<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="W91-0218">
  <Title>General Lexical Representation for an Effect Predicate</Title>
  <Section position="2" start_page="0" end_page="198" type="intro">
    <SectionTitle>
1 Introduction
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> When considering the question of whether or not lexical information can be separated from real-world knowledge, it must first be recognized that most lexical information in a natural language processing system is expressed in terms of properties defined in a knowledge base representing the domain model - i.e., the &amp;quot;world,&amp;quot; whether real or otherwise. For example, semantic class constraints consist of properties such as animate or machine-part which are associated with generic entities. Semantics is often described as the link between syntax and the knowledge base, so by definition it must have one foot in the knowledge base camp. In the absence of concrete examples of lexical facts or rules that are provably more difficult to represent than real-world knowledge, it also seems reasonable to assume that the knowledge representation formalism used for the domain model could serve to model the associated lexical information. This is not intended to imply that it will be possible to fully represent all of both types of information.. Formalisms for knowledge representation have been acknowledged to be inadequate for representing real-world knowledge, let alone lexical information \[1\]. It does make it especially burdensome to prove that a formalism that is inadequate for real world knowledge is even more inadequate for lexical information.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> The question remains, is there lexical information which is uniquely &amp;quot;lexical&amp;quot; in that it can be distinguished from real-world knowledge albeit it may be expressed identically? This paper argues for the affirmative response. Given the approach to semantic representation implemented in PUNDIT and KERNEL \[2\], \[3\], \[10\] which is closely aligned to Jackendoff's lexical conceptual structures \[4\], \[5\], it is argued that the definitions of thematic relations such as cause and effect correspond to &amp;quot;uniquely lexical&amp;quot; items of information.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>