<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="P96-1005">
  <Title>From Submit to Submitted via Submission: On Lexical Rules in Large-Scale Lexicon Acquisition.</Title>
  <Section position="6" start_page="36" end_page="37" type="concl">
    <SectionTitle>
5 Conclusion
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> In this paper, we have discussed several aspects of the discovery, representation, and implementation of LRs, where, we believe, they count, namely, in the actual process of developing a realistic-size, real-life NLP system. Our LRs tend to be large-scope rules, which saves us a lot of time and effort on massive lexical acquisition.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Research reported in this paper has exhibited a finer grain size of description of morphemic semantics by recognizing more meaning components of non-root morphemes than usually acknowledged.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> The reported research concentrated on lexical rules for derivational morphology. The same mechanism has been shown, in small-scale experiments, to work for other kinds of lexical regularities, notably cases of regular polysemy (e.g., (Ostler and Atkins, 1992), (Apresjan, 1974)).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> Our treatment of transcategoriality allows for a lexicon superentry to contain senses which are not simply enumerated. The set of entries in a superentry can be seen as an hierarchy of a few &amp;quot;original&amp;quot; senses and a number of senses derived from them according to well-defined rules. Thus, the argument between the sense-enumeration and sense-derivation schools in computational lexicography may be shown to be of less importance than suggested by recent literature. null Our lexical rules are quite different from the lexical rules used in lexical\]y-based grammars (such as (GPSG, (Gazdar et al., 1985) or sign-based theories (HPSG, (Pollard and Sag, 1987)), as the latter can rather be viewed as linking rules and often deal with issues such as subcategorization.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> The issue of when to apply the lexical rules in a computational environment is relatively new. More studies must be made to determine the most beneficial place of LRs in a computational process.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> Finally, it is also clear that each LR comes at a certain human-labor and computational expense, and if the applicability, or &amp;quot;payload,&amp;quot; of a rule is limited, its use may not be worth the extra effort. We cannot say at this point that LRs provide any advantages in computation or quality of the deliverables. What  we do know is that, when used justifiably and maintained at a large scope, they facilitate tremendously the costly but unavoidable process of semi-automatic lexical acquisition.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>