<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C92-4177">
  <Title>A System for Simpler Construction of Practi-</Title>
  <Section position="9" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="concl">
    <SectionTitle>
6 Discussion
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> As expected, the results from each corpus differ considerably; we believe this is due primarily to surface tagging vs. full parsing. The results from the second method using ESG do not carry the noise from the ambiguous VBG tag from the Brown corpus. However, there are two important points to be made: (1) One million words is simply not enough. More data need to be (and will be) run to get a more complete and accurate count.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> These are to be viewed as preliminary data, us~ able but not complete. (2) The value V,(.0000) AcrEs DF.COLING-92, NANTES, 23-28 Aour 1992 l 1 3 0 PREC. OV COL1NG-92, NANTES, AUG. 23-28, 1992 cannot be considered categorical. Verbs are generally adaptable in context, s It is a known fact that value* either for words with low frequencies or words in low frequency constructions must be computed on very large corpora (Liberman 1989.) The current limitations of this approach must be clearly stated. First of all, this method conrates the polysemons usages of certain verbs and, in English, of the verb-particle construction. It could be argued that with enough corpus data, this would become unimportant, but we believe this position not correct. What is required is a fuller analysis of adjuncts in order to know if n verb has been coerced. For example, it could be the case that a verb which is S in the anmarked case (i.e. in a neutral context) tends to appear as a T verb frequently, since that verb might not occur frequently in a null context at all. As another example, consider the case of a typical stative verb &amp;quot;know&amp;quot;. With the object &amp;quot;answer&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;know&amp;quot; becomes typically inchoative, e.g. &amp;quot;know the answer by tomorrow&amp;quot; meaning &amp;quot;become knowledgeable of the answer&amp;quot;, or it could be used in the transition sense, e.g. &amp;quot;he will know the answer by tomorrow&amp;quot; meaning &amp;quot;he does not know now and will know then.&amp;quot; Thus, it could be underlying semantic structure, and not surface syntactic behavior, that determines coercion possibilities. 9 In conclusion, The DEGREE APPROACH captures the fact that verbs have degrees of e-type, i.e. that some verbs are more pliable than others. Thus, rather than the non-degree values in Figure One, we argue for entries like:</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> A corpus-breed method can be used to antomatlcally derive values for e-type, i.e. under n certain cut-off, the verb is stative, but alternbh in context. More importantly, it gives a degree of likelihood that given any context, the verb will be used statively or non-statively.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> *This is a tact which any semanticist who is trying to argue a firm point can at*el* to.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> tAho, there appear to be some clashes on the resulting values and intuitions, thus leading to the suggeJtion that either our intuitions are not correct or that the method it unreliable. We have not, in fact, addressed the issue of underlyin~ semantic representation (e.g. in terms of prim. itivea) in this paper. It has been suggested that syntactic tests \[or aspect might be flawed, and that the only way to distinguish aspectual classes it via the semantic consequences ot a restive vs. non0tative proposition. If correct, the approach of extracting values based on syntactic tests will fail by definition, regardless of whether the value, are assigned manually or automatically.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>