Advertisement

Machine Translation

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 81–98 | Cite as

Augmenting formal semantic representation for NLP: The story of SMEARR

  • Victor Raskin
  • Salvatore Attardo
  • Donalee H. Attardo
Article
  • 46 Downloads

Abstract

The centerpiece of the paper is SMEARR, an enriched and augmented lexical database with a database management system and several peripherals. It is presented as a polytheoretical shareable resource in computational semantics and justified as a manageable empirically-based study of the meaning bottleneck in NLP. The relation between SMEARR entries and the examples of formal semantic descriptions in the generative and post-generative semantic literature is explored, revealing a significant discrepancy in the formalisms and in the very nature of formality between computational and theoretical semantics. Finally, the idea of variable-depth semantics, developed in earlier publications, is brought up in the context of SMEARR.

Key words

Lexical database DBMS variable-depth semantics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ahlswede, Thomas E.: 1985, ‘A tool kit for lexicon building’,Proceedings of the 23rd ACL, pp. 286–276, University of Chicago, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  2. Attardo, Donalee H.: 1990,Making Linguistic Semantics Work for Natural Language Processing, unpublished M.A. Thesis, Purdue UniversityGoogle Scholar
  3. Attardo, Donalee H.: 1991, ‘FrameBuilder: A tool for computational lexicography’, paper presented at ACH/ALLC '91, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, MarchGoogle Scholar
  4. Attardo, Donalee H.: 1993, ‘Reason-based heuristics for meaning analysis’,Literary and Linguistic Computing 7(1), pp. 48–63.Google Scholar
  5. Bobrow, Daniel and Terry Winograd: 1977, ‘An overview of KRL, a knowledge representation language’,Cognitive Science 1, pp. 3–46Google Scholar
  6. Boguraev, B., R. Byrd, J. Klavans, and M. Neff: 1989, ‘From machine-readable dictionaries to a lexical knowledge base’, in: U. Zernik (ed.),Proceedings of the First International Lexical Acquisition Workshop, supplement, IJCAI '89, Detroit, MIGoogle Scholar
  7. Brachman, R.J.: 1979, ‘On the epistemological status of semantic networks’, in: N.V. Findler (ed.),Associative Networks: Representation and Use of Knowledge by Computers, pp. 3–50, Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Brachman, R.J., R.E. Fikes, and Hector J. Levesque: 1983, ‘KRYPTON: a functional approach to knowledge representation’,IEEE Computer 16(10), pp. 67–73Google Scholar
  9. Brachman, R. and J. Schmolze: 1985, ‘An overview of the KL-ONE knowledge representation system,Cognitive Science 9, pp. 171–216Google Scholar
  10. Calzolari, N.: 1989, ‘Large databases and computational linguistics: research tools and testbeds‘, in: U. Zernik (ed.),Proceedings of the First International Lexical Acquisition Workshop, supplement, IJCAI '89, Detroit, MIGoogle Scholar
  11. Chierchia Gennaro and Sally McConnell-Ginet: 1991,Meaning and Grammar: An Introduction to Semantics, MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  12. Fillmore, Charles J.: 1971, ‘Verbs of judging’, in: Charles J. Fillmore and D. Terence Langendoen (eds.),Studies in Linguistic Semantics, pp. 272–296. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Frawley, William: 1993,Linguistic Semantics. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  14. Grosz, Barbara J. and Candace L. Sidner: 1986, ‘Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse’,Computational Linguistics 12(3), pp. 175–204.Google Scholar
  15. Jakendoff, Ray: 1983,Semantics and Cognition, MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  16. Jacobs, P.: 1989, ‘Making sense of lexical acquisition’, in: U. Zernik (ed.),Proceedings of the First International Lexical Acquisition Workshop, paper 11, IJCAI '89, Detroit, MIGoogle Scholar
  17. Kolodner, Janet L.: 1984,Retrieval and Organizational Strategies in Conceptual Memory: A Computer Model, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  18. Lakoff, George: 1972, ‘Linguistics and natural logic’, in: D. Davidson and G. Harman (eds.),Semantics of Natural Language, pp. 545–665, Reidel, Dordrecht-BostonGoogle Scholar
  19. Lakoff, George: 1991, ‘The metaphorical understanding structure’,Proceedings of the 17th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, February 15–18, 1991. General Session and the Parasession on Grammar of Event StructureGoogle Scholar
  20. Levin, Beth: 1993,English Verb Classes and Alternatives: A Preliminary Investigation, University of Chicago Press, Chicago-LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Lewis, David: 1972, ‘General semantics’, in: D. Davidson and G. Harman (eds.),Semantics of Natural Language, pp. 169–218. Reidel, Dordrecht-BostonGoogle Scholar
  22. Mel'čuk, Igor A.: 1979,Studies in Dependency Syntax. Karoma, Ann Arbor, MIGoogle Scholar
  23. Nirenburg, Sergei and Lori Levin: 1992, ‘Syntax-driven and ontology-driven lexical semantics’, in: James Pustejovsky and Sabine Bergler (eds.),Lexical Semantics and Knowledge Representation, Lecture Notes in AI, No 627, pp. 5–20, Springer-Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  24. Nirenburg, Sergei, Ira Monarch, and Todd Kaufmann: 1988,ONTOS: A knowledge base acquisition and maintenance system. CMT Internal Memo, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PAGoogle Scholar
  25. Nirenburg, Sergei and Victor Raskin: 1986, ‘A metric for computational analysis of meaning: toward an applied theory of linguistic semantics for NLP’,Proceedings of the XI International Conference on Computational Linguistics, COLING '86, pp. 338–340, University of Bonn, BonnGoogle Scholar
  26. Nirenburg, Sergei and Victor Raskin: 1987, ‘The subworld concept lexicon and the lexicon management system’,Computational Linguistics 13(3–4), pp. 276–289Google Scholar
  27. Nirenburg, Sergei, Victor Raskin, and Alan Tucker: 1987, ‘The structure of interlingua in TRANSLATOR’, in: Sergei Nirenburg (ed.),Machine Translation: Theoretical and Methodological Issues, pp. 90–113, Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  28. Nirenburg, S., V. Raskin, and R. McCardell: 1989, ‘Ontology-based lexical acquisition’, in: U. Zernik (ed.),Proceedings of the First International Lexical Acquisition Workshop, paper 8, IJCAI '89, Detroit, MIGoogle Scholar
  29. Partee, Barbara: 1991, ‘Adverbial quantification and event structures’,Proceedings of the 17th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, February 15–18, 1991. General Session and the Parasession on Grammar of Event StructureGoogle Scholar
  30. Postal, Paul M.: 1971, ‘On the surface verb ‘remind’, in: Charles J. Fillmore and D. Terence Langendoen (eds.),Studies in Linguistic Semantics, pp. 181–270, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Quillian, M.R.: 1968, ‘Semantic memory’, in: Marvin Minsky (ed.),Semantic Information Processing, pp. 216–270, MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  32. Raskin, Victor: 1978, ‘Presuppositional analysis of Russian, I; six essays on aspects of presupposition’, in: Victor Raskin and Dmitry Segal (eds.),Slavica Hierosolymitana 2, pp. 51–92, Magnes, JerusalemGoogle Scholar
  33. Raskin, Victor: 1985, ‘Linguistic and encyclopedic information in text processing’,Quaderni di Semantica VI(1), pp. 92–102Google Scholar
  34. Raskin, Victor: 1987, ‘What is there in linguistic semantics for natural language processing?’, in: Sergei Nirenburg (ed.),Proceedings of Natural Language Planning Workshop, pp. 78–96, RADC: Blue Mountain Lake, NYGoogle Scholar
  35. Raskin, Victor: 1990, ‘Ontology, sublanguage, and semantic networks in natural language processing’, in: Martin C. Golumbic (ed.),Advances in Artificial Intelligence: Natural Language and Knowledge-Based Systems, pp. 114–128, Springer-Verlag, New York-BerlinGoogle Scholar
  36. Raskin, Victor: 1994, ‘Review of Frawley'sLinguistic Semantics’,Language 70(3), pp. 552–556Google Scholar
  37. Raskin, Victor, Donalee H. Attardo, and Salvatore Attardo: 1994, ‘The SMEARR semantic database: an intelligent and versatile resource for the humanities’, in: Don Ross and Dan Brink (eds.),Research in Humanities Computing 3, Clarendon Press, pp. 109–124, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  38. Raskin, Victor, Salvatore Attardo, and Donalee Hughes: 1989, ‘On variable-depth NLP semantics: transposition of high-quality semantic descriptions into ILT’, PNLPL-TR-5-89, Purdue University, W. Lafayette, INGoogle Scholar
  39. Raskin, Victor, Salvatore Attardo, Donalee Hughes, and Manfred Stede: 1989, ‘Linguistic-semantics-based resource for meaning representation’, PNLPL-TR-6-89, Purdue University, W. Lafayette, INGoogle Scholar
  40. Reichman, Rachel: 1985,Getting Computers to Talk Like You and Me, MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  41. Schank, Roger C. and Christopher K. Riesbeck: 1981,Inside Computer Understanding. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  42. Tucker, Alan, Sergei Nirenburg, and Victor Raskin: 1986, ‘Discourse, cohesion, and semantics of expository text’,Proceedings of the XI International Conference on Computational Linguistics, COLING '86, pp. 181–183, University of Bonn, BonnGoogle Scholar
  43. Wierzbicka, Anna: 1985,Lexicography and Conceptual Analysis. Karoma, Ann Arbor, MIGoogle Scholar
  44. Wierzbicka, Anna: 1988,The Semantics of Grammar. J. Benjamins, Philadelphia-AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  45. Wilks, Yorick A.: 1975, ‘Primitives and words’,TINLAP-1, pp. 38–41Google Scholar
  46. Wilks, Yorick A. and Dan Fass: 1984, ‘Preference semantics, ill-formedness and metaphor’,American Journal of Computational Linguistics 9(2), pp. 178–187Google Scholar
  47. Woods, William A.: 1979,Semantics for a Question-Answering System, unpublished Ph. D. Thesis, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 1967. Reprinted in New York: Garland, 1979Google Scholar
  48. Zernik, Uri (ed.): 1989,Proceedings of the First International Lexical Acquisition Workshop. IJCAI '89, Detroit, MIGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Victor Raskin
    • 1
  • Salvatore Attardo
    • 2
  • Donalee H. Attardo
    • 3
  1. 1.NLP Lab, Purdue UniversityW. LafayetteUSA
  2. 2.Department of English, YoungstownState UniversityYoungstownUSA
  3. 3.Center for Machine TranslationCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations