Cognition, 22, 1-39. Copestake, A. and Briscoe, E. (1995). Semi-productive polysemy and sense extension. Journal of Semantics, 12, 15-67.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....reasoning to make the non standard interpretation fit the current context. The particular knowledge can be lexical, non lexical, or indeterminate. Consider Alpine France is dominated by new brutalist architecture: stacked rabbit hutches reaching into the sky . 6 Some GL literature (eg [Copestake and Briscoe1996] points to co predication and related ambiguity tests as a way of identifying the distinct senses. The proposal is explored at some length in [Kilgarriff1998b] It suffers from numerous drawbacks. First, there is simply no inventory of senses available, which has been developed according to ....

Copestake, Ann A. and Edward J. Briscoe. 1996. Semi-productive polysemy and sense extension. In James Pustejovsky and Branimir Boguraev, editors, Lexical Semantics: The Problem of Polysemy. Oxford Univerity Press, Oxford, pages 15--68.

....of a text, or the addressee of an utterance, doesn t always construct a complete interpretation of everything she reads or hears. 1 Unfortunately this intuition is still not backed up by much empirical evidence, except perhaps in the case of lexical underspeci cation (Frazier and Rayner, 1990; Copestake and Briscoe, 1995). Most available evidence concerning semantic interpretation seems to indicate that a number of interpretive processes take place rather quickly, just as in the case of parsing (perhaps the best known results are those from Tanenhaus et al. 1995) In this paper we discuss preliminary results ....

.... tc) Notice that this latter interpretation (x (oj tc) is what has been called a p underspecified interpretation in (Poesio, 2000) i.e. a disjunctive interpretation that covers all of the alternative interpretations, similar to those proposed for certain cases of lexical polysemy in (Copestake and Briscoe, 1995). We hypothesize that the existence of such an underspeci ed interpretation is one of the important properties of these contexts. The second important property of these examples is that both in situations involving attaching two objects together and in situations involving loading 4 objects into ....

Copestake, A. and Briscoe, T. (1995). Semi-productive polysemy and sense extension. Journal of Semantics, 12(1), 15-68. Special Issue on Lexical Semantics.

....this complexity. In addition, although Pustejovsky provides the framework to exclude the possible meanings, he cannot predict the relationship among the meanings, nor allow for cases where different meanings seem to exist simultaneously. Within the general theory of the Generative Lexicon, Copestake and Briscoe [1995] deal with meaning extension by either underspecification or lexical rules, which also implies that only one meaning can be expressed at any given time. In our account, we will demonstrate that meaning can be predicted from its context by the interaction of a) the semantic class of the item, and ....

Copestake, A., and T. Briscoe, "Semi-productive Polysemy and Sense Extension," Journal of Semantics , 12, 1995, pp.15-67.

....analysis. As is evident from the examples, another analyst would probably not have arrived at identical figures, but they would, in all likelihood, have pointed to the same conclusion: GL analyses will only ever account for a small proportion of non standard word uses. 6 Some GL literature (eg (Copestake and Briscoe1996)) points to co predication and related ambiguity tests as a way of identifying the distinct senses. The proposal is explored at some length in (Kilgarriff1998b) It suffers from numerous drawbacks. First, there is simply no inventory of senses available, which has been developed according to these ....

Copestake and Briscoe1996 Copestake, Ann A. and Edward J. Briscoe. 1996. Semi-productive polysemy and sense extension. In James Pustejovsky and Branimir Boguraev, editors, Lexical Semantics: The Problem of Polysemy. Oxford Univerity Press, Oxford, pages 15--68.

....expressions for the same meaning is well known. Such effects are traditionally subsumed under the general notion of blocking (see Aronoff 1976 and Kiparsky 1982b; for an OT semantics perspective, see Blutner 1999) Blocking may be either partial or total (see for example Briscoe et al. 1995, Copestake and Briscoe 1995). A case in point is the well known phenomenon of conceptual grinding (see for example Pelletier and Schubert 1989) whereby a count noun acquires a mass noun reading, for example, This is a fish (count) versus We had fish (mass) for dinner . However, the existence of a specialized mass noun ....

Copestake, Ann, and Ted Briscoe. 1995. Semi-productive polysemy and sense extension. Journal of Semantics 12, 15--67.

....predictable from animal since chicken as meat refers to the flesh of a chicken as a bird that is used for food. In those approaches that are based on systematic polysemy, systematic relations between word senses are captured in various ways, for instance by lexical rules (Ostler and Atkins, 1992; Copestake and Briscoe, 1992, 1995) expressed by if then implication rules, or by (abstract) semantic types and the associated type shifting mechanisms (in Generative Lexicon Theory (GL) Pusteovsky, 1995) or by default inheritance in a hierarchically organized lexicon (Kilgarriff, 1992; Copestake and Briscoe, 1992, 1995; ....

.... 1992; Copestake and Briscoe, 1992, 1995) expressed by if then implication rules, or by (abstract) semantic types and the associated type shifting mechanisms (in Generative Lexicon Theory (GL) Pusteovsky, 1995) or by default inheritance in a hierarchically organized lexicon (Kilgarriff, 1992; Copestake and Briscoe, 1992, 1995; Verspoor, 1997) What s common in those approaches is that the linguistic generalization based on systematic polysemy can facilitate the notion of sense derivation: one sense is derivable from the other sense(s) of the word, either procedurally (in lexical rules and GL) or declaritively (in ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Copestake, A. and Briscoe, T. (1995). Semi-productive Polysemy and Sense Extension. Journal of Semantics , 12.

....observes that the clear default for (14b) is one in which Mary is a reader (or hearer) of the poem; this can be taken as an instance of the telic relation, since poems are to read . cf. the similar telic preference in Mary enjoyed the poem, a kind of case discussed by Pustejovsky 1995, and by Copestake and Briscoe 1995. The idea that (14b) may be an instance of a telic relation, with Mary as something like a beneficiary or experiencer, is different from the view expressed in Partee and Borschev (1998) At that time, we did not see movie as becoming relational at all when it combines with favorite. There we ....

Copestake, Ann and Ted Briscoe. 1995. "Semi-productive polysemy and sense extension". Journal of Semantics 12:15-67.

....of various SDRT principles. As we are interested in composition of information to build logical forms, we will build on the standard way of getting logical forms the lambda calculus in which (functional) types are exploited. By relating types in the lexicon 1 For more details see Lascarides and Copestake 1995. 4 we can give partial, implicit de nitions, which will help together with how the items compose together determine inferences based on truth conditional contents. Secondly, by developing a strongly typed theory of lexical items and a theory of how such lexical items combine and interact in the ....

....of combining meanings. In general this means building a logical form for an entire discourse, thus combining both the composition logic and the glue logic; we will concentrate on the composition logic here leaving the interactions with discourse contexts for another time (see also Lascarides and Copestake 1995). Our logic will extend the lambda calculus for functional types with rules for manipulating complex types like dot objects and QQC s. We ll also assume that reasoning with our background lexical axioms obeys the logical rules conjunction introduction and elimination and Modus Ponens (though not ....

Copestake, Ann and Ted Briscoe. 1995. \Semi-productive Polysemy and 43 Sense Extension", Journal of Semantics, 15.

....the word court may refer just as well to the assembly which conducts judicial business or to the room where it is conducted. This classic group location alternation occurs in other words of the corpus such as circus, laboratory, stadium, and must be handled through specific lexical rules (see [CB95] on this issue) Other semantic shifts are more difficult to predict, such as the one which affects the word weapon in the compound weapon workers (the product of an industry refers to the industry itself) In what follows, we develop these two problems, and we examine the issue of ....

Ann Copestake and Ted Briscoe. Semi-productive Polysemy and Sense Extension. Journal of Semantics, 12(1):15--67, 1995.

....be expected to relate to each other in some way. There has been some discussion in the literature about what the nature of this relation exactly is: semantic [ Puste16 jovsky, 1991a ] conceptual [ Bierwisch, 1982 ] or pragmatic [ Nunberg, 1979 ] Ruhl, 1989 ] Mercer, 1993 ] Lascarides and Copestake, 1995 ] Bierwisch conceptual relation can be summarized as semantic structure plus (linguistic) context and I therefore group it together with the semantic relation, at least for the purposes of this thesis 2 . The semantic analysis takes the relation to be within language, between lexical ....

....7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 5 = 2 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 4 mass noun orth = haddock syntax = count = # rqs = 2 6 4 food substance telic = eat 3 7 5 3 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 5 Figure 2. 4: Application of animal grinding to haddock [ Copestake and Briscoe, 1995 ] extends on the idea of unification based lexical rules for handling systematic polysemy. To deal with the semi productivity of lexical rules they introduce a probabilistic constraint 6 on the application order of the rules. Figure 2.5 gives an example for rabbit with the lexical rules that are ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

A. Copestake and E. Briscoe. Semi-Productive Polysemy and Sense Extension. Journal of Semantics, 12(2), 1995.

....i.e. the incomplete availability of semantic information in processing, has received increasing attention. Several aspects of underspecification have been focussed upon, motivated mainly by computational considerations: the ambiguity and openness of lexical meaning (Pustejovsky, 1995; Copestake and Briscoe, 1995), referential underspecification (Asher, 1993) structural semantic underspecification caused by syntactic ambiguities (Egg and Lebeth, 1995) and by the underdetermination of scope relations (Alshawi and Crouch, 1992; Reyle, 1993) In addition, external factors such as insufficient coverage 1 ....

Copestake, A. and E. J. Briscoe. 1995. Semi productive polysemy and sense extension. Journal of Semantics, 12:15--67.

....but our results should carry over to other formalisms and applications as well. Reinterpretation. It is a well known fact that natural language contains phenomena whose analysis requires reinterpretation during semantic processing (Bierwisch 1983; Hobbs et al. 1993; Dolling 1994; Copestake and Briscoe 1995; Pustejovsky 1995; Nunberg 1995) Most typically, reinterpretation is needed to resolve sort or type conflicts as in the following two classical examples. 1) Peter began a book. 2) I am parked out back. In Example (1) there is a type conflict between begin, which requires a proposition as its ....

Copestake, A. and T. Briscoe (1995). Semi-productive polysemy and sense extension. Journal of Semantics 12, 15--67.

....dialogs. For details on the overall architecture of the Verbmobil system, we refer to ( Wahlster, 1993] The transfer component of Verbmobil in its present implementation ( Dorna and Emele, 1996b] is based on a lexicalist semantic approach which takes its roots in MRS based transfer ([Copestake et al. 1995] and [Abb and Buschbeck Wolf, 1995] and the Shake and Bake approach to MT ( Whitelock, 1992] The relation between source language (SL) and target language (TL) structures is established on a relatively abstract level of representation. Compared with syntactic transfer approaches ( Slocum et ....

.... h4 inst i4 arg1 i5 arg3 i6 3 7 7 7 7 5 , 2 4 pron hd h5 inst i5 3 5 , 2 4 termin hd h6 inst i6 3 5 At the lexical level, most ambiguities have to be resolved for translation ( Hutchins and Somers, 1992] although very few of them hold across languages, e.g. systematical polysemy ([Copestake and Briscoe, 1995]) which shows up in the domain of nomimal predicates. In (8) for example, Universit at and university are ambiguous in a parallel fashion. They may denote an institution (8a) a location housing the institution (8b) or a group of people associated with it (8c) 4 A counterexample is given ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

A. Copestake and T. Briscoe. 1995. Semiproductive Polysemy and Sense Extension. Journal of Semantics, 12(1).

....pragmatic exceptions to lexical generalisations that arise in a discourse context. We thereby explain how words are interpreted in discourse, in a way that neither the lexicon nor pragmatics could achieve on their own. 2 Generalisations with Exceptions Briscoe et al. [4] and Copestake and Briscoe [7], among others, show how to encode certain aspects of metonymy (e.g. 1a) means (1b) via default unification; one of the popular methods for implementing default inheritance. 1) a. John enjoyed the book. b. John enjoyed reading the book. Here, the lexical generalisation is: when enjoy takes an ....

....enjoy is specified in the lexicon, default inheritance predicts that enjoy the book means enjoy reading the book. Default inheritance also predicts that the same entry for enjoy in enjoy the film yields enjoy seeing the film, because the default telic role of films is to be seen. Briscoe et al. [4, 7] argue for conventionalising certain aspects of metonymy (but see [16] for an alternative view) for example, 2) is strange, even if the doorstop is a book: 2) John enjoyed the doorstop. But the above generalisation about enjoy has exceptions which are triggered by pragmatic knowledge, such as ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Copestake, A. and Briscoe, E. J. [1994] Semi-productive Polysemy and Sense Extension, to appear in Journal of Semantics, December 1994.

.... 6= an algebraic structure that is a group and that is finite a fast typist = someone who types fast 6= someone who is a typist and who is fast However, the NL example is defeasible further information may affect which interpretation is chosen (eg a race between typists and accountants, [CB96]) This situation does not occur in IML: mathematical terms must have been given precise definitions, and the same meaning must result in all contexts. Very recently, the work by Pustejovsky [Pus95] on generative lexicon and the work by Jackendoff on enriched composition [Jac97] have come to our ....

A. Copestake and T. Briscoe. Semi-productive polysemy and sense extension. In J. Pustejovsky and B. Boguraev, editors, Lexical Semantics: The Problem of Polysemy. Clarendon, 1996.

....exiting via the second. The fact that defeasible components of meaning interact subtly with both lexical rules affecting grammatical realization and discourse context supports a framework in which defeasible semantic specifications can be explicitly represented at the lexical level. Copestake Briscoe (1995) argue at some length for this position, and Lascarides Copestake (1995) and Lascarides et al. 1995) show how lexical defaults interact appropriately with nonmonotonic discourse reasoning within the formal framework of DICE (Lascarides Asher, 1991, 1993) 12 Briscoe and Copestake Lexical ....

....of TDFS lexical rules arguably captures some of the markedness of backformation without precluding the possibility that individual reversed rules faithfully model the effects of backformations. 3. 4 Discussion Unlike the versions of lexical rules described by Riehemann (1993) Copestake Briscoe (1995), and Meurers (1995) this interpretation cannot be incorporated into a monotonic constraint based formalism, since the operation of lexical rules is essentially nonmonotonic, in that the incorporation of additional information into the input may result in loss of information from the output. This ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Briscoe and Copestake Lexical Rules Copestake, Ann and Ted Briscoe. (1995). Semi-productive polysemy and sense extension. Journal of Semantics 12: 15--67.

....scenario (two unidirectional transfer rule sets vs. three language to interlingua sets) Below we discuss some reasons to doubt that this pure form of interlingual approach can be achieved in any case. Lexicalist transfer (Shake and Bake Whitelock (e.g. 1992) and variants: e.g. Beaven (1992) Copestake et al. (1995), Trujillo (1995) This approach relies on the use of a lexicalist uni cation based grammar formalism. Translation equivalences are stated by relating the semantics of source and target language lexical signs. It has been claimed that this combines the advantage of simplicity of description of ....

....Taschenw orterbuch, Assessor is given a de nition in English rather than a translation: civil servant who has completed his her second state exam. Such examples are frequent in bilingual dictionaries and cause considerable problems when trying to construct a transfer lexicon automatically (Copestake et al., 1995). However, these are not strictly speaking translation problems, since German language speakers from another country would have the same diculty in understanding Assessor as English speakers would. One of the few cases of a clear cultural di erence that shows up in the Verbmobil dialogues is the ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Copestake, A. and E.J. Briscoe (1995) `Semi-productive polysemy and sense extension', Journal of Semantics, 12:1, 15-67.

.... 12, 1999 Abstract Several recent theories of linguistic representation treat the lexicon as a highly structured object, incorporating fairly detailed semantic information, and allowing multiple aspects of meaning to be represented in a single entry (e.g. Pustejovsky, 1991; Copestake, 1992; Copestake and Briscoe, 1995). One consequence of these approaches is that word senses cannot be thought of as discrete units which are in one to one correspondence with lexical entries. This has many advantages in allowing an account of systematic polysemy, but leaves the problem of accounting for e ects such as zeugma ....

....polysemy, but leaves the problem of accounting for e ects such as zeugma and the absence of crossed readings, which have traditionally been explained in terms of multiple lexical entries, but which can also arise in examples where other criteria demand that a single entry be involved. Copestake and Briscoe (1995) claimed that these cases could be explained by discourse coherence, but did not describe how this might work. We remedy this here, by formalising a general pragmatic principle which encapsulates discourse e ects on word meaning. We demonstrate how it contributes to the creation of zeugma and ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Copestake, A. and E.J. Briscoe (1995) `Semi-Productive Polysemy and Sense Extension', Journal of Semantics, 12, 15-67.

No context found.

Copestake, A. and E.J. Briscoe (in press) `SemiProductive Polysemy and Sense Extension', Journal of Semantics, Harley, A. (1994) `Cambridge Language Survey: Semantic Tagger', ACQUILEX-II working paper No 39: available from cide@cup.cam.ac.uk.

.... such as KLONE in which multiple conflicting default inheritance is possible; Pustejovsky, 1995 ] utilises subsumption in typed feature structures, thus limiting himself to multiple orthogonal (nonconflicting) non default inheritance, as in HPSG ( Pollard and Sag, 1987; Carpenter, 1992 ] Copestake and Briscoe, 1995 ] motivate the use of multiple default inheritance in typed default feature structures for lexical semantic representation; Evans and Gazdar, 1989b; Evans and Gazdar, 1989a ] utilise multiple default inheritance of path equations yielding a system with similar expressive power, though reentrancy ....

....values from TDFSs of the same type will result in the least specific default value (i.e. that is, the system is sceptical. The underlying logic and formal details of TDFSs and the associated operation of typed default unification is given in [ Lascarides et al. 1994 ] and in [ Lascarides and Copestake, 1995 ] Here we give some informal examples and motivation for these extensions to the formal framework proposed by [ Carpenter, 1992 ] TDFSs can be abbreviated by collapsing identical parts of the double feature structures and marking the distinct default components by a slash, as in Figure 4.2.1 ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Copestake, A. and Briscoe, E.J. 1995. Semi-productive polysemy and sense extension. Journal of Semantics 12:15--67.

.... 14, 1996 Abstract Several recent theories of linguistic representation treat the lexicon as a highly structured object, incorporating fairly detailed semantic information, and allowing multiple aspects of meaning to be represented in a single entry (e.g. Pustejovsky, 1991; Copestake, 1992; Copestake and Briscoe, 1995). One consequence of these approaches is that word senses cannot be thought of as discrete units which are in one to one correspondence with lexical entries. This has many advantages in allowing an account of systematic polysemy, but leaves the problem of accounting for effects such as zeugma and ....

....systematic polysemy, but leaves the problem of accounting for effects such as zeugma and the absence of crossed readings, which have traditionally been explained in terms of multiple lexical entries, but which can also arise in examples where other criteria demand that a single entry be involved. Copestake and Briscoe (1995) claimed that these cases could be explained by discourse coherence, but did not describe how this might work. We remedy this here, by formalising a general pragmatic principle which encapsulates discourse effects on word meaning. We demonstrate how it contributes to the creation of zeugma and the ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Copestake, A. and E.J. Briscoe (1995) `Semi-Productive Polysemy and Sense Extension', Journal of Semantics, 12, 15--67.

No context found.

Cognition, 22, 1-39. Copestake, A. and Briscoe, E. (1995). Semi-productive polysemy and sense extension. Journal of Semantics, 12, 15-67.

No context found.

Copestake, A., Briscoe, T., (1995), Semi-Productive polysemy and sense extension, journal of semantics, vol. 12-1.

No context found.

Ann Copestake and Edward Briscoe. Semi-productive polysemy and sense extension. Journal of Semantics.

No context found.

Copstake, A. & Briscoe, T. (1995), `Semi-productive polysemy and sense extension', Journal of Semantics, 12, 15-67.

First 50 documents

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC