<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: [Lexicog] Lexical polysemy</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>From the perspective of a computational lexicologist what I'd like to see is subsenses conveyed within a decision tree structure, with a series of tests at each branch point to determine when a sense qualifies for each major and minor specialization. Tests can be described in terms of constaints on the arguments the verb takes or in terms of usage characteristics such as the constructions in which the verb appears, but the need here is to form a higher level of testing for each sense distinction than just giving examples. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>If the usage were "abandon a(n) <X>" then how would you describe the constraints on <X>? I would guess that if <X> is a human being for whom one is a legal guardian, then there would be a different sense than if <X> is an inanimate entity which one owns. Does it matter whether one abandon's <X> by taking it someplace and leaving it there vs. <X> being real estate property which one abandons by failing to pay mortgages or property taxes and leaving no forwarding address. Once again, the law might define a difference. This isn't to say that the legal precedents should be the arbiter of meanings, since there are many distinctions that are not based on legal differences (though, differences which ARE treated differently under the law would almost always seem to correspond to different senses in ordinary language), but that it would be useful to offer testing criteria for taking the branches of meaning rather than just descriptions and examples. Descriptions suffer from ambiguity which can be very hard to interpret (especially if one is consulting the dictionary because one doesn't know the meaning of every word in the description). Tests are somewhat better because they presuppose that the test can be asked and answered. I find test criteria, especially those with YES/NO answers, to be more precise than descriptions.</FONT></P>
<!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
<br>
<tt><hr width="500">
<b>Yahoo! Groups Links</b><br>
<ul>
<li>To visit your group on the web, go to:<br><a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lexicographylist/">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lexicographylist/</a><br>
<li>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<br><a href="mailto:lexicographylist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe">lexicographylist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com</a><br>
<li>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of Service</a>.
</ul>
</tt>
</br>
<!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
</BODY>
</HTML>