Meaning
shifting
phenomena
such
as
metonymy
have
recently
attracted
increasing
interest
of
researchers
.
Though
these
phenomena
have
been
addressed
by
plenty
of
computational
methods
,
the
impacts
of
cardinalities
of
metonymically
related
items
have
been
widely
ignored
in
all
of
them
.
Motivated
by
this
lack
of
analysis
,
we
have
developed
a
method
for
representing
expectations
and
knowledge
about
the
cardinalities
of
metonymically
related
entities
and
for
exploiting
this
information
to
build
logical
forms
expressing
metonymic
relations
,
the
entities
related
,
and
their
cardinalities
.
The
representation
of
lexically
motivated
knowledge
is
realized
as
an
enhancement
to
Pustejovsky
's
Generative
Lexicon
,
and
the
process
of
building
logical
forms
takes
into
account
overwriting
of
default
information
and
mismatch
of
cardinality
requirements
.
Our
method
enables
a
precise
attachment
of
sentence
complements
,
and
it
supports
reference
resolution
in
the
context
of
metonymic
expressions
.
1
Introduction
Meaning
shifting
phenomena
such
as
metonymy
have
recently
attracted
increasing
interest
.
Computational
approaches
to
these
phenomena
aim
at
inferring
implicitly
represented
relations
,
predicting
meaning
shifts
of
nouns
or
verbs
,
expressing
restrictions
on
these
meaning
shifts
in
dependency
of
context
-
or
language-specific
factors
,
and
facilitating
reference
resolution
.
Measures
to
achieve
these
issues
include
representation
of
default
knowledge
and
various
sorts
of
inference
methods
and
constructive
procedures
.
However
,
the
entities
in
the
texts
examined
almost
always
appear
in
singular
form
so
that
issues
of
cardinality
of
metonymically
related
items
have
been
widely
ignored
by
the
approaches
made
so
far
.
Motivated
by
this
lack
of
analysis
,
we
have
examined
metonymic
expressions
by
varying
cardinalities
of
the
items
appearing
explicitly
or
implicitly
,
to
analyze
effects
of
these
alternations
.
The
results
have
inspired
us
to
build
increasingly
explicit
versions
of
logical
forms
,
and
to
formulate
conditions
on
pronominal
accessibility
.
The
insights
gained
improve
analysis
methods
for
relating
contextual
specifications
to
the
appropriate
entity
,
and
for
supporting
reference
resolution
to
entities
related
implicitly
.
This
paper
is
organized
as
follows
.
We
review
computational
approaches
to
metonymy
.
Then
we
illustrate
the
phenomena
investigated
.
We
elaborate
suitable
techniques
to
deal
with
these
phenomena
,
that
is
,
an
enhancement
to
entries
in
the
Generative
Lexicon
,
and
a
procedure
for
building
a
logical
form
.
Finally
,
we
discuss
impacts
of
our
analysis
on
pronominal
resolution
.
2
Approaches
to
Metonymy
Metonymy
is
a
natural
language
phenomenon
that
contributes
to
expressing
information
in
an
effective
and
economic
way
.
It
involves
what
has
been
termed
'
transfers
of
meaning
'
by
(
Nunberg
1995
)
,
i.e.
,
the
meaning
of
some
constituent
does
not
correspond
to
what
can
be
expected
according
to
the
syntactic
and
semantic
environment
-
the
speaker
is
"
using
one
entity
to
refer
to
another
that
is
related
to
it
"
(
Lakoff
and
Johnson
1980
)
.
For
example
,
in
the
utterance
"
The
ham
sandwich
is
waiting
for
his
check
"
,
it
is
not
literally
the
ham
sandwich
,
which
wants
to
pay
,
but
the
person
who
ordered
it
.
Computational
approaches
such
as
the
NL
database
interface
TEAM
(
Grosz
et
al.
1988
)
are
concerned
with
inferring
implicitly
expressed
metonymic
relations
,
mostly
in
English
;
some
analyses
consider
German
(
Horacek
1996
)
and
French
(
Kayser
1988
,
Pustejovsky
and
Bouillon
1995
)
.
Prominent
representatives
include
Fass
'
program
met
*
(
1991
)
,
which
makes
use
of
formal
definitions
of
several
kinds
of
metonymic
relations
,
Sowa
's
conceptual
graphs
(
1992
)
,
in
which
an
a
priori
unspecific
relation
is
inserted
between
a
concept
of
the
type
expected
and
the
concept
appearing
on
the
surface
,
and
the
TACITUS
system
(
Hobbs
et
al.
1993
)
which
treats
metonymy
as
a
special
case
of
reference
resolution
,
in
a
uniform
abduction
process
to
"
find
the
best
explanation
for
the
observables
"
.
Altogether
,
these
approaches
have
two
characteristic
properties
:
(
1
)
The
conditions
expressing
when
leaving
a
metonymic
relation
implicit
or
not
is
possible
are
too
unconstrained
to
cover
a
larger
number
of
examples
in
several
languages
,
or
to
generate
sentences
with
metonymic
expressions
systematically
.
(
2
)
The
intended
and
the
literal
referent
always
appear
in
singular
definite
form
.
There
are
only
three
approaches
which
in
some
aspects
deviate
from
this
characterization
.
Pustejovsky
's
Generative
Lexicon
(
1991
)
addresses
the
first
aspect
.
He
proposes
a
Theory
of
Qualia
,
with
an
explanation
of
systematic
polysemy
.
Applying
type
coercion
enables
one
to
arrive
at
cases
of
ordinary
metonymy
which
can
be
grounded
in
terms
of
the
semantics
of
lexemes
,
as
well
as
at
word
senses
which
Pustejovsky
has
termed
logical
metonymy
,
like
the
reading
of
a
book
in
the
sentence
"
Mary
enjoyed
the
book
"
.
Such
contexts
reflect
prototypical
knowledge
derived
from
AGENTIVE
or
TELIC
roles
of
the
lexical
entry
for
'
book
'
,
which
are
prominent
roles
in
the
Qualia
Structure
of
nouns
.
Particularities
of
the
Qualia
Structure
of
nouns
regulate
the
acceptability
of
leaving
a
metonymic
relation
implicit
(
Pustejovsky
and
Bouillon
1995
)
.
Stallard
(
1993
)
indirectly
addresses
the
second
aspect
by
taking
into
account
scoping
relations
and
impacts
on
pronominal
reference
.
He
introduces
a
distinction
between
referential
and
predicative
metonymy
,
depending
on
whether
the
intended
or
the
literal
argument
is
accessible
for
subsequent
pronominal
reference
.
This
distinction
manifests
itself
in
different
scope
relations
that
hold
between
these
arguments
in
the
corresponding
logical
forms
.
We
will
argue
against
his
usage
of
scoping
and
the
resulting
strict
distinction
of
pronominal
accessibility
.
Markert
and
Hahn
(
1997
)
address
interactions
of
metonymic
relation
extension
and
anaphora
resolution
,
which
enables
them
to
handle
textual
ellipsis
references
.
They
apply
extensive
language
independent
conceptual
definitions
with
relational
path
classifications
and
preference
rules
.
In
their
corpus
,
there
are
also
cases
of
indefinite
metonymic
NPs
,
which
is
an
indication
for
metonymic
relations
to
several
objects
.
Though
neither
Pustejovsky
's
nor
Stallard
's
approach
address
cardinalities
,
we
show
that
both
can
be
extended
accordingly
:
we
augment
the
Generative
Lexicon
by
representing
cardinality
information
,
and
techniques
for
building
logical
forms
are
enhanced
to
yield
more
precise
specifications
of
the
metonymically
related
entities
.
3
Phenomena
Investigated
For
a
number
of
metonymic
relations
,
such
as
PRODUCER
for
PRODUCT
(
"
I
bought
a
Ford
"
)
,
ARTIST
for
ARTWORK
(
"
He
plays
Bach
"
)
,
as
well
as
eventualities
involved
in
logical
metonymy
,
cardinalities
are
not
a
problem
because
the
literal
referents
are
expressed
as
proper
names
.
For
other
metonymic
relations
,
especially
ORGANIZATION
for
MEMBER
and
PART
for
(
1
)
The
ham
sandwich
is
waiting
for
his
check
.
(
1a
)
He
is
getting
impatient
.
(
1b
)
It
is
2
$
.
(
2
)
The
Boston
office
called
.
?
(
2a
)
He
was
angry
.
(
2b
)
It
is
our
head
quarter
.
(
2c
)
They
want
us
to
organize
a
meeting
.
Following
Stallard
,
(
1
)
is
interpreted
as
an
example
of
referential
reading
,
while
(
2
)
as
an
example
of
predicative
reading
:
(
1
)
can
be
rephrased
more
explicitly
by
The
manx
who
has
eaten
a
ham
sandwichy
is
waiting
for
hisx
check
,
while
(
2
)
in
a
similar
way
gets
expanded
to
The
Boston
officex
represented
by
one
of
itsx
employeesy
called
.
These
reformulations
suggest
that
the
man
in
(
1
)
and
the
Boston
office
in
(
2
)
have
wider
scope
in
Stallards
representation
than
the
ham
sandwich
in
(
1
)
and
the
employee
in
(
2
)
,
which
predicts
pronominal
accessibility
in
(
1a
)
and
(
2b
)
,
as
opposed
to
(
1b
)
,
(
2a
)
and
(
2c
)
.
We
challenge
this
analysis
with
evidence
from
the
examples
above
.
Pronominal
reference
in
(
1b
)
is
also
possible
,
but
may
be
less
common
than
in
(
1a
)
.
(
2c
)
seems
even
more
natural
than
(
2b
)
,
only
(
2a
)
is
unclear
.
Further
complications
arise
when
variations
of
cardinality
in
sentence
(
1
)
(
see
sentences
(
3
)
to
(
6
)
and
their
follow-ups
)
,
and
variation
of
circumstances
in
sentence
(
2
)
(
see
the
follow-ups
of
sentences
(
7
)
and
(
8
)
)
are
considered
.
For
dishes
made
of
animals
(
'
the
mussels
'
)
,
complications
arise
through
interference
between
animals
and
persons
as
pronominal
referents
.
Because
we
want
to
study
the
effects
of
cardinality
variations
per
se
,
we
avoid
such
examples
.
(
3
)
The
pizzas
are
waiting
for
their
checks
.
?
(
3a
)
He
/
she
is
getting
impatient
.
(
3b
)
They
are
getting
impatient
.
(
4
)
The
fruit
dumplings
is
/
are
waiting
for
his
/
her
/
their
check
(
s
)
.
(
4a
)
He
/
she
/
they
is
/
are
getting
impatient
.
(
5
)
The
meat
plate
is
/
are
waiting
for
his
/
her
/
their
check
(
s
)
.
(
5
a
)
He
/
she
/
they
is
/
are
getting
impatient
.
(
6
)
Table
7
is
/
are
waiting
for
his
/
her
/
their
check
(
s
)
.
(
6a
)
He
/
she
/
they
is
/
are
getting
impatient
.
These
sentences
demonstrate
that
both
intra
-
(
(
1
)
and
(
3
)
)
and
intersentential
(
(
1a
)
and
(
3b
)
)
pro-nonminal
reference
work
fine
,
if
the
literal
referents
(
here
,
various
sorts
of
food
)
and
the
real
referents
(
here
,
the
persons
)
agree
in
number
.
Otherwise
,
a
variety
of
complications
arise
in
in
-
trasentential
reference
,
which
also
demonstrate
a
specificity
of
English
.
Whereas
pronouns
agree
with
the
literal
referent
in
most
languages
,
it
is
the
intended
referent
that
determines
verb
agreement
and
pronominal
reference
in
the
same
sentence
in
English
.
For
example
,
metonymic
extension
to
the
expression
'
fruit
dumplings
'
is
ambiguous
in
the
sense
that
it
can
refer
to
one
plate
of
dumplings
to
be
eaten
by
a
single
person
,
or
to
several
plates
,
each
for
another
person
(
see
the
variants
in
(
4
)
)
.
Conversely
,
metonymic
extension
to
the
expression
'
meat
plate
'
can
also
be
interpreted
as
a
reference
to
several
persons
sharing
that
dish
(
see
the
variants
in
(
5
)
)
.
Finally
,
metonymic
extension
to
the
expression
'
table
'
seems
to
be
more
neutral
with
respect
to
the
number
of
persons
sharing
it
(
see
the
variants
in
(
6
)
)
.
Thus
,
the
syntactic
subject
and
the
verb
would
not
agree
in
number
in
English
,
when
the
default
situation
concerning
these
dishes
is
present
.
Hence
,
English
is
,
in
principle
,
more
informative
than
other
languages
when
the
cardinality
of
the
intended
referent
differs
from
the
number
of
the
literal
referent
.
However
,
those
expressions
without
subject
/
verb
agreement
are
unlikely
to
occur
in
practice
,
since
they
appear
to
be
strange
.
Unlike
with
intrasentential
reference
,
intersen-tential
pronominal
reference
with
number
features
deviating
from
the
referent
that
is
pronomi-nally
accessible
intrasententially
is
possible
due
to
default
expectations
about
the
cardinality
of
the
real
referents
(
compare
complementary
variants
in
(
4a
)
and
(
5a
)
)
.
It
is
more
problematic
in
other
cases
(
see
(
3a
)
)
.
In
the
less
precise
reference
by
the
table
,
all
variants
in
(
6a
)
are
felicitous
.
(
7
)
The
Boston
office
is
represented
in
the
meeting
.
(
7a
)
He
/
she
is
an
expert
in
marketing
.
(
7b
)
They
are
experts
in
marketing
.
(
7c
)
They
always
send
someone
to
meetings
.
(
8
)
The
Boston
office
will
meet
for
an
excursion
today
.
*
(
8a
)
He
/
she
likes
to
walk
.
(
8b
)
They
will
make
a
lunch
break
at
2
pm.
(
8c
)
They
like
to
organize
social
events
.
The
following
sentences
(
(
2
)
,
(
7
)
,
(
8
)
,
and
their
follow-ups
)
involve
slightly
harder
restrictions
.
Plural
pronominal
references
as
in
sentences
(
7b
)
,
(
7c
)
,
(
8b
)
and
(
8c
)
are
felicitous
,
but
there
is
a
difference
between
the
sets
of
entities
the
plural
pronouns
refer
to
.
While
in
(
7c
)
and
(
8c
)
,
the
pronouns
refer
to
the
entire
set
of
employees
of
the
Boston
office
,
they
more
plausibly
refer
to
the
representatives
in
the
meeting
in
(
7b
)
and
to
the
excursion
participants
in
(
8b
)
.
These
examples
indicate
an
additional
demand
on
the
treatment
of
cardinalities
and
referential
accessibility
of
metonymic
expressions
:
a
distinction
is
to
be
made
between
the
entities
referred
to
metonymi
-
cally
(
here
:
employees
of
the
Boston
office
)
,
and
those
of
its
members
involved
in
the
event
expressed
by
the
sentence
(
here
:
the
meeting
and
the
excursion
)
.
For
the
restaurant
scenario
,
these
sets
of
persons
are
mostly
identical
except
to
those
cases
where
one
person
out
of
a
group
of
persons
eating
together
and
referred
to
metony-mically
is
the
one
who
intends
to
pay
.
(
9
)
Which
airlines
serve
food
from
Boston
to
As
a
further
aspect
of
metonymic
expressions
,
the
last
two
examples
demonstrate
chaining
of
metonymic
relations
and
the
relevance
of
each
set
of
items
involved
for
the
associated
analysis
.
In
sentence
(
9
)
,
the
airlines
are
the
literal
,
and
the
persons
the
real
referents
.
However
,
relating
these
two
entities
directly
by
an
employment
relation
is
problematic
,
since
it
is
impossible
to
connect
the
locality
information
(
from
Boston
to
New
York
)
and
the
first
class
restriction
to
either
of
them
.
Linking
this
information
appropriately
requires
explicit
elaboration
of
the
relation
between
the
airlines
and
their
employees
to
include
the
implicitly
referred
flights
.
The
consideration
exposed
so
far
primarily
hold
for
English
.
Apart
from
the
partitive
construction
,
which
seems
to
be
a
specificity
of
English
in
comparison
to
many
other
languages
,
the
results
can
widely
be
transferred
to
other
languages
.
However
,
there
are
a
lot
a
language-specific
subtleties
which
may
influence
the
felicity
or
non-felicity
of
some
of
the
expressions
discussed
in
one
particular
language
.
In
order
to
find
out
,
to
what
extent
other
languages
behave
similar
to
English
,
we
have
asked
native
speakers
of
German
,
French
,
Italian
,
Spanish
,
Russian
,
and
Vietnamese
about
the
transferabillity
of
the
English
sentences
to
these
languages
.
Though
the
results
are
subjective
to
a
certain
extent
(
only
one
speaker
was
available
for
most
of
these
languages
)
,
some
tendencies
became
apparent
.
Even
sentence
(
1
)
was
considered
unacceptable
in
some
languages
,
in
which
there
is
more
emphasis
on
referring
to
persons
explicitly
.
In
Spanish
,
this
seems
to
be
caused
syntactically
,
by
the
absence
of
personal
pronouns
,
while
the
reasons
seem
to
be
more
pragmatically
or
culturally
related
in
French
and
Vietnamese
,
respectively
.
Moreover
,
references
to
objects
(
(
1b
)
and
(
2b
)
)
appeared
unusal
in
some
languages
,
including
Vietnamese
and
Italian
.
Also
in
German
,
a
demonstrative
pronoun
seems
to
be
preferable
to
a
personal
pronoun
.
Finally
,
(
2
)
is
quite
weird
in
Spanish
,
since
the
alternative
'
From
the
Boston
office
_
called
'
exists
(
unlike
in
(
7
)
and
(
8
)
)
.
In
constrast
,
precisely
(
2
)
is
acceptable
in
Vietnamese
,
because
only
'
calling
'
is
considered
technical
.
sandwieh
(
x
)
4
Expressing
Lexical
Knowledge
In
order
to
capture
distinctions
between
the
varying
interpretations
of
metonymic
expressions
,
knowledge
about
the
lexical
items
involved
plays
a
crucial
role
.
For
adequately
expressing
this
knowledge
,
we
make
use
of
entries
in
the
Generative
Lexicon
(
see
Figure
1
)
.
Since
the
information
represented
there
is
insufficient
for
reasoning
about
cardinalities
,
we
extend
the
entries
in
the
Generative
Lexicon
,
prominently
the
TELIC
role
,
by
quantifier
specifications
.
In
the
original
form
,
the
entities
involved
(
typically
,
the
lexical
item
itself
and
some
related
entity
)
are
implicitly
quantified
,
and
a
typed
event
variable
is
used
(
an
event
may
be
a
state
(
S
)
,
a
process
(
P
)
,
or
a
transition
(
T
)
)
.
A
similar
exploitation
of
taxonomic
knowledge
in
terms
of
cardinality
restrictions
has
been
undertaken
for
scope
disambiguation
in
(
Fliegner
,
1988
)
.
In
the
extended
form
,
we
introduce
explicit
quantifiers
and
scoping
,
and
we
optionally
add
sort
restrictors
to
variables
referred
to
by
event
predicates
.
We
introduce
new
quantifiers
to
cover
the
cases
elaborated
in
the
previous
section
,
in
addition
to
the
usual
NL
quantifiers
EXIST
and
WH
:
SINGLE
and
MULTIPLE
for
a
single
resp
.
multiple
objects
without
defaults
,
DEFSINGLE
and
DEFMULTIPLE
for
the
same
with
defaults
.
Figures
2
and
3
show
entries
in
the
Generative
Lexicon
with
extended
TELIC
roles
.
The
same
extensions
also
apply
to
the
AGENTIVE
roles
,
but
we
do
not
elaborate
this
aspect
here
.
Figure
2
,
for
example
,
shows
some
sorts
of
food
associated
with
different
expectations
about
how
many
persons
typically
eat
them
.
Fruit
dumplings
appear
as
sets
(
quantified
by
DEFMULTIPLE
)
,
to
be
eaten
as
a
dish
by
a
single
person
(
quantified
by
DEF-SINGLE
)
.
For
the
meat
plate
,
cardinality
relations
are
inverted
.
For
a
table
in
a
restaurant
,
relations
to
food
eaten
at
that
table
are
not
specified
.
Unlike
in
the
restaurant
scenario
,
cardinality
relations
are
less
vague
for
some
relations
in
organizations
.
Each
office
and
each
airline
are
supposed
to
employ
several
persons
,
and
each
person
is
working
for
one
organization
only
,
at
least
in
his
/
her
individual
activities
(
this
is
expressed
by
the
quantifiers
SINGLE
and
MULTIPLE
in
the
lexical
entries
in
Figure
3
)
.
Each
flight
carries
some
set
of
people
,
each
of
which
participates
in
one
flight
only
(
at
the
same
time
)
.
These
extensions
allow
us
to
derive
cardinalities
for
the
referents
involved
in
a
metonymic
expression
-
compare
the
entries
for
FRUIT-DUMPLING
and
MEAT-PLATE
,
as
contrasting
examples
.
To
achieve
this
goal
,
the
knowledge
represented
in
the
lexicon
entries
is
used
for
building
logical
forms
in
which
metonymic
relations
are
made
entirely
explicit
.
The
event
predicates
in
the
TELIC
(
or
AGENTIVE
)
roles
are
exploited
to
infer
the
relation
involved
.
Moreover
,
the
new
quantification
specification
yields
crucial
information
to
build
an
explicit
logical
form
with
cardinality
specifications
from
concise
surface
expressions
in
a
precise
manner
.
5
Building
Logical
Forms
Based
on
entries
in
the
Generative
Lexicon
and
on
the
context
given
by
a
sentence
to
be
interpreted
,
logical
forms
can
be
built
that
represent
the
semantic
relations
involved
more
explicitly
than
this
is
the
case
with
previous
approaches
.
In
a
nutshell
,
metonymic
extensions
are
tried
according
to
specifications
found
in
the
lexicon
,
as
long
as
the
sort
of
an
NP
and
the
sort
of
the
referring
case
role
are
incompatible
.
In
addition
,
agreement
between
syntactic
number
and
seman
-
fruit-dumpling
(
x
)
meat-plate
(
x
)
(
DEFMULTIPLE
x
AGENTIVE
Some
'
extended
'
examples
of
Qualia
Structures
,
for
special
food
sorts
and
'
table
'
office
(
x
)
(
MULTIPLE
y
PERSON
airline
(
x
)
(
MULTIPLE
y
FLIGHT
(
organize
flight
(
x
)
(
DEFMULTIPLE
y
tic
cardinality
specifications
is
achieved
,
which
may
require
overwriting
defaults
or
introducing
a
new
set
of
entities
as
a
subset
of
a
known
set
.
In
concrete
,
logical
forms
are
built
by
pursuing
the
procedure
in
Figure
4
.
Logical
forms
appear
as
(
Q
x
S
&lt;
P
&gt;
)
,
where
Q
is
a
quantifier
,
x
and
S
its
associated
variable
and
sortal
restrictor
,
and
&lt;
P
&gt;
the
predication
related
.
In
step
2a
,
metonymic
extensions
are
carried
out
,
which
can
potentially
be
chained
,
and
in
step
2c
a
final
extension
is
performed
in
case
of
a
cardinality
mismatch
.
In
the
following
,
we
illustrate
the
procedure
by
some
examples
.
For
sentence
(
4
)
,
"
The
fruit
dumplings
wants
to
pay
"
,
the
initial
logical
form
contains
a
sortal
incompatibility
.
Using
the
lexical
entry
for
'
fruit
dumplings
'
and
expanding
the
expression
according
to
the
TELIC
role
yields
(
SINGLE
y
PERSON
(
MULTIPLE
x
FRUIT-DUMPLING
where
the
sortal
incompatibility
is
removed
.
Note
,
that
the
cardinality
of
PERSON
is
singular
,
due
to
the
inflection
of
the
predicate
'
wants
'
.
In
German
,
the
quantifier
is
unspecific
concerning
the
cardinality
,
because
the
sentence
predicate
would
not
give
the
same
indication
as
this
is
the
case
in
English
.
For
another
predicate
,
such
an
ambiguity
may
not
be
present
,
as
in
the
example
Making
use
of
the
TELIC
role
in
the
lexical
entry
of
'
office
'
,
as
exposed
in
Figure
3
,
yields
Build
an
initial
logical
form
out
of
the
surface
expression
.
The
representation
is
composed
as
an
expression
of
the
form
(
Qe
xe
Se
&lt;
P
&gt;
)
:
xe
being
the
variable
whose
representation
is
to
be
extended
(
initially
x
,
the
literal
referent
)
,
Qe
being
its
quantifier
,
and
Se
its
sort
(
initially
Q
and
S
,
associated
with
the
literal
referent
)
,
and
&lt;
P
&gt;
being
a
structured
representation
of
the
sentence
predicate
and
its
modifiers
.
Sr
is
the
sort
required
in
the
referring
case
frame
,
and
Qr
the
quantifier
of
its
case
slot
restrictions
.
Extend
the
meaning
of
noun
phrases
which
are
involved
in
a
sortal
incompatibility
.
2a
.
Build
a
metonymically
extended
expression
by
consulting
lexical
knowledge
.
if
the
referent
with
the
same
sort
as
xe
has
wider
scope
in
the
lexicon
,
or
with
inverted
equalities
.
&lt;
P
&gt;
is
partitioned
according
to
sortal
compatibility
of
its
components
:
if
xi
=
xE
then
&lt;
Pi
&gt;
contains
parts
that
refer
to
xE
,
sortally
compatible
with
SE
,
otherwise
&lt;
P2
&gt;
.
else
Qr
overwrites
Qn
if
Qn
is
a
default
quantifier
compatible
with
Qr.
2c
.
Test
the
cardinality
compatibility
of
the
new
sort
with
the
restrictions
to
be
met
.
If
Sn
is
compatible
with
Sr
,
but
Qn
is
incompatible
with
Qr
,
insert
MEMBER
between
xe
and
xn.
If
not
the
whole
set
of
entities
bound
to
xe
participates
in
the
eventuality
,
insert
SUBSET
instead
.
Fig
.
The
procedure
for
building
logical
forms
with
extended
metonymic
relations
which
still
contains
a
cardinality
incompatibility
.
Further
expanding
this
form
by
performing
step
2c
in
the
procedure
leads
to
the
insertion
of
a
MEMBER
relation
,
yielding
in
which
all
incompatibilities
are
resolved
.
Proceeding
in
the
same
manner
,
the
analysis
of
the
sentence
"
The
Boston
office
makes
an
excursion
"
yields
a
similar
result
,
with
only
two
minor
deviations
,
partially
grounded
in
the
semantic
difference
between
'
calling
'
and
'
excursion
making
'
:
(
1
)
The
variable
z
is
quantified
by
MULTIPLE
instead
of
SINGLE
,
and
(
2
)
the
expression
(
SUBSET
z
y
)
replaces
(
MEMBER
z
y
)
.
However
,
obtaining
precisely
this
representation
,
that
is
,
performing
the
insertion
of
the
SUBSET
relation
,
additionally
requires
some
sort
of
pragmatic
knowledge
:
typically
not
all
members
of
an
organization
participate
in
events
such
as
excursions
.
Nevertheless
,
suitable
ways
to
represent
such
domain-dependent
pieces
of
knowledge
adequately
are
delicate
.
Finally
,
sentence
(
9
)
,
"
Which
airlines
serve
food
from
New
York
to
Boston
?
"
,
shows
how
chained
metonymic
extensions
are
handled
:
The
first
metonymic
extension
,
based
on
the
lexicon
entry
for
'
airline
'
(
see
Figure
3
)
,
tentatively
inserts
'
flights
'
linked
to
'
airline
'
via
an
ORGANIZE
relation
,
and
yields
(
WH
x
AIRLINE
(
MULTIPLE
y
FLIGHT
and
the
final
operation
based
on
the
lexicon
entry
for
'
flight
'
(
see
Figure
3
)
leads
to
a
similar
extension
,
inserting
'
person
'
related
to
'
flight
'
via
a
CARRY
relation
:
(
MULTIPLE
z
PERSON
Note
the
distinguished
treatment
of
the
predications
containing
the
variable
which
represents
the
phrase
to
be
extended
,
as
opposed
to
the
previous
examples
.
In
all
cases
discussed
so
far
,
appearances
of
this
variable
are
replaced
by
the
new
variable
introduced
in
the
course
of
an
extension
.
Here
,
replacing
y
by
z
in
the
second
extension
step
is
only
carried
out
in
(
SERVE
y
FOOD
)
,
while
y
remains
unchanged
in
(
SOURCE
y
because
SOURCE
and
GOAL
can
be
established
as
properties
of
flights
,
while
CARRY
needs
a
further
extension
to
'
person
'
to
be
connected
appropriately
.
Building
explicit
logical
forms
in
this
way
demonstrates
a
number
of
achievements
over
other
methods
:
•
Scoping
of
variables
reflects
their
dependencies
in
the
event
they
are
involved
in
.
•
More
referents
than
just
the
real
and
the
literal
referent
may
be
introduced
,
through
chained
metonymic
extensions
or
through
membership
/
subset
insertions
.
•
An
additional
referent
may
provide
a
proper
place
to
relate
sentence
complements
.
Note
,
that
there
is
a
scoping
difference
between
"
one
and
the
same
person
eating
several
fruit
dumplings
"
and
"
several
persons
sharing
a
meat
plate
"
,
which
contrasts
Stallard
's
approach
.
Finally
,
we
have
to
admit
that
this
procedure
is
overgenerating
,
as
it
does
not
take
into
account
the
restrictions
imposed
on
the
use
of
metonymic
expressions
discussed
in
Section
3
.
The
procedure
is
cooperative
in
the
sense
that
it
attempts
to
interpret
a
given
metonymic
expression
,
but
it
is
not
strong
enough
to
distinguish
felicity
or
infelicity
of
a
metonymic
expression
,
which
may
be
due
to
various
lexical
and
pragmatic
factors
.
6
Impacts
on
Reference
Resolution
Empirically
supported
by
the
considerable
number
of
examples
discussed
in
section
3
,
our
approach
is
able
to
explain
more
pronominal
references
to
metonymic
expressions
than
others
:
•
Reference
to
literal
and
intended
referents
is
possible
in
an
increasing
number
of
cases
.
•
Pronominal
reference
in
plural
form
may
have
as
antecedents
distinguished
sets
of
entities
.
•
Cross-language
differences
in
the
treatment
of
intersentential
pronominal
reference
exist
.
In
order
to
express
scoping
relations
among
sets
properly
,
the
logical
forms
representing
meto-nymic
expressions
with
entities
of
cardinality
greater
than
one
must
deviate
from
Stallard
's
methods
.
According
to
Stallard
,
pronominal
reference
to
literal
and
real
referents
is
regulated
by
their
scope
,
which
distinguishes
referential
from
predicative
kinds
of
metonymy
.
Unfortunately
,
this
realization
of
metonymic
extension
is
incompatible
with
the
common
use
of
scoping
.
However
,
we
believe
that
Stallards
distinction
is
in
some
sense
artificial
,
because
the
felicity
of
pronominal
reference
seems
to
be
more
complex
and
influenced
by
other
factors
than
scoping
.
For
example
,
the
sentence
"
the
ham
sandwich
is
waiting
for
his
check
"
can
be
followed
by
some
information
useful
to
a
novice
waiter
:
"
It
costs
2
$
.
"
Moreover
,
the
message
"
The
Boston
office
called
"
can
be
followed
by
the
remark
"
He
spoke
angrily
"
in
some
plausible
contexts
.
Hence
,
it
does
not
seem
to
be
referential
inaccessibility
which
makes
many
similar
examples
sound
odd
,
but
the
rare
occurrence
and
the
low
coherence
in
neutral
contexts
.
For
example
,
it
is
usually
of
minor
interest
whether
the
person
calling
on
behalf
of
the
Boston
office
is
angry
himself
;
it
is
the
attitude
of
the
responsible
representatives
at
the
office
that
is
usually
more
interesting
.
Given
these
pieces
of
evidence
,
reference
resolution
is
supported
by
the
explicit
logical
form
built
through
our
techniques
,
and
it
is
additionally
guided
as
follows
:
Intrasentential
reference
Possessive
pronouns
always
relate
to
the
intended
referent
.
Since
possessive
pronouns
in
the
same
sentence
agree
with
the
real
referent
in
English
,
while
they
agree
with
the
literal
referent
in
most
other
languages
,
only
English
sentences
contain
information
about
cardinality
and
gender
of
the
intended
referent
.
For
example
,
the
sentence
'
the
fruit
dumplings
is
waiting
for
his
check
'
carries
the
additional
implication
that
there
is
one
male
person
who
wants
to
pay
.
Intersentential
reference
Reference
through
personal
pronouns
is
possible
to
the
literal
and
to
the
real
referent
,
and
to
referents
of
the
same
sort
but
with
possibly
different
cardinality
as
the
real
referent
.
Thus
,
all
entities
involved
in
a
metonymic
expression
in
its
appearance
in
the
explicit
logical
form
are
potential
antecedents
,
except
to
internal
elements
of
a
metonymic
chain
.
For
example
,
following
the
sentence
"
The
Boston
office
called
"
,
pronominal
reference
is
possible
to
the
office
(
the
literal
referent
)
,
to
the
caller
(
the
real
referent
)
,
and
to
the
people
at
the
office
(
differing
from
the
caller
by
number
only
)
.
However
,
'
the
flights
'
appearing
in
the
logical
form
representing
the
sentence
"
Which
airlines
serve
diet
food
from
New
York
to
Boston
?
"
are
not
pronominally
accessible
.
7
Conclusion
In
this
paper
,
we
have
presented
an
approach
to
deal
with
cardinality
aspects
of
metonymic
extensions
to
nouns
.
We
have
discussed
a
variety
of
constellations
with
pronominal
references
to
implicitly
related
items
,
sometimes
associated
with
subtle
conditions
,
focusing
on
English
,
also
including
some
language
specificities
.
In
order
to
build
explicit
logical
forms
with
cardinality
specifications
,
we
have
extended
entries
in
Pustej-ovsky
's
Generative
Lexicon
by
default
quantifier
specifications
.
Through
exploiting
these
entries
,
metonymic
extensions
are
introduced
on
the
basis
of
events
represented
in
the
roles
of
the
Qualia
structure
,
and
member
or
subset
relations
are
introduced
on
the
basis
of
the
associated
quantifier
specification
.
Our
method
for
building
explicit
logical
forms
challenges
Stallard
's
distinction
of
predicative
and
referential
readings
of
metonymic
expressions
:
it
produces
scopings
that
reflect
proper
quantifier
dominance
relations
rather
than
pronominal
accessibility
conditions
,
and
it
allows
for
additional
cases
of
pronominal
reference
.
In
addition
,
our
method
enables
a
more
precise
attachment
of
contextual
specifications
to
related
entities
,
and
it
supports
reference
resolution
to
metonymically
related
entities
.
Referenees
(
Fass
,
1991
)
Dan
Fass
.
met
*
:
A
Method
for
Discriminating
Metonymy
and
Metaphor
by
Computer
.
Computational
Linguistics
l7
(
l
)
,
pp.
49-90
,
l99l
.
Verwendung
terminologischen
Wissens
bei
der
Analyse
von
Quantorenskopus
und
Distributivität
.
In
Proc
.
of
GWAI-88
,
pp.
112-117
,
1988
.
(
Grosz
et
al.
l988
)
Barbara
Grosz
,
Doug
Appelt
,
Paul
Martin
,
and
Fernando
Pereira
.
TEAM
:
An
Experiment
in
the
Design
of
Transportable
Natural-Language
Interfaces
.
Artificial
Intelligence
32
,
pp.
173243
,
1987
.
(
Hobbs
et
al.
1993
)
Jerry
Hobbs
,
Mark
Stickel
,
Doug
Appelt
,
and
Paul
Martin
.
Interpretation
as
Abduction
.
Artificial
Intelligence
,
pp.
69-142
,
1993
.
(
Horacek
1994
)
Helmut
Horacek
.
Some
Issues
in
Dealing
with
Metonymy
.
In
Proc
.
of
KONVENS-94
,
pp.
171-180
,
Vienna
,
Austria
,
1994
.
(
Horacek
1996
)
Helmut
Horacek
.
On
Expressing
Meto-nymic
Relations
in
Multiple
Languages
.
Machine
Translation
11
,
pp.
109-158
,
1996
.
(
Kayser
1988
)
Daniel
Kayser
.
What
Kind
of
Thing
is
a
Concept
.
Computational
Intelligence
4
(
2
)
,
pp.
158165
,
1988
.
(
Lakoff
and
Johnson
1980
)
George
Lakoff
and
M.
Johnson
.
Metaphors
We
Live
By
.
Univ
.
of
Chicago
Press
,
1980
.
(
Markert
and
Hahn
1997
)
Katja
Markert
and
Udo
Hahn
.
On
the
Interaction
of
Metonymies
and
Anaphora
.
In
Proc
.
of
IJCAI-97
,
pp.
1010-1015
,
Nagoya
,
Japan
,
1997
.
(
Nunberg
1995
)
Geoffrey
Nunberg
.
Transfers
of
Meaning
.
Journal
of
Semantics
12
,
pp.
109-132
,
Oxford
University
Press
,
1995
.
(
Pustejovsky
1991
)
James
Pustejovsky
.
The
Generative
Lexicon
.
Computational
Linguistics
17
(
4
)
,
pp.
409441
,
1991
.
(
Pustejovsky
and
Bouillon
1995
)
James
Pustejovsky
,
and
P.
Bouillon
.
Aspectual
Coercion
and
Logical
Polysemy
.
Journal
of
Semantics
12
,
pp.
133-162
,
Oxford
University
Press
,
1995
.
(
Sowa
1992
)
John
Sowa
.
Logical
Structures
in
the
Lexicon
.
In
J.
Pustejovsky
,
S.
Bergler
(
eds
.
)
:
Lexical
Semantics
and
Knowledge
Representation
,
pp.
3960
,
Springer
,
1992
.
Ohio
,
USA
,
1993
.
