| { |
| "paper_id": "T75-2007", |
| "header": { |
| "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", |
| "date_generated": "2023-01-19T07:43:22.829659Z" |
| }, |
| "title": "COMMENTS ON LEXICAL ANALYSIS*", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "George", |
| "middle": [ |
| "A" |
| ], |
| "last": "Miller", |
| "suffix": "", |
| "affiliation": {}, |
| "email": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": "", |
| "venue": null, |
| "identifiers": {}, |
| "abstract": "", |
| "pdf_parse": { |
| "paper_id": "T75-2007", |
| "_pdf_hash": "", |
| "abstract": [], |
| "body_text": [ |
| { |
| "text": "Although programs can be imagined that might use lexical information in different ways, the information base that is exploited must be invariant over alternative programs.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The present paper is concerned with the lexical information that must be represented, rather than with programming devices for representing it. First, an analysis scheme will be illustrated through a study of a single English verb.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Then the scheme will be used as background for a discussion of some fundamental theoretical issues.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Hand:. An exercise in Lexical Analvsis Consider the verb \"hand\" as it is used in:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(I) a. She handed her hat to him.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "b. She handed him her hat.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "A paraphrase of (I) that captures all of the components of meaning to be disuussed here is:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(2) She had her hat prior to some time t at which she used her hand to do something that caused her hat to travel to him, after which time he had her hat.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The difference between (la) and (Ib) is usually regarded as syntactic, (Ib) deriving from the structure underlying (la) as a consequence of a dative-movement transformation that inverts the order of the direct and indirect objects and deletes \"to\". Some people, however, detect a difference in meaning: \"She handed her hat to him,\" they say, merely suggests that he took it, whereas \"She handed him her hat\" asserts that he took it --the sense expressed in (2). If one respects this difference in meaning, and also holds to the semantic neutrality of such grammatical transformations as dative movement, then presumably one must distinguish two different meanings of \"hand\" --one resembling 'offer\" and another offer-and-take.\" If one does not respect this meaning difference, both (la) and (Ib) have the \"offer-and-take\" sense.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In either case, it is the sense paraphrased in (2) that will be considered here. HAND(x,y,z) . Then (I) can be represented (to a first approximation) by: MAN, and HAT are not uninteresting concepts --in particular, men and women have\" hands (inalienable possession) , whereas hats do not, and men and women can have\" hats (either accidental possession or ownership), but not vice versa --but the present discussion is confined to HAND, which will be analyzed to illustrate the need for certain very general lexical concepts.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 81, |
| "end": 92, |
| "text": "HAND(x,y,z)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 154, |
| "end": 277, |
| "text": "MAN, and HAT are not uninteresting concepts --in particular, men and women have\" hands (inalienable possession)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(3) (~X,F,z)[WOMAN(x) &MAN(y) &HAND(x,F,Z)] WOMAN,", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Consider first the temporal shape of the handing episode in (I). It begins in the state: \"she has her hat and he does not have it\". Then an event occurs at time t which results in a change of state. And the episode ends in the state: \"she does not have her hat and he does have it\". of verbs that denote events. Note that the first conjunct of (4) will ordinarily be presupposed; that is to say, \"S didn't happen\" is not ordinarily taken to mean \"R~(S) for all t.\"", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "HAPPEN:", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The two state characterizations --\"she had it and he didn't\" and \"she didn't have it and he did\" --are clearly redundant. The fact that a hat cannot be in two places at the same time (which must be part of a language user's general knowledge) merely compounds the redundancy of such state descriptions for double-object verbs of motion.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "HAPPEN:", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "However, it is a general characteristic of double-object verbs, not limited to motion verbs like \"hand\", that, in some sense of the ambiguous verb \"have\", the event ends with the indirect object \"having\" the direct object (Green, 1974 ). In the case of \"hand\", either x or y, but not both, will have z at any moment t; since y has z after t, x cannot also have it.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 222, |
| "end": 234, |
| "text": "(Green, 1974", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "HAPPEN:", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "On the other hand, if x \"tells\" y some information z, x does no~t stop having z after t.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "HAPPEN:", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "What is common to both, however, is that y does not have z before t. Thus, the simplest state description is S = HAVE(y,z), in which case the antecedent state would be notS.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "HAPPEN:", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Since nots seems to be presupposed by HAND, (4) would be satisfied. the meaning of \"hand\" must be:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "HAPPEN:", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(5) HAPPEN(HAVE(y,z)) = GET(y,z)", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "HAPPEN:", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Discussion of HAVE will be omitted here; see Bendix (1966) ", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 45, |
| "end": 58, |
| "text": "Bendix (1966)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "HAPPEN:", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(6) USE(x,hand,S x) & CAUSE(S~,(TO(TRAVEL))(Z,F))", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "HAPPEN:", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Because the concepts associated with these operators --instrumentality, agency, causality, and motion --are required in the analysis of many English verbs, they will be discussed individually.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "HAPPEN:", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The first conjunct of (6) corresponds", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "USE:", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "to \"x uses hand to S~\" or, more generally, USE(x,w,S,) is \"x uses w to Sx,\" as in \"Tom used a knife to open the box.\" A fuller paraphrase would be: \"x intentionally does something S that causes w to do something S\" that allows Sx.\" \"Use\" contrasts with instumental \"with\" in being intentional: \"He broke the window with his elbow\" is not synonymous with \"He used his elbow to break the window.\" If we introduce an operator ACT to represent intentional acts, then USE can be defined:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "USE:", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(7) USE(x,w,S~) = ACT(x,S) & CAUSE(S,DO(w,S')) & ALLOW(S',S~)", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "USE:", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "This formulation adds two more operators --ACT and ALLOW --for which an account must be given. Lacking any clear psychological theory, POSSIBLE can be taken as a primitive, undefined term. ALLOW: \"Cause\" and \"allow\" are closely related, as a comparison of (9) with the following formulation shoud show:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "USE:", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(10) ALLOW(S,S') = BEFORE(HAPPEN(S),HAPPEN(S')) & notPOSSIBLE (notS & S')", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "USE:", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Note that, although it is impossible for S\" to occur unless S has occurred, the occurrence of S does not insure the subsequent occurrence of S'; that is to say, (S and notS') may well be possible. BEFORE: Sentences of the form \"S before S'\" can be interpreted to mean that there is some moment t such that S has been realized at t and S\"", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "USE:", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "has not yet been realized --that there is an interval between the first realization of S and the first realization of S'.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "USE:", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In terms of the temporal operator R:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "USE:", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(11) BEFORE(S,S\" (~to)[(3t)[t<t~ & R~(S)] &)nit & R~(S')]J (3t)[t<t~ TRAVEL:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "USE:", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "According to Miller (1972), verbs of motion constitute a semantic field of English having \"change of location\" or, more briefly, \"travel\", as the core concept. It is sufficient evidence that something has traveled if one notices that it has appeared where it wasn't before, or if one notices that it is no longer where it was before. These conditions are accommodated by: for an appropriate choice of the location y as the origin or destination of motion. The first disjunct represents \"z travels to y\" and the second \"z travels from y. according to which x's action merely allows y to get z, rather than causes y to get z. (Note, incidentially, that the number of different primes into which an integer can be factored has little to do with the \"complexity\" of that integer, except in very special tasks; that is to say, for most tasks, reaction times to an integer would not correlate with its number of prime factors.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "USE:", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Presumably the same could be said of the lexical version of this hypothesis.)", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "USE:", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "INDIVIDUALITY: Probably the weakest claim one would care to make is that each individual lexical item is a unique prime in its own right; just as one person cannot be decomposed into some combination of other persons, so no lexical item can be decomposed into others. Various shared properties might be used to partition the lexicon, and varous relations might be found to hold between many pairs of lexical items, but such properties and relations could not be regarded as conceptual atoms from which lexical items are bult or to which they can be reduced. (2) the method of incorpoation is left unspecified, but would surely be more complex than taking a Cartesian product; and (3) there is no guarantee that decomposition will be complete without introducing more cognitive entities than there are lexical items to be defined, i.e., the problem of the residuum is unresolved. But a sort of limited decomposition would be possible. ", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "COMPLETE", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "back_matter": [], |
| "bib_entries": {}, |
| "ref_entries": { |
| "FIGREF0": { |
| "num": null, |
| "text": "12) TRAVEL(z) = (~F)[HAPPEN(AT(z,F)) or HAPPEN(notAT(z,y))]", |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "uris": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF1": { |
| "num": null, |
| "text": "(TO(HAND))(x,z,y) : USE(x,hand,Sx) & CAUSE(S~,(TO)TRAVEL))(Z,F)) & ALLOW(TRAVEL(z),GET(y,z))", |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "uris": null |
| }, |
| "TABREF3": { |
| "html": null, |
| "content": "<table><tr><td/><td colspan=\"8\">Actually, of course, two things</td><td>happen</td></tr><tr><td>in</td><td colspan=\"3\">handing:</td><td colspan=\"5\">the object changes location as</td></tr><tr><td>well</td><td>as</td><td/><td colspan=\"3\">possessor.</td><td colspan=\"3\">Indeed,</td><td>the</td><td>former</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">change</td><td colspan=\"2\">seems</td><td colspan=\"5\">to be causally related to the</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">latter.</td><td/><td>So,</td><td>in</td><td colspan=\"2\">order</td><td>to</td><td>complete</td><td>the</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">analysis,</td><td>it</td><td colspan=\"5\">is necessary to conside~ also</td></tr><tr><td>what</td><td colspan=\"3\">happens</td><td>at</td><td>t</td><td>that</td><td/><td>results</td><td>in</td><td>the</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">transition</td><td colspan=\"2\">from</td><td colspan=\"4\">notHAVE(y,z) to HAVE(y,z).</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">Roughly, x uses x's hand</td><td>to</td><td>d~</td><td>something,</td></tr><tr><td>and</td><td colspan=\"2\">what</td><td>x</td><td>does</td><td/><td colspan=\"3\">causes z to travel to y.</td></tr><tr><td>This</td><td colspan=\"4\">paraphrase</td><td/><td colspan=\"3\">introduces</td><td>four</td><td>new</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">operators --USE,</td><td/><td>DO,</td><td/><td>CAUSE,</td><td>and</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"8\">TRAVEL --which can combine</td><td>as</td><td>follows</td><td>to</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"9\">provide additional parts of HAND:</td></tr></table>", |
| "text": "or Miller and Johnson-Laird.", |
| "num": null, |
| "type_str": "table" |
| } |
| } |
| } |
| } |
