<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>RE: [Lexicog] Lexical polysemy</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<P><FONT size=2><A title=robert.amsler@hq.doe.gov
href="mailto:robert.amsler@hq.doe.gov">Amsler, Robert</A> wrote:</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2>>From the perspective of a computational lexicologist what
I'd like to see is subsenses conveyed </FONT><FONT size=2>within a decision tree
structure, with a series of tests at each branch point to determine when a
</FONT><FONT size=2>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 </FONT><FONT size=2>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>
<P>REPLY</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>