Type Coercion and Lexical Selection

  • James Pustejovsky
Part of the Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 49)

Abstract

In this paper I will discuss how type-shifting is licensed in a language and what effect it has on the mapping from the lexicon to syntax. In particular, I will look at the phenomenon of type coercion, and how this behavior can be accounted for by the grammar in a systematic way. I suggest that the ambiguity exhibited by adjectives, aspectual verbs, experiencer verbs, and many causatives is the result of type coercion operations. That is, every lexical item exhibits some degree of ambiguity, what I call logical polysemy. This behavior is captured by enriching the lexical semantic representation for lexical items while also allowing a word’s semantic type to shift or be coerced in particular contexts. By allowing both verbs and nouns to shift in type, we can “spread the semantic load” in the lexicon more evenly, while still capturing the ways in which words can extend their meanings, i.e. the creative use of words.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aît-Kaci, H. (1984) A Lattice-Theoretic Approach to Computation Based on a Calculus of Partially Ordered Types, Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  2. Bach, E. (1979) Control in Montague Grammar, Linguistic Inquiry 10.Google Scholar
  3. Cardelli, L. and Wegner, P. (1985) On Understanding Types, Data Abstraction, and Polymorphism, ACM Computing Surveys 17(4), 471–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chierchia, G. (1984) Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Infinitivais and Gerunds, UMass, Ph.D.Google Scholar
  5. Chierchia, G. and Turner, R. (1989) Property Theory, Linguistics and Philosophy.Google Scholar
  6. Dowty, D. (1979) Word Meaning and Montague Grammar, D. Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  7. Dowty, D. (1985) On Some Recent Analyses of Control, Linguistics and Philosophy 8, 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dowty, D. (1988) Type Raising, Fuction Composition, and Con-Constituent Conjunction. In Oehrle, Bach, and Wheeler (eds.), Categorial Grammars and Natural Language Structures, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  9. Gazdar, G., Klein, E., Pullum, G., and Sag, I. (1985) Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Geach, P. (1972) A Program for Syntax. In D. Davidson and G. Harman (eds), Semantics of Natural Language, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  11. Goodman, N. (1951) The Structure of Appearance, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  12. Grimshaw, J. (1979) Complement Selection and the Lexicon, Linguistic Inquiry.Google Scholar
  13. Groenendijk, J. and Stokhof, M. (1988) Type-Shifting Rules and the Semantics of Interrogatives. In Chierchia, G., Partee, B., and Turner, R. (eds.), Properties, Types and Meanings, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  14. Klein, E. and Sag, I. (1985) Type-Driven Translation, Linguistics and Philosophy, 8, 163–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Montague, R. (1974) Formal Philosophy, Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
  16. Moravcsik, J.M. (1975) Aita as Generative Factor in Aristotle’s Philosophy, Dialogue, 1975.Google Scholar
  17. Partee, B. (1985) Noun Phrase Interpretation and Type-Shifting Principles, 5th Amsterdam Conference on Formal Semantics.Google Scholar
  18. Partee, B. and Rooth, M. (1983) Generalized Conjunction and Type Ambiguity. In Bäuerle, Schwarze, and von Stechow (eds.), Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language, Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  19. Pustejovsky, J. (1991) The Generative Lexicon, Computational Linguistics 17(4).Google Scholar
  20. Pustejovsky, J., (to appear) The Generative Lexicon: A Theory of Computational Lexical Semantics, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  21. Pustejovsky, J. and Anick, P. (1988) On The Semantic Interpretation of Nominals. In Proceedings of COLING-1988, Budapest.Google Scholar
  22. Pustejovsky, J. and Boguraev, B. (1993) Lexical Knowledge Representation and Natural Language Processing, Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  23. Rooth, M. and Partee, B. (1982) Conjuunction, Type Ambiguity, and Wide Scope ‘or’. In Flickenger, Macken, and Wiegand (eds.), Proceedings of the First West Coast Conference of Formal Linguistics, Stanford.Google Scholar
  24. Strachey, C. (1967) Fundamental Concepts in Programming Languages, Lecture Notes for International Summer School in Computer Programming, Copenhagen.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • James Pustejovsky
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentBrandeis UniversityWalthamUSA

Personalised recommendations