Advertisement

Developing a Generative Lexicon Within HPSG

  • Toni Badia
  • Roser Saurí
Chapter
Part of the Text, Speech and Language Technology book series (TLTB, volume 46)

Abstract

This paper aims at enriching the semantic treatment standardly assumed in HPSG in order to deal with several issues not adequately solved, concerning the representation of: verbal and nominal complement optionality, non-intersective uses of adjectives, selection restrictions imposed by predicates to their arguments, and the implication of syntactically non-expressable participants and events as part of the denotation of lexical items. To this purpose, we modified and enriched the content description level of HPSG as well as its governing principle. Our point of departure is the Generative Lexicon model (GL), basically because of its rich and flexible view of semantics, and its similarity to HPSG with regard to the underlying representation logic. In particular, we take advantage of both the GL representational aspect (that is, the multi-layered, structured conception of semantic information) and its generative dimension. The resulting proposal is implementable in LKB (We are grateful to José Castaño, Louise McNally, James Pustejovsky, Carlos Rodríguez, and Enric Vallduví for their very valuable comments and help at different stages of this work).

Keywords

Lexical Entry Argument Structure Semantic Structure Lexical Semantic Verbal Predicate 
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.

References

  1. Asudeh, A., & Crouch, R. (2002). Glue semantics for HPSG. In F. Van Eynde, L. Hellan, & D. Beermann (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th. International HPSG conference. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  2. Badia, T., & Colominas, C. (1998). Predicate-argument structure. In F. Van Eynde & P. Schmidt (Eds.), Linguistic specifications for typed feature structure formalisms. Studies in machine translation and natural language processing, Vol. 10 Luxembourg: European Communities.Google Scholar
  3. Badia, T., & Saurí, R. (1998). The representation of syntactically unexpressed complements to nouns. In COLING-ACL’98 (pp. 1–10). Workshop on the Computational Treatment of Nominals, Montréal, Québec.Google Scholar
  4. Badia, T., & Saurí, R. (1999). Semantic disambiguation of adjectives in local context: A generative approach. In P. Bouillon & E. Viegas (Eds.), Description des Adjectifs pour les Traitements Informatiques. Workshop. TALN’99, Corsica.Google Scholar
  5. Badia, T., & Saurí, R. (2000). Enlarging HPSG with lexical semantics. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent text processing and Computational Linguistics (CICLing-2000), Mexico City, Mexico, pp. 101–122.Google Scholar
  6. Bartsch, R. (1985). The structure of words meanings: Polysemy, metaphor, metonimy. In F. Landman & F. Veltman (Eds.), Varieties of formal semantics. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  7. Bender, E. M., Sag, I., & Wasow, T. (2003). Syntactic theory: A formal introduction. Instructor’s manual (2 ed.). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  8. Copestake, A. (1993). The compleat LKB. Acquilex-II deliverable, 3.1. ms. CCL.Google Scholar
  9. Copestake, A. (1998). The (New) LKB system. http://hypatia.stanford.edu/aac/lkb.html
  10. Copestake, A. (2002). Implementing typed feature structure grammars. Stanford: CSLI Publications.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Copestake, A., & Briscoe, T. (1992). Lexical operations in a unification-based framework. In J. Pustejovsky & S. Bergler (Eds.), Lexical semantics and knowledge representation. Proceedings of the ACL SIGLEX workshop on lexical semantics and knowledge representation, Berkeley (pp. 109–119). Berlin: Springler.Google Scholar
  12. Copestake, A., & Briscoe, T. (1996). Semi-productive polysemy and sense extension. In J. Pustejovsky & B. Boguraev (Eds.), Lexical semantics. The problem of polysemy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Copestake, A., & Flickinger, D. (2000). An open-source grammar development environment and broad-coverage English grammar using HPSG. In Proceedings of the second conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-2000), Athens, Greece.Google Scholar
  14. Copestake, A., Flickinger, D., Pollard, C., Sag. I. A. (2005). Minimal recursion semantics: An introduction. Research on Language and Computation, 3, 281–332.Google Scholar
  15. Copestake, A., Lascarides, A., & Flickinger, D. (2001). An algebra for semantic construction in constraint-based grammars. In Proceedings of the 39th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2001), Toulouse, France.Google Scholar
  16. Davidson, D. (1967). The logical form of action sentences. In N. Rescher (Ed.), The logic of decision and action (pp. 81–120). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  17. Davis, A., & Koenig, J.-P. (1999). Linking as constraints on word classes. Language, 76, 56–91.Google Scholar
  18. De Kuthy, K., & Meurers, W. D. (2003). Dealing with optional complements in HPSG-based grammar implementations. In S. Müller (Ed.), Proceedings of the HPSG-2003 conference, Michigan State University, East Lansing (pp. 88–96). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  19. Flickinger, D., & Bender, E. M. (2003). Compositional demantics in a multilingual grammar resource. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Ideas and Strategies for Multilingual Grammar Development, ESSLLI 2003 (pp. 33–42), Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  20. Dowty, D. R. (1985). On some recent analyses of control. Linguistics and Philosophy, 8, 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dowty, D. R. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67, 547–619.Google Scholar
  22. Flickinger, D. (2000). On building a more efficient grammar by exploiting types. Natural Language Engineering, 6(1), 15–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ginzburg, J., & Sag, I. A. (2000). Interrogative investigations. The form, meaning, and use of English interrogatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  24. Goldberg, A. E., & Ackerman, F. (2001). The pragmatics of obligatory adjuncts. Language, 77(4), 798–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Götz, T., & Meurers, W. D. (1997). Interleaving universal principles and relational constraints over typed feature logic. ACL, 1997, 1–8.Google Scholar
  26. Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic structures (Current studies in linguistics). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Johnston, M. (1996). Semantic underspecification in lexical types: Capturing polysemy without lexical rules. Acquilex Workshop on Lexical Rules, 1995, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  29. Kamp, H., & Reyle, U. (1993). From discourse to logic. Introduction to model-theoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and discourse representation theory (Vols. 2). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  30. Kay, M., Gawron, J. M., & Norvig, P. (Eds.). (1994). Verbmobil, a translation system for face-to-face dialog. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  31. Klein, E., & Sag, I. (1985). Type-driven translation. Linguistics and Philosophy, 8, 163–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Koenig, J.-P., & Davis, A. (2003). Semantically transparent linking in HPSG. In S. Müller (Ed.), Proceedings of the HPSG03 conference. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  33. Koenig, J.-P., & Mauner, G. (1999). A-definites and the discourse status of implicit argument. Journal of Semantics, 16, 207–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Larson, R. K. (1998). Events and modification in nominals. In Proceedings of the Semantics and Linguistics Theory.Google Scholar
  35. Lascarides, A., & Copestake, A. (1999). Default representation in constraint-based frameworks. Computational Linguistics, 25(1), 55–105.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  36. Markantonatou, S., & Sadler, L. (1998). Lexical generalisations. In F. Van Eynde & P. Schmidt (Eds.), Linguistic specifications for typed feature structure formalisms. Studies in machine translation and natural language processing, Vol. 10. Luxembourg: European Communities.Google Scholar
  37. Partee, B., & Rooth, M. (1983). Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity. In: S. Bäuerle, & A. von Stechow (Eds.). Meaning, use, and interpretation of language. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  38. Pollard, C., & Sag, I. (1994). Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  39. Pustejovsky, J. (1993). Type coercion and lexical selection. In J. Pustejovsky (Ed.). Semantics and the lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  40. Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  41. Pustejovsky, J. (1998). The semantics of lexical underspecification. ms. Computer Science Department, Brandeis University, Waltham.Google Scholar
  42. Pustejovsky, J. (1999). Type construction and the logic of concepts. ms. Computer Science Department, Brandeis University, Waltham.Google Scholar
  43. Pustejovsky, J., & Bouillon, P. (1995). Logical polysemy and aspectual coertion. Journal of Semantics, 12, 133–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sag, I., & Wasow, T. (1999). Syntactic theory: A formal introduction. Stanford: CSLI.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. Sanfilippo, A. (1997). Thematically bound adjuncts. In S. Balari & L. Dini (Eds.), Romance in HPSG. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  46. Van Eynde, F., & Schmidt, P. (Eds.). (1998). Linguistic specifications for typed feature structure formalisms. Luxembourg: European Communities.Google Scholar
  47. Verspoor, C. M. (1997) Contextually-dependent lexical semantics. Ph.D. thesis. University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Translation and Language Sciences DepartmentPompeu Fabra UniversityBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Voice and Language Group, Barcelona MediaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations