Joe: Thanks for drawing our attention to this:
>Davis, Anthony R. & Jean-Pierre Koenig. 2000. Linking as Constraints
> on Word Classes in a Hierarchical Lexicon. Language 76(1): 56-91.
>
>It's HPSG oriented, but I think that this paper could be of interest
>to WGers because it focuses on multiple inheritance. The one problem
>I see with it is that it is basically an idealization of the lexicon.
>To be sure, some parts of the lexicon show nice, clean hierarchical
>structure; other parts are more indeterminate, I think.
## I haven't read it properly but it certainly looks interesting and
relevant. They argue that syntactic valency can be linked to semantic
valency via word classes, which makes sense - in other words, as And has
been trying to persuade me for a long time [is that grammatical?], we need
word classes such as 'transitive'. If such classes combine semantic and
syntactic characteristics, that's fine by me. But as Joe says, maybe it
wouldn't be quite as attractive if we had a full account and could see the
full extent of mess in the system.
Richard (= Dick) Hudson
Phonetics and Linguistics, University College London,
Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT.
+44(0)20 7679 3152; fax +44(0)20 7383 4108;
http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|