1/47

The Lexicon: An Interdisciplinary Introduction

Elisabetta JezekUniversity of Pavia

August, 6-10, 2018ESSLLI 2018

St. Kliment Ohridski UniversitySofia, Bulgaria

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

2/47

Course Outline

Lecture 1. Basics on lexicon, word types, and concept-wordmapping.

Lecture 2. The global structure of the Lexicon: word classesand word relations.

Lecture 3. Varieties of linguistic evidence in favour ofcontext-sensitive models of lexical meaning.

Lecture 4. Lexical information and its interplay withcognition and pragmatic inference.

Lecture 5. The meaning of verbs and its representation incompositional vector space models.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

3/47

Context-sensitive model of lexical semantics

The data analysed so far provide evidence that semanticflexibility is a property of natural language.

The meaning of each word is expected to vary fromoccurrence to occurrence as a function of the interactionwith the other words it combines with, and of the situation ofutterance (Recanati 2012).

Functional notion of polysemy.

Formal models propose that context-sensitivity is not confinedto words with functional roles (traditionally verbs andadjectives), but extends e.g. to nouns (see Pustejovsky’squalia theory).

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

3/47

Context-sensitive model of lexical semantics

The data analysed so far provide evidence that semanticflexibility is a property of natural language.

The meaning of each word is expected to vary fromoccurrence to occurrence as a function of the interactionwith the other words it combines with, and of the situation ofutterance (Recanati 2012).

Functional notion of polysemy.

Formal models propose that context-sensitivity is not confinedto words with functional roles (traditionally verbs andadjectives), but extends e.g. to nouns (see Pustejovsky’squalia theory).

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

3/47

Context-sensitive model of lexical semantics

The data analysed so far provide evidence that semanticflexibility is a property of natural language.

The meaning of each word is expected to vary fromoccurrence to occurrence as a function of the interactionwith the other words it combines with, and of the situation ofutterance (Recanati 2012).

Functional notion of polysemy.

Formal models propose that context-sensitivity is not confinedto words with functional roles (traditionally verbs andadjectives), but extends e.g. to nouns (see Pustejovsky’squalia theory).

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

3/47

Context-sensitive model of lexical semantics

The data analysed so far provide evidence that semanticflexibility is a property of natural language.

The meaning of each word is expected to vary fromoccurrence to occurrence as a function of the interactionwith the other words it combines with, and of the situation ofutterance (Recanati 2012).

Functional notion of polysemy.

Formal models propose that context-sensitivity is not confinedto words with functional roles (traditionally verbs andadjectives), but extends e.g. to nouns (see Pustejovsky’squalia theory).

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

4/47

Models and methods for context-sensitive lexical semantics

What is the best model (formal, distributional,probabilistic) to predict the observed contextual variation inword meanings?

Can a single model serve both linguistic and computationalpurposes?

To what extent statistics about word context and exploitationof co-occurrence information (distributionally-representedknowledge) can serve as a proxy for semantic grounding – andhow can it inform us about compositionality in language?

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

4/47

Models and methods for context-sensitive lexical semantics

What is the best model (formal, distributional,probabilistic) to predict the observed contextual variation inword meanings?

Can a single model serve both linguistic and computationalpurposes?

To what extent statistics about word context and exploitationof co-occurrence information (distributionally-representedknowledge) can serve as a proxy for semantic grounding – andhow can it inform us about compositionality in language?

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

4/47

Models and methods for context-sensitive lexical semantics

What is the best model (formal, distributional,probabilistic) to predict the observed contextual variation inword meanings?

Can a single model serve both linguistic and computationalpurposes?

To what extent statistics about word context and exploitationof co-occurrence information (distributionally-representedknowledge) can serve as a proxy for semantic grounding – andhow can it inform us about compositionality in language?

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

5/47

Requirements for models context-sensitive lexical semantics

We argue that a basic requirement of a context-sensitivelexical semantic model is, above all, a clear standpoint withrespect to the interplay between the lexicon, cognition andpragmatic processes.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

6/47

Lexical semantics and its interface with cognition and useSynthesis from Jezek 2016, The Lexicon: An Introduction, OUP, ch. 2

Words denote classes of entities and are associated withconceptual categories, for example a dog denotes an animal , atable denotes an artifact, bread denotes a kind of food , a parkdenotes a location, run denotes a process, love denotes astate, and so forth.

A conceptual category may be analyzed as a set of salientattributes or properties, for example the concept dog hasproperties: breathes, barks, wags its tail, has fur, and so forth(Baroni and Lenci, 2008, Poesio and Almuhareb 2008).

But which properties of a concept are genuinely distinctiveand enter into the lexical make-up of a word and which onesdo not?

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

6/47

Lexical semantics and its interface with cognition and useSynthesis from Jezek 2016, The Lexicon: An Introduction, OUP, ch. 2

Words denote classes of entities and are associated withconceptual categories, for example a dog denotes an animal , atable denotes an artifact, bread denotes a kind of food , a parkdenotes a location, run denotes a process, love denotes astate, and so forth.

A conceptual category may be analyzed as a set of salientattributes or properties, for example the concept dog hasproperties: breathes, barks, wags its tail, has fur, and so forth(Baroni and Lenci, 2008, Poesio and Almuhareb 2008).

But which properties of a concept are genuinely distinctiveand enter into the lexical make-up of a word and which onesdo not?

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

6/47

Lexical semantics and its interface with cognition and useSynthesis from Jezek 2016, The Lexicon: An Introduction, OUP, ch. 2

Words denote classes of entities and are associated withconceptual categories, for example a dog denotes an animal , atable denotes an artifact, bread denotes a kind of food , a parkdenotes a location, run denotes a process, love denotes astate, and so forth.

A conceptual category may be analyzed as a set of salientattributes or properties, for example the concept dog hasproperties: breathes, barks, wags its tail, has fur, and so forth(Baroni and Lenci, 2008, Poesio and Almuhareb 2008).

But which properties of a concept are genuinely distinctiveand enter into the lexical make-up of a word and which onesdo not?

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

7/47

Lexicon and world knowledge

There are deep controversies regarding what piece ofinformation associated with a word should enter into itsdefinition, and constitute what is called its lexicalinformation.

Traditionally, it is assumed that world / commonsense /encyclopedic knowledge should be excluded.

This amounts to the large body of knowledge that peoplepossess about the entities and events denoted by words as aresult of their experience of the world.

It has to do with the speaker’s perception of the world, andthe analogies speakers establish between objects and events,rather than with their linguistic knowledge.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

7/47

Lexicon and world knowledge

There are deep controversies regarding what piece ofinformation associated with a word should enter into itsdefinition, and constitute what is called its lexicalinformation.

Traditionally, it is assumed that world / commonsense /encyclopedic knowledge should be excluded.

This amounts to the large body of knowledge that peoplepossess about the entities and events denoted by words as aresult of their experience of the world.

It has to do with the speaker’s perception of the world, andthe analogies speakers establish between objects and events,rather than with their linguistic knowledge.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

7/47

Lexicon and world knowledge

There are deep controversies regarding what piece ofinformation associated with a word should enter into itsdefinition, and constitute what is called its lexicalinformation.

Traditionally, it is assumed that world / commonsense /encyclopedic knowledge should be excluded.

This amounts to the large body of knowledge that peoplepossess about the entities and events denoted by words as aresult of their experience of the world.

It has to do with the speaker’s perception of the world, andthe analogies speakers establish between objects and events,rather than with their linguistic knowledge.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

7/47

Lexicon and world knowledge

There are deep controversies regarding what piece ofinformation associated with a word should enter into itsdefinition, and constitute what is called its lexicalinformation.

Traditionally, it is assumed that world / commonsense /encyclopedic knowledge should be excluded.

This amounts to the large body of knowledge that peoplepossess about the entities and events denoted by words as aresult of their experience of the world.

It has to do with the speaker’s perception of the world, andthe analogies speakers establish between objects and events,rather than with their linguistic knowledge.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

8/47

Lexicon and world knowledge

The distinction is very difficult to draw.

According to some authors, it is not even necessary.

Others believe it should be conceived as a continuum ratherthan a dichotomy.

Opinions differ because there is no consensus about whatcriteria must be satisfied for a piece of information to qualifyas encyclopedic knowledge instead of linguistic meaning, orvice versa.

Those who make a distinction take different positions on thesubject.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

8/47

Lexicon and world knowledge

The distinction is very difficult to draw.

According to some authors, it is not even necessary.

Others believe it should be conceived as a continuum ratherthan a dichotomy.

Opinions differ because there is no consensus about whatcriteria must be satisfied for a piece of information to qualifyas encyclopedic knowledge instead of linguistic meaning, orvice versa.

Those who make a distinction take different positions on thesubject.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

8/47

Lexicon and world knowledge

The distinction is very difficult to draw.

According to some authors, it is not even necessary.

Others believe it should be conceived as a continuum ratherthan a dichotomy.

Opinions differ because there is no consensus about whatcriteria must be satisfied for a piece of information to qualifyas encyclopedic knowledge instead of linguistic meaning, orvice versa.

Those who make a distinction take different positions on thesubject.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

8/47

Lexicon and world knowledge

The distinction is very difficult to draw.

According to some authors, it is not even necessary.

Others believe it should be conceived as a continuum ratherthan a dichotomy.

Opinions differ because there is no consensus about whatcriteria must be satisfied for a piece of information to qualifyas encyclopedic knowledge instead of linguistic meaning, orvice versa.

Those who make a distinction take different positions on thesubject.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

8/47

Lexicon and world knowledge

The distinction is very difficult to draw.

According to some authors, it is not even necessary.

Others believe it should be conceived as a continuum ratherthan a dichotomy.

Opinions differ because there is no consensus about whatcriteria must be satisfied for a piece of information to qualifyas encyclopedic knowledge instead of linguistic meaning, orvice versa.

Those who make a distinction take different positions on thesubject.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

9/47

Minimalism

According to the minimalist position, nothing of what weknow about, say, the entity called dog is part of the lexicalinformation associated with the word dog, except for thosefeatures that are necessary to define it as a domestic animal(as opposed to a wild one) and allow us to distinguish it fromother entities falling into the same category.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

10/47

Maximalism

According to the maximalist position, the opposite is insteadtrue, that is, the lexical information associated with the worddog incorporates our knowledge that dogs can be aggressive(and therefore bite and attack), that they have an acute senseof smell, that they like to chase cats, and so on.

This additional knowledge about dogs is what we know fromour individual experience.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

10/47

Maximalism

According to the maximalist position, the opposite is insteadtrue, that is, the lexical information associated with the worddog incorporates our knowledge that dogs can be aggressive(and therefore bite and attack), that they have an acute senseof smell, that they like to chase cats, and so on.

This additional knowledge about dogs is what we know fromour individual experience.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

11/47

No distinction

A radical position is that taken by those who hold that thedistinction between lexical information and world /encyclopedic / commonsense knowledge is artificial or useless,and should be eliminated.

According to this position, words give access to concepts,and all the properties that enter into the constitution of aconcept can in principle be exploited in language through theuse of words.

The contexts in which words are used determine whichproperty/ies of the concept is/are activated in the specificcase.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

11/47

No distinction

A radical position is that taken by those who hold that thedistinction between lexical information and world /encyclopedic / commonsense knowledge is artificial or useless,and should be eliminated.

According to this position, words give access to concepts,and all the properties that enter into the constitution of aconcept can in principle be exploited in language through theuse of words.

The contexts in which words are used determine whichproperty/ies of the concept is/are activated in the specificcase.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

11/47

No distinction

A radical position is that taken by those who hold that thedistinction between lexical information and world /encyclopedic / commonsense knowledge is artificial or useless,and should be eliminated.

According to this position, words give access to concepts,and all the properties that enter into the constitution of aconcept can in principle be exploited in language through theuse of words.

The contexts in which words are used determine whichproperty/ies of the concept is/are activated in the specificcase.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

12/47

No distinction

The lexicon is interpreted as the access node into the vastrepository of information associated with conceptualcategories.

This position is dominant in cognitive semantics andpragmatics (Sperber and Wilson 1995; Carston 2002), wherecontext-dependency is dealt with at the conceptual level(instead of at the lexical level).

Ad-hoc concepts (Barsalou 1983, 2010; Wilson and Carston 2007)General extenders (“whales, candlelight and stuff like that” Overstreet 1999).

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

12/47

No distinction

The lexicon is interpreted as the access node into the vastrepository of information associated with conceptualcategories.

This position is dominant in cognitive semantics andpragmatics (Sperber and Wilson 1995; Carston 2002), wherecontext-dependency is dealt with at the conceptual level(instead of at the lexical level).

Ad-hoc concepts (Barsalou 1983, 2010; Wilson and Carston 2007)General extenders (“whales, candlelight and stuff like that” Overstreet 1999).

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

12/47

No distinction

The lexicon is interpreted as the access node into the vastrepository of information associated with conceptualcategories.

This position is dominant in cognitive semantics andpragmatics (Sperber and Wilson 1995; Carston 2002), wherecontext-dependency is dealt with at the conceptual level(instead of at the lexical level).

Ad-hoc concepts (Barsalou 1983, 2010; Wilson and Carston 2007)General extenders (“whales, candlelight and stuff like that” Overstreet 1999).

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

13/47

Atomic view of concepts

Atomic concepts provide access to various kinds of mentallyrepresented information, in particular encyclopaedicinformation about the entities that fall in their denotation.

Wilson and Carston 2007.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

14/47

Atomic view of concepts

Will Sally look after the children if we get ill?

Sally is an angel.

ANGEL* = SUPERNATURAL BEING OF A CERTAIN KIND

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

14/47

Atomic view of concepts

Will Sally look after the children if we get ill?

Sally is an angel.

ANGEL* = SUPERNATURAL BEING OF A CERTAIN KIND

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

14/47

Atomic view of concepts

Will Sally look after the children if we get ill?

Sally is an angel.

ANGEL* = SUPERNATURAL BEING OF A CERTAIN KIND

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

15/47

Concepts and encyclopaedic information

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

16/47

Concepts and encyclopaedic information

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

17/47

Ad-hoc categories

Ad-hoc concepts (Barsalou 1983, 2010)

General extenders (“whales, candlelight and stuff like that”,Overstreet 1999).

Construal (Croft and Cruse 2004).

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

17/47

Ad-hoc categories

Ad-hoc concepts (Barsalou 1983, 2010)

General extenders (“whales, candlelight and stuff like that”,Overstreet 1999).

Construal (Croft and Cruse 2004).

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

17/47

Ad-hoc categories

Ad-hoc concepts (Barsalou 1983, 2010)

General extenders (“whales, candlelight and stuff like that”,Overstreet 1999).

Construal (Croft and Cruse 2004).

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

17/47

Ad-hoc categories

Ad-hoc concepts (Barsalou 1983, 2010)

General extenders (“whales, candlelight and stuff like that”,Overstreet 1999).

Construal (Croft and Cruse 2004).

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

18/47

Ad-hoc categories

‘Things to take on a picnic’

‘Things on a desk that could be used to drive in a nail’

‘Things that can fall on your head’

‘Good things to stand on to change a light bulb’

Barsalou 1983.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

18/47

Ad-hoc categories

‘Things to take on a picnic’

‘Things on a desk that could be used to drive in a nail’

‘Things that can fall on your head’

‘Good things to stand on to change a light bulb’

Barsalou 1983.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

18/47

Ad-hoc categories

‘Things to take on a picnic’

‘Things on a desk that could be used to drive in a nail’

‘Things that can fall on your head’

‘Good things to stand on to change a light bulb’

Barsalou 1983.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

18/47

Ad-hoc categories

‘Things to take on a picnic’

‘Things on a desk that could be used to drive in a nail’

‘Things that can fall on your head’

‘Good things to stand on to change a light bulb’

Barsalou 1983.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

18/47

Ad-hoc categories

‘Things to take on a picnic’

‘Things on a desk that could be used to drive in a nail’

‘Things that can fall on your head’

‘Good things to stand on to change a light bulb’

Barsalou 1983.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

19/47

General Extenders

Overstreet 1999.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

20/47

General Extenders

“e/o * N del genere”, “e/o simili”

‘and/or something similar’, ‘and/or N like that’

Jezek and Mauri 2017 “Ad Hoc Categories and the Lexicon”, Universityof Pavia, University of Bologna, manuscript

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

20/47

General Extenders

“e/o * N del genere”, “e/o simili”

‘and/or something similar’, ‘and/or N like that’

Jezek and Mauri 2017 “Ad Hoc Categories and the Lexicon”, Universityof Pavia, University of Bologna, manuscript

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

21/47

General Extenders

“leve, dentini, ruote, <o roba del genere>”

‘levers, teeth, wheels, <or stuff like that>”

“Nessuno era ubriaco <o cose del genere>”

‘Nobody was drunk <or stuff like that>’

“aspettavamo mappe interattive <e amenita del genere>”

‘we expected to see interactive maps <and similar amenities>’

“l’intuizione <e cose del genere>”

‘intuition <and stuff like that>’

“cibo leggero, panini <e roba del genere>”

“light food, sandwiches <and stuff like that>’

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

21/47

General Extenders

“leve, dentini, ruote, <o roba del genere>”

‘levers, teeth, wheels, <or stuff like that>”

“Nessuno era ubriaco <o cose del genere>”

‘Nobody was drunk <or stuff like that>’

“aspettavamo mappe interattive <e amenita del genere>”

‘we expected to see interactive maps <and similar amenities>’

“l’intuizione <e cose del genere>”

‘intuition <and stuff like that>’

“cibo leggero, panini <e roba del genere>”

“light food, sandwiches <and stuff like that>’

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

21/47

General Extenders

“leve, dentini, ruote, <o roba del genere>”

‘levers, teeth, wheels, <or stuff like that>”

“Nessuno era ubriaco <o cose del genere>”

‘Nobody was drunk <or stuff like that>’

“aspettavamo mappe interattive <e amenita del genere>”

‘we expected to see interactive maps <and similar amenities>’

“l’intuizione <e cose del genere>”

‘intuition <and stuff like that>’

“cibo leggero, panini <e roba del genere>”

“light food, sandwiches <and stuff like that>’

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

21/47

General Extenders

“leve, dentini, ruote, <o roba del genere>”

‘levers, teeth, wheels, <or stuff like that>”

“Nessuno era ubriaco <o cose del genere>”

‘Nobody was drunk <or stuff like that>’

“aspettavamo mappe interattive <e amenita del genere>”

‘we expected to see interactive maps <and similar amenities>’

“l’intuizione <e cose del genere>”

‘intuition <and stuff like that>’

“cibo leggero, panini <e roba del genere>”

“light food, sandwiches <and stuff like that>’

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

21/47

General Extenders

“leve, dentini, ruote, <o roba del genere>”

‘levers, teeth, wheels, <or stuff like that>”

“Nessuno era ubriaco <o cose del genere>”

‘Nobody was drunk <or stuff like that>’

“aspettavamo mappe interattive <e amenita del genere>”

‘we expected to see interactive maps <and similar amenities>’

“l’intuizione <e cose del genere>”

‘intuition <and stuff like that>’

“cibo leggero, panini <e roba del genere>”

“light food, sandwiches <and stuff like that>’

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

21/47

General Extenders

“leve, dentini, ruote, <o roba del genere>”

‘levers, teeth, wheels, <or stuff like that>”

“Nessuno era ubriaco <o cose del genere>”

‘Nobody was drunk <or stuff like that>’

“aspettavamo mappe interattive <e amenita del genere>”

‘we expected to see interactive maps <and similar amenities>’

“l’intuizione <e cose del genere>”

‘intuition <and stuff like that>’

“cibo leggero, panini <e roba del genere>”

“light food, sandwiches <and stuff like that>’

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

22/47

General Extenders

“benzina, candeggina <e simili> che provocano lesioni”

‘petrol, bleach <and similar things> that may cause injuries’

“paragrafi, titoli di tabelle <e simili>”

‘paragraphs, table captions’ <and similar things>’

“piastrelle, parquet <o simili>”

‘floor tiles, parquet <or similar things>’

The category exists in some cases, but the word is missing.

In other cases, the category is created ad-hoc to satisfycommunicative needs.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

22/47

General Extenders

“benzina, candeggina <e simili> che provocano lesioni”

‘petrol, bleach <and similar things> that may cause injuries’

“paragrafi, titoli di tabelle <e simili>”

‘paragraphs, table captions’ <and similar things>’

“piastrelle, parquet <o simili>”

‘floor tiles, parquet <or similar things>’

The category exists in some cases, but the word is missing.

In other cases, the category is created ad-hoc to satisfycommunicative needs.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

22/47

General Extenders

“benzina, candeggina <e simili> che provocano lesioni”

‘petrol, bleach <and similar things> that may cause injuries’

“paragrafi, titoli di tabelle <e simili>”

‘paragraphs, table captions’ <and similar things>’

“piastrelle, parquet <o simili>”

‘floor tiles, parquet <or similar things>’

The category exists in some cases, but the word is missing.

In other cases, the category is created ad-hoc to satisfycommunicative needs.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

22/47

General Extenders

“benzina, candeggina <e simili> che provocano lesioni”

‘petrol, bleach <and similar things> that may cause injuries’

“paragrafi, titoli di tabelle <e simili>”

‘paragraphs, table captions’ <and similar things>’

“piastrelle, parquet <o simili>”

‘floor tiles, parquet <or similar things>’

The category exists in some cases, but the word is missing.

In other cases, the category is created ad-hoc to satisfycommunicative needs.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

22/47

General Extenders

“benzina, candeggina <e simili> che provocano lesioni”

‘petrol, bleach <and similar things> that may cause injuries’

“paragrafi, titoli di tabelle <e simili>”

‘paragraphs, table captions’ <and similar things>’

“piastrelle, parquet <o simili>”

‘floor tiles, parquet <or similar things>’

The category exists in some cases, but the word is missing.

In other cases, the category is created ad-hoc to satisfycommunicative needs.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

22/47

General Extenders

“benzina, candeggina <e simili> che provocano lesioni”

‘petrol, bleach <and similar things> that may cause injuries’

“paragrafi, titoli di tabelle <e simili>”

‘paragraphs, table captions’ <and similar things>’

“piastrelle, parquet <o simili>”

‘floor tiles, parquet <or similar things>’

The category exists in some cases, but the word is missing.

In other cases, the category is created ad-hoc to satisfycommunicative needs.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

22/47

General Extenders

“benzina, candeggina <e simili> che provocano lesioni”

‘petrol, bleach <and similar things> that may cause injuries’

“paragrafi, titoli di tabelle <e simili>”

‘paragraphs, table captions’ <and similar things>’

“piastrelle, parquet <o simili>”

‘floor tiles, parquet <or similar things>’

The category exists in some cases, but the word is missing.

In other cases, the category is created ad-hoc to satisfycommunicative needs.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

23/47

Meaning Eliminativism (ME)

Extreme version of contextualism (Recanati, 2004).

We don’t need abstract scheme in the form ofcontext-independent linguistic meaning as input to thecomposition process.

This can proceed without the help of conventionalizedcontext-independent word meanings.

ME gets rid of abstract meaning in favour of observedoccasion of particular uses.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

23/47

Meaning Eliminativism (ME)

Extreme version of contextualism (Recanati, 2004).

We don’t need abstract scheme in the form ofcontext-independent linguistic meaning as input to thecomposition process.

This can proceed without the help of conventionalizedcontext-independent word meanings.

ME gets rid of abstract meaning in favour of observedoccasion of particular uses.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

23/47

Meaning Eliminativism (ME)

Extreme version of contextualism (Recanati, 2004).

We don’t need abstract scheme in the form ofcontext-independent linguistic meaning as input to thecomposition process.

This can proceed without the help of conventionalizedcontext-independent word meanings.

ME gets rid of abstract meaning in favour of observedoccasion of particular uses.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

23/47

Meaning Eliminativism (ME)

Extreme version of contextualism (Recanati, 2004).

We don’t need abstract scheme in the form ofcontext-independent linguistic meaning as input to thecomposition process.

This can proceed without the help of conventionalizedcontext-independent word meanings.

ME gets rid of abstract meaning in favour of observedoccasion of particular uses.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

24/47

Why the ME and the no-distinction are not tenable

We argue that the position according to which there is nodistinction between lexical meaning and conceptual contentand that the construction of interpretation is entirely a matterof context is not tenable.

Language models which follow this view are deemed to fail inaccounting for semantic composition in natural language.There are at least three different types of arguments for thisclaim.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

24/47

Why the ME and the no-distinction are not tenable

We argue that the position according to which there is nodistinction between lexical meaning and conceptual contentand that the construction of interpretation is entirely a matterof context is not tenable.

Language models which follow this view are deemed to fail inaccounting for semantic composition in natural language.There are at least three different types of arguments for thisclaim.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

25/47

Why the ME and the no-distinction are not tenable

First, if we allow that context does all the work required toobtain the assignment of explicit semantic values to wordoccurrences, the range of interpreted values assignable to agiven lexical entry is in principle unlimited.

In this perspective, there is nothing preventing speakers fromuttering a word instead of another in their speech, which isobviously not the case.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

25/47

Why the ME and the no-distinction are not tenable

First, if we allow that context does all the work required toobtain the assignment of explicit semantic values to wordoccurrences, the range of interpreted values assignable to agiven lexical entry is in principle unlimited.

In this perspective, there is nothing preventing speakers fromuttering a word instead of another in their speech, which isobviously not the case.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

26/47

Why the ME and the no-distinction are not tenable

Second, there clearly is stability in the assignment of semanticvalues to lexical items across speakers.

Language users converge in their judgments regardingconditions of applications of words.

Both these aspects support the idea that lexical meaningshave a robust psychological reality.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

26/47

Why the ME and the no-distinction are not tenable

Second, there clearly is stability in the assignment of semanticvalues to lexical items across speakers.

Language users converge in their judgments regardingconditions of applications of words.

Both these aspects support the idea that lexical meaningshave a robust psychological reality.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

26/47

Why the ME and the no-distinction are not tenable

Second, there clearly is stability in the assignment of semanticvalues to lexical items across speakers.

Language users converge in their judgments regardingconditions of applications of words.

Both these aspects support the idea that lexical meaningshave a robust psychological reality.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

26/47

Why the ME and the no-distinction are not tenable

Second, there clearly is stability in the assignment of semanticvalues to lexical items across speakers.

Language users converge in their judgments regardingconditions of applications of words.

Both these aspects support the idea that lexical meaningshave a robust psychological reality.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

27/47

Why the ME and the no-distinction are not tenable

Third, there are constraints to the way we can stretch themeaning of words in the context of use.

These constraints do not appear to be systematicallypredictable on the basis of conceptual knowledge, suggestingthat constraints operate not only at the cognitive level butalso at the lexical semantics level, and there exists adistinction between the two.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

27/47

Why the ME and the no-distinction are not tenable

Third, there are constraints to the way we can stretch themeaning of words in the context of use.

These constraints do not appear to be systematicallypredictable on the basis of conceptual knowledge, suggestingthat constraints operate not only at the cognitive level butalso at the lexical semantics level, and there exists adistinction between the two.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

28/47

Corpus Investigation

Consider the the concepts expressed by the following wordsand the relations existing among them: museo ‘museum’,quadro ‘painting’ and collezione ‘collection’.

museo denotes both the location where paintings are stored,and the institution which is in charge of exhibiting them;

quadro is the prototypical object associated with theexhibit event; specifically, the participant playing the role ofTheme;

collezione refers to a group of accumulated paintings, usuallyconsidered as a whole because of the way it was put together.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

28/47

Corpus Investigation

Consider the the concepts expressed by the following wordsand the relations existing among them: museo ‘museum’,quadro ‘painting’ and collezione ‘collection’.

museo denotes both the location where paintings are stored,and the institution which is in charge of exhibiting them;

quadro is the prototypical object associated with theexhibit event; specifically, the participant playing the role ofTheme;

collezione refers to a group of accumulated paintings, usuallyconsidered as a whole because of the way it was put together.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

28/47

Corpus Investigation

Consider the the concepts expressed by the following wordsand the relations existing among them: museo ‘museum’,quadro ‘painting’ and collezione ‘collection’.

museo denotes both the location where paintings are stored,and the institution which is in charge of exhibiting them;

quadro is the prototypical object associated with theexhibit event; specifically, the participant playing the role ofTheme;

collezione refers to a group of accumulated paintings, usuallyconsidered as a whole because of the way it was put together.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

28/47

Corpus Investigation

Consider the the concepts expressed by the following wordsand the relations existing among them: museo ‘museum’,quadro ‘painting’ and collezione ‘collection’.

museo denotes both the location where paintings are stored,and the institution which is in charge of exhibiting them;

quadro is the prototypical object associated with theexhibit event; specifically, the participant playing the role ofTheme;

collezione refers to a group of accumulated paintings, usuallyconsidered as a whole because of the way it was put together.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

29/47

Corpus Investigation

The concepts expressed by these three words are clearlyrelated.

There exists:

a containment relation between quadro and museo;

a part of relation between quadro and collezione;

a relation of participation between quadro and the relationalconcept expressed by exhibit.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

29/47

Corpus Investigation

The concepts expressed by these three words are clearlyrelated.

There exists:

a containment relation between quadro and museo;

a part of relation between quadro and collezione;

a relation of participation between quadro and the relationalconcept expressed by exhibit.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

29/47

Corpus Investigation

The concepts expressed by these three words are clearlyrelated.

There exists:

a containment relation between quadro and museo;

a part of relation between quadro and collezione;

a relation of participation between quadro and the relationalconcept expressed by exhibit.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

29/47

Corpus Investigation

The concepts expressed by these three words are clearlyrelated.

There exists:

a containment relation between quadro and museo;

a part of relation between quadro and collezione;

a relation of participation between quadro and the relationalconcept expressed by exhibit.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

29/47

Corpus Investigation

The concepts expressed by these three words are clearlyrelated.

There exists:

a containment relation between quadro and museo;

a part of relation between quadro and collezione;

a relation of participation between quadro and the relationalconcept expressed by exhibit.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

30/47

Corpus data

(1) a. “Il museo apre alle alle 9.00”. (1627 hits)‘The museum opens at 9.00b. “La collezione apre alle 9.00. (446 hits)‘The collection opens at 9.00.c. “I quadri aprono alle 9.00”. (0 hits)‘The paintings open at 9.00’.

Corpus ItTenTen (4.9 billion words) queried through the Sketch Engine(Kilgarriff et al 2014) using CQL.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

31/47

Results

Words which are cognitively related such as collezione andquadro (being collection a word that denotes both the act andthe result of gathering together a number of painting) exhibitin the data different semantic behaviors in composition withrespect to the extent to which their meaning is stretched.

There appear to be constraints to the way we stretch themeaning of words, which are not necessarily motivatedcognitively.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

31/47

Results

Words which are cognitively related such as collezione andquadro (being collection a word that denotes both the act andthe result of gathering together a number of painting) exhibitin the data different semantic behaviors in composition withrespect to the extent to which their meaning is stretched.

There appear to be constraints to the way we stretch themeaning of words, which are not necessarily motivatedcognitively.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

32/47

Results

One might argue that this is related to conventions inlanguage.

We content that this is precisely the argument in favour ofdistinguishing conceptual knowledge from the actualknowledge associated with lexical items of a specific language,and constitutes its semantics.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

32/47

Results

One might argue that this is related to conventions inlanguage.

We content that this is precisely the argument in favour ofdistinguishing conceptual knowledge from the actualknowledge associated with lexical items of a specific language,and constitutes its semantics.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

33/47

Gradability

We theorize that besides being constrained, stretchingphenomena are graded, that is, they vary depending on howmuch the lexical content is exploited or enriched in thecontext of use.

Jezek, E. 2017 “Stretching the Meaning of Words”, Clasp Papers in

Computational Linguistics, University of Gothenburg

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

34/47

Human judgments

We run an experiment to obtain human judgements on a totalof 100 verb-object and subj-verb contextualised dyads, where2 annotators were asked to rate how literal theinterpretation of the highlighted noun in the given dyadwas, within a span of 1 (literal) to 5 (shifted in context), anda tag for semantically not acceptable (odd).

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

35/47

Annotation Task

We proposed the task as follows:

“How literal is the interpretation of the highlighted word inthe contexts below? Rate it from 1 (literal) to 5 (shifted incontext) and use the last column if you think the example issemantically odd or non interpretable.”

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

35/47

Annotation Task

We proposed the task as follows:

“How literal is the interpretation of the highlighted word inthe contexts below? Rate it from 1 (literal) to 5 (shifted incontext) and use the last column if you think the example issemantically odd or non interpretable.”

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

36/47

Dataset

The dyads consist of corpus-derived examples of matching(42) and mismatching (58) taken from T-PAS study outlinedabove from the Italian section of the dataset of the SemEval2010 Task 7 on Argument Coercion (Pustejovsky et al 2010).

Additional examples were constructed manually with the goalof testing acceptability.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

36/47

Dataset

The dyads consist of corpus-derived examples of matching(42) and mismatching (58) taken from T-PAS study outlinedabove from the Italian section of the dataset of the SemEval2010 Task 7 on Argument Coercion (Pustejovsky et al 2010).

Additional examples were constructed manually with the goalof testing acceptability.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

37/47

Sample of the dataset

Sample of the dataset for the It. verb annunciare ‘announce’. Thenoun to be annotated is the one in subject position that isassumed to be typed as [[Human]] by the selecting verb.

Table: Sample of the dataset

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

38/47

Interannotator Agreement

The two annotators marked the same judgements in 57 casesout of the 100 proposed (57% of observed agreement).

The inter-annotator agreement (IAA) we computed usingCohen’s Kappa is 0.38.

Cohen’s kappa (K) takes into account the possibility of theagreement occurring by chance; the formula subtracts theprobability of agreement by chance from the observedagreement.

For details see Artstein and Poesio 2008.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

38/47

Interannotator Agreement

The two annotators marked the same judgements in 57 casesout of the 100 proposed (57% of observed agreement).

The inter-annotator agreement (IAA) we computed usingCohen’s Kappa is 0.38.

Cohen’s kappa (K) takes into account the possibility of theagreement occurring by chance; the formula subtracts theprobability of agreement by chance from the observedagreement.

For details see Artstein and Poesio 2008.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

38/47

Interannotator Agreement

The two annotators marked the same judgements in 57 casesout of the 100 proposed (57% of observed agreement).

The inter-annotator agreement (IAA) we computed usingCohen’s Kappa is 0.38.

Cohen’s kappa (K) takes into account the possibility of theagreement occurring by chance; the formula subtracts theprobability of agreement by chance from the observedagreement.

For details see Artstein and Poesio 2008.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

38/47

Interannotator Agreement

The two annotators marked the same judgements in 57 casesout of the 100 proposed (57% of observed agreement).

The inter-annotator agreement (IAA) we computed usingCohen’s Kappa is 0.38.

Cohen’s kappa (K) takes into account the possibility of theagreement occurring by chance; the formula subtracts theprobability of agreement by chance from the observedagreement.

For details see Artstein and Poesio 2008.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

39/47

Qualitative Analysis

Overall, the results show that the two annotators express avariety of graded judgments on coercions when allowed to doso by the task.

Both annotators make extensive use of tag 1 (52 tags forANN 1 and 49 tags for ANN 2), and their agreement on thistag - identifying the most literal reading - is higher than onany other tag (41 agreement on tag 1; 6 on tag 2; 2 on tag 3;4 on tag 4, 1 on tag 5; 3 on odd).

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

39/47

Qualitative Analysis

Overall, the results show that the two annotators express avariety of graded judgments on coercions when allowed to doso by the task.

Both annotators make extensive use of tag 1 (52 tags forANN 1 and 49 tags for ANN 2), and their agreement on thistag - identifying the most literal reading - is higher than onany other tag (41 agreement on tag 1; 6 on tag 2; 2 on tag 3;4 on tag 4, 1 on tag 5; 3 on odd).

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

40/47

Conventionalized coercions

Agreements on tag 1 do not include conventionalized coercions:

“aprire il vino rosso in anticipo”‘open the red wine in advance’ (tag 3, 4)

“finire il bicchiere prima di andarsene”‘finish the glass before leaving’ (tag 4, 4)

“divorare Asterix”‘devour Asterix’ (tag 3, 5)

“Freuds e in edicola”‘Freud is at the newsstand’ (tag 5, 5)

. “Washington ha annunciato un programma di aiuti”‘Washington announced an aid campaign’ (tag 4,5)

“L’altoparlante annuncia ritardi a catena”‘The loudspeaker announces successive delays’ (tag 5,5)

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

40/47

Conventionalized coercions

Agreements on tag 1 do not include conventionalized coercions:

“aprire il vino rosso in anticipo”‘open the red wine in advance’ (tag 3, 4)

“finire il bicchiere prima di andarsene”‘finish the glass before leaving’ (tag 4, 4)

“divorare Asterix”‘devour Asterix’ (tag 3, 5)

“Freuds e in edicola”‘Freud is at the newsstand’ (tag 5, 5)

. “Washington ha annunciato un programma di aiuti”‘Washington announced an aid campaign’ (tag 4,5)

“L’altoparlante annuncia ritardi a catena”‘The loudspeaker announces successive delays’ (tag 5,5)

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

40/47

Conventionalized coercions

Agreements on tag 1 do not include conventionalized coercions:

“aprire il vino rosso in anticipo”‘open the red wine in advance’ (tag 3, 4)

“finire il bicchiere prima di andarsene”‘finish the glass before leaving’ (tag 4, 4)

“divorare Asterix”‘devour Asterix’ (tag 3, 5)

“Freuds e in edicola”‘Freud is at the newsstand’ (tag 5, 5)

. “Washington ha annunciato un programma di aiuti”‘Washington announced an aid campaign’ (tag 4,5)

“L’altoparlante annuncia ritardi a catena”‘The loudspeaker announces successive delays’ (tag 5,5)

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

40/47

Conventionalized coercions

Agreements on tag 1 do not include conventionalized coercions:

“aprire il vino rosso in anticipo”‘open the red wine in advance’ (tag 3, 4)

“finire il bicchiere prima di andarsene”‘finish the glass before leaving’ (tag 4, 4)

“divorare Asterix”‘devour Asterix’ (tag 3, 5)

“Freuds e in edicola”‘Freud is at the newsstand’ (tag 5, 5)

. “Washington ha annunciato un programma di aiuti”‘Washington announced an aid campaign’ (tag 4,5)

“L’altoparlante annuncia ritardi a catena”‘The loudspeaker announces successive delays’ (tag 5,5)

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

40/47

Conventionalized coercions

Agreements on tag 1 do not include conventionalized coercions:

“aprire il vino rosso in anticipo”‘open the red wine in advance’ (tag 3, 4)

“finire il bicchiere prima di andarsene”‘finish the glass before leaving’ (tag 4, 4)

“divorare Asterix”‘devour Asterix’ (tag 3, 5)

“Freuds e in edicola”‘Freud is at the newsstand’ (tag 5, 5)

. “Washington ha annunciato un programma di aiuti”‘Washington announced an aid campaign’ (tag 4,5)

“L’altoparlante annuncia ritardi a catena”‘The loudspeaker announces successive delays’ (tag 5,5)

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

40/47

Conventionalized coercions

Agreements on tag 1 do not include conventionalized coercions:

“aprire il vino rosso in anticipo”‘open the red wine in advance’ (tag 3, 4)

“finire il bicchiere prima di andarsene”‘finish the glass before leaving’ (tag 4, 4)

“divorare Asterix”‘devour Asterix’ (tag 3, 5)

“Freuds e in edicola”‘Freud is at the newsstand’ (tag 5, 5)

. “Washington ha annunciato un programma di aiuti”‘Washington announced an aid campaign’ (tag 4,5)

“L’altoparlante annuncia ritardi a catena”‘The loudspeaker announces successive delays’ (tag 5,5)

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

40/47

Conventionalized coercions

Agreements on tag 1 do not include conventionalized coercions:

“aprire il vino rosso in anticipo”‘open the red wine in advance’ (tag 3, 4)

“finire il bicchiere prima di andarsene”‘finish the glass before leaving’ (tag 4, 4)

“divorare Asterix”‘devour Asterix’ (tag 3, 5)

“Freuds e in edicola”‘Freud is at the newsstand’ (tag 5, 5)

. “Washington ha annunciato un programma di aiuti”‘Washington announced an aid campaign’ (tag 4,5)

“L’altoparlante annuncia ritardi a catena”‘The loudspeaker announces successive delays’ (tag 5,5)

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

40/47

Conventionalized coercions

Agreements on tag 1 do not include conventionalized coercions:

“aprire il vino rosso in anticipo”‘open the red wine in advance’ (tag 3, 4)

“finire il bicchiere prima di andarsene”‘finish the glass before leaving’ (tag 4, 4)

“divorare Asterix”‘devour Asterix’ (tag 3, 5)

“Freuds e in edicola”‘Freud is at the newsstand’ (tag 5, 5)

. “Washington ha annunciato un programma di aiuti”‘Washington announced an aid campaign’ (tag 4,5)

“L’altoparlante annuncia ritardi a catena”‘The loudspeaker announces successive delays’ (tag 5,5)

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

41/47

Overall Variation

The largest variation between the two annotators is to befound in tags higher than 1.

Compared to ANN 2, ANN1 underuses tag 3 (total of 5annotations), perhaps under the suggestion that it is a“neutral” score and does not disambiguate clearly betweenliteral and non literal.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

41/47

Overall Variation

The largest variation between the two annotators is to befound in tags higher than 1.

Compared to ANN 2, ANN1 underuses tag 3 (total of 5annotations), perhaps under the suggestion that it is a“neutral” score and does not disambiguate clearly betweenliteral and non literal.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

42/47

Odd

There is agreement between the annotators on the oddness(tag: odd) of the following two expressions, validating thecorpus-based analysis presented earlier, according to which theIt. noun quadro is not successfully used as a coercion toInstitution.

(2) a. “i quadri aprono alle 9.00”.‘The paintings open at 9.00’b. “visitare i quadri”.‘visit the paintings’

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

42/47

Odd

There is agreement between the annotators on the oddness(tag: odd) of the following two expressions, validating thecorpus-based analysis presented earlier, according to which theIt. noun quadro is not successfully used as a coercion toInstitution.

(3) a. “i quadri aprono alle 9.00”.‘The paintings open at 9.00’b. “visitare i quadri”.‘visit the paintings’

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

43/47

Concluding thoughts

Although the annotations span over all degrees, their totalbetween 1 and 3 (151) is much higher than the total between3 and 5 (55).

In light of the ratio between selection and coercion in thedataset (42/58), this result suggest that coercion mechanismsis perhaps not perceived as highly non literal by speakers,whereas this could not be the case with metaphorical uses.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

43/47

Concluding thoughts

Although the annotations span over all degrees, their totalbetween 1 and 3 (151) is much higher than the total between3 and 5 (55).

In light of the ratio between selection and coercion in thedataset (42/58), this result suggest that coercion mechanismsis perhaps not perceived as highly non literal by speakers,whereas this could not be the case with metaphorical uses.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

44/47

Moderate Minimalism in Lexical Semantics

Stretching phenomena in semantics are both graded andconstrained, as shown by corpus evidence and data abouthuman judgements.

The presence of constraints on stretching phenomenaconstitutes linguistic evidence that points towards a rejectionof meaning eliminativism and towards moderate minimalism inlexical semantics.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

44/47

Moderate Minimalism in Lexical Semantics

Stretching phenomena in semantics are both graded andconstrained, as shown by corpus evidence and data abouthuman judgements.

The presence of constraints on stretching phenomenaconstitutes linguistic evidence that points towards a rejectionof meaning eliminativism and towards moderate minimalism inlexical semantics.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

45/47

Words as Collections of Pointers

Although context can stretch the meaning of words, somecombinations are uninterpretable, and others are highlyunlikely, because words do carry a meaning on their own,and the construction of interpretation is not entirely amatter of context.

A word can be seen as a collection of “pointers” to“fragments” of conceptual knowledge.

The way conceptual knowledge is packed into lexical itemsand available for exploitation in actual use presupposes theexistence of a specific mental entity, lexical meaning, whichacts as interface between concepts and words.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

45/47

Words as Collections of Pointers

Although context can stretch the meaning of words, somecombinations are uninterpretable, and others are highlyunlikely, because words do carry a meaning on their own,and the construction of interpretation is not entirely amatter of context.

A word can be seen as a collection of “pointers” to“fragments” of conceptual knowledge.

The way conceptual knowledge is packed into lexical itemsand available for exploitation in actual use presupposes theexistence of a specific mental entity, lexical meaning, whichacts as interface between concepts and words.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

45/47

Words as Collections of Pointers

Although context can stretch the meaning of words, somecombinations are uninterpretable, and others are highlyunlikely, because words do carry a meaning on their own,and the construction of interpretation is not entirely amatter of context.

A word can be seen as a collection of “pointers” to“fragments” of conceptual knowledge.

The way conceptual knowledge is packed into lexical itemsand available for exploitation in actual use presupposes theexistence of a specific mental entity, lexical meaning, whichacts as interface between concepts and words.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

46/47

Course Outline

Lecture 1. Basics on lexicon, word types, concept-wordmapping and lexical information.

Lecture 2. The global structure of the Lexicon: word classesand word relations.

Lecture 3. Varieties of linguistic evidence in favour ofcontext-sensitive models of lexical meaning.

Lecture 4. Lexical information and its interplay with cognitionand pragmatic inference.

Lecture 5. The meaning of verbs and its representation incompositional vector space models.

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction

47/47

Elisabetta Jezek The Lexicon: an Interdisciplinary Introduction