Chapter 18 Lexical Functions: Description of Lexical Relations in a ...

—Chapter 18. Lexical Functions— 96
describe rigorously and systematically collocations, or what can be also called semi-phra-
semes. That theoretical contribution is dealt with in some detail in Chapter 21. Furthermore,
they are essential in the theory of syntax, since several syntactic regularities have to be described
in terms of LFs. Cf., e.g., (19) [from Abeillé 1988]:
(19) a. King John launched [= IncepOper 1] an attack against the city.
vs.
Which city did King John launch an attack against?
It is against this city that King John launched an attack.
b. King John watched an attack against the city.
vs.
*Which city did King John watch an attack against?
*It is against this city that King John watched an attack.
Extraction in such constructions is possible/impossible according to whether the verb in question
is/is not an LF of its Direct Object (in launch an attack it is, in watch an attack it isn’t).
Here, however, I will limit myself to shedding some light on the use of LFs in computa-
tional linguistics.
Basically, I know of three major ways in which LFs prove useful (or even indispensable)
for computer-oriented linguistic descriptions:
• As a tool for determining correct lexical choices within phrases (all LFs): COLLOCATIONAL
aspect.
• As a tool for determining lexical choices necessary to adapt the DSynt-Structure of the
sentence to be synthesized to its Communicative Structure (some verbal syntagmatic LFs,
namely—support, causative and fulfillment verbs): COMMUNICATIVE aspect.
• As a tool for determining lexical choices necessary to ensure the coherence of the text to be
synthesized (some paradigmatic LFs): LEXICAL-COHESIONAL aspect.
8.1 LFs and Lexical Choices
The use of LFs for finding the correct collocates is rather straightforward. Thus, under Machine
Translation at the level of DSynt-Structure (i.e., without going through a SemR), it suffices to
reduce the source language collocation (= which is to be translated) to its LF-representation, then
translate the keyword only and then, finally, to select the value of the LF for the translation of the
keyword in the target language. For instance, Fr. Jean m’a détourné de cette habitude is
reduced—via a monolingual French dictionary which lists the values of all LFs for all head LUs
to its DSyntS (20). Then, on the stage of transfer, the French DSynt-tree (20) is replac-ed with the