Download PDF
Methods Inf Med 1995; 34(01/02): 68-74
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1634581
Original article
Schattauer GmbH

Natural Language Processing, Lexicon and Semantics

E. Wehrli
1   Dept. of Linguistics – LATL, University of Geneva, Switzerland
,
R. Clark
2   Dept. of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania, USA
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
09 February 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract:

While the design of a fully general procedure for semantico-pragmatic interpretation of natural language texts does not seem to be feasible with current scientific knowledge and technology, the more practical micro-world based approaches lack generality and portability. A compromise between generality and practicality might lie in the use of an intermediate level of representation (“pseudo-semantics”), which can be derived from syntactic representations and lexical information by means of a general procedure. Domain-dependent rules for semantico-pragmatic interpretation can then be applied to these representations, insulating syntactic processing, from details of the application domain.

Keywords:

Natural Language Processing - Parsing - Semantics
 

  • References

  • 1 Clark R. Semantics for Computers. Notes techniques 93/9 LATL, University of Geneva; 1993
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Wehrli E. Medical linguistics software tools for prospective production. In: Scherrer JR, Coté RA, Mandil SH. eds. Computerized Natural Medical Language Processing for Knowledge Engineering. Amsterdam: North-Holland; 1989: 67-72.
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Dyer M. In-depth Understanding: A Computer Model of Integrated Processing for Narrative Comprehension. Cambridge MAS: MIT Press; 1983
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Schank R, Riesbeck C. Inside Computer Understanding. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1981
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Isabelle P. Machine translation at the TAUM group. In: King M. ed. Machine Translation Today. Edinburgh University Press; 1987: 247-77.
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Gruber J. Lexical Structures in Syntax and Semantics. Amsterdam: North Holland; 1976
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Fillmore C. The Case for Case. In: Bach E, Harms R. eds. Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston; 1968: 1-88.
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Jackendoff R. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge Mass: MIT Press; 1972
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Haegeman L. Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell; 1991
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Gunter C. Semantics of Programming Languages: Structures and Techniques. Cambridge MAS: MIT Press; 1992
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Chomsky N. Knowledge of Language. New York: Praeger; 1986
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Wehrli E. The Interactive Parsing System. In: Proceedings of COLING-92. Nantes: 1992: 870-4.
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Rizzi L. On chain formation. In: Borer H. ed. Syntax and Semantics, Vol 19: The Grammar of Pronominal Clitics. New York: Academic Press; 1986: 65-95.
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Chomsky N. On binding. Linguistic Inquiry 1980; II: 1-46.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Merlo P. For an incremental computation of intrasentential coreference. In: Proceedings of IICAI-93. Chambéry: 1993
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Higginbotham J, May R. Questions, Quantifiers and Crossing. The Linguistic Review 1981; I: 41-80.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Montague R. The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In: Hintikka J, Moravcsik J, Suppes P. eds. Approaches to Natural Language. Dordrecht: Reidel; 1973: 221-42.
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Barwise J, Cooper R. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 1981; 4: 159-219.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Keenan E, Stavi J. A semantic characterization of natural language determiners. Linguistics and Philosophy 1986; 9: 253-326.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar