Abstract
The semantic phenomena discussed in this paper, although pervasive in Natural Language, are often discussed in different frameworks, and therefore their status and importance varies from theory to theory. This paper attempts to sketch a general framework; due to space limitation, only the main ideas will be developed, and we believe that these ideas will be easier to grasp if we concentrate on one word, which will be used in most of our examples. We have selected the french word examen (exam, examination), but the phenomena under discussion would have been as well described on other usual nouns.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Amghar, T., F. Gayral, and B. Levrat (1996) Un traitement de la métonymie dans le formalisme des graphes conceptuels. Revue d′intelligence artificielle (RIA) 10(1), 133–162.
Brewka, G. (1991) Cumulative Default Logic: in defense of nonmonotonic inference rules. Artificial Intelligence 50(2), 183–205.
Briscoe, T. and A. Copestake (1995) Semi-productive polysemy and sense extension. Journal of Semantics 12(1), 1–53.
Etherington, D. (1987) Formalizing Nonmonotonic Reasoning Systems. Artificial Intelligence Journal 31(1), 41–85.
Fass, D. (1991) Met*: “a method for discriminating metonymy and metaphor by computer. Computational Linguistics 17(1), 49–90.
Gayral, F., P. Grandemange, D. Kayser, and F. Lévy (1994), Interprétation des constats d’accidents: représenter le réel et le potentiel. Traitement automatique des langues 35(1), 65–81.
Gayral, F. and D. Kayser: (2001) Categorization seen as Factorization of the Inferential Potential. Cognitive Systems. To Appear.
Gayral, F, D. Kayser, and F. Lévy (1997) Quelle est la couleur du feu rouge du Boulevard Henri IV?. VerbumXlX (1-2), 177–200.
Hobbs, J., M. Stickel, P. Martin, and D. Edwards (1988) Interpretation as abduction. In: Proc. ACL. Buffalo, NY, 95–103.
Kayser, D. and H. Abir (1995) A non-monotonic approach to lexical semantics. In: P. St.-Dizier and E. Viegas (eds.): Computational lexical semantics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 303–318.
Nunberg, G. (1995) Tranfers of meaning. Journal of Semantics 12, 109–133.
Ostler, N. and B. Atkins (1991) Predictable Meaning shift: some linguistic properties of lexical implication rules, Lexical semantics and knowledge representation. In: Proc. First Siglex workshop. Berkeley, CA, 88–100.
Pernelle, N. (1998) Traitement automatique des polysémies relationnelles: utilisation et contrôle de règles d’extension du sens. Ph.D. thesis, Université Paris-Nord.
Pollard, C. and I. Sag (1987), Information-Based Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 1: Fundamentals. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Pustejovsky, J. (1995) The generative lexicon. Cambrdighe, MA: MIT Press.
Reiter, R. (1980) A Logic for Default Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13, 81–132.
Schank, R. (1982) Reminding and Memory Organization: an introduction to MOPs. In: W. Lehnert and M. Ringle (eds.): Strategies for Natural Language Processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 455–493.
Schank, R. and R. Abelson (1977) Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2001 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gayral, F., Kayser, D., Pernelle, N. (2001). In Search Of The Semantic Value(S) Of An Occurrence: An Example And A Framework. In: Bunt, H., Muskens, R., Thijsse, E. (eds) Computing Meaning. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, vol 77. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0572-2_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0572-2_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-0451-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-010-0572-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive