<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="P98-2187">
  <Title>A Generative Lexicon Perspective for Adjectival Modification</Title>
  <Section position="5" start_page="1145" end_page="1147" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
3 Generative Devices and Semantic
Composition
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Let us now analyze from a GL point of view the meanings of the adjective bon.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> In (Pustejovsky 95), to deal with the compound adjective+noun, a predicate in the telic of the noun is considered. For example, fast, modifying a noun such as typist, is represented as follows: Ae \[type'(e,x) A fast(e)\] where e denotes an event. This formula says that the event of typing is fa~t. A similar representation is given for long, in a long record. This approach is appropriate to represent temporal notions in a coarse-grained way, i.e. the event is said to be fast (with e.g. potential inferences on its expected duration) or long. But this approach is not viable for both, and many other adjectives with little or no temporal dimension. In:</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> it is not the typing event which is 'good' but the way the typing has been performed (certainly fast, but also with no typos, good layout, etc.). A precise event should not be considered in isolation, but the representation should express that, in general, someone types well, allowing exceptions (some average or bad typing events). This involves a quantification, more or less explicit, over typing events of x. Finally, bon being polysemous, a single representation is not sufficient to accomodate all the senses.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> As introduced in section 1, the semantic representation framework we consider here is the LCS. The nature of its primitives and its low-level granularity seem to be appropriate for our current purpose. Underdetermined structures are represented by a typed ,k-calculus.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> 3.1 sense 1: Bon = that works well This first sense applies to any noun of type tool, machine or technique: a good car, a good screwdriver. The semantic representation of bon requires a predicate from the telic role of the Qualia structure of the noun. It is the set (potentially infinite) of those predicates that characterizes the polymor= phism. We have here a typical situation of selective binding (Pustejovsky 91), where the representation of the adjective is a priori largely underspecified. Let us assume that any noun which can be modified by bon has a telic role in which the main function(s) of the object is described (e.g. execute programmes for a computer, run for a car 5), then the semantics of the compound adjective + noun can be defined as follows: Let N be a noun of semantic type a., and of Qualia: \[..., Telic: T, ...\] where T denotes the set of predicates associated with the telic role of the noun N. Let Y the variable associated with N and let us assume that T is a list of predicates of the form Fi(_,-). Then the LCS-based representation of bon is: A Y : a, )~ Fi, \[~tate BE+cm, r,+,dent(\[thin9 Y \], \[+p~op ABILITY - TO(Fi(Y, _)) = high \])\] .</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> which means that the entity denoted by the noun works well, expressed by the evaluation function ABILITY-TO and the value 'high'. This type of low-level function abounds in the LCS, this principle is introduced in (Jackendoff 97). Note that tile second argument of the predicate Fi does not need to be explicit (we use the Prolog notation '_' for these positions).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> The Qualia allows us to introduce in a direct way a pragmatic or interpretative dimension via the instanciation of Fi (_, _).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8"> 5Less prototypical predicates can also be considered, e.g. comfort or security for a car, which are properties probably described in the constitutive role of the Qualia of car.  The constant 'high' can be replaced by a more accurate representation, e.g. 'above average', but the problem of evaluating a functionality remains open. More generally, the introduction of low level functions, such as ABILITY-TO, and specific values, such as 'low', should be introduced in a principled way, following the definition of ontologies of different domains, e.g. action, intensities, etc. This is quite challenging, but necessary for any accurate semantic framework.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="9"> Note finally that instead of quantifying over events, bon is described as a state: the functionalities of the object remain good, even when it is not used effectively. If several functionalities are at stake, we may have a conjunction or a more complex combination of functions Fi.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="10"> From a compositional point of view, the combination Adjective + Noun is treated as follows, where R is the semantic representation of the adjective, T, the contents of the telic role of the Qualia of the noun N of type o, r, a particular element of T, and Y, the variable associated with the noun:</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="12"> The open position in R(Y) is instanciated by ~3reduction. The selection of Fi is simple: for basic tools, there is probably only one predicate in the Qualia (screw-driver -+ screw), for more complex nouns, there is a,, ambiguity which is reflected by the non-deterruilfistic choice of Fi, but probably organized with preferences, which should be added in the Qualia. \[t is the constraint on the type of Y that restricts the application of that semantic composition rule. This notation is particularly simple and convenient.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="13"> Metaphors are treated in a direct way: the constraint on the type of Y can be enlarged to:</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="15"> and the remainder of the semantic composition rule and semantic formula remains unchanged. We have, for example: metaphor(communication - act, tool) (joke). metaphor(communication - path, tool) (road). which is paraphrased as 'communication path viewed as a tool'.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="16"> We have evaluated that, in French, there are about 12 frequent forms of metaphors for this sense. The study of this first sense suggests that the introduction of a hierarchy of preferences would be a useful extension to the Telic role, reflecting forms of prototypicality among predicates.</Paragraph>
    <Section position="1" start_page="1146" end_page="1146" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
3.2 Sense 2: Bon restricted to cognitive or
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> moral qualities Another seuse o\[' bon modifies nouns of type profession or human. The treatment is the same as in the above section, but the selection of the predicate(s) r = Fi(X,Y) in the telic of the noun's qualia must be restricted to properties related to the moral behavior (makes-charity, has-compassion, has-integrity) when the noun is a person; and to some psychological attitudes and cognitive capabilities when the noun denotes a profession (e.g. a good composer). Alternatively, some of these properties could be found in the constitutive role (approximately the part-of relation), if properties can be parts of entities.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> The typing of the predicates in the Qualia roles can be done in two ways, (1) by means of labels identifying the different facets of a role, as in (Bergler 91) for report verbs, but these facets are often quite ad'hoc and hard to define, or (2) by means of types directly associated with each predicate. These types can, for example, directly reflect different verb semantic classes as those defined in (Levin 93) or (Saint-Dizier 96) on a syntactic basis, or the major ontological classes of WordNet or EuroWordNet and their respective subdivisions. This solution is preferable, since it does not involve ally additional development of the Telic role, but simply the adjunction of types from a separate, pre-defined ontology. The WordNet or EuroWordNet types also seem to be quite easy to handle and well-adapted to the phenomena we model. This remains to be validated on a large scale.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> An LCS representation for this sense of bon is, assuming the following types for Fi: )~ Y : human, F, : action - related- toprofession v moral - behavior, Y : a.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3"> \[..,a,C/ BE+char,+ia~,,(\[,h,,,9 Y \], \[+prop ABILITY - TO{F~(Y, _)) = high \])\] .</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="4"> When several predicates are at stake, a set of Fi(Y,-) can be considered in the representation, or the statement is ambiguous.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="5"> Metonymies such as a good scalpel are resolved by the general rule: 'tools for professions'. This information could be in a knowledge base or, alternatively, it can be infered from the Telic role of the tool: any instrument has a predicate in its telic role that describes its use: the type of the first argument of the predicate is directly related to the profession that uses it. For example, scalpel has ill its telic role: cut(X : surgeon V biologist, Y : body).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="6"> When the profession is identified, the standard procedure for determining the meaning of the compound can be applied. Metonymies using the part-of relation are quite simple to resolve using the constitutive role, as in the GL.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
    <Section position="2" start_page="1146" end_page="1147" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
3.3 Sense 3: Bon as all intensifier
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> Another main role of bon is to emphasize a quality of the object denoted by the noun. As shown in section 2, there is a certain action associated with the telic of the modified noun that produces a certain pleasure.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1">  For example, watching a good film entails a certain pleasure.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> Let us consider again a noun N of type a (e.g. edible object) associated with the variable Y. The entity (human) undergoing the pleasure is not explicit in the NP, it is represented by X, and included in the scope of a A-abstraction. Let Fi(X, Y) be the predicate selected in the telic role of N. The LCS representation is then: AX : human, Y: a, Fi(X,Y) \[e,~C/,u CAUSE(\[ .... , F,(X, Y)\], \[state BE+p~u(\[th,n9 X \], L~t,ee AT+,su(\[+pt,cC/ pleasure 1)1)1)\].</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3"> We have here another form of representation for bon, where Fi is a CAUSE.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="4"> The term 'pleasure' is an element of an ontology describing e.g. mental attitudes and feelings. It is relatively generic and can be replaced by a more precise term, via selective projection (see below for sense 5), depending on the nature of the pleasure.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="5"> An alternative representation describes a path towards the value 'pleasure', giving an idea of progression: null  Notice that this sense of bon does not imply an idea of quantity: a good meal does not entail that the meal is big, a good temperature does not entail that the temperature is high, but rather mikl. The semantic composition rule is similar as in 3.1. The metonymy 'container for containee&amp;quot; (a good bottle) is resolved by a type shifting on Y. Y lnay be of type fl iff: 3 Z : a, Y : container A container- for(Y, Z). Inferences are identical for e.g. a good CD.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="6"> 3,4 Sense 5: Bon = exact or eorreet We have here a situation of selective projection: the exact meaning of bon is projected from the type of the modified noun and the type of the predicate selected in the noun's Telic role.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="7"> For example, if the noun is of type bank - note V ticket and the type of the predicate selected in the noun's Telic role is pay V give - access - to, then the meaning of bon is 'valid': XX : bank -- note V ticket, \[,t~tC/ BE+C/ha~,+,a,,t(\[,hina X 1, L~,o- AT+~h.r,+,a~,. (\[+.~o~vaUd(X)\])\])\].</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="8"> The constraint, on the type of the telic role is stated in the semantic composition rule: sea-composition (Adj (R),Noun(X,Qualia(T))) = AX : bank - note v ticket, 3Fi(_,_) : pay v give - access - to E T, (N(X) ^ n(x)).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="9"> It is necessary to have both a constraint on the noun and on the predicate(s) in the telic role: (1) the type of the predicate in the telic role is certainly not a sufficient constraint , e.g. every noun's telic role in which there is the predicate pay cannot be combined with bon with sense 5; (2) the constraint on the type of the noun is also not sufficient, e.g. a medecine is a kind of food, but we don't eat it. 4 Representing the core meaning of a word-sense The work presented here has shown the necessity of describing the semantics of a lexical item at a relatively 'deep' level, ill order to make explicit the meaning elements subject to alterations in the sense. variations shown above. It turns out, so far, that these elements can be represented by LCS primitives and a few functions and values, assumed to belong to general-purpose, and often commonly-admitted, ontologies. This remains an assumption since this type of ontological knowledge is still under development, but the elements used are relatively simple and standard. Besides ontologies, and not very far from them, we also find information contained in the noun's Qualias, but in a less structured way, making selection more difficult.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="10"> Core meaning definition requires a good analysis of a word-sense and of its behavior in different contexts. This is however not so difficult to elaborate once the formalism is stabilized. Also, we noted that semantically close words share a lot, making descriptions easier. This is in particular true for verbs. Besides adjectives, we have also studied a number of different types of verbs, as e.g. the verb couper (cut), often used as an example in the literature. Its core representation would be the following: A I, J \[ .... , CAUSE(\[th,,,9 1 \], \[ .... , aoA(x, L.o,~ Y \])\])\].</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="11"> with the following values for the core sense:</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="13"> For the metaphor: 'to cut a conversation/ a film, etc...', the values for the above variables become:</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="15"> where ACTIVE(J) is an elementary property of an ontology describing the status of events. A conversation is viewed as a flow which becomes non-active. A similar treatment is observed for other types of metaphors, with elliptic forms, such as couper l'eau/ l'dlectricitd/les crddits, also viewed as flows. The property AVAILABLE(J) will then be used, which is at a comparable abstract level in an ontology than ACTIVE(J).</Paragraph>
    </Section>
  </Section>
  <Section position="6" start_page="1147" end_page="1148" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
5 Long-distance COlnpositionality
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> The NP a good meat is related to senses 2 or 5, it therefore includes in its domain of meanings structures presented in sections 3.2 and 3.4. Instead of  choosing one solution solution (a generate and test strategy), a set can be provided (as in constraint programming). Now, if we have an NP of the form: une viande bonne d consommer, then the parsing of consommer will provoque the selection of sense 5 (and subsense 'fresh/consumable' via selective projection) because of the type of consommer. If, conversely, we have une viande bonne d, ddguster, then, since d~guster is of type 'eat.enjoy' (a dotted type in the GL), sense 2 is selected. The space of meanings is restricted when additional information is found.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> A second case involves default reasoning (as in (Pernelle 98)). In un bon couteau pour sculpter (a good knife to carve), by default, the action that the knife performs well is that protypically found in its telic role. But, if a less prototypical action is found explicitly in thesentence, then this latter is prefered and incorporated into the semantic representation instead of the default case. Indeed, the telic role describes prototypical actions, since the others are often unpredictable. The default meaning of bon is kept and 'frozen' until the whole sentence has been parsed. If there is no contracdiction with that sense, then it is assigned to the adjective, otherwise, it is discarded in favor of the sense explicitly found in the sentence.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> Finally, we consider the expressions Y makes a good X, Y is a good X as collocations where good is not fully treated compositionally.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>