Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Results
Conclusion
References

Semantics in action

Profile image of Sergei NirenburgSergei Nirenburg

Predicative Forms in …

Abstract

Abstract. In this paper, we describe our general approach to computa-tional lexical semantics, very briefly, focusing on the dynamics of seman-tics, and in particular of events. We investigate what semantic information should be encoded in a lexicon entry so that it ...

Related papers

Computational lexical semantics, incrementality, and the so-called punctuality of events
Patrick Caudal

Proceedings of the 37th annual meeting of the …, 1999

The distinction between achievements and accomplishments is known to be an empirically important but subtle one. It is argued here to depend on the atomicity (rather than punctuality) of events, and to be strongly related to incrementality (i.e., to event-object mapping functions). A computational treatment of incrementality and atomicity is discussed in the paper, and a number of related empirical problems considered, notably lexical polysemy in verb argument relationships.

View PDFchevron_right
Ten choices for lexical semantics
Sergei Nirenburg

1996

The modern computational lexical semantics reached a point in its development when it has become necessary to define the premises and goals of each of its several current trends. This paper proposes ten choices in terms of which these premises and goals can be discussed. It argues that the central questions include the use of lexical rules for generating word senses; the role of syntax, pragmatics, and formal semantics in the specification of lexical meaning; the use of a world model, or ontology, as the organizing principle for lexical-semantic descriptions; the use of rules with limited scope; the relation between static and dynamic resources; the commitment to descriptive coverage; the trade-off between generalization and idiosyncracy; and, finally, the adherence to the "supply-side" (methodoriented) or "demand-side" (task-oriented) ideology of research. The discussion is inspired by, but not limited to, the comparison between the generative lexicon approach and the ontological semantic approach to lexical semantics.

View PDFchevron_right
1 Predication in Ontological Semantics : Events as fundamentals of Text Meaning Representation
Evguenia Malaia

2006

The present work focuses on representation of event types in Ontological Semantics. As a systemic resource for knowledge-based Natural Language Processing, Ontological Semantics strives to represent the results of human language processing ability. This work suggests that event structure representation is indispensable to this task, noting the use of event structure in semantic representations of natural languages. It proceeds with offering possible ways of incorporating event structure into an ontological semantic system, and consider the advantages of using an event-structural treatment of predicates for semantic interpretation of ambiguous sentences, including implicature.

View PDFchevron_right
Problems of lexical semantics
Jef Verschueren

Lingua, 1981

Some of the central problems of (comparative) lexical semantics are dealt with: (i) How does one decide which ~ord groups if any should be trcatcd as lexical items and which ones should not? (ii)What are the limitations of componential analysis and semantic field theory as methods to describe the internal semantic structure of lexical items and their external semantic relationships, respectively, and how can they be transcended? Iln this context the notions of prototype, basic level term, scene and frame are introduced) (iii) How can one avoid the danger of circularity in semantic analyses? (iv) How can analyses be represented? These is,~ues of general interest are addressed with special rel3erence to the domain of linguistic action vcrbials (,,erbs and verb-like expressions uscd it) describe linguistic action~.

View PDFchevron_right
A Framework for Representing Event Semantics of Verb Word Senses
Chris Irwin Davis

linguistica.sns.it

In this paper we present a framework for representing event semantics as a set of semantic entities connected by binary relations. In contrast to frame semantics, our use of a fixed small number of entities and relations facilitates easy decomposition of event semantics into constituent parts, as well as allowing for integration into other systems and resources that rely on binary relations. We map each event representation onto a WordNet verb synset or cluster of related synsets. Thus, event semantics may be indexed by WordNet verb entries. Next, we describe a high-level taxonomy for the categorization of events based upon the semantic roles of the verb arguments. Finally, we briefly discuss acquisition techniques.

View PDFchevron_right
Computational Lexical Semantics
Paul Deane

1995

Cambridge University Press (Studies in natural language processing, edited by Branimir K. Boguraev), 1995, ix + 447 pp. Hardbound, ISBN 0-521-44410-1, $69.95 Reviewed by Paul Deane Dataware Technologies

View PDFchevron_right
What can linguistics contribute to event extraction
Collin Baker

2006

This paper examines the question of how a linguistic analysis of a written document can contribute to identifying, tracking and populating the "eventualities" that are presented in the document, either directly or indirectly, and representing degrees of belief concerning them. It is our view that the role of lexical analysis (as exemplified in the research carried out in the FrameNet project) is greater than usually assumed, so this paper is partly an attempt to clarify the boundary between on the one hand the information that can be derived on the basis of linguistic knowledge alone (composed of lexical meanings and the meanings of grammatical constructions) and on the other hand, reasoning based on beliefs about the source of a document, world knowledge, and "common sense". Since the general linguistic processes described in this paper will apply to eventualities in general (by which we mean acts, happenings, states of affairs, and relations, whether real, proposed, imagined, or denied ), our presentation will emphasize the linguistic processes themselves. In particular, we show that the kind of information produced by the lexicon-building project FrameNet can have a special role in contributing to text understanding, starting from the basic facts of the combinatorial properties of frame-bearing words (verbs, nouns, adjectives and prepositions) and arriving at the means of recognizing the anaphoric properties of specific unexpressed event participants, for all parts of speech, in defining a new layer of anaphora resolution and text cohesion. Using as a starting point the challenge text presented in the call for this workshop (hereafter referred to as the Hijacking text), we show the points at which a thorough linguistic analysis can articulate with the kind of simulation formalism demonstrated in X-schema diagram, , which itself incorporates a great deal of world knowledge connected with the events introduced in the Hijacking text.

View PDFchevron_right
The KEY to lexical semantic representations
Jean-Pierre Koenig

It is widely accepted that the semantic content of a lexical entry determines to a large extent its syntactic subcategorization or other contexts of occurrence. However, clarifying the precise extent to which this hypothesis holds has proven difficult and on occasion controversial. To maintain this hypothesis, scholars have in many difficult cases introduced syntactic diacritics in their lexical semantic representations, thereby running the risk of rendering it vacuous. Our answer to this challenge is two-fold. First, on the substantive side, we argue that the problem lies in the assumption that the semantic content of lexical entries consists of a recursive predicate-argument structure. In contrast, we claim that the semantic content of lexical entries can consist of a set of such structures, thus eschewing semantically unmotivated predicates that merely ensure the correct semantic geometry. Second, on the structural side, we suggest that the semantic content of words can idiosyncratically select one of those predicate-argument structures for the purposes of direct grammatical function assignment. We show that this hypothesis, which builds on independently motivated proposals regarding the form of underspecified natural language semantic representations, provides a clean account of linking phenomena related to several classes of predicators : verbs whose denotata require the presence of an instrument, the semantic role of French ' adjunct' clitics, commercial event verbs, the spray/load alternations, and lexical subordination constructions.

View PDFchevron_right
Lexical Semantics
Carita Paradis

The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, 2012

View PDFchevron_right
Language Semantics_Word Frequency, Context, and Action Semantics
Frederick Navarro

Communicating meaning is the essential function of language. However, this paper explores how language semantics is dependent on the range of other factors external to language. Research reviewed demonstrates how language semantics is aided by the statistical distribution of keywords within a body of work, the context in which language is used, and the essential role of a listener's prior experience with language. Research addressing language and action also show how action semantics stored in cortical areas involved with motor control are essential to planning an action, predicting an observed action, and the salience of an action. Implications of these insights are discussed. Keywords: language, semantics, context, syntax, actions, personal experience

View PDFchevron_right

References (61)

  1. Beale, S., Nirenburg, S. and K., Mahesh (1995). Semantic Analysis in the Mikrokosmos Machine Translation Project. In Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Natural Language Processing (SNLP-95), August 2-4. Bangkok, Thailand.
  2. Beale, S. (1997). HUNTER-GATHERER: Applying Constraint Satisfaction, Branch- and-Bound and Solution Synthesis to Computational Semantics. P h . D. Dissertation, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University.
  3. Beale, S., S. Nirenburg and K., Mahesh (1996) HUNTER-GATHERER: Three Search Techniques Integrated for Natural Language Semantics. In the Thirteenth National Conference o n A rti cial Intelligence ( AAAI96), P ortland, Oregon.
  4. Beale, S. and E., Viegas (1996) Intelligent P lanning meets Intelligent P lanners. In Pro- ceedings of the Workshop on Gaps and Bridges: New Directions in Planning and Natural Language Generation, ECAI'96, B udapest, August 12-13.
  5. Stephen Beale, Evelyne Viegas and Sergei Nirenburg (1997) Breaking Down Barriers: The Mikrokosmos Generator. In Proceedings of Natural Language Processing Paci c Rim Symposium, Phuket, Thailand.
  6. Bresnan, J. (Ed.) (1982) The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cam- bridge MA: MIT Press.
  7. Briscoe, T. and A., Copestake ( 1 9 91) Sense extensions as lexical rules. In Proceedings of the IJCAI Workshop on Computational Approaches to Non-Literal Language. S ydney, Australia, pp. 12-20.
  8. Briscoe, T., de Paiva, V., and A., Copestake ( eds.) (1993) Inheritance, Defaults, and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University P r e ss.
  9. Briscoe, T., Copestake, A. and A., Lascarides (1995) Blocking. In P. Saint-Dizier and E. Viegas (Eds.), Computational Lexical Semantics. C a m bridge University P r e ss.
  10. Cahill, L. and G., Gazdar (1996). \ Multilingual Lexicons for Related Lexicons", In Proceedings of AISB'96 Workshop on Multilinguality in the Lexicon, B r i ghton, UK, April 1-2, 1996.
  11. Copestake, A. and T., Briscoe (1992) Lexical operations in a uni cation-based framework In J. Pustejovsky and S. Bergler (eds), Lexical Semantics and Knowledge Represen- tation. B erlin: Springer, pp. 101-119.
  12. Cruse, D.A. (1986) Lexical Semantics. Cambridge Texbooks in Linguistics.
  13. Dorr, B.J. (1995) A lexical-semantic solution to the divergence problem in machine trans- lation. In St-Dizier P. and E., Viegas (eds), Computational Lexical Semantics: CUP.
  14. Dorr, B., and J., Klavans (eds.) 1994/1995. Special Issue: Building Lexicons for Machine EVELYNE VIEGAS, KAVI MAHESH, SERGEI NIRENBURG Translation I. Machine Translation 9: 3-4.
  15. Dorr, B., and J., Klavans (eds.) 1995. Special Issue: Building Lexicons for Machine Trans- lation II. Machine Translation 10: 1-2.
  16. Farwell, D., S. Helmreich, W. Jin, M. Casper, J. Hargrave, H. Molina-Salgado and F. Weng. PANGLYZER: Spanish Language Analysis System. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference o f t h e AMTA, p .56-64, 1994.
  17. Fillmore, C.J. (1985) Frames and the Semantics of Understanding. Quaderni de Seman- tica, V I . 2.
  18. Fillmore, C.J. (1993) Frame Semantics and Perception Verbs, contribution to the Dagh- stuhl Seminar on Universals in the Lexicon, in: Hans Kamp, James Pustejovsky (eds.), Universals in the Lexicon: At t he Intersection of Lexical Semantic Theories, 1 993, ms, Daghstuhl.
  19. Freuder, E.C. (1978) Synthesizing Constraint Expressions. in Communications ACM 21(11): 958-966.
  20. Grimes, J.E. (1968) The Thread of Discourse. E R I C D ocument E D-019669.
  21. Gross, M. (1984) Lexicon-Grammar and the Syntactic Analysis of French. In Proceedings of the 10th Coling, Stanford, Ca.
  22. Jackendo , R. (1990) Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  23. Kameyama M., Ochitani, R. and S., Peters (1991) Resolving Translation Mismatches With Information Flow. In Proceedings of the Association for Computational Lin- guists, 1991.
  24. Knight, K. and S.K., Luk (1994). Building a Large-Scale Knowledge Base for Machine Translation. In Proceedings of the Twelfth National Conf. on Arti cial Intelligence, (AAAI-94).
  25. Lenat, D., M. Prakash and M. Shepherd (1986) CYC: Using Common Sense Knowledge to Overcome Brittleness and Knowledge Acquisition Bottlenecks. AI Magazine, VI.
  26. Lenat, D. B. and R.V., Guha (1990). Building Large Knowledge-Based Systems. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  27. Levin, B. (1993) English Verb Classes and Alternations. T h e University o f C h i c ago Press.
  28. Luger, G.F. and W.A., Stubble eld (1992) Rule based expert systems. In Computer Engineering Handbook, C.H. Chen, ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
  29. Mahesh, K. (1996) Ontology Development for Machine Translation: Ideology and Method- ology. M emoranda in Computer and Cognitive S cience, MCCS-96-292. Las Cruces, N.M.: New Mexico State University.
  30. Mahesh, K., and S. Nirenburg (1995). A situated ontology for practical NLP. In the Proceedings of IJCAI'95 Workshop on Basic Ontological Issues in Knowledge Sharing. Montreal, August 19-21.
  31. Mahesh, K., Nirenburg, S., Cowie, J. and D. Farewell (1996). An Assessment of CyC for Natural Language. Memoranda in Computer and Cognitive S cience, MCCS-96-302. Las Cruces, N.M.: New Mexico State University.
  32. Mahesh, K., Nirenburg, S. and S. Beale (1997) If You Have It, Flaunt It: Using Full Ontological Knowledge for Word Sense Disambiguation. In Proceedings of TMI-97.
  33. McNaught, J. (1990) Reusability o f Lexical and Terminological Resources Steps towards Independence.
  34. Meyer, I., Onyshkevych, B., and L. Carlson (1990). Lexicographic principles and design for knowledge-based m achine translation. T echnical Report CMU-CMT-90-118, Center for Machine Translation, Carnegie Melon University, P ittsburgh, PA.
  35. Miller, G.A., and C. Fellbaum (1991). Semantic Networks of English. Cognition 41, p p . 197-229.
  36. Minsky, M . (1968) Semantic Information Processing. M I T P r ess, Cambridge, MA.
  37. Nirenburg, S., Raskin, V. and B., Onyshkevych (1994) Apologiae Ontologia. MT Sum- mit'94.
  38. Nirenburg, S., Mahesh, K. and S. Beale (1996) Measuring semantic coverage, In Proceed- ings of Coling-96, Copenhagen.
  39. Nirenburg, S. and V. Raskin (1987) The Subworld Concept Lexicon and the Lexicon SEMANTICS IN ACTION 33
  40. Management S ystem. In Computational Linguistics, V olume 13, Numbers3-4.
  41. Nirenburg, S. and V. Raskin (1996) Ten Choices for Lexical Semantics. Memoranda in Computer and Cognitive Science, M CCS-96-304. Las Cruces, N.M.: New Mexico State University.
  42. Normier, B. and M. Nossin (1990) GENELEX Project: EUREKA for Linguistic Engineer- ing. In Proceedings of the international Workshop on Electronic Dictionaries, O I S O, Kanagawa, Japan.
  43. Onyshkevych, B. and S. Nirenburg (1994). The lexicon in the scheme of KBMT things. Memoranda in Computer and Cognitive Science, MCCS-94-277. Las Cruces, N.M.: New Mexico State University. R eprinted as: A lexicon for knowledge-based machine translation, in: Dorr and Klavans 1995 (eds).
  44. Onyshkevysh, B. (1997) An Ontological-Semantic Framework for Text Analysis. Ph.D. Dissertation, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University.
  45. Ostler, N. and B.T.S. Atkins (1992) Predictable meaning shift: Some linguistic properties of lexical implication rules. In J. Pustejovsky and S. Bergler (eds), Lexical Semantics and Knowledge Representation. B erlin: Springer, pp. 87-100.
  46. Palmer, M. and Z., Wu (1995) Verb Semantics for English-Chinese Translation. Machine Translation, V olume 10, Nos 1-2.
  47. Pollard, C. and I. Sag (1987) An Information-based Approach t o S y n tax and Semantics: Volume 1 Fundamentals. CSLI Lecture Notes 13, Stanford CA.
  48. Pustejovsky, J., P., Anick ( 1 988) On the Semantic Interpretation of Nominals. In Coling 1988, v ol.2: 518-523.
  49. Pustejovsky, J . ( 1995) The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  50. San lippo, A. (Ed.) (1992) The (Other) Cambridge Acquilex Papers. Technical Report No. 253. Computer Laboratory, U n i v ersity o f C a m bridge, New Museums Site, Pem- brocke S t r eet, Cambridge.
  51. Schank, R. (1973) Identi cation of conceptualizations underlying natural language. In Computer Models of Thought and Language, S c hank, R. and Colby, K . , e d itors, San Francisco:W. H. Freeman Co.
  52. Searle, J.R. (1969) Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language.. Cambridge University P ress.
  53. Tsang, E.P.K. (1993) Foundations of Constraint Satisfaction. London: Academic Press.
  54. Viegas, E. and S. Beale (1996) Multilinguality and Reversibility i n Computational Se- mantic Lexicons. In Proceedings of INLG 96, Sussex, England.
  55. Viegas, E., Onyshkevych, B., Raskin, V., and S. Nirenburg (1996) From Submit to Sub- mitted via Submission: o n L exical Rules in Large-scale Lexicon Acquisition. In Pro- ceedings of ACL96, U n i v ersity o f California, Santa-Cruz, June 23-28, California.
  56. Viegas, E. and V. Raskin (1997) Lexical Acquisition: Guidelines and Methodology. Mem- oranda in Computer and Cognitive S cience. MCCS-97-2xx. Las Cruces, Computing Research L aboratory, N ew Mexico State University.
  57. Viegas, E. (1997) Mismatches and Divergences: the Continuum Perspective. In Proceed- ings of TMI-97, Santa Fe.
  58. Yarowsky, D . ( 1 9 92). Word sense disambiguation using statistical models of Roget's cat- egories trained on large corpora. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. pp. 454-460, Nantes, France.
  59. Weinreich, U. (1964) Webster's Third: A Critique of its Semantics. In International Jour- nal of American Linguistics 30: 405-409.
  60. Wilks, Y. (1992) Review of Ray Jackendo 's Semantic Structures, Computational Lin- guistics, v ol. 18:1, pp 95-97.
  61. Wilks, Y. (1996). Homography a nd part-of-speech tagging. Presentation at the MikroKos- mos Workshop. Las Cruces, N.M.: Computing Research L aboratory, A u g u s t 2 1 .

Related papers

Event-Based Semantics
Peter Lasersohn

Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, 2006

Semantic theories employing quantification of hidden variables ranging over events have been applied to a wide variety of linguistic problems, including the semantics of adverbial adjuncts, perception reports, thematic relations, nominalization, and Aktionsart. Event-based semantic theories differ in their

View PDFchevron_right
Lexical representations, event structure and quantification
Rodolfo Delmonte

1997

ftp site: ftp.unive.it Contents p. 1 Abstract " 1 1. Introduction " 2 2. Interpreting Temporal Locations " 2 2.1 Conceptual Representations " 2 3. Aspect and the TD feature " 4 4. Quantifiers and Interpretation " 6 5. Global vs Internal: two features for event structure " 8 6. Factuality and the Structure of events " 11 7. Event structure and Quantification " 14 8. Quantifier Raising " 18 8.1 Uniqueness and Genericity " 21 9. The algorithm for temporal interpretation " 23 9.1 Tense and Aspect: two separate relations with Time Reference " 25 9.2 Implementing Allen's algorithm " 27 9.3 Semantic representations " 29 10. References " 31 11 Acknowledgements " 32

View PDFchevron_right
Lexical Semantics, Syntax, and Event Structure
Ivy Sichel

2010

View PDFchevron_right
INFORMATION SYSTEM APPROACH TO SEMANTICS
Velina Slavova, Alona Soschen

ABSTRACT The proposed here approach presents the language as an information system with two connected levels of representation – one which concerns basic semantic primitives and operators and one which concerns the grammatical level of the natural language. We assume that there is a common general underlying semantic scheme for all languages and that any grammatical rule can be represented as consisting of some semantic primitives /internal representations, which are mind-operable. The Language Faculty is a highly non-redundant system. What is the extent of the inter-set mapping that the system permits? Can, for example, statives be characterized by the aspectual (change-of-state) property of dynamic domains? The claim advanced in this paper is that this kind of attribution constitutes a violation of the rule that preserves domain specific properties. A change-of-state characteristic is preserved for the semantic interpretation of the dynamic functions of verbs. In the first part of this paper, it is shown that in Russian, the Instrumental case marking on the secondary predicate implies a choice-of-state operation. It is explained why a change-of-state cannot be attributed to stative domains of adjectives and nouns, and the conditions are established for the interpretation of a choice-of-state function. It is supposed that the semantic representation of events must be treated separately from the analysis of objects’ states and characteristics. The proposed approach to Language as Information System is developed in the second part of the paper. Secondary predication in Russian is modeled by means of a ‘connected to the semantic level database’ (SDB), and the links between basic semantic units and grammar are analyzed. The results obtained from the SDB reports confirm that the semantic representation of events must be treated separately from the analysis of objects’ states and characteristics. They also show that the Instrumental case marking implies a choice-of-state mind operator independently of a function on events. KEYWORDS Language Information System, Semantic Level

View PDFchevron_right
UC Merced Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society Title Semantics in the Wild Publication Date Semantics in the Wild
Robert Glushko
View PDFchevron_right
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved