Ontological domains, semantic sorts and systematic ambiguity

doi:10.1006/ijhc.1995.1074

International Journal of Human-Computer Studies

Volume 43, Issues 5–6, November 1995, Pages 785-807

https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1995.1074 Get rights and content

Abstract

This paper is concerned with some aspects of the relationship between ontological knowledge and natural language understanding. More specifically, I will consider how knowledge of ontological domains and knowledge of lexical meaning work together in the interpretation of linguistic expressions. An essential assumption is that in accordance with ontological distinctions there are various semantic sorts which linguistic expressions can be divided. The specific purpose of the paper is to explore how under these conditions the intricate problem of systematic ambiguity can be dealt with. Here the term "systematic ambiguity" stands for the phenomenon that a word or a phrase has several possible meanings which systematically related to one another and from which a suitable meaning can be selected dependently on the linguistic and non-linguistic context of use. Taking into consideration that many predicative expressions impose on their arguments certain sortal selection restrictions. I will deal with the phenomenon that a word or a phrase being systematically ambiguous in some cases adapt itself to the semantic format of the expression it is combined with. Such an adaptation eliminating one or more possible meaning of the word or phrase is in fact a coercion of its semantic sort. I will argue for an approach which takes into account a set of semantic coercion operations to meet sortal constraints. Moreover, I will show how such sort coercions performed in language understanding are sanctioned by world knowledge.

References (0)

Cited by (29)

Mind the (terminological) gap: 10 misused, ambiguous, or polysemous terms in linguistics
2021, Ampersand
Citation Excerpt :
argues that reference to abstract objects is exceedingly rare in ordinary discourse – yet these and other common nominals (book, construction, letter, city) host simultaneously concrete and abstract meanings, posing a quandary for classical models of reference. Consider Dölling's (1995) set of ontological relations for reference: Entity is divided into Kind and Object, with Object being divided into Physical Object and Social Object. The former is categorized into Stuff and Aggregate, while the latter is categorized into Group and Institution.
Linguistics is a relatively young field. The birth of a new, vibrant field of research often brings with it certain challenges such as the initial absence of an uncontroversial canon and a certain lack of terminological clarity. Following the example of closely allied disciplines, this work aims to register ambiguities in the use of ten terms in linguistics, with the overarching aim to aid field-internal coherence and field-external visibility. Among other issues, we discuss the influential ‘three factors’ model, labeling, reference, and E-/I-language. Addressing the challenge of looking back while moving forward, we compile a collection of definitions and/or presentations extracted from knowledge-rich contexts for each term, grounded in current usages. We first reflect on previous usages in order to present the first definitions of these terms and track terminological ambiguities that arose throughout their subsequent use. We then attempt to transition towards terminological clarity, providing specific recommendations for a more transparent use of these terms.
Shifting senses in lexical semantic development
2010, Cognition
Most words are associated with multiple senses. A DVD can be round (when describing a disc), and a DVD can be an hour long (when describing a movie), and in each case DVD means something different. The possible senses of a word are often predictable, and also constrained, as words cannot take just any meaning: for example, although a movie can be an hour long, it cannot sensibly be described as round (unlike a DVD). Learning the scope and limits of word meaning is vital for the comprehension of natural language, but poses a potentially difficult learnability problem for children. By testing what senses children are willing to assign to a variety of words, we demonstrate that, in comprehension, the problem is solved using a productive learning strategy. Children are perfectly capable of assigning different senses to a word; indeed they are essentially adult-like at assigning licensed meanings. But difficulties arise in determining which senses are assignable: children systematically overestimate the possible senses of a word, allowing meanings that adults rule unlicensed (e.g., taking round movie to refer to a disc). By contrast, this strategy does not extend to production, in which children use licensed, but not unlicensed, senses. Children’s productive comprehension strategy suggests an early emerging facility for using context in sense resolution (a difficult task for natural language processing algorithms), but leaves an intriguing question as to the mechanisms children use to learn a restricted, adult-like set of senses.
Processing events: Behavioral and neuromagnetic correlates of Aspectual Coercion
2008, Brain and Language
Much recent psycho- and neuro-linguistic work has aimed to elucidate the mechanisms by which sentence meanings are composed by investigating the processing of semantic mismatch. One controversial case for theories of semantic composition is expressions such as the clown jumped for ten minutes, in which the aspectual properties of a punctual verb clash with those of a durative modifier. Such sentences have been proposed to involve a coercion operation which shifts the punctual meaning of the verb to an iterative one. However, processing studies addressing this hypothesis have yielded mixed results. In this study, we tested four hypotheses of how aspectual mismatch is resolved with self-paced reading and magnetoencephalography. Using a set of verbs normed for punctuality, we identified an immediate behavioral cost of mismatch. The neural correlates of this processing were found to match effects in midline prefrontal regions previously implicated in the resolution of complement coercion. We also identified earlier effects in right-lateral frontal and temporal sites. We suggest that of the representational hypotheses currently in the literature, these data are most consistent with an account where aspectual mismatch initially involves the composition of an anomalous meaning that is later repaired via coercion.
The Syntax-Semantics Interface: On-Line Composition of Sentence Meaning
2006, Handbook of Psycholinguistics
This chapter presents a discussion on the syntax–semantics interface. The task of a theory of semantic interpretation is to characterize how elements in a syntactic string semantically relate to one another. Clearly, this depends on how one conceptualizes the meaning of the elementary building blocks—that is, the terminal nodes of a syntactic tree. Interpreting an expression typically requires integrating it into an evolving discourse model. Frequently, this requires resolving ambiguities at conceptually distinct levels, fixing reference, and drawing inferences to align local and global aspects of the discourse. To fully accomplish this task, it is uncontroversial that, in addition to lexical and syntactic constraints, comprehenders must draw upon pragmatic knowledge. The importance of high-level constraints has been illustrated by the finding that comprehenders sometimes adopt a pragmatically plausible interpretation even if it is incongruent with lexical and syntactic constraints.
An Introduction to Lexical Semantics: A Formal Approach to Word Meaning and its Composition
2022, An Introduction to Lexical Semantics: A Formal Approach to Word Meaning and its Composition
Something out of nothing the semantics and pragmatics of implicit quantification
2020, Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface

View all citing articles on Scopus

View full text

Regular ArticleOntological domains, semantic sorts and systematic ambiguity

Abstract

Regular Article
Ontological domains, semantic sorts and systematic ambiguity