The Proposition Bank project takes a practical approach to semantic representation, adding a layer of predicate-argument information, or semantic role labels, to the syntactic structures of the Penn Treebank. The resulting resource can be thought of as shallow, in that it does not represent coreference, quantification, and many other higher-order phenomena, but also broad, in that it covers every instance of every verb in the corpus and allows representative statistics to be calculated. We discuss the criteria used to define the sets of semantic roles used in the annotation process and to analyze the frequency of syntactic/semantic alternations in the corpus. We describe an automatic system for semantic role tagging trained on the corpus and discuss the effect on its performance of various types of information, including a comparison of full syntactic parsing with a flat representation and the contribution of the empty ‘‘trace’ ’ categories of the treebank.

Ambiguity resolution is a central problem in language comprehension. Lexical and syntactic ambiguities are standardly assumed to involve different types of knowledge representations and be resolved by different mechanisms. An alternative account is provided in which both types of ambiguity derive from aspects of lexical representation and are resolved by the same processing mechanisms. Reinterpreting syntactic ambiguity resolution as a form of lexical ambiguity resolution obviates the need for special parsing principles to account for syntactic interpretation preferences, reconciles a number of apparently conflicting results concerning the roles of lexical and contextual information in sentence processing, explains differences among ambiguities in terms of ease of resolution, and provides a more unified account of language comprehension than was previously available. One of the principal goals for a theory of language compre- third section we consider processing issues: how information is hension is to explain how the reader or listener copes with a processed within the mental lexicon and how contextual inforpervasive ambiguity problem. Languages are structured at mation can influence processing. The central processing mechmultiple levels simultaneously, including lexical, phonological, anism we invoke is the constraint satisfaction process that has morphological, syntactic, and text or discourse levels. At any been realized in interactive-activation models (e.g., Elman &

Selectional constraints are limitations on the applicability of predicates to arguments. For example, the statement “The number two is blue” may be syntactically well formed, but at some level it is anomalous — BLUE is not a predicate that can be applied to numbers. According to the influential theory of (Katz and Fodor, 1964), a predicate associates a set of defining features with each argument, expressed within a restricted semantic vocabulary. Despite the persistence of this theory, however, there is widespread agreement about its empirical shortcomings (McCawley, 1968; Fodor, 1977). As an alternative, some critics of the Katz-Fodor theory (e.g. (Johnson-Laird, 1983)) have abandoned the treatment of selectional constraints as semantic, instead treating them as indistinguishable from inferences made on the basis of factual knowledge. This provides a better match for the empirical phenomena, but it opens up a different problem: if selectional constraints are the same as inferences in general, then accounting for them will require a much more complete understanding of knowledge representation and inference than we have at present. The problem, then, is this: how can a theory of selectional constraints be elaborated without first having either an empirically adequate theory of defining features or a comprehensive theory of inference? In this dissertation, I suggest that an answer to this question lies in the representation of conceptual

this paper, we focus on argument structure--the thematic roles assigned by a verb to its arguments--as the way in which the relational semantics of the verb is represented at the syntactic level

Manual development of large subcategorised lexicons has proved difficult because predicates change behaviour between sublanguages, domains and over time. Yet access to a comprehensive subcategorization lexicon is vital for successful parsing capable of recovering predicate-argument relations, and probabilistic parsers would greatly benefit from accurate information concerning the relative likelihood of different subcategorisation frames (scfs) of a given predicate. Acquisition of subcategorization lexicons from textual corpora has recently become increasingly popular. Although this work has met with some success, resulting lexicons indicate a need for greater accuracy. One significant source of error lies in the statistical filtering used for hypothesis selection, i.e. for removing noise from automatically acquired scfs. This thesis builds on earlier work in verbal subcategorization acquisition, taking as a starting point the problem with statistical filtering. Our investigation shows that statistical filters tend to work poorly because not only is the underlying distribution zipfian, but there is also very little correlation between conditional distribution of

this paper. Towards that end, comments are welcome. 1 (1) S

This paper is drawn from my 1994 Stanford dissertation of the same name (copies of which are available from http://kinks.phil.cmu.edu/manning/papers/, or by contacting the author), which should be consulted for further information, acknowledgements and references.

Abstract not found

The same categorical phenomena which are attributed to hard grammatical constraints in some languages continue to show up as statistical preferences in other languages, motivating a grammatical model that can account for soft constraints. The effects of a hierarchy of person (1st, 2nd 3rd) on grammar are categorical in some languages, most famously in languages with inverse systems, but also in languages with person restrictions on passivization. In Lummi, for example, the person of the subject argument cannot be lower than the person of a nonsubject argument. If this would happen in the active, passivization is obligatory; if it would happen in the passive, the active is obligatory (Jelinek and Demers 1983). These facts follow from the theory of harmonic alignment in OT: constraints favoring the harmonic association of prominent person (1st, 2nd) with prominent syntactic function (subject) are hypothesized to be present as subhierarchies of the grammars of all languages, but to vary ...

1 Plato’s problem in lexical semantics Word meaning confronts us, as acutely as anything in syntax, with what Chomsky has called Plato’s problem. 1 We know far more about the meaning of almost any word than we could have learned just from our exposure to uses of it. Communication would be unbearably laborious if we did not share with other speakers the ability to generalize the meanings of words in the right ways. As Fodor (1981) notes in arguing for the innateness of lexical semantics, the most we might plausibly have learned about meaning of the verb paint is that it means something like “to cover with paint”. Even if we have only seen this done with a brush, we have no hesitation in applying the verb correctly to novel techniques of painting, such as rolling, spraying, or dipping. But when a vat of paint explodes in a paint factory, covering everyone with paint, or when Velázquez dips his brush in a pot of burnt sienna, we know that the sentences in [1] would not be legitimate reports of what happened.