Ontology and the Lexicon

  • Graeme Hirst
Part of the International Handbooks on Information Systems book series (INFOSYS)


A lexicon is a linguistic object and hence is not the same thing as an ontology, which is non-linguistic. Nonetheless, word senses are in many ways similar to ontological concepts and the relationships found between word senses resemble the relationships found between concepts. Although the arbitrary and semi-arbitrary distinctions made by natural languages limit the degree to which these similarities can be exploited, a lexicon can nonetheless serve in the development of an ontology, especially in a technical domain.


Natural Language Machine Translation Lexical Entry Word Sense Unify Medical Language System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (2000): Classifiers: A Typology of Noun Categorization Devices. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alshawi, Hiyan (1987): Processing dictionary definitions with phrasal pattern hierarchies. Computational Linguistics, 13(3/4), 195–202.
  3. 3.
    American Psychiatric Association (2000): Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-IV-TR (4th edition, text revision). American Psychiatric Association, Washington, DC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Amsler, Robert A. (1981): A taxonomy for English nouns and verbs. Proceedings of the 19th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Stanford, 133–138.
  5. 5.
    Baayen, Harald R., Piepenbrock, Richard, and Gulikers, Leon (1995): The CELEX Lexical Database. CD-ROM, Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
  6. 6.
    Barrière, Caroline and Popowich, Fred (2000): Expanding the type hierarchy with nonlexical concepts. In: Hamilton, Howard J. (ed.), Advances in Artificial Intelligence (Proceedings of the 13th Biennial Conference of the Canadian Society for Computational Studies of Intelligence, Montreal, May 2000), Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, volume 1822, pages 53–68. Springer, Berlin. Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boguraev, Branimir and Pustejovsky, James (eds.) (1996): Corpus Processing for Lexical Acquisition. MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Briscoe, Ted, de Paiva, Valeria, and Copestake, Ann (eds.) (1993): Inheritance, Defaults, and the Lexicon. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Buitelaar, Paul (1998): CoreLex: An ontology of systematic polysemous classes. In: Guarino, Nicola (ed.), Formal Ontology in Information Systems, pages 221–235. IOS, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Burger, Henry G. (1984): The Wordtree. The Wordtree, Merriam, KS.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Byrd, Roy J., Calzolari, Nicoletta, Chodorow, Martin S., Klavans, Judith L., Neff, Mary S., and Rizk, Omneya A. (1987): Tools and methods for computational lexicography. Computational Linguistics, 13(3/4), 219–240.
  12. 12.
    Chklovski, Timothy and Pantel, Patrick (2004): VerbOcean: Mining the Web for Fine-Grained Semantic Verb Relations. Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-04), Barcelona, Spain, 33–40. Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chodorow, Martin S., Byrd, Roy J., and Heidorn, George E. (1985): Extracting semantic hierarchies from a large on-line dictionary. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Chicago, 299–304.
  14. 14.
    Cooper, Martin C. (2005): A mathematical model of historical semantics and the grouping of word meanings into concepts. Computational Linguistics, 31(2), 227–248.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cruse, D. Alan (1986): Lexical Semantics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cruse, D. Alan (2002): Hyponymy and its varieties. In: Green, Bean, and Myaeng (eds.), The Semantics of Relationships, pages 3–21. Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Daelemans, Walter, De Smedt, Koenraad, and Gazdar, Gerald (1992): Inheritance in natural language processing. Computational Linguistics, 18(2), 205–218.
  18. 18.
    Dahlgren, Kathleen (1995): A linguistic ontology. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 43(5/6), 809–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Edmonds, Philip and Hirst, Graeme (2000): Reconciling fine-grained lexical knowledge and coarse-grained ontologies in the representation of near-synonyms. Proceedings of the Workshop on Semantic Approximation, Granularity, and Vagueness, Breckenridge, Colorado.
  20. 20.
    Edmonds, Philip and Hirst, Graeme (2002): Near-synonymy and lexical choice. Computational Linguistics, 28(2), 105–144.
  21. 21.
    Emele, Martin, Heid, Ulrich, Momma, Stefan, and Zajac, Rémi (1992): Interactions between linguistic constraints: Procedural vs. declarative approaches. Machine Translation, 7(1/2), 61–98.
  22. 22.
    Evans, Roger and Gazdar, Gerald (1996): DATR: A language for lexical knowledge representation. Computational Linguistics, 22(2), 167–216.
  23. 23.
    Evens, Martha Walton (ed.) (1988): Relational Models of the Lexicon. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Farrow, Jane (2000): Wanted Words: From Amalgamots to Undercarments. Stoddart, Toronto.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fellbaum, Christiane (1998): WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. MIT, Cambridge, MA.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fellbaum, Christiane (2002): On the semantics of troponymy. In: Green, R., Bean, C., Myaeng, S. (eds.), The Semantics of Relationships, pages 23–34. Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gangemi, Aldo, Guarino, Nicola, and Oltramari, Alessandro (2001): Conceptual analysis of lexical taxonomies: The case of WordNet top-level. In: Welty, Chris and Smith, Barry (eds.), Formal Ontology in Information Systems: Collected Papers from the Second International Conference, pages 285–296. ACM, New York.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gazdar, Gerald and Daelemans, Walter (1992): Special issues on Inheritance. Computational Linguistics, 18(2) and 18(3). Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gove, Philip B. (ed.) (1973): Webster’s New Dictionary of Synonyms. G. & C. Merriam Company, Springfield, MA.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Green, Rebecca, Bean, Carol A., and Myaeng, Sung Hyon (eds.) (2002): The Semantics of Relationships: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gruber, Thomas R. (1993): Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 43(5/6), 907–928.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hall, Rich (1984): Sniglets (Snig’lit): Any Word That Doesn’t Appear in the Dictionary, but Should. Collier Books.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hovy, Eduard (1998): Combining and standardizing large-scale, practical ontologies for machine translation and other uses. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), Granada, Spain.
  34. 34.
    Hovy, Eduard (2005): Methodologies for the reliable construction of ontological knowledge. In: Dau, Frithjof, Mugnier, Marie-Laure, and Stumme, Gerd (eds.), Conceptual Structures: Common Semantics for Sharing Knowledge, pages 91–106. Springer, Berlin.
  35. 35.
    Hovy, Eduard and Nirenburg, Sergei (1992): Approximating an interlingua in a principled way. Proceedings of the DARPA Speech and Natural Language Workshop, Hawthorne, NY.
  36. 36.
    Iris, Madelyn Anne, Litowitz, Bonnie E., and Evens, Martha (1988): Problems of the part - whole relation. In: Evens, M. (Ed.), Relational Models of the Lexicon: Representing Knowledge in Semantic Networks, pages 261–288. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kilgarriff, Adam (1997): I don’t believe in word senses. Computers and the Humanities, 31(2), 91–113.
  38. 38.
    Lakoff, George (1987): Women, Fire, and Dangerous things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lenci, Alessandro (2001): Building an ontology for the lexicon: Semantic types and word meaning. In: Jensen, Per Anker and Skadhauge, Peter (eds.), Ontology-Based Interpretation of Noun Phrases: Proceedings of the First International OntoQuery Workshop, University of Southern Denmark, pages 103–120.
  40. 40.
    Lenci, Alessandro et al. (2000). simple: A general framework for the development of multilingual lexicons. International Journal of Lexicography, 13(4), 249–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Levin, Beth (1993): English Verb Classes and Alternations: A preliminary investigation. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lindberg, Donald A. B., Humphreys, Betsy L., and McCray, Alexa T. (1993): The Unified Medical Language System. Methods of Information in Medicine, 32(4), 281–289.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mahesh, Kavi, and Nirenburg, Sergei (1995): A situated ontology for practical NLP. Proceedings of the Workshop on Basic Ontological Issues in Knowledge Sharing, International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-95), Montreal.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Markowitz, Judith, Ahlswede, Thomas, and Evens, Martha (1986): Semantically significant patterns in dictionary definitions. Proceedings of the 24th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, New York, pages 112–119.
  45. 45.
    McNeill, J., Barrie, F. R., Burdet, H. M., Demoulin, V., Hawksworth, D. L., Marhold, K., Nicolson, D. H., Prado, J., Silva, P. C., Skog, J. E., Wiersema, J., and Turland, N. J. (eds.) (2006): International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (Vienna Code). A.R.G. Gantner, Ruggell, Liechtenstein.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Mel’čuk, Igor (1984): Dictionnaire explicatif et combinatoire du français contemporain. Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Mel’čuk, Igor and Zholkovsky, Alexander (1988): The explanatory combinatorial dictionary. In: Evens (ed.), Relational Models of the Lexicon: Representing Knowledge in Semantic Networks, pages 41–74. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    The Merriam-Webster Pocket Dictionary. G.&C. Merriam Company, Springfield, MA.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Morris, Jane and Hirst, Graeme (2004): Non-classical lexical semantic relations. Proceedings, Workshop on Computational Lexical Semantics, Human Language Technology Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Boston. Reprinted in: Hanks, Patrick (ed.), Lexicology: Critical Concepts in Linguistics, Routledge, 2007.
  50. 50.
    Murphy, Gregory L. and Lassaline, Mary E. (1997): Hierarchical structure in concepts and the basic level of categorization. In: Lamberts, Koen and Shanks, David (eds.), Knowledge, Concepts, and Categories, pages 93–131. MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Philpot, Andrew, Hovy, Eduard, and Pantel, Patrick (2005): The Omega ontology. Proceedings, IJCNLP workshop on Ontologies and Lexical Resources (OntoLex-05). Jeju Island, South Korea.
  52. 52.
    Pinker, Steven (1994): The Language Instinct. William Morrow and Company, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Pribbenow, Simone (2002): it Meronymic Relationships: From Classical Merology to Complex Part – Whole Relationships, pages. 35–50. Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Pustejovsky, James (1995): The Generative Lexicon. MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Quine, Willard Van Orman (1960): Word and Object. MIT, Cambridge, MA.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Richardson, Stephen D., Dolan, William B., and Vanderwende, Lucy (1998): MindNet: Acquiring and structuring semantic information from text. Proceedings, 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING-98), Montreal, pages 1098–1104.
  57. 57.
    Roget, Peter Mark. Roget’s Thesaurus. Many editions and variant titles.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Ruhl, Charles (1989): On Monosemy: A Study in Linguistic Semantics. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Sapir, Edward (1929/1964): The status of linguistics as a science. Language, volume 5, pages 207–214. Reprinted in: Mandelbaum, David G. (ed.), Culture, Language, and Personality: Selected Essays of Edward Sapir, University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Sowa, John F. (2000): Knowledge Representation: Logical, Philosophical, and Computational Foundations. Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove, CA.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Steele, James (1990): The vocable hope: A family of lexical entries for an explanatory combinatorial dictionary of English. In: Steele, James (ed.), Meaning–Text Theory: Linguistics, Lexicography, and Implications, pages 131–158. University of Ottawa Press.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Talmy, Leonard (ed.) (2000a): The Relation of Grammar to Cognition, pages I-21–96. MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Talmy, Leonard (2000b): Toward a Cognitive Semantics, two volumes. MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Viegas, Evelyn, Onyshkevych, Boyan, Raskin, Victor, and Nirenburg, Sergei (1996): From submit to submitted via submission: On lexical rules in large-scale lexicon acquisition. Proceedings, 34th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Santa Cruz, pages 32–39.
  65. 65.
    Völker, Johanna, Hitzler, Pascal, and Cimiano, Philipp (2007): Acquisition of OWL DL axioms from lexical resources. In: Franconi, Enrico, Kifer, Michael, and May, Wolfgang (eds.), The Semantic Web: Research and Applications (Proceedings of the 4th European Semantic Web Conference, ESWC 2007), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, volume 4519, pages 670–685. Springer, Berlin.
  66. 66.
    Völker, Johanna, Vrandečić, Denny, Sure, York, Hotho, Andreas (2007): Learning disjointness. In: Franconi, Enrico, Kifer, Michael, and May, Wolfgang (eds.), The Semantic Web: Research and Applications (Proceedings of the 4th European Semantic Web Conference, ESWC 2007), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, volume 4519, pages 175–189. Springer, Berlin.
  67. 67.
    Vossen, Piek (ed.) (1998): Special issue on EuroWordNet. Computers and the Humanities, 32(2–3), 73–251. Reprinted as a separate volume: EuroWordNet: A multilingual database with lexical semantic networks. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht.
  68. 68.
    Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary (1963): G.&C. Merriam Company, Springfield, MA.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Whorf, Benjamin Lee (1940/1972): Science and linguistics. Technology Review, 42(6), 227–231, 247–248. Reprinted in: Carroll, John B. (ed.), Language, Thought and Reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf , MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Zhang, Hong (2007): Numeral classifiers in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 16(1), 43–59. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Graeme Hirst
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations