skip to main content
10.3115/992628.992659dlproceedingsArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescolingConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article
Free Access

Lexical rules: what are they?

Published:05 August 1996Publication History

ABSTRACT

Horizontal redundancy is inherent to lexica consisting of descriptions of fully formed objects. This causes an unwelcome expansion of the lexical database and increases parsing time. To climinate it, direct relations between descriptions of fully 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 lexical entries on a needs-driven 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 contextual 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.

References

  1. Joan Bresnan (ed). 1982. The mental representation of grammatical relations. MIT PressGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Mike Calcagno. 1995. Interpreting lexical rules. In AQUILEX Workshop on lexical rules. Cambridge, UK, August 9-11, 1995Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Daniel Paul Flickinger. 1987. Lexical Rules in the Hierarchical Lexicon. PhD. Stanford University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Jean Mark Gawron. 1986. Situations and Prepositions. Linguistics and Philosophy 9, pp. 327--382Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Hans-Ulrich Krieger & John Nerbonne. 1993. Feature-BAsed Inheritance Networks for Computational Lexicons. In (eds) Ted Briscoe, Valeria di Paiva and Ann Copstake Inheritance, Defaults and the Lexicon. Combridge University. Press, 90--136 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Beth Levin. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations. A Preliminary Investigation. The University of Chicago Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Walt Detmar Meurers. 1995. Towards a semantics for lexical rules as used in HPSG. In AQUILEX Workshop on lexical rules. Cambridge, UK, August 9-11, 1995Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Steven Pinker. 1989. Learnability and Cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. MIT PressGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Carl Pollard & Ivan A. Sag. 1987. Information-based Syntax and Semantics. Volume 1. Fundamentals. Center for the Study of Language and Information Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Susanne Riehemann, Morphology and the Hierarchical Lexicon (ms.) Stanford University, Stanford.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Antonio Sanfilippo. 1995. Lexical Polymorphism and Word Usage Extensibility. In AQUILEX Workshop on lexical rules, Cambridge, UK, August 9-11, 1995Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Gertjan van Noord and Gosse Bouma. 1994. Adjuncts and the processing of lexical rules. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING), Kyoto, 1994 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Stephen Mark Wechsler. 1994. Preposition Selection Outside the Lexicon. To appear in Proceedings of the Thirteenth West Coast Conference on Formal LinguisticsGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  1. Lexical rules: what are they?

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image DL Hosted proceedings
      COLING '96: Proceedings of the 16th conference on Computational linguistics - Volume 1
      August 1996
      600 pages
      • Program Chair:
      • J. Tsujii

      Publisher

      Association for Computational Linguistics

      United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 5 August 1996

      Qualifiers

      • Article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate1,537of1,537submissions,100%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader