DOCSLIB.ORG

The Extended Lexicon: Language Processing As Lexical Description

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Extended Lexicon: Language Processing As Lexical Description The Extended Lexicon: Language Processing as Lexical Description Roger Evans Natural Language Technology Group Computing Engineering and Mathematics University of Brighton, UK [email protected] Abstract In this paper we introduce an approach to lexical description which is sufficiently powerful to support language processing tasks such as part-of-speech tagging or sentence recognition, traditionally consid- ered the province of external algorith- mic components. We show how this ap- proach can be implemented in the lexi- cal description language, DATR, and pro- Figure 1: A simple inheritance-based lexicon vide examples of modelling extended lex- ical phenomena. We argue that applying might be a matter of theoretical disposition, or a a modelling approach originally designed practical consideration of how the lexicon is pop- for lexicons to a wider range of language ulated or used. phenomena brings a new perspective to In the Extended Lexicon, we introduce a third the relationship between theory-based and kind of linguistic object, called word instances (or empirically-based approaches to language just instances), consisting of word forms as they processing. occur in strings (sequences of words, typically 1 The Extended Lexicon sentences). For example, a string such as the cats sat on the mat contains two distinct instances of A lexicon is essentially a structured description of the word the. the cats slept contains further (dis- a set of lexical entries. One of the first tasks when tinct) instances of the and cats. However the in- developing a lexicon is to decide what the lexical stances in a repetition of the cats sat on the mat entries are. This task has two dimensions: what are the same as those in the original (because in- kind of linguistic object does a lexical entry de- stances are defined relative to strings, that is, string scribe, and what does it say about it. So for exam- types not string tokens). ple, one might decide to produce a lexicon which So in an extended lexicon, the lexical entries are describes individual word instances, and provides word instances, and the lexicon itself is a struc- the orthographic form and part-of-speech tag for tured description of a set of word instances. In or- each form. It is the first of these dimensions that is der to explore this notion in more detail, it is help- most relevant to the idea of the Extended Lexicon. ful to introduce a more specific notion of a ‘struc- Conventionally, there are two main candidates for tured description’. We shall use an inheritance- the type of linguistic object described by a lexi- based lexicon, in which there are internal abstract con: word forms (such as sings, singing, sang1), ‘nodes’ representing information that is shared by corresponding to actual words in a text and lex- several lexical entries and inherited by them. Fig- emes (such as SING, WALK, MAN), describing ab- ure 1 shows the structure of a simple inheritance- stract words, from which word forms are somehow based lexicon with some abstract high-level struc- derived. Choosing between these two candidates ture (CATEGORY, VERB, NOUN), then a layer of 1Typographical conventions for object types: ABSTRACT, lexemes (WALK, TALK, HOUSE, BANK), and be- LEXEME, wordform, instance, code. low that a layer of word forms (walks, walking, 270 Proceedings of Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing, pages 270–276, Hissar, Bulgaria, 7-13 September 2013. talked, house, houses, banks, as well as many more). Thus the word form walks inherits in- formation from the lexeme WALK, which inherits from abstract node VERB and then abstract node CATEGORY. Figure 3: A simple Extended Lexcion, with in- stance nodes linked into a chain plicitly encodes word strings, as maximal chains of linked instances. Figure 2: A lexicon with instance nodes 2 The Extended Lexicon in DATR 2.1 DATR in brief Adding instances to this model is in principle very easy: one just creates a further layer of nodes DATR (Evans and Gazdar, 1996) is a lexical de- below the word forms. The word instances are scription language originally designed to model now the lexical entries, and the word form nodes the structure of lexicons using default inheritance. are abstractions, representing information shared The core descriptive unit in DATR is called a node, by all instances of the form. Figure 2 shows a which has a unique node name (capitalised) and first pass at adding an instance layer to a lexicon has associated with it a set of definitional path supporting the string the cats sat on the mat, by equations mapping paths (sequences of features) adding new nodes for each instance in the string. onto value definitions. However, what is missing from this figure is any DOG: representation of the string as a whole – noth- <cat> == noun <form> == dog. ing distinguishes the two instance nodes the from each other, or indeed from their parent word form Figure 4: DATR description – version 1 node the, and nothing identifies them as members of a specific string. One way this information Figure 4 is a simple example of DATR code. This could be added is simply by stipulating it: each fragment defines a node called DOG with two path instance node could have a feature whose value is equations, specifying that the (syntactic) category the string, and another whose value is the index in is noun, and the (morphological) form is dog. the string of the current instance. However, in the NOUN: Extended Lexicon, we adopt a structural solution, <cat> == noun by linking the instance nodes of a string together <form> == "<root>". DOG: into a chain, using inheritance links prev (‘pre- <> == NOUN:<> vious’) and next to inherit information from this <root> == dog. instance’s neighbours in the string. Diagrammati- Figure 5: DATR description – version 2 cally, we represent this as in figure 3. To summarise, in the Extended Lexicon model, Figure 5 provides a slightly more complex def- a lexicon is an inheritance-based structured de- inition. In this version, there is an abstract node, scription of a set of word instances. This notion NOUN, capturing information shared between all simultaneously captures and combines two impor- nouns and a new definition for <form> which is tant modelling properties: first, that instances of defined to be the same as the path <root>. DOG the same word share properties via an abstract now specifies a value for <root>, and inherits word form node, and second that the lexicon im- everything else from NOUN. 271 Word1: Inheritance in DATR operates as follows: to de- <> == The:<> termine the value associated with a path at a partic- <next> == "Word2:<>". ular node, use the definition from the equation for Word2: <> == Dogs:<> the longest path that matches a leading (leftmost) <prev> == "Word1:<>" subpath of the desired path (if none matches, the <next> == "Word3:<>". value is undefined). The definition might give you Word3: <> == Slept:<> a value, or a redirection to a different node and/or <prev> == "Word2:<>". path, or a combination of these. If the definition Figure 7: Instance node for the dogs slept contains path values, extend those paths with the portion of the desired path that did not match the left-hand-side and seek the value of the resulting <table> has a default value which is just the expression. root, and a plural value which appends an s to the So in this example, the path <root> at DOG morphological root. Two word form nodes have matches a definition equation path exactly, and so also been added, Dog whose form will be dog, has value dog. The path <cat> is not defined at and Dogs whose form will be dog s. DOG and the longest defined subpath is <>, so this 2.2 Modelling the Extended Lexicon definition is used. It specifies a value NOUN:<>, but the path is extended with the unmatched part Figure 6 provides an example of DATR code to of the original path, so the definition becomes represent lexeme and word form nodes. Extend- NOUN:<cat>. This has the value noun, so ing this to represent instance nodes as well is quite this is the value for DOG:<cat> as well. Fi- straightforward. The instance nodes themselves nally, the path <form> at DOG similarly matches inherit directly from the corresponding word form the <> path and is rewritten to NOUN:<form>. nodes. The prev and next links map between This matches the definition in NOUN which spec- the instance nodes, as shown in figure 7, for the ifies "<root>". The quotes here specify this is word string the dogs slept. evaluated as DOG:<root> (without the quotes it As a first simple example of the Extended Lex- would be interpreted locally as NOUN:<root>), icon approach, figure 8 provides a definition for and because the entire path matched, there is noth- the lexeme A which varies the actual form ac- ing further to add to the path here, so the value is cording to whether the next word starts with a DOG:<root>, that is, dog. vowel or not. This definition presupposes a fea- ture <vstart> which returns true for words that NOUN: 3 <cat> == noun start with a vowel, false otherwise . A evaluates <num> == sing vstart not on itself, but on the word instance <form> == "<table "<num>" >" that follows it (signified by <next vstart>) to <table> == "<root>" <table plur> == "<root>" s. determine whether its own form is a or an. DOG: A: <> == NOUN:<> <> == DET <root> == dog. <form> == <table "<next vstart>"> Dog: <table> == a <> == DOG:<>. <table true> == an. Dogs: <> == DOG:<> Figure 8: Word form definition for A <num> == plur. Figure 6: DATR description – version 3 This example illustrates some important features of the approach.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Words and Alternative Basic Units for Linguistic Analysis
    Words and alternative basic units for linguistic analysis 1 Words and alternative basic units for linguistic analysis Jens Allwood SCCIIL Interdisciplinary Center, University of Gothenburg A. P. Hendrikse, Department of Linguistics, University of South Africa, Pretoria Elisabeth Ahlsén SCCIIL Interdisciplinary Center, University of Gothenburg Abstract The paper deals with words and possible alternative to words as basic units in linguistic theory, especially in interlinguistic comparison and corpus linguistics. A number of ways of defining the word are discussed and related to the analysis of linguistic corpora and to interlinguistic comparisons between corpora of spoken interaction. Problems associated with words as the basic units and alternatives to the traditional notion of word as a basis for corpus analysis and linguistic comparisons are presented and discussed. 1. What is a word? To some extent, there is an unclear view of what counts as a linguistic word, generally, and in different language types. This paper is an attempt to examine various construals of the concept “word”, in order to see how “words” might best be made use of as units of linguistic comparison. Using intuition, we might say that a word is a basic linguistic unit that is constituted by a combination of content (meaning) and expression, where the expression can be phonetic, orthographic or gestural (deaf sign language). On closer examination, however, it turns out that the notion “word” can be analyzed and specified in several different ways. Below we will consider the following three main ways of trying to analyze and define what a word is: (i) Analysis and definitions building on observation and supposed easy discovery (ii) Analysis and definitions building on manipulability (iii) Analysis and definitions building on abstraction 2.
    [Show full text]
  • The Generative Lexicon
    The Generative Lexicon James Pustejovsky" Computer Science Department Brandeis University In this paper, I will discuss four major topics relating to current research in lexical seman- tics: methodology, descriptive coverage, adequacy of the representation, and the computational usefulness of representations. In addressing these issues, I will discuss what I think are some of the central problems facing the lexical semantics community, and suggest ways of best ap- proaching these issues. Then, I will provide a method for the decomposition of lexical categories and outline a theory of lexical semantics embodying a notion of cocompositionality and type coercion, as well as several levels of semantic description, where the semantic load is spread more evenly throughout the lexicon. I argue that lexical decomposition is possible if it is per- formed generatively. Rather than assuming a fixed set of primitives, I will assume a fixed number of generative devices that can be seen as constructing semantic expressions. I develop a theory of Qualia Structure, a representation language for lexical items, which renders much lexical ambiguity in the lexicon unnecessary, while still explaining the systematic polysemy that words carry. Finally, I discuss how individual lexical structures can be integrated into the larger lexical knowledge base through a theory of lexical inheritance. This provides us with the necessary principles of global organization for the lexicon, enabling us to fully integrate our natural language lexicon into a conceptual whole. 1. Introduction I believe we have reached an interesting turning point in research, where linguistic studies can be informed by computational tools for lexicology as well as an appre- ciation of the computational complexity of large lexical databases.
    [Show full text]
  • ON SOME CATEGORIES for DESCRIBING the SEMOLEXEMIC STRUCTURE by Yoshihiko Ikegami
    ON SOME CATEGORIES FOR DESCRIBING THE SEMOLEXEMIC STRUCTURE by Yoshihiko Ikegami 1. A lexeme is the minimum unit that carries meaning. Thus a lexeme can be a "word" as well as an affix (i.e., something smaller than a word) or an idiom (i.e,, something larger than a word). 2. A sememe is a unit of meaning that can be realized as a single lexeme. It is defined as a structure constituted by those features having distinctive functions (i.e., serving to distinguish the sememe in question from other semernes that contrast with it).' A question that arises at this point is whether or not one lexeme always corresponds to just one serneme and no more. Three theoretical positions are foreseeable: (I) one which holds that one lexeme always corresponds to just one sememe and no more, (2) one which holds that one lexeme corresponds to an indefinitely large number of sememes, and (3) one which holds that one lexeme corresponds to a certain limited number of sememes. These three positions wiIl be referred to as (1) the "Grundbedeutung" theory, (2) the "use" theory, and (3) the "polysemy" theory, respectively. The Grundbedeutung theory, however attractive in itself, is to be rejected as unrealistic. Suppose a preliminary analysis has revealed that a lexeme seems to be used sometimes in an "abstract" sense and sometimes in a "concrete" sense. In order to posit a Grundbedeutung under such circumstances, it is to be assumed that there is a still higher level at which "abstract" and "concrete" are neutralized-this is certainly a theoretical possibility, but it seems highly unlikely and unrealistic from a psychological point of view.
    [Show full text]
  • THE LEXICON: a SYSTEM of MATRICES of LEXICAL UNITS and THEIR PROPERTIES ~ Harry H
    THE LEXICON: A SYSTEM OF MATRICES OF LEXICAL UNITS AND THEIR PROPERTIES ~ Harry H. Josselson - Uriel Weinreich /I/~ in discussing the fact that at one time many American scholars relied on either the discipline of psychology or sociology for the resolution of semantic problems~ comments: In Soviet lexicology, it seems, neither the tra- ditionalists~ who have been content to work with the categories of classical rhetoric and 19th- century historical semantics~ nor the critical lexicologists in search of better conceptual tools, have ever found reason to doubt that linguistics alone is centrally responsible for the investiga- tion of the vocabulary of languages. /2/ This paper deals with a certain conceptual tool, the matrix, which linguists can use for organizing a lexicon to insure that words will be described (coded) with consistency, that is~ to insure that questions which have been asked about certain words will be asked for all words in the same class, regardless of the fact that they may be more difficult to answer for some than for others. The paper will also dis- cuss certain new categories~ beyond those of classical rhetoric~ which have been introduced into lexicology. i. INTRODUCTION The research in automatic translation brought about by the introduction of computers into the technology has ~The research described herein has b&en supported by the In- formation Systems Branch of the Office of Naval Research. The present work is an amplification of a paper~ "The Lexicon: A Matri~ of Le~emes and Their Properties"~ contributed to the Conference on Mathematical Linguistics at Budapest-Balatonsza- badi, September 6-i0~ 1968.
    [Show full text]
  • Social & Behavioural Sciences SCTCMG 2019 International
    The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioural Sciences EpSBS ISSN: 2357-1330 https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2019.12.04.33 SCTCMG 2019 International Scientific Conference «Social and Cultural Transformations in the Context of Modern Globalism» INTERLEXICOGRAPHY IN TEACHING RUSSIAN AS A SECOND LANGUAGE Elena Baryshnikova (a)*, Dmitrii Kazhuro (b) *Corresponding author (a) Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia, 6, Miklukho-Maklaya str., Moscow, Russia, [email protected], +7 (968) 812-64-61 (b) Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia, 6, Miklukho-Maklaya str., Moscow, Russia, [email protected], +7 (977) 946-74-63 Abstract The paper is concerned with the use of dictionaries of international words by foreign students studying the Russian language. It considers the phenomenon of defining international vocabulary in a dictionary in the context of a scientific field. The authors outline the growth of cross-cultural and cross-language contacts in the history of human civilization. They provide the definition of interlexicography as the method to carry out interlexicological study of international words in various linguistic systems. The paper analyses the issues related to the choice of an illustrative part in the interlexicographic source with regard to qualifying a lexeme as international. There is a background of interlexicographic development based on bi- and multilingual dictionaries of some national languages. The authors analyze the target and goal focus of existing dictionaries of international words, the principles of making up a glossary, its organization and representation in dictionary entries. Through descriptive and comparative methods, along with methodological parameters of linguodidactic representation of the material in line with the educational lexicography, the paper identifies some linguistic and methodological advantages and disadvantages of the existing internationalism dictionaries and their linguodidactic value for teaching Russian as a second language to international students.
    [Show full text]
  • CS474 Natural Language Processing Semantic Analysis Caveats Introduction to Lexical Semantics
    CS474 Natural Language Processing Semantic analysis Last class Assigning meanings to linguistic utterances – History Compositional semantics: we can derive the – Tiny intro to semantic analysis meaning of the whole sentence from the meanings of the parts. Next lectures – Max ate a green apple. – Word sense disambiguation Relies on knowing: » Background from linguistics – the meaning of individual words Lexical semantics – how the meanings of individual words combine to form » On-line resources the meaning of groups of words » Computational approaches [next class] – how it all fits in with syntactic analysis Caveats Introduction to lexical semantics Problems with a compositional approach Lexical semantics is the study of – the systematic meaning-related connections among – a former congressman words and – a toy elephant – the internal meaning-related structure of each word – kicked the bucket Lexeme – an individual entry in the lexicon – a pairing of a particular orthographic and phonological form with some form of symbolic meaning representation Sense: the lexeme’s meaning component Lexicon: a finite list of lexemes Lexical semantic relations: Dictionary entries homonymy right adj. located nearer the right hand esp. Homonyms: words that have the same form and unrelated being on the right when facing the same direction meanings – Instead, a bank1 can hold the investments in a custodial account as the observer. in the client’s name. – But as agriculture burgeons on the east bank2, the river will shrink left adj. located nearer to this side of the body even more. than the right. Homophones: distinct lexemes with a shared red n. the color of blood or a ruby. pronunciation – E.g.
    [Show full text]
  • The Art of Lexicography - Niladri Sekhar Dash
    LINGUISTICS - The Art of Lexicography - Niladri Sekhar Dash THE ART OF LEXICOGRAPHY Niladri Sekhar Dash Linguistic Research Unit, Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata, India Keywords: Lexicology, linguistics, grammar, encyclopedia, normative, reference, history, etymology, learner’s dictionary, electronic dictionary, planning, data collection, lexical extraction, lexical item, lexical selection, typology, headword, spelling, pronunciation, etymology, morphology, meaning, illustration, example, citation Contents 1. Introduction 2. Definition 3. The History of Lexicography 4. Lexicography and Allied Fields 4.1. Lexicology and Lexicography 4.2. Linguistics and Lexicography 4.3. Grammar and Lexicography 4.4. Encyclopedia and lexicography 5. Typological Classification of Dictionary 5.1. General Dictionary 5.2. Normative Dictionary 5.3. Referential or Descriptive Dictionary 5.4. Historical Dictionary 5.5. Etymological Dictionary 5.6. Dictionary of Loanwords 5.7. Encyclopedic Dictionary 5.8. Learner's Dictionary 5.9. Monolingual Dictionary 5.10. Special Dictionaries 6. Electronic Dictionary 7. Tasks for Dictionary Making 7.1. Panning 7.2. Data Collection 7.3. Extraction of lexical items 7.4. SelectionUNESCO of Lexical Items – EOLSS 7.5. Mode of Lexical Selection 8. Dictionary Making: General Dictionary 8.1. HeadwordsSAMPLE CHAPTERS 8.2. Spelling 8.3. Pronunciation 8.4. Etymology 8.5. Morphology and Grammar 8.6. Meaning 8.7. Illustrative Examples and Citations 9. Conclusion Acknowledgements ©Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS) LINGUISTICS - The Art of Lexicography - Niladri Sekhar Dash Glossary Bibliography Biographical Sketch Summary The art of dictionary making is as old as the field of linguistics. People started to cultivate this field from the very early age of our civilization, probably seven to eight hundred years before the Christian era.
    [Show full text]
  • COMMON and DIFFERENT ASPECTS in a SET of COMMENTARIES in DICTIONARIES and SEMANTIC TAGS Akhmedova Dildora Bakhodirovna a Teacher
    International Scientific Forum on language, literature, translation, literary criticism: international scientific-practical conference on modern approaches and perspectives. Web: https://iejrd.com/ COMMON AND DIFFERENT ASPECTS IN A SET OF COMMENTARIES IN DICTIONARIES AND SEMANTIC TAGS Akhmedova Dildora Bakhodirovna A teacher, BSU Hamidova Iroda Olimovna A student, BSU Annotation: This article discusses dictionaries that can be a source of information for the language corpus, the structure of the dictionary commentary, and the possibilities of this information in tagging corpus units. Key words:corpus linguistics, lexicography, lexical units, semantic tagging, annotated dictionary, general vocabulary, limited vocabulary, illustrative example. I.Introduction Corpus linguistics is closely related to lexicography because the linguistic unit in the dictionary, whose interpretation serves as a linguo-lexicographic supply for tagging corpus units. Digitization of the text of existing dictionaries in the Uzbek language is the first step in linking the dictionary with the corpus. Uzbek lexicography has come a long way, has a rich treasure that serves as a material for the corps. According to Professor E. Begmatov, systematicity in the lexicon is not as obvious as in other levels of language. Lexical units are more numerous than phonemes, morphemes in terms of quantity, and have the property of periodic instability. Therefore, it is not possible to identify and study the lexicon on a scale. Today, world linguistics has begun to solve this problem with the help of language corpora and has already achieved results. Qualitative and quantitative inventory of vocabulary, the possibility of comprehensive research has expanded. The main source for semantic tagging of language units is the explanatory dictionary of the Uzbek language.
    [Show full text]
  • The Combinatory Morphemic Lexicon
    The Combinatory Morphemic Lexicon Cem Bozsahin∗ Middle East Technical University Grammars that expect words from the lexicon may be at odds with the transparent projection of syntactic and semantic scope relations of smaller units. We propose a morphosyntactic framework based on Combinatory Categorial Grammar that provides flexible constituency, flexible category consistency, and lexical projection of morphosyntactic properties and attachment to grammar in order to establish a morphemic grammar-lexicon. These mechanisms provide enough expressive power in the lexicon to formulate semantically transparent specifications without the necessity to confine structure forming to words and phrases. For instance, bound morphemes as lexical items can have phrasal scope or word scope, independent of their attachment characteristics but consistent with their semantics. The controls can be attuned in the lexicon to language-particular properties. The result is a transparent interface of inflectional morphology, syntax, and semantics. We present a computational system and show the application of the framework to English and Turkish. 1. Introduction The study presented in this article is concerned with the integrated representation and processing of inflectional morphology, syntax, and semantics in a unified grammar ar- chitecture. An important issue in such integration is mismatches in morphological, syntactic, and semantic bracketings. The problem was first noted in derivational mor- phology. Williams (1981) provided examples from English; the semantic bracketings in (1a–2a) are in conflict with the morphological bracketings in (1b–2b). (1) a. -ity b. hydro hydro electric electric -ity (2) a. -ing b. G¨odel G¨odel number number -ing If the problem were confined to derivational morphology, we could avoid it by making derivational morphology part of the lexicon that does not interact with gram- mar.
    [Show full text]
  • Changing the Rules: Why the Monolingual Learner's Dictionary Should Move Away from the Native-Speaker Tradition
    127 Changing the rules: Why the monolingual learner's dictionary should move away from the native-speaker tradition Michael Rundell This paper starts from a recognition that the reference needs of people learning English are not adequately met by existing monolingual learner's dictionaries (MLDs). Either the dictionaries themselves are deficient, or their target users have not yet learned how to use them effectively: whichever view one takes — and the truth is probably somewhere in between — it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the MLD's full potential as a language-learning resource has not yet been realized. This is recognized eg by Béjoint 1981: 219: "Monolingual dic­ tionaries are not used as fully as they should be ... many students are not even aware of the riches that their monolingual dictionaries contain" — a view which has been consistently borne out by any user-research we have conducted at Longman. There is a variety of responses to this situation. Compilers of MLDs may feel a certain exasperation with the 'ungrateful' students who fail to recognize the very real progress that has been made in adapting conventional dictionaries to their special needs. More positively, a growing awareness on the part of teachers of the importance of developing students' reference skills (eg Béjoint 1981: 220, Rossner 1985: 99 f., Whitcut 1986: 111) is complemented by a clear commit­ ment on the part of dictionary publishers to make their products as accessible and user-friendly as possible. These two developments seem to offer the beguiling prospect of a scenario in which ever more helpful MLDs are ever more skilfully exploited by their users — thus resolving, to everyone's satisfaction, the problem identified at the beginning of this paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Part 4: Lexical Semantics 2
    Natural Language Processing Part 4: lexical semantics 2 Marco Maggini Tecnologie per l'elaborazione del linguaggio Lexical semantics • A lexicon generally has a highly structured form ▫ It stores the meanings and uses of each word ▫ It encodes the relations between words and meanings • A lexeme is the minimal unit represented in the lexicon ▫ It pairs a stem (the orthographic/phonological form chosen to represent words) with a symbolic form for meaning representation (sense) • A dictionary is a kind of lexicon where meanings are expressed through definitions and examples son noun a boy or man in relation to either or both of his parents. • a male offspring of an animal. • a male descendant : the sons of Adam. • ( the Son) (in Christian belief) the second person of the Trinity; Christ. • a man considered in relation to his native country or area : one of Nevada's most famous sons. • a man regarded as the product of a particular person, influence, or environment : sons of the French Revolution. • (also my son) used by an elder person as a form of address for a boy or young man : “You're on private land, son.” 3 Marco Maggini Tecnologie per l'elaborazione del linguaggio Lexicons & dictionaries • Definitions in dictionaries exploit words and they may be circular (a word definition uses words whose definitions exploit that word) right adj. 1. of, relating to, situated on, or being the side of the body which is away from the side on which the heart is mostly located 2. located nearer to the right hand than to the left 3.
    [Show full text]
  • The Project, Its Ratiale and Processes,'Lrcludes A,Descrip-Tionf
    -QED 160 099,. AUTHOR Chenhall, Robert . TITLE The Onomastic Dctopus Repdif. No.3. INSTITUTION California State Univ., Fuller 5c ender .-SPONS N ational Endowment for puB DA NOTE 1 p-. BURS PcE- MF-$0. 3C-S1. Bins Post age DESCRI TORS, k-ctivities; *Catalcgivg; ctaaficetion, Ii'a.grams *Tnf ormati n Needs; *Museums; ru jects; *Subject.. Index Ter *Bysteus Analysis; TheSauti ABSTRACT Itoivities and information -in-museums and .a project titi ertaken,',Xithe Margaret -Woodbury. Strong-Museum to develop syStematic solutiOrp to' problems in cataloging museumcoliections-aze described. Museum-,eibtiwities Are grouped in three categories:41) initial.;--anisition -.:accession, registricn, identification, and restoration; (2)ongo- ng- -rearcb, exhibition, and conservation efforts; and (3) terminal_ -de-accessioniitg. Theongoing are the.,most lizportant'of the three y.pes.of _activities.. In order to carry out theseactivitieseffictitly, all. the information required for each- defined activity must be available at the right tine avd Iladet however- at the pre-sent time there are no systems cfnomenclature that are generally accepled as a basis for defining andidentifying - man-made artifacts.17,5 _.meet this need, this project focused on the creation of a the saur for use at the Strong Museum. This Standardized worpd_l'st, or lexicon, includes, words andphxases,.-and shows synonymous anhierarchical word ,-relationshipi and is not a panacea for all suseux. cataloging dependencies. While_it .1 qrpbleuls, it can serve as a commonstarting Loint. in. identificati activities which are crucial to the catalogin4 process. Asummaryof the project, its ratiale and processes,'Lrcludes a,descrip-tionf. the lexicon with examp es.(BIM) :/- * # *4$4*] x * * * * * * * ** Reproductions supped by EARS arethe hest that can be made the originaldocument.
    [Show full text]