l)isambiguation and Language Acquisition through the Phrasal Lexicon * 
Abst,'act 
Uri Zcrnik 
Michael G. Dyer 
Artificial Intellige nee l.aboratory 
Computer Science Department 
3531 Boelter Hall 
Univelsity of California 
Los Angeles, California 90024 
USA 
1.1 Phrasal Parsing 
The phrasal approach to language processing emphasizes 
the role of the lexicon as a knowledge source. Ratltcr than main- 
taining a single generic iexical cntu for each word e.g., take, 
the lexicon contains many phrases, e.g., t_ake on, ti~ke to 
the streets, take to swimming, take over, Old, 
Although this ,'tl)proach proves effective in parsing and in genera- 
tion, there are two acute problems which still require solutions. 
First, due to the huge size of the phrasal lexicon, cspeciaIly when 
considering subtle meanings and idiosyncratic behavior of 
phrases, encoding of \]exical entries cannot be done manually. 
Thus, phrase acquisition must be employed to construct the lexi- 
con. Second, when a set of phrases is morpho-syntactically 
equivalent, disanlbiguation must be perIbrnted by semantic 
means. These problems are addres scd in the progra n i RI NA. 
1. Introduction 
The phras:d approach to language processing \[Beckcr75, 
Searle79, Pawley83, Filhnore86\] emphasizes tile role of tile lexi .~ 
con as a knowledge source. Rather than maintaining a single 
generic lexical entry for each word e.g., take, |110 lexicon con-- 
tains many phrases, e.g., take on, take to the streets, 
take to swirmaing, take over, etc. Ahhough this approach 
proves effective in parsing and in generation \[Wilensky84\], there 
are three acute problems which still require solutions. First, due 
to the huge size of the phrasal lexicon, especially when consider- 
ing subtle meanings and idiosyncratic behavior of phrases, en- 
coding of lexical entries cannot be done manually. Thus, phrase 
acquisition must be employed to construct tile lexicon. Second, 
parsing require,'; phrase disambiguation (resolving ambiguity). 
When a set of phrases is morpho-syntactically equivalent, disam- 
bignation must be perfonned by semantic lncans. 
In previous papers we have reported strategies for acquiring 
phrases in context, which include creating syntactic patterns 
\[Zernik85a\], attd attaching semanlic concepts for these patterns 
\[Zernik85b\]. In this paper we discuss how acquisition and pars- 
ing processes interact with one another. 
Parsing involves reading chmses in text and instantiating 
\[CharniakS0\] their corresponding concepts in tile context. The 
phrasal lexicon provides the linguistic database 1"o1" parsing. A 
lexical entry, a phrase, is a triple associating a linguistic pattern 
with its concept and a situation. The basic parsing cycle is 
demonstrated in 1)recessing the following paragral)la. 
SI: vet years \]: tried to \].ocate my high school 
teacher, when \]~ranJllto her ill the street. 
The phrase ran into is parsed relative to the contcxt esta- 
blished by the first clause. Assume that the lexicon contains at 
single phrase described inform.'dly as: 
phrase 
patterll: Personl run into Person2 
sltllll\[\[01n Personl did not plan to see Person2 
COIICel)t: Personl meets Person2 accJdo.rltal\]y. 
Tim clause is parsed in four stcps: 
(1) The lmttern is matched succcssft, lly against the text. Con-. 
scquently, Personl and Person2 arc bound to the speaker 
and the teacher respectively. 
(2) The situation associated with tile pattern is validated using 
the context. After reading the first phrase the context con- 
tains two concepts: (a) the speaker has a goal to sce tile 
teacher, but (b) he has no feasible plan to accomplish the 
goal. 
(3) Since both (1) and (2) are successful, then the pattern itself 
is instantiatcd, adding to the context: the ,s'pea/cer met the 
teacher accidentally. 
(4) Steps (1)-(3) are repeated for each lexical entry. If more 
titan one entry is instantiated, then the concept with the best 
match is selected. 
Phrase situation, distinguished form phrase concept, is JntlO- 
duced in our representation since it solves two problems: (a) in 
dLvambiguation it provides a discrimination condition for phrase 
selection, and (b) in acquisition it allows the incorporation of the 
context of the exanlple as part of the phrase. 
11.2 The Modeled Phenomenon 
The program R1NA \[7mmik85c\] is designed to parse En- 
glish sentences by reading text and producing tile corresponding 
concepts in the context. However, RINA's lexicon is incom- 
plete, and unknown phrases in the text might be encountered and 
* This research wa',; supported in part by a grant fiom the rl'A Fotmdation. 
247 
processed. RINA's objective is to acquire these phrases from ex- 
amples in context. Thereafter, RINA's lexicon, augmented by 
these dynamically acquired phrases, facilitates parsing and gen- 
eration of further sentences. In the scenm'io below, RINA en- 
counters the new phrase to throw the book: 
User: The mobster eluded prosecution for years. 
Last month, they threw the book at him for 
income-tax evasion. 
RINA is familiar with the words throw and book; however she 
does not know the figurative phrase itself. RINA engages in a di- 
alog with a user in order to acquire that phrase. 
RINA: The prosecutor propelled a book at him? 
User: No. The Judge threw the book at him. 
RINA: The Judge threw the book at him. He found him 
guilty. 
Initially, RINA attempts to interpret the text using the literal 
phrase to throw an object at a person. When this in- 
terpretation fails, RINA forms a hypothesis about the new 
phrase. At each stage, RINA spells out her new hypothesis to let 
the user know her state of knowledge and provide counterexam- 
ples if necessary. As the user wovides examples, RINA's hy- 
pothesis about the new phrase is upgraded. Later on, RINA is 
able to use this phrase in parsing further sentences: 
User: The dean of the school threw the book at John. 
RINA: He punished him. 
Four issues must be addressed in modeling this behavior. 
(1) The syntax of the new phrase. How can the program deter- 
mine the scope and variability of the new phrase? For ex- 
ample, should the new phrase for throw the book at 
him accept the sentence throw a volume at him? Is the 
prepositional phrase for income-tax evasion incor- 
porated as a mandatory part of the new phrase? 
(2) Literal interpretation. What is the contribution of senses of 
single words in forming the meaning of a new phrase? 
Would the learner come up with the same meaning if he 
heard the hypothetical phrase the judge threw the book 
to him? 
(3) The context. What is the contribution of the context in 
forming both the syntax and the meaning of the new 
phrase? 
(4) Disambiguation. Once acquired, what facilitates the selec- 
tion of appropriate meanings for lexical phrases? For exam- 
ple, how can the program come up with two different mean- 
ings for the following pair of sentences: 
S2: The Judge decided to throw the book at him. 
$3: The judge decided that Mary threw the book at 
him. 
1.3 The Program 
The program consists of four components: 
(1) Phrasal lexicon: This is a list of phrases where each phrase 
is a declarative pattern-concept-situation triple. 
(2) Case-frame parser: In parsing, case-frames \[Carbonel184\] 
match the text with syntactic and semantic phrase proper- 
ties. Unification \[Kay79\] accounts for phrase interaction. 
(3) Pattern Constructor: Learning of phrase patterns is ac- 
complished by analyzing parsing failures. A pattern- 
modification action is associated with each failure situation. 
(4) Concept Constructor: Learning of phrase concepts is ac- 
complished by a set of strategies which are selected accord- 
ing to the context. 
Schematically, the program receives as input a sequence of 
sentence-context pairs from which it refines its current pattern- 
concept-situation hypothesis. The pattern is acquired from the 
sentence, while the concept and the situation are derived from the 
context. 
1.4 The Pattern Representation 
Three sample phrasal patterns as they are represented in 
RINA's declarative lexicon are given below. 
Pl: ?x:person <take:verb on> ?y:person 
P2: ?x:person throw:verb <the book> <at ?y:person> 
P3: ?x:person ask:verb ?y:person ?z:inf-phrase 
These patterns actually stand for the following slot-filler objects: 
Pl: (subject (var ?x)(class person)) 
(verb (root take)(modifier on)) 
(object (var ?y) (class person))) 
P2: (subject (var ?x) (class person)) 
(verb (root throw)) 
(object (marker at)(var ?y)(class person)) 
(object (determiner the)(noun book)) 
P3: (subject (var ?x)(class person)) 
(verb (root ask) ) 
(object (var ?y)(class person)) 
(comp (var ?z)(form infinitive) 
(subject ?x)) 
This notation is described in greater detail in \[Zernik85a\]. 
2. Phrase Disambiguation 
There are syntactic patterns which are not unique to one 
lexical entry. Therefore, phrases cannot be selected unambigu- 
ously merely through syntactic patterns. Thus, ambiguity must 
be resolved by semantic means. For example, for the pattern run 
into there are two distinct senses, as shown in the following 
sentences $4 and $5: 
$4: For years I tried to locate my high school 
teacher, but I could not find her address. 
Last week Iranint0 her in the street. 
S5: My client was driving carefully. Your client 
rsnlnto his Mercedes on a red light. 
These senses are referred to mnemonically as fortuitous- 
encounter and vehicle-collision respectively, tlowever, also a 
literal interpretation exists for run into as shown in $6 below: 
$6: Driving home, I became hungry so I ran into a 
McDonald's. 
The meaning of the clause in $6 is produced literally out of its 
constituents, meaning "move-quickly to the interior of a setting". 
Although ambiguity in sentences $4-$6 does not pose any prob- 
lem for a human reader (who knows English phrases), a comput- 
er program (and a second language speaker) might experience 
difficulty in discriminating the appropriate sense in each case. 
Ambiguity is resolved in each case by matching phrase si- 
tuations with the context. The first lcxical phrase depicts 
fortuitous-encounter: 
248 
pattern ?x:person run:verb <into ?y:person> 
situation (act (ptrans (actor ?x) 
(to (proximity-of ?y)))) 
(result(attend (actor ?x) 
(to ?y) 
(object (eyes-of ?x)))) 
(plan (mode negative)) 
concept (act-of situation) 
Figure 1: Phrase P4- Fortuitous E,lcounter 
The situation of this phrase is given in terms of phms and goals. 
It requires that tim context satisfy three points: 
(1) ?x moves to the proximity of ?y. 
(2) As a result, ?x is able to see ?y. 
(3) ?x has not planned that outcome (seeing ?y is t, ncxpected). 
The concept is given in terms of the act itself (concept is 
(act-of situation)). The second phrase depicts vekicle- 
collision: 
pattern ?x:vehicle run:verb <into ?y:thing> 
situation ($vehicle-oollision (vehicle ?x) 
(thing ?y)) 
concept (propel (object ?x) 
(to (location-of ?y))) 
Figure 2: Phrase P5- Vehicle Collision 
$vehicle-collision represents the following situation: 
(2) ?x is involved in a moving script (Scar-riding, $ice-skating, 
etc.) 
(2) ?x moves into the location of ?y. 
(3) As a consequence of (2), a preservation-goal of ?x (citber 
preserve-health or preserve-social-control) is thwarted. 
Again, the concept itself points to a single element within the si- 
tuation. 
Partial Matching of Situations 
When several lexical patterns match a sentence, the phrase 
whose situation matches the context is selected. However, the 
situation prescribed by the phrase does not always exist in the 
context prior to reading the text. For example, consider the way 
the situations of the phrases P4 and P5 above match tim context 
in this paragraph: 
$4: For years I tried to locate my high school 
teacher, but I could not find her address. 
Last week I ran into her in the street. 
The plan/goal scenario established in tim context prior to the 
reading of the phrase in the sentence is: 
(1) There is an active goal to see the teacher. 
(2) No plan is available to achieve this goal. 
This context does not match the situation of vetticle-collision 
since there is no indication of an accident (riding a car on the one 
hand, or accident repurcussions on the other hand). Itowever, tbe 
other situation is not perfectly matched either (i.e. tile outcome of 
the encounter is not in the context). Thus, phrase selection must 
be accounted for by partial matching. The best match is 
selected-fortuitous-encounter in this example. 
3. Phrase Interaction 
Besides the surrounding context, phrase disambiguation is 
also influenced by phrase constituents. We describe this aspect in 
two cases. Interaction of a phrase with its cornplement and in- 
teraction of a phrase with an embedded reference. 
3.1 Indirect References-the Utility of Selectional Restric- 
tions 
The selection of a phrase sense could rely on an embedded 
reference. For example, consider the sentence: 
87: AyellowMercedes ran into my car oi'~ a red light. 
being read relative to two lexical phrases P4 and t'5 (fortuitous- 
encounter and vehicle-collision respectively): 
P4: ?x:person run into ?y:person 
PS: ?x:vehicle run into ?y:thing 
Due to the type of the reference (i.e., a yellow Mercedes is a 
vehicle), the phrase P5 (vehicle collision) is selected, iIowever, 
the type of the reference might lead to an incorrect selection. For 
instance consider the sentence: 
$8: Yourclient ran into my ear on a red light. 
Here the type of the reference your client is l)erson. This type 
causes the inappropriate selection of P4 (where we know flom 
the context that P5 is the appropriate selection). Tbis reference is 
an example of the phenomenon we call indirect reference (see 
also \[Hershkovits85\] and \[Fanconnier85\] ) Although the speaker 
in $8 said your client he actually meant your c\].ient's 
car, which refers to an instance of a car. Thus, the referent is re- 
fen'ed to indirectly through another object. Two pairs of exam- 
ples illustrating indirect references are: 
S9: She likes horses. 
Sl0: She likes tuna fisll. 
Slh John listened toMozart. 
g12: Usually, I listen to my parents . 
In $9, the reference horses could mean any activity related to 
horses such as riding hor.~es or watching horses. On tile 
other hand, in S10 the activity is probably eating tuna fish. 
in S 11, the reference Mozart does not refer to the person Mozart 
himself, rather it refers to the. sound of his music. On the other 
hand, ill S12 my parents refers actually to my parent's ad- 
vice. Thus, a reference might refer to an object which merely 
represents the intended referent. 
Therefore, categories of lexical items as they appear in the 
text, or selectional restrictions \[Chomsky65\] present a very weak 
method for disambiguation, and generally should not provide the 
only key for phrase selection, in fact, the identity of referents for 
indirect references inust be resolved through the embedding 
phrase. The identity of the phrase itself is determined by the con- 
text, as shown in the previous section. 
3.2 A Coml)lement-Taldng Phrase 
Ambiguity appears also in complement-taking phrases such 
as ask, promise, instruct~ inform, etc. Consider tile follow- 
ing set of sentences: 
S13: John asked her if she was having hulch . 
S14: The judge asked Mary to approach the bench . 
S15: Mary asked the judge to give her a break . 
Although they all involve the word ask, in each sentence ask 
appears in a different sense (query, command, and appeal, 
respectively). What is the representation of the phrase for ask, 
and how are these sentences disambiguated? Two extreme ap- 
proaches to lexical representation are: 
249 
(1) Maintain only a single lexical entry which contains all the 
knowledge of the word ask and all of its possible interac- 
tions. This model is best presented by the word-expert ap- 
proach \[Rieger77\]. In this model, general linguistic 
knowledge is encoded repeatedly in individual words. 
(2) Maintain a lexical entry for each phrase sense. Clearly this 
second extreme is not feasible since it is impossible to 
predict all possible situations in which ask might appear. 
In RINA, there are two lexical entries, representing two basic 
senses of ask. 
P6: 
pattern : 
concept : 
?X ask ?y ?z:question-sentence 
?x inform ?y that knowing ?z 
is a goal of ?x 
P7: 
pattern: ?x ask ?y ?z:infinitive-phrase 
concept: ?x inform ?y that ?z is a goal of ?x 
Accordingly, the meaning of a sentence is constructed in two 
steps: 
(a) The syntax of the complement determines whether to select 
P6 or PT. In S13, P6 is selected due to the question form of 
its complement. In S14 and S15, P7 is selected due to the 
infinitive form of its complement. 
(b) The meaning of the phrase is constructed by interpreting the 
concept relative to the context. 
The context in both $14 and S15 is the asymmetrical authority 
relationship. Thus, the asking act in S14 is taken as an 
authority-decree, while in S15 the same asking act is interpreted 
as authority-appeal. It is important to distinguish between these 
two meanings so that the parser can maintain the appropriate ex- 
pectations in each case. 
In conclusion, the lexicon must ensure that linguistic clues 
(such as the syntactic form of the complement) be exploited in 
constructing the meaning. However, the lexicon should not con- 
tain meanings which could be inferred by general world 
knowledge. 
5. Phrase Acquisition 
So far, we have assumed the existence of necessary phrases 
in the lexicon. However, in reality a program might encounter 
new phrases in the text. Thus, the program must accomplish two 
objectives: (a) pm'se the text in spite of the unknown element, 
and (b) acquire the unknown element for future encounters. 
Consider the situation in which the figurative phrase is first en- 
countered. 
User: The mobster eluded prosecution for years. 
Last month, they threw the book at him for 
income-tax evasion. 
RINA: The prosecutor propelled a book at him? 
User: No. A judge threw the book at him. 
RINA: The judge threw the book at him. He found him 
guilty. 
And later on: 
User: The dean of the school threw the book at John. 
RINA: He punished him. 
There are three stages in the acquisition process: 
(1) Apply the literal interpretation. 
(2) Acquire the figurative phrase. 
(3) Generalize the new phrase beyond the specific context. 
Literal Interpretation 
In the absence of the appropriate phrase in the lexicon, 
RINA utilizes other available knowledge sources, namely (a) the 
literal interpretation and (b) the context. The literal interpreta- 
tion is given by the phrase: 
pattern ?x:person throw ?y:phys-obj <at ?z:person> 
concept (act (propel (actor ?x) 
(object ?y) 
(to (location-of ?z)))) 
(purpose (thwart (goal p-goal) 
(goal-of ?x))) 
Figure 3: Propel a Phys-Obj 
This phrase describes propelling an object in order to hit another 
person. Notice that no situation has been specified. General 
phrases such as take, give, catch, and throw do not have a 
specified situation since they can be applied in many situations.* 
The literal inteq3retation fails by plan/goal analysis. In the con- 
text laid down by the first phrase (prosecution has active-goal to 
punish the criminal), "propelling a book" does not serve the 
prosecution's goals. In spite of the discrepancy, RINA spells out 
that interpretation, The prosecutor propelled a book at 
him? to notify the user about her state of knowledge. 
The Trial Context 
The user's second sentence, (a Judge threw the book 
at. him), and specifically the reference a judge, brings in $trial 
(the trial-script). This script involves five entities: (a) Judge, (b) 
Prosecutor, (c) Defendant, (d) Alleged-Crime, (e) the Law re- 
garding that crime and its punishment. The script involves a se- 
quence of events: 
(a) The Prosecutor says (mtrans) his arguments. 
(b) The Defendant says his arguments. 
(c) The Judge decides (select-plan) either: 
(i) Punish (thwarts a goal of) Defendant. 
(2) Do not punish him. 
Figure 4: The Acts in $trial 
This script is used in forming the elements of the lexical 
phrase. 
(a) The phrase situation is taken as the script itself. 
(b) Thepattern is extracted from the sample sentence. 
(c) The concept is extracted from the script. 
Forming the Pattern 
Four rules are used in extracting the linguistic pattern fl'om 
the sentence: 
$13: Last month, they threw the book at him for 
income-tax evasion. 
(a) Initially, use an existing literal pattern. In this case, tile ini- 
tial pattern is: 
?x:person throw:verb ?z:phys-obj <at ?y:person> 
Figure 5: The Initial Pattern 
* Notice tile distinction between preconditions and situation. While a 
precondition for "throwing a ball" is "first holding it", this is not part of the 
phrase situation. Conditions which are implied by common sense or world 
knowledge do not belong in the lexicon. 
250 
(b) Examine other cases in the sample sentenece, and include in 
the pattern cases which could not be interpreted by general 
interpretation. There are two such cases: 
(1) Last month could be interpreted as a general time ad- 
verb (i.e.: last year he was still enrolled at 
UCLA, the vacation startedlast week, etc.). 
(2) For income-tax evasion can be interpreted as a 
element-paid-for adverb (i.e.: he paid dearly for his 
crime, he was sentenced for a murder he did not 
commit, etc.). 
Thus, both these cases are excluded. 
(c) Variablize references which can be instantiated in the con- 
text. In our case ?x is the Judge and ?y is the DefEndant. 
They are maintained as wtriables, as opposed to the other 
case: 
(d) FrEEze references which cannot be iaslantiatcd in the con- 
text. No referent is fonnd for the reference the book. 
Therefore, that reference is taken as a frozen part of tile pat- 
tern instead of the case ?z :phys-obj. 
The resulting pattern is: 
?x:person throw:verb <the book> <at ?y:person> 
Figure 6: Tile Resulting PattErn 
Forming the Concept 
In selecting the concept of the phrase, there arc four possi- 
bilities, namely the events shown in Figure 4. The choice of the 
appropriate one among these four events is facilitated by linguis- 
tic clues. AS opposed to the phrase they threw the book to 
him which implies cooperation between the characters, the phrase 
they threw the book at him implies a goal conflict between 
the characters. Since this property is shared among many verbs, 
it is encoded in the lexicon as a general phrase: 
pattern ?x:person ?v:verb ?y:physobj <at ?z:person> 
concept (act (propel (actor ?x) 
(object ?y) 
(to (location-of ?z)))) 
(purpose (thwart (goal p-goal) 
(goal-of ?x))) 
Figure 7: Propel At, a General Phrase 
Notice that rather than having a specific root, the pattern of this 
phrase leaves ont the root of the verb as a variable. Using this 
phrase concept as a search pattern, the "punishment-decision" is 
selected f,'om $trial. Thus, the phrase acquired so far is: 
pattern ?x:person throw <the book> <at ?y:person> 
concept (select-plan 
(actor ?x) 
(plan (result (thwart (goal p-goa\].) 
(goal-of ?y))))) 
situation ($trial (judge ?x) 
(defendant ?y)) 
Figure 8: The Acquired Phrase 
Phrase Generalization 
Although RINA has acquired the phrase in a specific con- 
text, she might hear the phrase in a different context. She should 
be able to transfer the phrase across specific contexts by generali- 
zation. RINA generalizes phrase meanings by analogical map- 
ping. Thus, when hearing the sentence below, an analogy is 
found between the two contexts. 
SI6: The third time he caught John cheating in an 
exam, the professor threw tile book at him. 
The trial-script is indexed to a general authority relation- 
ship. The actions in a trial are explained by the existence of that 
relationship. For example, by saying something to the Judge, tile 
Defendant does not dictate the outcome of the situation. He 
merely informs the Judge with some facts in order to influence 
the verdict. On the other hand, by his decision, tile Judge does 
determine the outcome of the situation since he presents an au- 
thority. 
ThrEe similarities are found between Ihe $trial and the scene 
involving John and the professor. 
(a) The authority relationship between ?X and ?y. 
(b) A law-violation by ?x. 
(c) A decision by ?x. 
Therefore, the phrase situation is generalized fiom the specific 
trial-script into the general authority-decree situation which en- 
compasses both examples. 
6. Presupposilions as a Phrase Situallon 
A message might be conveyed by an utterance beyond its 
straightforward illocntion. That message, called tile presul)posi- 
tion of the utterance, is described by Keenan (1971) as follows: 
(see also \[Grice75\] and \[Fauconnier85\] Ch. 3): 
The presuppositions of a sEntEnce are those conditions 
that the world must meet in order for the sentence to 
make literal sense. Thus if some such condition is not 
met, for some sentence S, then either S makes no sense at 
all or else it is understood in some nonlitcral way, for ex- 
ample as a joke or metaphor. 
Despite this definition, presupposition has been studied as a 
means for generation and propagation of implications \[Gazdm'79, 
Karttunen79\]. In general, the effort is to compute the part of the 
sentence which is already giwm, by applying "backward" reason- 
ing, i.e.: from the sentence the king of France is bald 
determine if indeed there is a king in France, or fro,n the sen- 
tence it was not John who broke the glass, determine 
whether somebody indeed broke the glass. Rather than use 
presuppositions to develop further inferences, we investigate how 
presuppositions are actually applied according to Keenan's 
definition above, namely, in determining appropriate utterance 
interpretations. In the phrasal lexicon, we equate presul)position 
with phrase situation. 
7. Conclusions 
Dyer (1983) on the one hand, has outlined the use of con- 
textual expectations in disambignation. In his model, the lExi- 
con, and expectations in partieular, were expressed procedurally 
rather than delaratively. Wilensky (1984) on the other hand, 
developed the notion of the dEclarativE phrasal lexicon. Itowever 
his model failed to distinguish explicitly betwEEn a phrase and its 
contextual expectations. In our model, within the declarative 
phrasal lexicon the meaning of lexicaI entries is separated into a 
concept and phrasal situation. Contextual expectations take part 
in learning as well as in parsing. In learning, the concept is asso- 
ciated with the salient element, while expectations are associated 
with the surrounding context. In parsing, only successful nmtch- 
ing of expectations in the context enables the instantiation of the 
concept. 
251 
\[Becker75\] 
\[Carbonel184\] 
\[CharniakS0\] 
\[Chomsky65\] 
\[Fauconnier85\] 
\[Fi1Imore86\] 
\[Gazdar79\] 
\[Grice751 
\[Hershkovits85\] 
\[Km'ttunen79\] 
References 

Becker, Joseph D., "The Phrasal Lexicon," 
pp. 70-73 in Proceedings Interdisciplinary 
Workshop on Theoretical Is'sues in Natural 
Language Processing, Cambridge, Mas- 
saehusets (June 1975). 

Carbonell, J. G. and P. J. Hayes, "Coping 
with Extragrammaticality," pp. 437-443 in 
Proceedings Coling84, Stanford California 
(1984). 

Charniak, El, C. Riesbeck, and D. McDer- 
mott, Artificial Intelligence Programming, 
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, 
New Jersey (1980). 

Chomsky, N., Aspects of the Theory of Syn- 
tax, MIT Press, Cambridge MA (1965). 

Fauconnier, Gilles, Mental Spaces: Aspects 
of Meaning Construction in Natural 
Language, MIT Press, Cambridge MA 
(1985). 

Fillraore, C., P. Kay, and M. O'Connor, Re- 
gularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical 
Constructions: The Case of Let alone, UC 
Berkeley, Department of Linguistics (1986). 
Unpublished Manuscript. 

Gazdm', Gerald, "A Solution to the Projec- 
tion Problem," pp. 57-87 in Syntax and Se- 
mantics (Volume 11: Presupposition), ed. 
Choon-Kyu Oh David A. Dinneen, Academic 
Press, New-York (1979). 

Grice, H. P., "Logic and Conversation," in 
Syntax and Semantics (volume 3: Speech 
Acts'), ed. P. Cole J. Morgan, Academic 
Press, NY (1975). 

Hershkovits, Annette, "Semantics and Prag- 
matics of Locative Expressions," Cognitive 
Science 9(3) (1985). 

Karttunen, L. and S. Peters, "Conventional 
Implicature," in Syntax and Semantics 
(Volume 11, Presupposition), ed. C. K. Oh 
D. Dinneen, Academic Press, NY (1979). 

Kay, Martin, "Functional Grammar," pp. 
142-158 in Proceedings 5th Annual Meeting 
of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, Berkeley, 
California (1979). 

Keenan, Edward L., "Two Kinds of Presup- 
position in Natural Language," pp. 44-52 in 
Studies in Linguistic Semantics, ed. Charles 
Fillmore D. T. Langendoen, Holt, Reinhart 
and Winston, New York (1971). 

Pawley, A. and H. Syder, "Two Puzzles for 
Linguistic Theory: Nativelike Selection and 
Nativelike Fluency," in Language and Com- 
munication, ed. J. C. Richards R. W. 
Schmidt, Longman, London (1983). 

Rieger, Chuck, "Viewing Parsing as Word 
Sense Discrimination," 511, Department of 
Computer Science, University of Maryland, 
College Park, Maryland (January 1977). 

Searle, J., "Speech Acts and Recent Linguis- 
tics," in Expression and Meaning, ed. J. 
Sem'le, Cambridge University Press, Cam- 
bridge (1979). 

Wilensky, R., Y. Arens, and D. Chin, "Talko 
ing to UNIX in English: an Overview of 
UC," Communications of the ACM 27(6), 
pp.574-593 (June 1984). 

Zernik, Uri and Michael G. Dyer, "Towards 
a Self-Extending Phrasal Lexicon," in 
Proceedings 23rd Annual Meeting of the Aso 
sociation for Coml)utational Linguistics, Chi- 
cago IL (July 1985). 

Zemik, Uri and Michael G. Dyer, "Failure- 
Driven Aquisition of Figurative Phrases by 
Second Language Speakers," in Proceedings 
of the 7th Annual Conference of the Cogni- 
tive Science Society, Irvine CA (August 
1985). 

Zernik, Uri and Michael G. Dyer, "Learning 
Phrases in Context," in Proceedings The 3rd 
Machine Learning Workshop, New- 
Brunswick NJ (June 1985). 
