The Distinction between Linguistic and Conceptual Semantics in Medical Terminology and its Implication for NLP-Based Knowledge Acquisition

Abstract

Natural language understanding systems have to exploit various kinds of knowledge in order to represent the meaning behind texts. Getting this knowledge in place is often such a huge enterprise that it is tempting to look for systems that can discover such knowledge automatically. We describe how the distinction between conceptual and linguistic semantics may assist in reaching this objective, provided that distinguishing between them is not done too rigorously. We present several examples to support this view and argue that in a multilingual environment, linguistic ontologies should be designed as interfaces between domain conceptualizations and linguistic knowledge bases.

Keywords

Ontology - Natural Language - Conceptual Semantics - Linguistic Semantics

• REFERENCES

• 1 Rector AL, Nowlan WA, Glowinski A. Goals for Concept Representation in the GALEN project. In: Safran C. ed. SCAMC 93 Proceedings. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1993: 414-8.
• 2 Rector AL, Glowinski A, Nowlan WA, Rossi-Mori A. Medical concept models and medical records: an approach based on GALEN and PEN&PAD. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 1995; 2: 19-35.
• 3 Rector AL, Nowlan WA, Kay S. Conceptual Knowledge: the core of medical information systems. In: Lun KC, Degoulet P, Piemme TE, Rienhoff O. eds. MEDINFO 92 Proceedings. Amsterdam: North-Holland; 1992: 1420-6.
• 4 Rector AL. Compositional models of medical concepts: towards re-usable application independent medical terminologies. In: Barahona P, Christensen JP. eds. Knowledge and decisions in health telematics. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 1994: 133-42.
• 5 Ceusters W, Deville G, Buekens F. The chimera of purpose- and language-independent concept systems in healthcare. In: Barahona P, Veloso M, Bryant J. eds. MIE 94 Proceedings. 1994: 208-12.
• 6 Ceusters W, Deville G, De Moor G. Automated extraction of neurosurgical procedure expressions from full text reports: the Multi-TALE experience. In: Brender J, Christensen JP, Scherrer J-R, McNair P. eds. MIE 96 Proceedings. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 1996: 154-8.
• 7 Ceusters W, Deville G. A mixed syntactic-semantic grammar for the analysis of neurosurgical procedure reports: the Multi-TALE experience. In: Sevens C, De Moor G. eds. MIC'96 Proceedings. 1996: 59-68.
• 8 Ceusters W, Lovis C, Rector A, Baud R. Natural language processing tools for the computerised patient record: present and future. In: Waegemann P. ed. Toward an Electronic Health Record Europe '96 Proceedings. 1996: 294-300.
• 9 GALEN Consortium. Guidelines and Recipes for Completing templates. Internal document VUM02/96 version 1.0.
• 10 GALEN Consortium. Links and Templates Summary. Internal document VUM/03/96 version 1.0.
• 11 Ceusters W, Spyns P. From natural language to formal language: when Multi-TALE meets GALEN. (Submitted for MIE 97).
• 12 Allen J. Natural Language Understanding. Menlo Park: The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company Inc; 1987
• 13 Quine W. Two Dogma's of Empiricism. In: Quine W. ed. From a logical point of view. New York: 1953
• 14 Searle JR, Kiefer F, Bierwisch M. eds. Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics. Dordrecht: Reidel; 1980
• 15 Bach E. Informal lectures on formal semantics. Albany, NY: Suny Press; 1989
• 16 Rossi-Mori A. Towards a new generation of terminologies and coding systems. In: Barahona P, Christensen JP. eds. Knowledge and decisions in health telematics. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 1994: 208-12.
• 17 Jackendoff R. Conceptual semantics. In: Eco U. et al. eds. Meaning and mental representation. Bloomington: Indiana University Press; 1988: 81-97.
• 18 Lakoff G. Cogintive semantics. In: Eco U. et al. eds. Meaning and mental representation. Bloomington: Indiana University Press; 1988: 119-54.
• 19 Frawley W. Linguistic Semantics. Hilsdale, Hove and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1992
• 20 de Saussure F. Course in General Linguistics. New York: Philisophical Library; 1959
• 21 Ogden CK, Richards IA. The meaning of meaning. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co; 1923
• 22 Saltan G. Automatic thesaurus construction for information retrieval. Information Processing. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Co; 1972. 71 115-23.
• 23 Chen H, Lynch KJ, Basu K, Ng T. Generating, integrating, and activating thesauri for concept-based document retrieval. IEEE EXPERT, Special Series on Artificial Intelligence in Text-Based Information Systems 1993; 8 (2) 25-34.
• 24 Ingenerf J. Taxonomic vocabularies in medicine: the intention of usage determines different established structures. In: Greenes RA, Peterson HE, Protty DJ. eds. MEDINFO 95 Proceedings. Amsterdam: North-Holland; 1995: 136-9.
• 25 Bernauer J, Franz M, Schoop M, Schoop D, Pretschner DP. The compositional approach for representing medical concept systems. In: Greenes RA, Peterson HE, Protty DJ. eds. MEDINFO 95 Proceedings. Amsterdam: North-Holland; 1995: 70-4.
• 26 Oehrle RT, Bach E, Wheeler D. eds. Categorial Grammars and Natural Language Structures. Dordrecht: Reidel; 1988
• 27 Rector AL, Rogers JE, Pole P. The GALEN High Level Ontology. In: Brender J, Christensen JP, Scherrer J-R, McNair P. eds. MIE 96 Proceedings. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 1996: 174-8.
• 28 Bateman JA. Ontology construction and natural language. In: Proc. International Workshop on Formal Ontology. Padua, Italy: 1993: 83-93.
• 29 Kripke S. Naming and Necessity. In: Davidson D, Harman G. eds. Semantics of natural language. Dordrecht: Reidel; 1972: 253-355.
• 30 Welsh C. On the non-existence of natural kind terms as a linguistically relevant category. Paper presented at the Liguistic Society of America. New Orleans, LA: 1988
• 31 Mahesh K, Nirenburg S. A situated ontology for practical NLP. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Basic Ontological Issues in Knowledge Sharing, IJCAI-95. Montreal, Canada: 1995
• 32 Deville G, Ceusters W. A multi-dimensional view on natural language modelling in medicine: identifying key-features for successful applications. Supplementary paper. In: Proceedings of the Third International Working Conference of IMIA WG6. Geneva: 1994
• 33 Mahesh K. Ontology Development for Machine Translation: ideology and methodology. Technical Report MCCS-96-292, Computing Research Laboratory. New Mexico State University; Las Cruces, NM: 1996
• 34 Bateman JA, Henschel R, Rinaldi F. Generalized upper model 2.0. Technical report, GMD/Institute für Integrierte Publikationsund Informationssysteme. Darmstadt, Germany: 1995