<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C90-2007">
  <Title>Lexical Ambiguity and The Role of Knowledge Representation in Lexicon Design</Title>
  <Section position="3" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="intro">
    <SectionTitle>
36 I.
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> nization. As a result, the natural language interl)retation tasks these lexica support acquire (or inherit) similar view to lexical ambiguity, which then necessitates a particular approach to disambiguation. Furthermore, dictionaries and lexicons currently are of a distinctly static nature: the division into separate word senses not only precludes permeability; it also fails to account for the creative use of words in novel contexts. In contrast, rather than taking a 'snapshot' of language at any moment of time and freezing it into lists of word sense specifications, the model of the lexicon proposed here does not preclude extendability: it is open-ended in nature and accounts for the novel, creative, uses of words in a variety of contexts by positing procedures for generating semantic expressions for words on the basis of particular contexts. null In tbe remainder of this paper we will illustrate a particular theory of lexical semantics, following Pustejovsky \[forthcoming\] which promotes the notion of a generative lexicon. In particular, we brietly discuss certain types of lexical ambiguity, demonstrate how traditional methods of mnbiguity resolution fail to scale up for these (and other) cases, and then outline an approach to sernantie interpretation embodying richer methods of compositionality.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> As we also show below, the lexical model we pro&gt; pose has the effect of greatly reducing the size of the lexicon. Moreover, it bears directly on issues of o&gt; ganization and content of computational lexicons, as the model now embodies strong assumptions about the kinds of lexical aspects of words essential for natural language processing. The generative theory of lexical semantics, then, imposes a strong focus on current efforts to extract lexical data from large on-line text resources (dictionaries and corpora): it not only offers a uniform representational framework for expressing the data extracted by the tools and methods of computational lexicography (cf. Boguraev and Briscoe, \[1989\]), but also offers guidance on tl, e kinds of lexical data -- or distinctions in ttle lexical behavior of words --- which should be sought in such resources (cf. Boguracv et al., \[1990\]).</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>