1993 TheGenerativeLexicon
- (Pustejovsky, 1993) ⇒ James Pustejovsky. (1991). “The Generative Lexicon." In: Computational Linguistics, 17(4).
Subject Headings: Word-level Semantic Analysis Task, Lexical Semantics.
Notes
Cited by
1993
- (Levin, 1993) ⇒ Beth Levin. (1993). “English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation.” The University of Chicago Press. ISBN: 0226475336
Quotes
Abstract
In this paper, I will discuss four major topics relating to current research in lexical semantics: methodology, descriptive coverage, adequacy of the representation, and the computational usefulness of representations. In addressing these issues, I will discuss what I think are some of the central problems facing the lexical semantics community, and suggest ways of best approaching these issues. Then, I will provide a method for the decomposition of lexical categories and outline a theory of lexical semantics embodying a notion of cocompositionality and type coercion, as well as several levels of semantic description, where the semantic load is spread more evenly throughout the lexicon. I argue that lexical decomposition is possible if it is performed generatively. Rather than assuming a fixed set of primitives. I will assume a fixed number of generative devices that can be seen as constructing semantic expressions. I develop a theory of Qualia Structure, a representation language for lexical items, which renders much lexical ambiguity in the lexicon unnecessary, while still explaining the systematic polysemy that words carry. Finally, I discuss how individual lexical structures can be integrated into the larger lexical knowledge base through a theory of lexical inheritance. This provides us with the necessary principles of global organization for the enabling us to fully integrate our natural language lexicon into a conceptual whole.
1. Introduction
Thirdly, and related to the point above, the lexicon is not just verbs. Recent work has done much to clarify the nature of verb classes and the syntactic constructions that each allows (Levin 1985, 1989). Yet it is not clear whether we are any closer to understanding the underlying nature of verb meaning, why the classes develop as they do, and what consequences these distinctions have for the rest of the lexicon and grammar.
2. Methods in Lexical Semantics
Given what I have said, let us examine the questions presented above in more detail. First, let us turn to the issue of methodology. How can we determine the soundness of our method? Are new techniques available now that have not been adequately explored? Very briefly, one can summarize the most essential techniques assumed by the field, in some way, as follows (see, for example Cruse [1986]):
On the basis of categorial distinctions, establish the fundamental differences between the grammatical classes; the typical semantic behavior of a word of category X. For example, verbs typically behave as predicators, nouns as arguments.
Find distinctions between elements of the same word class on the basis of collocation and cooccurrence tests. For example, the nouns dog and book partition into different selectional classes because of contexts involving animacy, while the nouns book and literature partition into different selectional classes because of a mass/count distinction.
Test for distinctions of a grammatical nature on the basis of diathesis; i.e. alternations that are realized in the syntax. For example, break vs. cut in (1) and (2) below (Fillmore 1968; Lakoff 1970; Hale and Keyser 1986):
References
,