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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

—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
—Chapter 18. Lexical Functions— 97 English DSynt-tree (20)´, which is ensured by a relatively simple and straight-for-ward bilingual index: (20) LiquOper 1 I II III JEAN MOI HABITUDE (20)´ LiquOper 1 I II III JOHN I HABIT In the process of synthesis, (20)´ will be realized as John broke me of this habit, this time using an English monolongual dictionary where the values of LFs are specified. In phrases of this type only the noun requires actual transfer, i.e., looking up of its English equivalent(s). The search for the ‘bizarre’ correspondence DÉTOURNER = BREAK in the context of HABIT is avoided altogether: BREAK will be computed as an element of the value of the LF LiquOper 1 (HABIT) in a monolingual English dictionary. Normally, multilingual translation in all possible directions between n languages requires 2n! dictionaries (n! is the number of language pairs, and there are two directions; for five languages, 2 × (5 × 4× 3 × 2 × 1) = 240 transfer dictionairies are needed. However, if we are using LFs, for the transfer of collocations it is enough to have detailed and accurate MONOLINGUAL dictionaries with LFs; LFs appear then as a convenient transfer interlingua. To make this procedure clearer, let me cite a series of correspondences that can be easily expressed in terms of LFs (the example is adapted from Fontenelle 1993): Eng. HABIT ⇔ Fr. HABITUDE IncepOper 1 acquire, develop, form [ART ~], contracter, prendre [ART ~] get [into ART ~], take [to ART ~] FinOper 1 drop [ART ~], get out, get rid abandonner, perdre [ART ~] [of ART ~], ... LiquOper 1 break [NX of ART ~], wean [NX from détacher, détourner [NX de ART ~] ART ~] Liqu 1Oper 1 break (off), kick, shake (off), throw se débarrasser, se défaire [de ART ~], off [ART ~] renoncer [à ART ~], rompre [avec ART ~] CausFunc 1 instill [ART ~ in(to) NX] inculquer [ART ~ à NX] Figure 20.4: Lexical Correspondences Expressed in Terms of LFs
Page 1 and 2:
Chapter 18 Lexical Functions: Descr
Page 3 and 4:
—Chapter 18. Lexical Functions—
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Means noun ((δ) = (means [for L]))
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Here are some examples of LFs. —C
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
2.3 Definition of Standard Lexical
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Examples —Chapter 18. Lexical Fun
Page 45 and 46: —Chapter 18. Lexical Functions—
Page 49 and 50: ! ! 38. Loc temp in = localization
Page 51: Remarks —Chapter 18. Lexical Func
Page 61 and 62: NB: CausFin(P) means—by definitio
Page 69: —Chapter 18. Lexical Functions—
Page 78 and 79: 6.1.1 Lexical Functions Are Not Sem
Page 82 and 83: 6.1.3 Different Semantic ‘Facets
Page 86 and 87: LF-Sem-Rule 3 (intensely) 1 ! —Ch
Page 100 and 101: Bibliographic Remarks —Chapter 18
Page 104: —Chapter 18. Lexical Functions—
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?