Conceptual Analysis

Riesbeck, Christopher K.

doi:10.1016/b978-1-4832-2973-7.50008-0

Cited by 30 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The knowledge-deficient approach has been manifested in two distinct processing strategies lying at opposite ends of a spectrum involving the representation and use of language conventions. The word-sense strategy (Hirst, 1987;Riesbeck, 1975;Small & Rieger, 1982;Wilensky & Arens, 1980) recognizes that there are conventional uses of words that deviate from ordinary compositional, or literal, meaning. This strategy addresses the problem by listing each separate use as an isolated and unmotivated word-sense in the lexicon.…”

Section: Previous Computational Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Computer Understanding of Conventional Metaphoric Language

Martin

1992

Cognitive Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Metaphor is a conventional and ordinary part of language. An approach to metaphor, based on the explicit representation of knowledge about metaphors, has been developed. This approach asserts that the interpretation of conventional metaphoric language should proceed through the direct application of specific knowledge about the metaphors in the language. MIDAS (Metaphor Interpretation, Denotation, and Acquisition System) is a computer program that has been developed based upon this approach. MIDAS can be used to represent knowledge about conventional metaphors, interpret metaphoric language by applying this knowledge, and dynamically learn new metaphors as they are encountered during normal processing.

show abstract

Section: Previous Computational Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Computer Understanding of Conventional Metaphoric Language

Martin

1992

Cognitive Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…are to be determined by comparing the preferences emanating from all the entities involved in an attachment: they axe all, as it were, to be considered as objects seeking other preferred classes of neighbors, and the best lit, within and between each order of structures built up, is to be found by comparing the preferences and finding a best mutual fit. This point was made in (Wilks 1976) by contrasting preference semantics with the simple verb-based requests of Riesbeck's (1975) MARGIE parser. It was argued there that account had to be taken of both the preferences of verbs (and nouns), and of the preferences cued from the prepositions themselves.…”

Section: Prepositionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…and the semantics-based parsing systems (e.g. Riesbeck 1975) that have been based on it. When discussing implementation in the last section we shall argue (as in Wilks 1976) that semantic material that is to be the base of a parsing process cannot be thought of as simply attaching to a verb (rather than to nouns and all other word senses)…”

Section: (Iv) Preference Semanticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Right attachment and preference semantics

Wilks

1985

Proceedings of the Second Conference on European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics -

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper claims that the right attachment rules for phrases originally suggested by Frazier and Fodor are wrong, and that none of the subsequent patchings of the rules by syntactic methods have improved the situation. For each rule there are perfectly straightforward and indefinitely large classes of simple counter-examples. We then examine suggestions by Ford et M., Schubert and Hirst which are quasi-semantic in nature and which we consider ingenious but unsatisfactory. We point towards a straightforward solution within the framework of preference semantics, set out in detail elsewhere, and argue that the principal issue is not the type and nature of information required to get appropriate phrase attachments, but the issue of where to store the information and with what processes to apply it. SYNTACTIC APPROACHESRecent discussion of the issue of how and where to attach right-hand phrases (and more generally, clauses) in sentence analysis was started by the claims of Frasier and Fodor (1979). They offered two rules : (i) Right Association which is that phrases on the right should be attached as low as possible on a syntax tree, thus JOHN BOUGHT THE BOOK THAT I HAD BEEN TRYING TO OBT t~/OR SUSAN) which attaches to OBTAIN not to BOUGHT. But this rule fails for JOHN BOUGHT THE BOOK (FOR SUSAN)which requires attachment to BOUGHT not BOOK.A second principle was then added :(ii) Minimal Attachment which is that a phrase must be attached higher in a tree if doing that minimizes the number of nodes in the tree (and this rule is to take precedence over (i)). So, in :V

show abstract

“…This is not in any sense a logical necessity; systems have been built in which syntactic analysis and semantic interpretation have been completely integrated--e.g., [3,4,30,31,[51][52][53]. However, this approach becomes very messy when complex syntactic constructions are considered.…”

Section: Semantic Interpretationmentioning

confidence: 99%