\documentstyle[11pt]{article}
\setlength{\evensidemargin}{0in}
\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0in}
\setlength{\textwidth}{6.5in}
\setlength{\topmargin}{-0.5in}
\setlength{\textheight}{9in}
\newcommand {\etal} {{\it et al.}}
\newcommand{\url}[1]{\\{\tt #1}}
%
%
% first argument - i.e. #1 is always author
% #2 is title
% last is date
% agreed author format is, for example
% Alshawi, H., D. Carter, M. Rayner and B. Gamb\"ack
% 
% the only formatting commands that should appear in fields
% are those to mark idiosyncratic information like accents
\newcommand{\book}[4]{\item #1 (#4) {\it #2,} #3.}
% #3 is publisher
\newcommand{\unpub}[4]{\item #1 (#4) `#2', #3.}
% for tech reports etc
% #3 is information about institution etc
\newcommand{\bookart}[7]{\item #1 (#7) `#2' in #5 (ed.), {\it #4,} #6, pp.~#3.}
% published book article (old \barticle)
% #3 is page numbers 
% #4 book title
% #5 editors
% #6 publishers
\newcommand{\bookartnoed}[6]{\item #1 (#6) `#2' in {\it #4,} #5, pp.~#3.}
% book article where editors are unknown
% #3 is page numbers 
% #4 book title
% #5 publishers
\newcommand{\bookartnopp}[6]{\item #1 (#6) `#2' in #4 (ed.), {\it
#3,} #5.}
% book article where page numbers are unknown
% #3 book title
% #4 editors
% #5 publishers
\newcommand{\forthart}[6]{\item #1 (#6, forthcoming) `#2' in #4 (ed.), {\it #3,} #5.}
% article in forthcoming book (old \farticle}
% #3 book title
% #4 editors
% #5 publishers
\newcommand{\journart}[6]{\item #1 (#6) `#2', {\it #3,} {\bf #4},
#5.}
% article in journal (old \jarticle)
% #3 name of journal
% #4 volume
% #5 pages
\newcommand{\journartnopp}[5]{\item #1 (#5) `#2', {\it #3,} 
{\bf #4}.}
% article in journal no page numbers
% #3 name of journal
% #4 volume
\newcommand{\journartnoppvol}[5]{\item #1 (#4) `#2', {\it #3}.}
% article in journal - no page numbers or volume!
% #3 name of journal
\newcommand{\procart}[6]{\item #1 (#6) `#2', {\it Proceedings of the
#3,} #4, pp.~#5.}
% article in proceedings (old \particle)
% #3 name of conference
% #4 venue
% #5 pages
\newcommand{\pubprocart}[7]{\item #1 (#7) `#2', {\it Proceedings of the
#3,} #4, ,#5, pp.~#6.}
% #3 name of conference
% #4 venue
% #5 publishers
% #6 pages
\newcommand{\procartnopp}[5]{\item #1 (#5) `#2', {\it Proceedings of the
#3,} #4.}
% article in proceedings without known page numbers
% #3 name of conference
% #4 venue
\newcommand{\pubprocartnopp}[6]{\item #1 (#6) `#2', {\it Proceedings of the
#3,} #4, #5.}
% article in proceedings without known page numbers
% #3 name of conference
% #4 venue
% #5 publishers
\newcommand{\procartnoppnoplace}[4]{\item #1 (#4) `#2', {\it Proceedings of the
#3}.}
% article in proceedings without known page numbers without place
% where meeting happened
% #3 name of conference
\newcommand{\procartnoplace}[5]{\item #1 (#5) `#2', {\it Proceedings of the
#3,} pp.~#4.}
% article in proceedings where the venue is not known
% #3 name of conference
% #4 pages
%\newcommand{\acqwp}{ESPRIT BRA-3030 ACQUILEX WP NO.}
%\newcommand{\aunpub}[5]{\item #1 (#4) {\it #2.}\\ \acqwp #3}



\begin{document}

\begin{center}
{\Large\bf
A selective 
annotated bibliography for computational lexical semantics}\\[0.1in]
{\large\bf Ann Copestake}\\
CSLI, Stanford University\\
{\tt aac@csli.stanford.edu}\\
May 1996
\end{center}

This bibliography is not comprehensive
or unbiased.  Unfortunately it only includes material written in English.
My intention was to give someone who was unfamiliar with
recent work on computational lexical semantics some pointers, mostly to
work which is relatively easily available, either through conventional
publication or electronically.  Since this bibliography is based on
the collection of references I've used in papers, it is distinctly
skewed towards my own and related work, though I've tried to
add references where it was obvious that there was a big gap.  
In these cases, I've often only added a single reference to an 
author's work, and I've often chosen easily accessible papers in preference
to more obscure ones, even when the latter are more comprehensive.

Many of these references
are not directly about computational treatments of lexical semantics, 
but I have included them because they 
motivated a computational approach or provided a good overview
of the issues without requiring detailed knowledge of a particular linguistic
theory.  With respect to formalization, this bibliography is heavily biased
toward my own interests: that is the use of constraint-based frameworks
incorporating defaults and lexical rules.  
A number of references to
defaults and to lexical rules in unification-based formalisms
have been included even though they do not directly concern 
lexical semantics.  


On the whole I have concentrated on work which treats
computational lexical semantics
from a linguistic perspective: that is, 
work which motivates semantic representation because of its interaction with 
syntax, morphology and so on.  I have 
not included many references to the 
work on representing meaning from the contrasting
AI/Knowledge representation tradition,
largely because the literature on this is unbounded.  However, 
several papers which take this perspective are in 
the collections
referenced in the first section (especially Saint-Dizier and Viegas (1995) 
and Pustejovsky and Bergler (1992)).

The bibliography is divided into the following sections:
\begin{enumerate}
\item General
\item Event structure
\item Lexical semantics and pragmatics
\item Verbs, syntax-semantics interface
\item Derivational morphology and compounds
\item Polysemy
\item Metaphors, idioms and collocations
\item Formal representation: inheritance and defaults
\item Formal representation: lexical rules 
\item Disambiguation
\item Acquisition
\end{enumerate}
Introductory notes give a brief idea of the coverage intended.  
Some papers appear in more than one section.

An updated version of this bibliography will be available via my home page:\\
{\tt http://www-csli.stanford.edu/users/aac}.  Comments and suggestions
welcome.



\section{General}


Levin (1985 (1995)) and Briscoe (1996) are both reviews of the 
literature which give more detail than is attempted here.  
Neither is a complete overview: Levin's paper mostly concerns linguistic work
on verbal lexical semantics, Briscoe's is 
largely a summary of some of the work on the {\sc acquilex} project in the
context of other work on lexical semantics.  
The introductions to Levin and Pinker (1992) and to
Saint-Dizier and Viegas (1995) are also useful reviews.

Unfortunately several of 
the collections listed here
were not published until long after the papers which they contain
were originally written, and they are thus somewhat dated.
Specifically,
the papers in Saint-Dizier and Viegas (1995) were written in 1991/1992,
Pustejovsky (1993) grew out of a workshop held in 1988,
Walker \etal (1995) contains papers written in 1985.
Pustejovsky and Bergler (1992) was published much more quickly and
is essentially the same as the workshop proceedings (SIGLEX Workshop, 1991).
Levin and Pinker (1992) contains papers published in {\it Cognition} 
(1991, Vol 41, 1--3).
All of these collections contain a mixture of computational and theoretical
linguistic papers.

Levin (1993) is a descriptive account of verb classes and diathesis
alternations which is unique in providing data for over 3000 verbs.  
Since it also contains an extensive bibliography it is an essential reference.
Cruse (1985) is a linguistic textbook which gives a descriptive 
account of lexical semantics.  It is a particularly useful 
source for terminology and its discussion of polysemy.
Pustejovsky and Boguraev (1993) discusses the use of knowledge representation
techniques in computational lexical semantics.

Bierwisch and Schreuder (1992), 
Copestake (1992), Dowty (1979), Jackendoff (1990), 
Kamp and Rossdeutscher (1994a,b), Mel'\v{c}uk and Polgu\`{e}re (1987),
Moravcsik (1975) and 
Pustejovsky (1991,1995) are included here because they describe 
different approaches to lexical semantics, covering a range 
of phenomena.  
Dowty (1979) is particularly important with respect to event structure,
but is also a more general account of how lexical semantics could
be approached within Montague Grammar.\footnote{Obviously I do
not accept the characterization of lexical 
semantics as being in any sort of opposition to formal semantics.
I haven't tried to systematically
distinguish between informal and formal treatments in this bibliography.
Although an overtly formal approach may be stated more precisely and
thus be easier to implement, very little of the linguistic work
considers anything remotely resembling efficiency (with respect to
time or space) or ease of acquisition.  So a clearly stated descriptive
account may be more useful to a computational linguist
if it suggests a formalization using existing 
tractable techniques.}
Pustejovsky's work has been extremely influential
within recent work on computational lexical semantics: some of his ideas,
in particular
his notion of {\it qualia structure} is partially based on 
Moravcsik (1975).
Copestake (1992) is a computational approach
which partly consists of a formalization
and implementation of some of Pustejovsky's ideas,
but also draws on work by several other authors cited here.


\begin{list}{}
   {\leftmargin 1.6em
    \itemindent -\leftmargin
    \itemsep 0pt plus 1pt
    \parsep 0pt plus 1pt}



\journart{Bierwisch, M. and R.~Schreuder}  
         {From concepts to lexical items}
         {Cognition}  
         {42} 
         {23--60}
         {1992}

\unpub{Briscoe, E.J.}
      {Computational lexical semantics in review}
      {Part of FraCaS deliverable, obtainable via 
       {\tt http://www-csli.stanford.edu/users/aac}}
      {1996}


\unpub{Copestake, A.}
{The representation of lexical semantic information}
{Doctoral dissertation, University of Sussex,
Cognitive Science Research Paper CSRP 280\\
{\tt http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/Research/NL/acquilex/papers.html}}
{1992}

\book{Cruse, D.A.}
        {Lexical semantics}
        {Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK}
        {1986}

\book{Dowty, D.}
     {Word meaning in Montague Grammar}
     {Reidel, Dordrecht}
     {1979}

\book{Jackendoff, R.}
     {Semantic structures}
     {MIT Press, Cambridge, MA}
     {1990} 

\journartnoppvol{Kamp, H. and A.~Rossdeutscher}
{DRS-construction and lexically driven inference}
{Theoretical linguistics}
{1994a}

\journartnoppvol{Kamp, H. and A.~Rossdeutscher}
{Remarks on lexical structure and DRS construction}
{Theoretical linguistics}
{1994b}

\bookart{Levin, B.}
        {Approaches to lexical semantic representation (Lexical
semantics in review: an introduction)}
        {53--92}
        {Automating the lexicon: research and practice in a
multilingual environment}
        {D.~Walker, A.~Zampolli and N.~Calzolari}
        {Oxford University Press, Oxford}
        {1985 (1995)}

\book{Levin, B.} 
     {Towards a lexical organisation of English verbs}
     {University of Chicago Press, Chicago}
     {1993}

\book{Levin, B. and S.~Pinker} 
     {Lexical and conceptual semantics}
     {Blackwell, Cambridge MA and Oxford, UK}
     {1992}

\journart{Mel'\v{c}uk, I. and M.~Polgu\`{e}re}
     {A formal lexicon in Meaning-Text Theory (or how to do
lexica with words)}
    {Computational Linguistics}
    {13:3--4}
    {261--275}
    {1987}

\journart{Moravcsik, J.}
          {Aitia as generative factor in Aristotle's philosophy}
          {Dialogue}
          {14}
          {622--636}
          {1975}

\journart{Pustejovsky, J.}
    {The Generative Lexicon}
    {Computational Linguistics}
    {17.4}
    {409--441}
    {1991}

\book{Pustejovsky, J. (ed.)}
    {Semantics and the lexicon}
    {Kluwer, Dordrecht}
    {1993}


\book{Pustejovsky, J.}
    {The Generative Lexicon}
    {MIT Press, Cambridge, MA}
    {1995}


\journart{Pustejovsky, J. and B.~Boguraev}
      {Lexical knowledge representation and natural language processing}
      {Artificial Intelligence}
      {63}
      {193--223}
      {1993}


\book{Pustejovsky, J. and S. Bergler (eds.)}
     {Lexical semantics and knowledge
     representation.  Proceedings of the first SIGLEX workshop, 
     Berkeley, CA}
     {Springer-Verlag, Berlin}
     {1992}

\book{Saint-Dizier, P. and E.~Viegas}            
            {Computational lexical semantics}
            {Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK}
            {1995}

\book{Walker,D., A.~Zampolli and N.~Calzolari}
{Automating the lexicon: research and practice in a
multilingual environment}
{Oxford University Press, Oxford}
{1995}

\end{list}

\section{Event structure}

There have been various elaborations of event structure beyond the
Vendlerian classification into states, processes, achievements and 
accomplishments, and this section just contains a few pointers to the
extensive literature.
Dowty (1979) presents an account based on the use
of four primitives BE, BECOME, CAUSE and DO.  Parson's 
neo-Davidonian approach uses event variables (unlike Dowty) --- 
this has become a very common technique in computational linguistics.
Krifka (1987) provides an account which relates event structure to the
structure of nominals, formalizing the parallelism 
between the bounded/unbounded distinction for
events and the cumulative/quantized distinction for nouns.
Moens and Steedman (1988) and Pustejovsky (1991) argue for more complex event
structures than those assumed by Parsons.  Pustejovsky and Busa (1995) 
extend Pustejovsky (1991) by arguing for a notion of headedness on
event structure.


\begin{list}{}
   {\leftmargin 1.6em
    \itemindent -\leftmargin
    \itemsep 0pt plus 1pt
    \parsep 0pt plus 1pt}



\book{Dowty, D.}
     {Word meaning in Montague Grammar}
     {Reidel, Dordrecht, The Netherlands}
     {1979}

\procart{Krifka, M.}
{Nominal reference and temporal constitution: towards a semantics of quantity}
    {6th Amsterdam Colloquium}
    {University of Amsterdam}
    {153--173}
    {1987}


\journart{Moens, M. and M.~Steedman}
        {Temporal ontology and temporal reference}
        {Computational Linguistics}
        {14}
        {15--28}
        {1988}

\book{Parsons,  T.}
  {Events in the semantics of English: a study in subatomic semantics}
  {MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts}
  {1990}


\bookartnopp{Pustejovsky, J.}
     {The syntax of event structure}
     {Lexical and conceptual semantics}
     {B.~Levin and S.~Pinker} 
     {Blackwell, Cambridge MA and Oxford, UK}
     {1992}

\bookartnopp{Pustejovsky, J. and F.~Busa}
        {Unaccusativity and event composition}
        {Temporal reference: aspect and actionality}
        {P. Bertinetto, V. Binachi, J. Higginbotham, M. Squartini}
        {Rosenberg and Sellier, Turin}
        {1995}

\end{list}

\section{Lexical semantics and pragmatics}

I have only attempted to include papers here which give a formal/computational
account of pragmatics and explicitly relate it to lexical semantics.
The approach of Hobbs \etal (1990) explicitly rejects the separation
of lexical semantics in favour of a uniform processing mechanism.
Lascarides and coauthors, in contrast, assume a more modular approach,
which makes use of the approach to discourse representation
described by Lascarides and Asher (1993).
Kayser and Abir (1995) describe a somewhat different framework, which
also makes use of non-monotonic logic.

\begin{list}{}
   {\leftmargin 1.6em
    \itemindent -\leftmargin
    \itemsep 0pt plus 1pt
    \parsep 0pt plus 1pt}



\unpub{Hobbs, J.R., M.~Stickel, D.~Appelt and P.~Martin}
   {Interpretation as abduction}
   {Technical Note No.~499, Artificial Intelligence Center, SRI
International, Menlo Park, CA}
   {1990}


\bookart{Kayser, D.~and H.~Abir}
            {A non-monotonic approach to lexical semantics}
            {303--318}
            {Computational lexical semantics}
            {Saint-Dizier, P. and E.~Viegas}            
            {Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK}
            {1995}


\unpub{Lascarides, A}
        {The pragmatics of word meaning}
        {{\em Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium on lexical
semantics}, Stanford CA}
        {1995}


\bookart{Lascarides, A. and A.~Copestake}
{The pragmatics of word meaning}
{204--221}
{Semantics and Linguistic Theory V}
{M.~Simons and T.~Galloway}
{Cornell University, Ithaca, NY}
{1996}
\url{http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/Research/NL/acquilex/papers.html}

\journart{Lascarides, A. and N.~Asher}
{Temporal interpretation, discourse relations and common sense entailment}
{Linguistics and Philosophy}
{16}
{437--493}
{1993}


\journartnopp{Lascarides, A., A.~Copestake and E.J.~Briscoe}
              {Ambiguity and coherence}
              {Journal of Semantics}
              {13:2}
              {1996, in press}
\url{http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/Research/NL/acquilex/papers.html}


\end{list}

\section{Verbs, syntax-semantics interface}

Again, these references are merely pointers into an extensive literature. 
Only Sanfilippo's work is computational.



\begin{list}{}
   {\leftmargin 1.6em
    \itemindent -\leftmargin
    \itemsep 0pt plus 1pt
    \parsep 0pt plus 1pt}

\unpub{Davis, A.}
    {Linking and the hierarchical lexicon}
    {Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University}
    {1996}

\bookart{Dowty, D.}
{On the semantic content of the notion `Thematic Role'}
{69--129}
{Property Theory, Type Theory and Natural Language  Semantics}
{G.~Chierchia,  B.~Partee and R.~Turner}
{D.~Reidel, Dordrecht, The Netherlands} 
{1989}


\bookart{Fillmore, C.}
        {The case for case}
        {1--88}
        {Universals in linguistic theory}
        {E.~Bach and T.~Harms}
        {Holt, Rinehart, Williams, New York}
        {1968}

\book{Fillmore, C. and P. Kay}
{Construction Grammar}
{CSLI Publications}
{in press}

\book{Goldberg, A.}
     {Constructions: a construction grammar approach to argument structure}
     {Chicago University Press}
     {1995}

\book{Levin, B.} 
     {Towards a lexical organisation of English verbs}
     {University of Chicago Press, Chicago}
     {1993}

\book{Pinker, S}
     {Learnability and cognition: the acquisition of argument
structure} 
     {MIT Press, Cambridge, MA}
     {1989}

\unpub{Sanfilippo, A.}
      {Verbal diathesis, knowledge acquisition, lexicon construction
        and dictionary compilation}
      {Acquilex-II Working Papers 1: see also Proc.~Coling 94}
      {1992}

\bookart{Sanfilippo, A.}
    {LKB encoding of lexical knowledge from machine-readable dictionaries}
    {190--222}
    {Inheritance, defaults and the lexicon}
    {E.~J.~Briscoe, A.~Copestake and V.~de~Paiva}
    {Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK}
    {1993}


\bookartnopp{Talmy, L.}
    {Lexicalization patterns}
    {Language typology and syntactic description}
    {T.~Shopen}
    {Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK}
    {1985}

\bookartnopp{Zaenen, A.}
        {Unaccusativity in Dutch: the interface of syntax and lexical
semantics}
        {Semantics and the lexicon}
        {J.~Pustejovsky}
        {Kluwer, Dordrecht}
        {1993}

\end{list}


\section{Derivational morphology and compounds}

I haven't cross-classified all the papers which could appear 
in this section.  Derivational morphology and regular polysemy
share many properties and pose similar problems for a computational account: in
particular semi-productivity, semi-regularity of
meaning (i.e.~lexicalised senses and derived forms often have meanings which
are not fully predictable), problems in formalization of the semantics, and
technical issues about formalization with lexical rules
in a unification-based framework.  So some papers relevant to 
derivational morphology are in the
sections on polysemy and lexical rules.  Compounds pose even greater
problems with respect to predictability of meaning, and it is often claimed
that their meaning must be pragmatically determined --- see also section on
pragmatics.

Bauer (1983) is a textbook, but it contains several interesting 
ideas, about productivity and compounds in particular, and a useful
summary of various classes of English affixes.  Levi's (1978) book is 
a standard reference on nominal compounds. Wu (1990) and 
Johnston \etal (1995) describe (somewhat different) 
computational approaches to processing compounds (which still remains
an intractable problem --- there's a fairly large literature on this
which I hope the cited papers provide adequate references to).  
Light (1996) is actually a description of
how to acquire some lexical semantic information using derivational morphology
as a cue, but it's also useful for its illustration of the
formalization of some aspects of the meaning of derived forms. 
Riehemann (1994) combines
formalization with a discussion of productivity motivated by
extensive corpus work.  Barker (1996) also discusses productivity.

\begin{list}{}
   {\leftmargin 1.6em
    \itemindent -\leftmargin
    \itemsep 0pt plus 1pt
    \parsep 0pt plus 1pt}


\bookart{Barker, C.}
{Episodic {\it -ee} in English: thematic relations and new word formation}
{1--18}
{Semantics and Linguistic Theory V}
{M.~Simons and T.~Galloway}
{Cornell University, Ithaca, NY:}
{1996}

\book{Bauer, L.}
     {English word-formation}
     {Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK}
     {1983}

\procartnopp{Johnston, M., B.~Boguraev and J.~Pustejovsky}
{The acquisition and interpretation of complex nominals}
{AAAI Spring Symposium on representation and acquisition
of lexical knowledge}
{Stanford, CA}
{1995}
\url{http://www.cs.brandeis.edu/$\sim$johnston/home.html}

\book{Levi, J.}
     {The syntax and semantics of complex nominals}
     {Academic Press, New York}
     {1978}

\procartnopp{Light, M.}
    {Morphological cues for lexical semantics}
    {34th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-96)}
    {Santa Cruz, CA}
    {1996}
\url{http://www.sfs.nphil.uni-tuebingen.de/$\sim$light/morphcues.ps.gz}

\unpub{Riehemann, S.}
    {Morphology and the hierarchical lexicon}
    {Stanford University\\
        {\tt http://hpsg.stanford.edu/hpsg/papers.html}}
    {1994}


\procart{Wu, D.}
{Probabilistic unification-based integration of syntactic and semantic
preferences for nominal compounds}
{13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Coling90)}
{Helsinki}
{413--418}
{1990}

\end{list}

\section{Polysemy}

The coverage in this section is somewhat more
extensive, although I have omitted the literature on logical representation
of ambiguity, underspecification etc, except for the collection edited by
van Deemter and Peters (1995).
One strand of this research concerns what Apresjan called {\it regular
polysemy} (such as the animal/meat uses of words such
as {\it rabbit}, {\it halibut}, {\it chicken}, {\it elk})
and how to represent it, and the extent to which the meanings of
such uses are predictable and the phenomenon of blocking
({\it beef} usually blocks the meat use of {\it cow} etc).
Briscoe and Copestake (1991), Copestake (1995), Copestake and Briscoe (1995),
Nunberg and Zaenen (1992), Ostler and Atkins (1992) discuss regular polysemy
and its computational representation.  Briscoe \etal (1995) provide a 
formal account of some aspects of blocking.  Copestake and Briscoe (1995)
argue that this sort of {\it sense extension} should be distinguished from
{\it constructional polysemy}, where there is no lexical ambiguity, but where
variations in meaning arise from the combination of lexical items.  From this
viewpoint, {\it logical metonymy} and {\it co-composition}, which are discussed
by Pustejovsky and other authors working within the Generative Lexicon 
approach, are best seen as cases of constructional polysemy.  
Godard and Jayez (1993) describe some problems for Pustejovsky's account of
logical metonymy as a coercion operation.

Clark and Clark (1979) and Clark (1992) discuss nonce uses of nouns
as verbs and argue that 
meaning is not predictable and must be regarded as arising from the
context.  Nunberg (1978) discusses a range of problems which
also point to some contribution of pragmatics in reference.

Sch\"{u}tze's (1995) model of ambiguity is quite different from most of the
models discussed here, as it is based on the use of gradient 
rather than discrete representations.  This appears to have 
advantages, at least when modelling language acquisition, although
it does not allow generalisations to be expressed in the same way as 
the lexical rule models.

\begin{list}{}
   {\leftmargin 1.6em
    \itemindent -\leftmargin
    \itemsep 0pt plus 1pt
    \parsep 0pt plus 1pt}




\book{Apresjan, Ju D.}
    {Regular polysemy}
    {Mouton, The Hague, The Netherlands}
    {1973}


\procart{Briscoe, E. J., and A. Copestake }
{Sense extensions as lexical rules}
{IJCAI Workshop on
computational approaches to non-literal language}
{Sydney, Australia}
{12--20}
{1991}
\url{http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/Research/NL/acquilex/papers.html}

\bookartnopp{Briscoe, E.J., A.~Copestake and A.~Lascarides}
            {Blocking}
            {Computational lexical semantics}
            {P.~Saint-Dizier, P. and E.~Viegas}            
            {Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK}
            {1995}
\url{http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/Research/NL/acquilex/papers.html}

\book{Clark, H. H.}
{Arenas of language use}
{University of Chicago Press, Chicago and CSLI, Stanford}
{1992}

\journart{Clark, E. V. and H. H. Clark}
     {When nouns surface as verbs}
     {Language}
     {55}
     {767--811}
     {1979}

\unpub{Copestake, A}
        {Representing lexical polysemy}
        {{\em Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium on lexical
semantics}, Stanford, CA}
        {1995}
\url{http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/Research/NL/acquilex/papers.html}


\journart{Copestake, A. and E.J.~Briscoe}
        {Semi-productive polysemy and sense extension}
        {Journal of Semantics}
        {12}
        {15--67}
        {1995} 
\url{http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/Research/NL/acquilex/papers.html}

\bookart{Cruse,~D.~A.}
     {Polysemy and related phenomena from a cognitive linguistic
viewpoint}
     {33--49}
            {Computational lexical semantics}
            {P.~Saint-Dizier and E.~Viegas}            
            {Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK}
            {1995}


\book{van Deemter, K. and S.~Peters (eds)}
     {Semantic ambiguity and underspecification}
     {CSLI Publications}
     {1995}

\book{Fauconnier, G.}
    {Mental spaces: aspects of meaning construction in natural language}
    {MIT Press, Cambridge, MA}
    {1985}

\procart{Godard, D. and J.~Jayez}
        {Towards a proper treatment of coercion phenomena}
        {Sixth Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for
Computational Linguistics (EACL-93)}
        {Utrecht, The Netherlands}
        {168--177}
        {1993}


\journart{Jackendoff,  R.}
    {Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon}
    {Language}
    {51(3)}
    {639--71}
    {1975}


\unpub{Kilgarriff, A.}
      {Polysemy}
      {Doctoral dissertation, University of Sussex,
Cognitive Science Research Paper CSRP 261}
      {1992}


\journartnopp{Nunberg, G.D.}
        {Transfers of meaning}
        {Journal of Semantics}
        {12}
        {1995}

\unpub{Nunberg, G.D.}
{The pragmatics of reference}
{Doctoral Dissertation, CUNY Graduate Center, reproduced by the
Indiana University Linguistics Club}
{1978}


\journart{Nunberg, G.D.}
{The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: polysemy}
{Linguistics and Philosophy}
{3}
{145--184}
{1979}


\journart{Nunberg, G.D.}
{On the meaning and interpretation of indexical expressions}
{Linguistics and Philosophy}
{16}
{1--43}
{1993}

\unpub{Nunberg, G.D. and A. Zaenen}
      {Systematic polysemy in lexicology and lexicography}
      {Proceedings of Euralex92, Tampere, Finland}
      {1992}

\bookart{Ostler, N. and B.T. Atkins}
     {Predictable meaning shift: some linguistic properties of lexical
implication rules}
     {87--100}
     {Lexical semantics and knowledge
     representation.  Proceedings of the first SIGLEX Workshop, 
     Berkeley, CA}
     {J.~Pustejovsky and S.~Bergler}
     {Springer-Verlag, Berlin}
     {1992}


\bookart{Pustejovsky, J.}
   {Type coercion and lexical selection}
   {73--96}
   {Semantics and the lexicon}
   {J.~Pustejovsky}
   {Kluwer, Dordrecht}
   {1993}

\bookartnopp{Pustejovsky, J.}
   {Linguistic constraints on type coercion}
            {Computational lexical semantics}
            {P.~Saint-Dizier and E.~Viegas}            
            {Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK}
            {1995}

\unpub{Sch\"{u}tze, H.}
    {Ambiguity in language learning: computational and 
cognitive models}
    {PhD thesis, Stanford University\\
    {\tt ftp://parcftp.xerox.com/pub/qca/pubs.html}}
    {1995}

\bookart{Zwicky, A. M. and J. M. Sadock}
    {Ambiguity tests and how to fail them}
    {1--36}
    {Syntax and Semantics IV}
    {J.~P.~Kimball}
    {Academic Press, New York}
    {1975}

\end{list}

\section{Metaphor, Idioms and Collocations}

These issues are
perhaps peripheral to the main body of work on lexical semantics,
but nevertheless can throw some light on issues such as the
relationship between pragmatics and lexical semantics.
Metaphor is interesting in that 
there seem to be conventional patterns
of metaphor (Lakoff, 1987; Lakoff and Johnson, 1980):
some computational linguistic approaches have tried to capture this
idea (Martin 1990).  Briscoe and Copestake (1991) 
argue that, to the extent some metaphor patterns (such as animal names used
for humans) are
conventionalized, they may be
partially represented via lexical rules.
Asher and Lascarides (1995) try to link this idea with 
a model of discourse, in order to explain the meanings of metaphors
in context.

I have included some papers on idioms which have concentrated on
viewing them as a semantic phenomenon:  
Nunberg \etal (1994) being the classic
account of this (see Pulman, 1993, for an alternative).
Fellbaum (1993) argues that
the behaviour of idioms with respect to determiners can be (partially) accounted for
on semantic grounds.  

The term {\it collocation} is used in the corpus processing
literature to indicate any grouping of words which occur together more
frequently than would be expected if the distribution were random.
In terms of lexical semantics, it is useful to restrict its use
to word groups which are essentially unpredictable.  For example, 
the fact that {\it drive} and {\it car} co-occur relatively frequently
is something that might be predicted from the meanings of these terms and
real-world knowledge.  In contrast, the collocation of {\it roast} and
{\it beef} as opposed to {\it bake} and {\it beef} might not be predictable
since it is difficult to supply a meaning for {\it roast} as opposed to
{\it bake} that predicts that chestnuts, coffee beans
and beef are roasted, while apples, fish and ham
are baked.  
The assumption is that collocational restrictions are not part of
meaning, and may be to some extent idiosyncratic, in which case they
are presumably simply learned with respect to individual words
(see Cruse, 1986:279).

This definition makes the idea of collocation dependent on precisely
what the meaning of a term is taken to be.  
For example, if {\it rancid} is a 
general term for badness of food, then the fact that {\it rancid butter}
is more usual than {\it rancid strawberries} would have to
be explained as a collocation, whereas if {\it rancid} 
applies only to the particular way in which fats or oils characteristically
become unpleasant tasting, the contrast is
explicable using world knowledge about the composition of butter and
strawberries.\footnote{It's perfectly possible that one man's meaning
is another man's collocation.}
According to this view, collocations differ from idioms
in that the meaning of the phrase is transparent, though 
the term collocation is sometimes used to subsume 
both idioms and transparent but conventional phrases.

To the extent that computational theories of meaning abstract away
from individual words, they have to allow for collocations, at least to
support generation.  
But this isn't a topic that has received much attention
in the computational linguistic literature.
Mel'\v{c}uk's work however does concentrate heavily on collocations,
though the term is used in a somewhat different way.  See 
Heylen \etal (1993) for an account of the contrasting notions of 
collocations and an implementation of the Mel'\v{c}ukian notion in a 
constraint-based framework.






\begin{list}{}
   {\leftmargin 1.6em
    \itemindent -\leftmargin
    \itemsep 0pt plus 1pt
    \parsep 0pt plus 1pt}



\unpub{Asher, N. and A.~Lascarides}
      {Metaphor in discourse}
        {{\em Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Lexical
Semantics}, Stanford CA}
        {1995}

\procart{Briscoe, E. J., and A. Copestake }
{Sense extensions as lexical rules}
{IJCAI Workshop on
Computational Approaches to Non-Literal Language}
{Sydney, Australia}
{12--20}
{1991}
\url{http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/Research/NL/acquilex/papers.html}

\journart{Fass, D.}
         {met$^*$: a method for discriminating metonymy and metaphor by 
computer}
    {Computational Linguistics}
    {17:1}
    {49--90}
    {1991}
  


\bookart{Fellbaum, C.}
{The determiner in English idioms}
{271--296}
{Idioms: processing, structure, and interpretation}
{C.~Cacciari and P.~Tabossi}
{Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey}
{1993}

\bookart{Heylen, D., A.~Schenk, M.~Verhagen}
   {A constraint-based representation scheme of collocational structures}
   {49--58}
   {3rd Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands (CLIN) Meeting}
   {W.~Sijtsma and O.~Zweekhorst}
   {ITK, Tilburg}
   {1993}
\url{http://wwwots.let.ruu.nl/Publications/occasions.html}


\book{Lakoff, G.}
     {Women, fire, and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind}
     {University of Chicago Press, Chicago}
     {1987}

\book{Lakoff, G. and M.~Johnson}
     {Metaphors we live by}
     {University of Chicago Press, Chicago}
     {1980}

\book{Martin, J.}
     {A computational model of metaphor interpretation}
     {Academic Press, Cambridge, MA}
     {1990}

\journart{Mel'\v{c}uk, I. and M.~Polgu\`{e}re}
     {A formal lexicon in Meaning-Text Theory (or how to do
lexica with words)}
    {Computational Linguistics}
    {13:3--4}
    {261--275}
    {1987}


\journart{Nunberg, G., T. Wasow and I.~Sag} 
{Idioms}
{Language}
{70}
{491--538}
{1994}

\bookart{Pulman, S.G.} 
{The recognition and interpretation of idioms}
{249--270}
{Idioms: processing, structure, and interpretation}
{C.~Cacciari and P.~Tabossi}
{Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey}
{1993}


\book{Sweetser, E.}
    {From etymology to pragmatics}
    {Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK}
    {1990}


\end{list}

\section{Formal representation: inheritance and defaults}

I have only listed papers which are based on some sort of
feature structure framework, but
Daelmans \etal (1992) is an overview of inheritance in NLP generally.
Shieber (1986), although somewhat 
dated, is still the most accessible introduction to unification-based
grammars.  DATR (Evans and Gazdar, 1989a,b) is a formalism designed
for lexical representation which can be interfaced with a 
unification-based system for parsing etc.  Other work has avoided 
making such a strong distinction between the lexicon and 
other system components.  Carpenter (1992) is a very detailed 
coverage of one approach to typed feature structures.  I have not listed 
any of the other literature on typed feature structures here, since
none of it is directly relevant to lexical semantics,
(though see the 
bibliography of the
short paper {\it Inheritance in lexical representation}, accessible
via {\tt http://www-csli.stanford.edu/users/aac}).
Flickinger's work concentrates on syntax 
but introduced the idea of the hierarchical 
lexicon as a major theme within HPSG.
Copestake \etal (1993),
Sanfilippo (1993) and other papers in Briscoe \etal\ (1993) describe
how typed feature structure formalisms may be used in lexical 
representation: 
Copestake (1993a) gives the details of the implemented system assumed there.
Krieger and Nerbonne (1993) discuss inheritance and lexical rules for the
representation of morphology (see also Riehemann, 1994).

In contrast with DATR and Flickinger's work, 
most typed feature structure systems assume strict monotonicity of
inheritance, but there have been a number of papers on 
priority union or default unification
(van den Berg and Pr\"{u}st (1991);
Bouma, 1990, 1992; Calder, 1991;
Carpenter, 1993; Copestake, 1993b; Kaplan, 1987;
Lascarides \etal 1996; Lascarides and Copestake, 1995 (this was actually
written after the preceding paper and suggests a modification of 
the approach proposed there); Russell \etal, 1991, 1993;
Young and Rounds, 1993).
Most of these discuss the operation in rather abstract terms,
or with reference to morphology, but default inheritance is
an important representation technique in lexical semantics, since
so many of the generalizations that one would like to express have
exceptions.  Copestake (1992) and Lascarides \etal (1996) give details
of the use of defaults in lexical semantics.
Kilgarriff (1993) shows how some lexical semantic information
may be encoded in DATR.

\begin{list}{}
   {\leftmargin 1.6em
    \itemindent -\leftmargin
    \itemsep 0pt plus 1pt
    \parsep 0pt plus 1pt}

\procart{van den Berg, M. and H. Pr\"{u}st}
        {Common denominators and default unification}
        {Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands (CLIN), First
Meeting}
        {Utrecht}
        {1--16}
        {1991}

\procart{Bouma, G.}
{Defaults in unification grammar}
{28th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-90)}
{Pittsburg, Pennsylvania} 
{165--173}
{1990}

\journart{Bouma, G.}
         {Feature structures and nonmonotonicity}
         {Computational Linguistics}
         {18.2}
         {183--204}
         {1992}


\book{Briscoe, E. J., A. Copestake and V. de Paiva (eds)}
{Inheritance, defaults and the lexicon}
{Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK}
{1993}

\unpub{Calder, J.}
    {Some notes on priority union}
    {Paper presented at the 
ACQUILEX Workshop on Default Inheritance in the Lexicon, Cambridge}
    {1991}

\book{Carpenter, R.}
{The logic of typed feature structures}
{Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK} 
{1992}

\bookart{Carpenter, R.}
           {Skeptical and credulous default unification with
application to templates and inheritance}
    {13--37}
    {Inheritance, defaults and the lexicon}
    {E.~J.~Briscoe, A.~Copestake and V.~de~Paiva}
    {Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK}
    {1993}

\unpub{Copestake, A.}
{The representation of lexical semantic information}
{Doctoral dissertation, University of Sussex,
Cognitive Science Research Paper CSRP 280\\
{\tt http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/Research/NL/acquilex/papers.html}}
{1992}


\unpub{Copestake, A.}
     {The Compleat LKB}
     {ACQUILEX-II Deliverable, 3.1\\
{\tt http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/Research/NL/acquilex/papers.html}}
     {1993a}

\bookart{Copestake, A.}
{Defaults in Lexical Representation}
{223--245}
{Inheritance, defaults and the lexicon}
    {E.~J.~Briscoe, A.~Copestake and V.~de~Paiva}
{Cambridge University Press}
{1993b}


\bookart{Copestake, A., A.~Sanfilippo,
E.J.~Briscoe and V.~de~Paiva}
    {The ACQUILEX LKB: an introduction}
    {148--163}
    {Inheritance, defaults and the lexicon}
    {E.~J.~Briscoe, A.~Copestake and V.~de~Paiva}
    {Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK}
    {1993}



\journart{Daelemans, W., K.~de Smedt and G.~Gazdar}
         {Inheritance in natural language processing}
         {Computational Linguistics}
         {18.2}
         {205--218}
         {1992}

\procart{Evans, R. and G.~Gazdar}
{Inference in DATR}
{4th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association 
for Computational Linguistics (EACL-1989)}
{Manchester,  UK}
{66--71}
{1989a}

\bookart{Evans, R. and G.~Gazdar}
{The semantics of DATR}
{79--87}
{Proceedings of the Seventh Conference of
  the Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and Simulation of
  Behavior (AISB)}
{A.~G.~Cohn}
{Pitman/Morgan Kaufmann, London}
{1989b}


\unpub{Flickinger,  D.}
        {Lexical rules in the hierarchical lexicon}
        {PhD thesis, Stanford University\\
        {\tt http://hpsg.stanford.edu/hpsg/papers.html}} 
        {1987}

\procart{Flickinger, D., C.~Pollard and T.~Wasow}
        {Structure sharing in lexical representation}
        {23rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational
        Linguistics (ACL-85)}
        {University of Chicago}
        {262--268}
        {1985} 

\journart{Flickinger, D. and J.~Nerbonne}
{Inheritance and complementation: a case study of {\it easy}
adjectives and related nouns}
         {Computational Linguistics}
         {18.3}
         {269--310}
         {1992}


\bookart{Kaplan, R.}
  {Three seductions of computational psycholinguistics}
  {149--188}
  {Linguistic theory and computer applications}
  {P.~Whitelock, H.~Somers, P.~Bennett, R.~Johnson, and M.~McGee Wood}
  {Academic Press, London}
  {1987}

\procart{Kilgarriff, A.}
        {Inheriting verb alternations}
        {Sixth Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for
Computational Linguistics (EACL-93)}
        {Utrecht, The Netherlands}
        {213--221}
        {1993}

\bookart{Krieger, H-U. and J.~Nerbonne}
    {Feature-based inheritance networks for computational lexicons}
    {90--137}
    {Inheritance, defaults and the lexicon}
    {E.~J.~Briscoe, A.~Copestake and V.~de~Paiva}
    {Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK}
    {1993}

\journart{Lascarides, A., E.J.~Briscoe, N.~Asher and A.~Copestake}
      {Persistent associative default unification}
      {Linguistics and Philosophy}
      {19:1}
      {1--89}
      {1996}
\url{http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/Research/NL/acquilex/papers.html}

\unpub{Lascarides, A. and A.~Copestake}
      {A logic for order-independent typed default unification}
      {Acquilex-II Working paper 60\\
{\tt http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/Research/NL/acquilex/papers.html}}
      {1995}

\unpub{Riehemann, S.}
    {Morphology and the hierarchical lexicon}
    {Stanford University\\
        {\tt http://hpsg.stanford.edu/hpsg/papers.html}}
    {1994}

\procart{Russell, G., J.~Carroll and  S.~Warwick}
{Multiple default
inheritance in a unification-based lexicon} 
{29th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational 
Linguistics (ACL-91)}
{Berkeley, California}
{215--221}
{1991}

\bookart{Russell, G., A.~Ballim,
J.~Carroll and  S.~Warwick-Armstrong}
{A practical approach to multiple default inheritance for unification-based 
lexicons}
    {137--147}
    {Inheritance, defaults and the lexicon}
    {E.~J.~Briscoe, A.~Copestake and V.~de~Paiva}
    {Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK}
    {1993}


\bookart{Sanfilippo, A.}
    {LKB encoding of lexical knowledge}
    {190--222}
    {Inheritance, defaults and the lexicon}
    {E.~J.~Briscoe, A.~Copestake and V.~de~Paiva}
    {Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK}
    {1993}

\book{Shieber, S.~M.}
{An introduction to unification-based approaches to grammar}
{CSLI Lecture Notes 4, Stanford CA}
{1986}

\procart{Young, M. and W.~Rounds}
        {A logical semantics for non-monotonic sorts}
        {31st Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-93)}
        {Columbus, Ohio}
        {209--215}
        {1993}

\end{list}

\section{Formal representation: lexical rules}

The formalization of lexical rules in typed feature structure
frameworks and other 
similar approaches is somewhat problematic: some of the papers
listed here are an attempt to address this 
(see also Riehemann, 1994, listed above). 
Most of the papers discussing the use of lexical rules 
in lexical semantics are listed in the polysemy section.

\begin{list}{}
   {\leftmargin 1.6em
    \itemindent -\leftmargin
    \itemsep 0pt plus 1pt
    \parsep 0pt plus 1pt}


\unpub{Briscoe, E.J. and A.~Copestake}
      {Dative constructions as Lexical rules in the TDFS framework}
      {Acquilex-II Working Papers 78\\
      (revised version should be available soon via 
       {\tt http://www-csli.stanford.edu/users/aac}}
      {1995}


\unpub{Calcagno, M.}
        {Interpreting lexical rules}
        {Proc. of the Conference on Formal Grammar, Barcelona}    
        {1995}

\unpub{Flickinger,  D.}
        {Lexical rules in the hierarchical lexicon}
        {PhD thesis, Stanford University\\
        {\tt http://hpsg.stanford.edu/hpsg/papers.html}} 
        {1987}

\unpub{Meurers, D.}
        {Towards a semantics for lexical rules as used in HPSG}
        {Acquilex Workshop on Lexical Rules, Cambridge\\
        {\tt http://www.sfs.nphil.uni-tuebingen.de/$\sim$dm/}}
        {1995}

\procartnopp{Meurers, D. and G.~Minnen}
        {A computational treatment of HPSG lexical rules as
          covariation lexical entries}
        {5th Int. Workshop on Natural Language Understanding and Logic
          Programming}
        {Lisbon}
        {1995}
\url{http://www.sfs.nphil.uni-tuebingen.de/$\sim$dm/}

\end{list}

\section{Disambiguation}

For NLP the issues of polysemy and disambiguation are closely
intertwined, since if lexical ambiguity is postulated, it
(usually) has to be resolved.  While it is clear that
arbitrary word knowledge may be necessary to resolve 
ambiguity, and therefore that ambiguity resolution is not a good
criterion for deciding whether or not knowledge should be regarded as
lexical (for systems that distinguish between lexical and non-lexical
semantics), high success rates on natural text can
be achieved with cruder information.
McRoy (1992) is a reasonable source for references to work on disambiguation
prior to 1990, but
recent work has mostly concentrated on the use of statistical techniques.

\begin{list}{}
   {\leftmargin 1.6em
    \itemindent -\leftmargin
    \itemsep 0pt plus 1pt
    \parsep 0pt plus 1pt}


\journart{Asher, N. and A. Lascarides}
        {Lexical disambiguation in a discourse context}
        {Journal of Semantics}
        {12(1)}
        {69--108}
        {1995}


\procart{Bruce, R. and J. Wiebe}
{Word-sense disambiguation using decomposable models}
{32nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-94)}
{Las Cruces, NM}
{139--146}
{1994}

\journart{Dagan, I. and A. Itai}
        {Word-sense disambiguation using a second language monolingual corpus}
        {Computational Linguistics}
        {20(4)}
        {563--596}
        {1994}

\journart{Gale, W., K. Church and D. Yarowsky}
{A method for disambiguating word senses in a large corpus}
        {Computers and the Humanities}
        {26}
        {415--439}
        {1992}

\unpub{Harley, A.}
   {Cambridge Language Survey: semantic tagger}
   {ACQUILEX-II working paper No 39: available from {\tt
cide@cup.cam.ac.uk}}
   {1994}

\journart{Justeson, J.S. and S.M. Katz}
        {Principled disambiguation: discriminating adjective senses 
with modified nouns}
        {Computational Linguistics}
        {21(1)}
        {1--28}
        {1995}

\journart{McRoy, S.}
        {Using multiple knowledge sources for word sense discrimination}
        {Computational Linguistics}
        {18(1)}
        {1--30}
        {1992}

\procartnopp{Resnik, P.}
{Disambiguating noun groupings with respect to WordNet senses}
{3rd workshop on very large corpora}
{MIT, Cambridge, Mass.}
{1995}
\url{http://xxx.lanl.gov/cmp-lg/9511006}

\unpub{Sch\"{u}tze, H.}
    {Ambiguity in language learning: computational and 
cognitive models}
    {PhD thesis, Stanford University\\
    {\tt ftp://parcftp.xerox.com/pub/qca/pubs.html}}
    {1995}

\procartnopp{Yarowsky, D.}
{Word-sense disambiguation using statistical models of Roget's categories
trained on large corpora}
{14th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Coling 92)}
{Nantes, France}
{1992}

\end{list}

\section{Acquision of lexical semantics from corpora 
and machine readable dictionaries}

One of the main problems in assuming detailed lexical semantic information
in a lexicon has been the issue of how to acquire it.  Until recently
the dominant technique involved the use of machine-readable dictionaries
(MRDs).  I haven't attempted to summarize this literature here.
Boguraev and Briscoe (1989) contains some of the most interesting work and
has a good introduction, Briscoe (1991) and Calzolari (1992)
provide a partial 
summary of some subsequent work.  However I've tried to be
reasonably comprehensive in the references to recent work, 
at least with respect to papers published in the
main conferences, since the MRD literature is often quite bad with respect
to citations.  Unfortunately there is a lot of work that is not
easy to find: in particular, a lot of Vossen's work is difficult to get
(try emailing {\tt Piek.Vossen@let.uva.nl}).  Zernik (1992) contains
papers on both corpus processing and the use of MRDs.  Since that collection
was published, the use of corpora has increased, although there is still
more work on extraction of syntactic information than on lexical semantics.
A major problem with the assessment of this work
is that there is very little agreement on what
lexical semantic information is required.   



\begin{list}{}
   {\leftmargin 1.6em
    \itemindent -\leftmargin
    \itemsep 0pt plus 1pt
    \parsep 0pt plus 1pt}


\bookartnopp{Atkins, B.T. and B.~Levin} 
         {Admitting impediments}
         {Lexical acquisition: using on-line resources to build a lexicon}
         {U.~Zernik}
         {Lawrence Erlbaum, New Jersey}
         {1992}

\procart{Basili, R., M.~Pazienza, and P.~Velardi}
         {Computational lexicons: the neat examples and the odd
exemplars}
         {3rd Conf. on Applied Natural Language Processing}
         {Trento, Italy}
         {96--103}
         {1992}

\book{Boguraev, B. and~E.J.~Briscoe (eds)}
   {Computational lexicography for natural language processing}
   {Longman, London}
   {1989}

\bookart{Briscoe, E.J.}
    {Lexical issues in natural language processing}
    {39--68}
    {Natural language and speech}
    {E. Klein and F. Veltman}
    {Springer-Verlag}
    {1991}

\bookart{Calzolari, N.}
     {Acquiring and representing semantic information in a
      lexical knowledge base}
      {235--244}
     {Lexical semantics and knowledge representation}
     {J.~Pustejovsky and S.~Bergler}
     {Lecture Notes in AI: 627, Springer-Verlag, Berlin}
     {1992}


\procart{Copestake, A.}
     {An approach to building the hierarchical element of 
      a lexical knowledge base from a machine readable dictionary}
     {First International Workshop on
      Inheritance in Natural Language Processing}
     {Tilburg, The Netherlands}
     {19--29}
     {1990}
\url{http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/Research/NL/acquilex/papers.html}



\journart{Justeson, J.S. and S.M. Katz}
        {Co-occurrences of antonymous adjectives and their contexts}
        {Computational Linguistics}
        {17(1)}
        {1--20}
        {1991}

\procartnopp{Klavans, J.L.}
     {COMPLEX: a computational lexicon for natural language systems}
     {12th International Conference on Computational Linguistics
(Coling-88)}
     {Budapest, Hungary}
     {1988}

\procartnopp{Klavans, J.L., M.S.~Chodorow and N.~Wacholder}
     {From dictionary to knowledge base via taxonomy}
     {Sixth Conference of the University of Waterloo
Centre for the New Oxford English Dictionary and Text Research:
Electronic Text Research}
     {University of Waterloo, Canada}
     {1990}



\procartnopp{Light, M.}
    {Morphological cues for lexical semantics}
    {34th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-96)}
    {Santa Cruz, CA}
    {1996}
\url{http://www.sfs.nphil.uni-tuebingen.de/$\sim$light/morphcues.ps.gz}


\procartnopp{Montemagni S. and L. Vanderwende}
{String Patterns versus Structural Patterns
for Extracting Semantic Information from Dictionaries}
{14th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Coling 92)}
{Nantes, France}
{1992}

\journart{Pustejovsky, J., S. Bergler, P.~Anick}
    {Lexical semantic techniques for corpus analysis}
    {Computational Linguistics}
    {19(2)}
    {331--358}
    {1993}

\procart{Sanfilippo, A. and V. Poznanski}
{The acquisition of lexical knowledge from combined machine-readable
dictionary sources}
{3rd Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing (ANLP-92)}
{Trento, Italy}
{80--88}
{1992}

\journart{Velardi, P., M. Pazienza, and M.~Fasolo}
         {How to encode semantic knowledge: a method for meaning representation and computer-aided acquisition}
         {Computational Linguistics}
         {17:2}
         {153--170}
         {1991}

\unpub{Vossen, P.}
    {A parser-grammar for the meaning descriptions of LDOCE}
    {Links Project Technical Report 300-169-007, Amsterdam University}
    {1990}

\bookartnopp{Vossen, P.}
{The automatic construction of a knowledge base from dictionaries: a
combination of techniques}
{Euralex '92 Proceedings I-II} 
{H.~Tommola, K.~Tarantola, T.~Salmin~Tolonen, J.~Schop}
{Tampere, Finland}
{1992}

\book{Vossen, P.}
     {Grammatical and conceptual individuation in the
lexicon}
     {IFOTT, Amsterdam}
     {1995}

\bookart{Vossen, P., W. Meijs and M. Broeder}
     {Meaning and structure in dictionary definitions}
     {171--192}
     {Computational lexicography for natural language processing}
     {B.~Boguraev and E.J.~Briscoe}
     {Longman, London}
     {1989}

\bookart{Vossen, P. and A.~Copestake}
    {Untangling definition structure into knowledge representation}
    {246--274}
    {Inheritance, defaults and the lexicon}
    {E.~J.~Briscoe, A.~Copestake and V.~de~Paiva}
    {Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK}
    {1993}

\bookart{Walker, D. and R. Amsler} 
          {The use of machine-readable dictionaries in sublanguage analysis} 
          {69--83} 
          {Analyzing language in restricted domains} 
          {R.~Grishman and R.~Kittredge}  
          {Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey} 
          {1986}

\bookart{Wilks, Y., D. Fass, C-M. Guo, J.~McDonald, T.~Plate and B.~Slator}
   {A tractable machine dictionary as a resource for computational semantics}
   {193--231}
   {Computational lexicography for natural language processing}
   {B.~Boguraev and E.J.~Briscoe}
   {Longman, London}
   {1989}

\book{Zernik, U.~(ed.)}
     {Lexical acquisition: using on-line resources to build a lexicon}
     {Lawrence Erlbaum, New Jersey}
     {1992}


\end{list}


\end{document}

