Second, a PS structure rule is introduced of the following sort:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "-Underspeeificatlon", | |
| "sec_num": "2.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "VP --+ V[SUBCAT[NP,NP,P(optional)P]], NP", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "-Underspeeificatlon", | |
| "sec_num": "2.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Only one trivalent, underspecified version of to load is necessary. The parsing of a trivalent version as before would involve backtracking on the rule dealing with optional complements but then the rule dealing with obligatory ones would be chosen and it would succeed anyway.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "-Underspeeificatlon", | |
| "sec_num": "2.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Only limited inference power is necessary for this set up to work: the system must be able to infer that the unification of a subtype with its supertype is of the type of the subtype. This 'trivial inference power' is independently needed to deal, for instance, with (10): if NP1 is a subtype of NP then rule (10) will work only if trivial inference power is available when the sequence NP1, VP is encountered.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "-Underspeeificatlon", | |
| "sec_num": "2.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(10) S --+ NP, VP There are proposals in the literature which build on the idea of using underspecified entries. However, several of them use additional, external powerful mechanisms to simulate type inference. (van Noord ~: Bouma 1994) use underspecified verb entries and FP~OLOG delayed evaluation techniques to insert adjuncts in Dutch VPs without using lexical rules which would cater for the necessary variations of the subcategorisation list of verbs. In another proposal using underspeciflcation (Sanfilippo 1995) type inference (feature structure grounding) is simulated by relying on an external mechanism as powerful as PItOLOG. In dealing with different complementation pattern phenomena, Sanfilippo constructs type system fragments where the meet of the alternative complements is defined and subtypes verbs according to complement types. Therefore, the information about the alternation is duplicated in the type system as it is encoded both on tile complement types and the verb types. The same information is encoded again on a table of clauses which relate a verbal \"meet\" type with a maximal complement type and a maximal verb type. Such type resolving clauses are provided for each alternation pattern. PS rules are annotated with procedures which pick up the correct verb type resolving clause when the appropriate complement is encountered. Both the clauses and the searching procedures are mechanisms external to the inferencing mechanism that is directly related with the type system. Sanfilippo's approach, though powerful and flexible, seems extravagant for phenomena like verb alternations of the kind discussed here as well as inflection phemomena of the kind discussed in (Krieger & Nerbonne 1993) . In such cases the system can take advantage of the fact that type inference can be driven by the combination of the information that is related to two separate strings (preposition and verb, verb ending and verb stem) as is exemplified in our proposal.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 1699, | |
| "end": 1724, | |
| "text": "(Krieger & Nerbonne 1993)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "-Underspeeificatlon", | |
| "sec_num": "2.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Furthermore, in our approach no horizontal relations exist as the lexicon contains only one entry and no other entry is ever generated. Instead, the single lexical entry is interpreted on the fly, each time according to well-specified constraints. Consequently, no ambiguity problems result with a nice effect, on parsing time. In this sense, using underspecification defined in the type system is more econolnic than using lexical rules or a \"static\" version of underspecification which is defined in the lexicon. For instance, (Krieger &: Nerbonne :1993) have used a specialised macro, the so-called distributive (or named) disjunction, in a treatment of German verb inflectional morphology:", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 529, | |
| "end": 556, | |
| "text": "(Krieger &: Nerbonne :1993)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "-Underspeeificatlon", | |
| "sec_num": "2.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "While it is true that distributive disjunction does not add any expressive power to the system (though a piece of machinery, the specialised macro, must be supported), if the macro is ever called all the legal combinations are thereby gem crated and added to the lexicon. In this, the situation is precisely the same us with lexieal rules, for in each case, what is provided is simply a compact representation of an ambiguity.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "-Underspeeificatlon", | |
| "sec_num": "2.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "This can be also exemplified from the domain of Verb Alternation phenomena. 11 A w:rbal predicate that does not alternate (such us the predicate to put (12),(13)), is assigued the upppropriate most specific semantics for its SYNSEM ILOC iCONTiNUOLI~US iSEM .(iONS attribute ---for to put that would be on-contact in order to make sure that the locatum argument always surfaces as the direct object; of the verb predicate.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "-Underspeeificatlon", | |
| "sec_num": "2.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "John put his shoes on the shelf.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "(12)", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(13) *John put the shelf with his shoes.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "(12)", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The appro~tch described in Section 2 can bc i[nplemented in any environment that supports Typed Inheritmme because it is monotonic and demands only 'trivial inference power'. For the purposes of experimentation a grammar fragment was iml)lemented in the ALEI' system -a lean formalism with a simple inheritance type system, and a siml)]e context free rule backbone. I:'rocessiug in this system is normally divided into separate structure building and feature decoration rule coati>orients , however for our l>ui'poses no use was made of this distinction. For the construction of the VP, a simple rule was used (VP -+ V NP PP), of the following form (14): The relewmt lexical entries for the fragnient were as follows. The verbal entry (load) subcategorizes for a single NP subject and NI ' and PP complenmnts (15) . This entry has underspeeified semantics with respect to the semantic constraints on its second and third argmnents (as suggested in (8)). These are provided by (structure sharing with) the SI,'M_CONSTI~ feature of third argument, the prepositional phrase (the variable 'Arg3'). The prepositional entries now simply provide the \"missing\" part of the semantics, nanMy the Ioeum/locatum distinction: ", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 788, | |
| "end": 813, | |
| "text": "' and PP complenmnts (15)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Implementation", | |
| "sec_num": "3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We have shown that horizontal redundancy is inherent to a lexicon consisting of descriptions of fully formed objects. To eliminate horizontal redundancy, direct relations between descriptions of fully formed objects must be defined externally to the Typed Mulitple Inheritance Network or unintuitive solutions must be pursued. Available iraplementations of horizontal relations fail to satisfy the reasons that dictate their implementation: the on-need generation of lexical entries and efficient parsing. Alternatively, we proposed that lexical entries are descriptions of objects which allow for further contextual specification of their properties on the basis of clearly defined constraints. We have shown that this is an easily implementable proposal even in environments with lean inference power and expressivity because it relies on very basic machinery which is available for independent reasons. This approach can be adopted whenever inforrua.tion can be distributed among independent surface strings. Under the light of this proposal, many of the phenomena which have been argued in (Pof lard & Sag 1987) to justify the horizontal relatedness approach can be viewed as different 'interpretations' of a 'core' lexical entry according to well-specified types of 'context'. tlowever, it must be noted here that this is not always a simple task. Roughly speaking, the less specific the contextual information is the more inference power and expressivity is needed to retain the underspecifica-tion approach.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 1094, | |
| "end": 1115, | |
| "text": "(Pof lard & Sag 1987)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Conclusion", | |
| "sec_num": "4" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "back_matter": [], | |
| "bib_entries": { | |
| "BIBREF0": { | |
| "ref_id": "b0", | |
| "title": "The menial representation of grammatical relations", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Joan", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Bresnan", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1982, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Joan Bresnan (ed). 1982. The menial representa- tion of grammatical relations. MIT Press", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF1": { | |
| "ref_id": "b1", | |
| "title": "Interpreting lexical rules", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Mike", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Calcagno", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1995, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Mike Calcagno. 1995. Interpreting lexical rules. \u00a21", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF3": { | |
| "ref_id": "b3", | |
| "title": "Lcxical l~ulcs in the Hierarchical Lexicon", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Daniel", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "Paul" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Flickinger", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1987, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Daniel Paul Flickinger. 1987. Lcxical l~ulcs in the Hierarchical Lexicon. PhD. Stanford University.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF4": { | |
| "ref_id": "b4", | |
| "title": "Situations and Prepositions", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Jean", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Mark Gawron", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1986, | |
| "venue": "Linguistics and Philosophy", | |
| "volume": "9", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "327--382", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Jean Mark Gawron. 1986. Situations and Preposi- tions. Linguistics and Philosophy 9, pp.327-382", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF5": { | |
| "ref_id": "b5", | |
| "title": "Feature-BAsed Inheritance Networks for Computational Lexicons. In (ads) Ted lbiscoe, Valeria di Paiva and Ann Copstake Inheritance, Defaults and the Lexicon", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Hans-Ulrich Krieger & John", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Nerbonne", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1993, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "90--136", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Hans-Ulrich Krieger & John Nerbonne. 1993. Feature-BAsed Inheritance Networks for Com- putational Lexicons. In (ads) Ted lbiscoe, Va- leria di Paiva and Ann Copstake Inheritance, Defaults and the Lexicon. Cambridge University Press, 90--136", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF6": { | |
| "ref_id": "b6", | |
| "title": "English Verb Classes and Alternations. A Preliminary Investigation", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Beth", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Levin", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": null, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Beth Levin. 11993. English Verb Classes and Al- ternations. A Preliminary Investigation. The University of Chicago Press.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF7": { | |
| "ref_id": "b7", | |
| "title": "19!)5. Towards a semantics for lexical rules as used in HPSG", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Walt", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Detnmr", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Meurers", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": null, | |
| "venue": "AQUILEX Workshop on lexical rules", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Walt Detnmr Meurers. 19!)5. Towards a semantics for lexical rules as used in HPSG. In AQUILEX Workshop on lexical rules. Cambridge, UK, Au- gust 9-11, 71995", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF8": { | |
| "ref_id": "b8", | |
| "title": "Learnability and Cognition: .The acquisition of argument structure", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Steven", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Pinker", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1989, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Steven Pinker. 1989. Learnability and Cognition: .The acquisition of argument structure. MIT Press", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF9": { | |
| "ref_id": "b9", | |
| "title": "Informationbased Syntax and Semantics", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Carl", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Pollard", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "&", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Ivan", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "A", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Sag", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1987, | |
| "venue": "Fundamentals. Center for the Study of Language and Information", | |
| "volume": "1", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Carl Pollard & Ivan A. Sag. 1987. Information- based Syntax and Semantics. Volume 1. Funda- mentals. Center for the Study of Language and Information", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF10": { | |
| "ref_id": "b10", | |
| "title": "Morphology and the Hierarchical Lexicon (ms", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Susanne", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Riehemann", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": null, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Susanne Riehemann, Morphology and the Hier- archical Lexicon (ms.) Stanford University, Stanibrd.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF11": { | |
| "ref_id": "b11", | |
| "title": "Lexical Polymorphism and Word Usage Extensibility", | |
| "authors": [], | |
| "year": 1995, | |
| "venue": "AQUU, EX Workshop on lexieal rules", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Antonio Sanfilippo. 1.995. Lexical Polymorphism and Word Usage Extensibility. In AQUU, EX Workshop on lexieal rules, Cambridge, UK, Au- gust 9--11, 1995", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF12": { | |
| "ref_id": "b12", | |
| "title": "Adjuncts and the processing of lexical rules", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Noord", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Gertjan Wm", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Gosse", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Bomna", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1994, | |
| "venue": "Proceedings of the 15th International Cm@rence on Computational Linguistics (COLING)", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Gertjan wm Noord and Gosse Bomna. 1994. Ad- juncts and the processing of lexical rules. In Proceedings of the 15th International Cm@r- ence on Computational Linguistics (COLING), Kyoto, 1994", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF13": { | |
| "ref_id": "b13", | |
| "title": "Preposition Selection Outside the Lexicon", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Stephen", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Mark Wechsler", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1994, | |
| "venue": "Procee& ings of the Thirteenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Stephen Mark Wechsler. 1994. Preposition Selec- tion Outside the Lexicon. To appear in Procee& ings of the Thirteenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics", | |
| "links": null | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "ref_entries": { | |
| "FIGREF0": { | |
| "type_str": "figure", | |
| "uris": null, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "text": "The lexieal entry for the pre4)osition with is given I)el()w: ......... (+:~) + ..... ....... + .......... ,::::, with_contact Alt{+2 ~[~] J (6) is an mtdcrspcciJicd entry which gets filrther specified at parsing time when art appropriate PP is a tta+ehed, l\"or instance, if a with-[)l ~ is encountered, then tm interpretation according Lo which the location sm'faccs as the direct object of the verb is injured." | |
| }, | |
| "FIGREF1": { | |
| "type_str": "figure", | |
| "uris": null, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "text": "Type system fragment encoding prepositional alternation" | |
| }, | |
| "TABREF0": { | |
| "html": null, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "content": "<table><tr><td>ltl\u00a2I, load</td><td>[~]1</td></tr><tr><td>|^,.,2 [L~</td><td/></tr><tr><td>f; [ )N 'l' It* NT IAtl+i[ ~ []</td><td/></tr></table>", | |
| "type_str": "table", | |
| "text": ", IVI[LOC[CONT[NUCLEUS. This feat/ire we ttalile SFM(ANTIC) CONS('FII.AINq'S) a, tl([ we make it apl)rol)riate tbr the same values that the prepositional SYNSEMII,OC[CONT]NUCI,EUS is assigned. The lexica] entry for to load would look as in ((~). +L ......... {++,+I ........ <++7> | ............ +[ ..... ," | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } |