Advertisement

Machine Translation

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 5–30 | Cite as

Customizing verb definitions for specific semantic domains

  • Martha Palmer
Article

Abstract

We examine the functions performed by verb definitions in the process of semantic interpretation in PUNDIT, and the changes in the interpretation process that are caused by different uses of the same verb. We give detailed examples of how the interpretation process is affected by changes in thematic roles, selection restrictions and semantic predicates in the decompositions that constitute the verb definitions. In addition we introduce the notion of a change-of-state inference that must be drawn by reference resolution and argue that it plays an equally important function in capturing distinctions among verb senses. We demonstrate the role of the change-of-state inference with several different concrete representations of varying senses of the verb break.

Keywords

domain models domain semantics mapping rules predicate environments thematic roles verb decompositions 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. BundyAlan. 1979. Solving Mechanics Problems Using Meta-Level Inference. In: D.Michie (ed.), Expert Systems in the Micro-Electronic Age. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 50–64.Google Scholar
  2. Dahl, Deborah A. 1986. Focusing and Reference Resolution in pundit. Proceedings of 5th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  3. Dahl, Deborah A., Martha S. Palmer and Rebecca J. Passonneau. 1987a. Nominalizations in P upundit. Proceedings of ACL-87, Stanford, 131–139.Google Scholar
  4. DahlDeborah A., JohnDowding, LynetteHirschman, FrancoisLang, MarciaLinebarger, MarthaPalmer, RebeccaPassonneau and LeslieRiley. 1987b. Integrating Snytax, Semantics, and Discourse: darpa Natural Language Understanding Program, R and D Status Report, Unisys Corporation, Paoli, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  5. FillmoreCharles J. 1968. The Case for Case. In: E.Bach and R.T.Harms (Eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1–88.Google Scholar
  6. Fillmore, C. 1986. Pragmatically Controlled Zero Anaphora. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 95–107.Google Scholar
  7. FowlerH.W., F.G.Fowler and E.McIntosh (eds.). 1959. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. HarrisZellig. 1968. Mathematical Structures of Language. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Hobbs, Jerry R., Mark Stickel, Paul Martin and Douglas Edwards. 1988. Interpretation as Abduction. Proceedings of ACL-88, Buffalo, 95–103.Google Scholar
  10. JackendoffR.S. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. JackendoffR.S. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. LarsonRichard K. 1988. Implicit Arguments in Situation Semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 11: 131–168.Google Scholar
  13. LevinBeth, and MalkaRappaport. 1986. The Formation of Adjectival Passives. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 623–661.Google Scholar
  14. Linebarger, Marcia C., Deborah A. Dahl, Lynette Hirschman and Rebecca J. Passonneau. 1988. Sentence Fragments Regular Structures. Proceedings of ACL-88, Buffalo, 7–16.Google Scholar
  15. MishF.C., E.W.Gilman, J.G.Lowe, R.D.McHenry, R.W.Pease et al. (eds.) 1986. Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster.Google Scholar
  16. Palmer, Martha. 1981. A Case for Rule-Driven Semantic Analysis. Proceedings of ACL-81, Stanford, 125–131.Google Scholar
  17. Palmer, Martha. 1983. Inference-driven Semantic Analysis. Proceedings of AAAI-83, Washington, D.C., 310–313.Google Scholar
  18. PalmerMartha. 1985. Driving Semantics for a Limited Domain. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  19. Palmer, Martha, Deborah A. Dahl, Rebecca J. (Schiffman) Passonneau, Lynette Hirschman, Marcia Linebarger and John Dowding. 1986. Recovering Implicit Information. Proceedings of ACL-86, New York, 10–19.Google Scholar
  20. PalmerMartha. 1990. Semantic Processing for Finite Domains. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Passonneau, Rebecca J. 1987. Situations and Intervals. Proceedings of ACL-87, Stanford, 16–24.Google Scholar
  22. PassonneauRebecca J. 1988. A Computational Model of the Semantics of Tense and Aspect. Computational Linguistics 14: 44–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Passonneau, Rebecca J., Carl Weir, Tim Finin and Martha Palmer. 1990. Integrating Natural Language Processing and Knowledge Based Processing: Demand-Driven Reasoning for Document Analysis. To appear in Proceedings of AAAI-90.Google Scholar
  24. Rappaport, Malka and Beth Levin. 1986. What to Do with Theta-Roles. Lexicon Project Working Papers, MIT Center for Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
  25. Weir, Carl, and Martha Palmer. 1989. The Status of Message Understanding Research. Presented at Seventh Intelligence Community AI/Advanced Computing Symposium, McLean, Virginia.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martha Palmer
    • 1
  1. 1.Unisys Center for Advanced Information TechnologyPaoliUSA

Personalised recommendations