Meaning and the Generation of Reference A

T1
Meaning and the Generation of Reference A
[avec Pierre Cadiot & François Nemo]
[225 Ð
Abstract
We are presenting here a generative account of the French lexemes balayer (to
sweep) and balayage (sweeping), based on extensive data mining from newspapers databases. We are showing that i) these words are routinely used to refer to the most diverse kinds of referents ri; ii) a semantic function f(m,c) 1 allows to account for all (m,ri)
pairs; iii) this generative function is based on EPs (Extrinsic Properties); iv) Qualia
Structures (QS) contain EPs. We are thus discussing the generative nature of QS and
proposing a description of balayer and balayage with structures that can effectively
generate the reference of all uses.
Introduction
Once it is admitted that a speaker is able to produce a linguistic reality that is
both correct and new (something that he has not been exposed to and that he would
not just reproduce), and that speakers are actually able to produce an infinite set of
such new linguistic realities, it becomes impossible to understand the linguistic capacity of speakers as the individual memorization of a fixed number of forms in order
to repeat them, and the existence of generative mechanisms must be recognized.
If in syntax, generativity has been viewed mainly as a combinatory capacity, when
it comes to semantics, we are facing two alternatives. If we consider that there is no
such thing as a generative semantic capacity, then a lexicon is simply learnt and reproduced with no creative use of language. In such a view, a use of language would be
correct only if it is not different from what the speaker has been exposed to so far 2.
Another alternative is to consider that we are making a creative use of language
from a semantic point of view, which makes the term fixed lexicon – or Sense Enumerative Lexicon as Pustejovsky names it (1995 : 39-59) – inappropriate. It may be
the case that some uses are more frequent or more regular than others but apart from
A
[225 Ð
1
2
Les pages du volume d’actes de colloque qui inclut cet article ne sont pas numérotées. L’article est proposé
en pages 225-232, comme l’indiquent les repères de pagination introduits dans la présente édition.
Where m = word and c = context.
We should notice, however, that in such a case, it becomes difficult to decide when a speaker is supposed to
stop learning the lexicon.
2001, in P. Bouillon & K. Kanzaki eds,
First International Workshop on Generative Approaches to the Lexicon. April 26-28, 2001, Geneva, Switzerland,
Genève, Université de Genève, École de Traduction et d’Interprétation, pp. non numérotées [225-232].
[Article dans un volume d’actes de colloque international ; rédigé en 2000-2001, 33 222 caractères ; cf. C1]
416
Des usages en corpus aux descriptions dictionnairiques : HDR – N. Gasiglia
the denominative/non-denominative distinction (some uses are denominative and some
are not 3), there is little data to support the idea of a closed lexicon or of a basic meaning. Indeed, corpus data shows extensively that most of the uses of many linguistic
[226 Ð
units (both quantitatively and
qualitatively) are not predictable for dictionaries or
for speakers themselves: out of all uses of the verb balayer (to sweep) and the noun
balayage (sweeping) that we will examine closely in what follows, more than three
quarters are not related with any broom, whether directly of indirectly (blending), and
almost as many are not mentioned in a dictionary like Le Petit Robert.
1.
Generating reference vs transferring reference
It goes without saying that to postulate the existence of a function f(m,c) to account for all ri implies i) that the encoded meaning of m is not just the description of
any referent r; ii) the inexistence of a transfer function t that would take a specific referent r1 as an argument (and an input) to produce another referent r2. Such a derivational model would indeed not be fully generative for it would combine a fixed reference (m,r1) and a transfer function t(r1,r2) 4.
The possibility to avoid such an FRTR (“Fixed Reference Transfer Reference”) model
in the description of polysemy has been presented in Cadiot & Nemo’s 1997 papers
(1997a, 1997b) on nominal polysemy in the following terms:
Thesis 1: Because it is impossible to consider an object outside of the relationship we have with
it 5, its description implies a clear-cut distinction between its extrinsic properties (EPs), directly
dependent on these relationships, and its intrinsic properties (IPs), which are independent from
such relationships (1997a : 127)
Thesis 2: To account for the diversity of the uses of words, one needs to consider the distribution of EPs and IPs in two directions:
– the diversity of possible relations (EPs) with one “object” (i.e. to a specified set of IPs),
– the diversity of “objects” with which the same relation may be established.
3
[226 Ð
4
5
As we shall see, the relationship between linguitic units and referents is actually and basically a loose one.
A strengthening of a (m,r) pair may nevertheless occur whenever m becomes the name of r. Consequently,
denominative uses are, in fact, the more conventional uses to refer to a specific referent. And among the
uses of m, some may be denominative (and conventional) while others are not.
On purely theoretical grounds, there are indeed three ways to consider the relationship between linguistic
(i.e. encoded) meaning and reference. The first is to say that meaning encodes a referent, hence that r = f(m).
So that whenever different referents are associated with the same phonetical and graphical unit, the only
solution is to postulate homonymy (or a homonymyc degrouping); i.e. to postulate the existence of: r1 = f(m1);
r2 = f(m2); r3 = f(m3). Of course, this first option cannot account in a generative way of polysemy or creative
uses of language and hence dismiss the idea of a generative lexicon.
The second option is to postulate that the association of a referent with a linguistic unit may be either directly encoded, and hence r = f(m), or calculated within a function that takes an encoded r – or f(m) – as argument, i.e. a function such as r’ = f’(f(m)). Such hybrid models, and there are a huge variety of them, depending on how f’(x) is described, have in common that they all postulate both Fixed Reference and a Transfer
of Reference. Because they recognize the existence of creative uses of language (apart from the non-creative
uses) but not the creative/generative nature of language, they postulate in fact an hybrid lexicon.
The last option is the one we shall defend, namely that language is a creative/generative phenomenon
(energeia), so that a unique function f(m,c) can account for all the referents. Linguistic meaning hence becomes fully generative.
Or “the relations things have between them in the relation we have with them” (Nemo (1999 : 360)).
T1 – Meaning and the Generation of Reference
417
We call a lexical unit, the set of uses of a word that reveal that the same kind of relationships
are experienced with different objects. (1997a : 128).
In other words, the EP hypothesis, whose first formulation can be found simultaneously
in Nemo (1992) and Cadiot (1994), is the following: if words may refer to very different objects as far as IPs are concerned (the referents may belong to very different ontological types and categories), it is because they share an EP, i.e. a common relational
feature. EP descriptions of nouns have hence been proposed (Cadiot & Nemo, 1997a,
1997b, 1997c), notably of the French words client (client), nuit (night), lit (bed), frère
(brother), cendrier (ash-tray), équilibre (equilibrium), dimanche (Sunday), etc.
The same idea 6 may be found in Pustejovsky’s Qualia Structures (QS), which actually contain EPs, for they describe the relationship we have with objects. By inserting
the verbs reading or writing in the lexical description of the noun book, and by not
giving the IP of a book in that description, Pustejovsky’s lexicon is giving to EPs (versus IPs) a place and a role which were completely overlooked in traditional semantic
descriptions. The meaning of words, therefore, includes EPs:
« For example, in order to understand what nouns like cookie and beer mean, we recognize
that they are foodstuff and a beverage, respectively. […] the noun foodstuff denotes by making
functional reference to what we do with something, i.e., how we use it. » (1995 : 77)
[227 Ð
Another point of agreement between the EP model and the Generative Lexicon
model is the idea that this relational information is not peripheral but is a part of the
core linguistic meaning:
We can think of qualia […] as that set of properties or events associated with a lexical item
which best explain what that word means. (1995 : 77)
Within a generative perspective, however, the role of EPs appears quite different from
the role attributed to Qualia:
– For Pustejovsky, the Qualia must describe the « normal relation » (1995 : 41) we
have with something, and thus must associate a noun with its « normal » predicates.
– In the EP model, the EP’s role is to explain the reason why a word may actually be
used the way it is used. Describing the EP itself is not a matter of common sense or
direct intuition. Instead, it is accessible only through the study of the actual linguistic
behaviour of the lexical unit involved: only the diversity of uses of one word allows a
linguist to infer the nature of the encoded EP.
In other words, the problem is to know whether Qualias are playing a generative role
or not, i.e. are central to the r = f(m,c) function, or whether we may/must attribute a
specific Qualia to each use. Pustejovsky’s descriptions so far have adopted the second
alternative. We shall try to in the present paper to show that the first alternative would
be more efficient to account for the creative nature of the use of words.
6
This question is fully developed by Gasiglia (1998 : 176-193 and 271-366).
418
2.
Des usages en corpus aux descriptions dictionnairiques : HDR – N. Gasiglia
Corpus, meaning and uses
In order to test these two hypotheses, and in order to develop a description of r =
f(m,c), we have used two databases of French daily newspapers (Le Monde and Libération) which include all the issues of each journal for the years 1997 and 1998 (for
Le Monde) and 1998 to 2000 (for Libération). We have searched in both cases for all
the uses of balayage and balayer, two verbal or verbal-based forms. We have found 36
uses of balayage and 446 uses of balayer. Some of these uses are presented here.
N1)
D’autres mesures sont décidées pour des raisons d’hygiène, comme le balayage obligatoire des
rues deux fois par jour et le déblaiement des ordures. (Le Monde, 16/7/1998, p. 10)
¬ It has been decided on other measures for hygienic reasons, such as mandatory street
sweeping twice a day and garbage removing.
V1)
il y avait toujours une “petite main” qui balayait, préparait et rangeait les outils, (Le Monde,
14/5/1997, p. 22)
¬ there was a “little hand” that swept, prepared and organised the tools,
V2)
la cour d’honneur du collège, qu’un jardinier balaye avec soin (Le Monde, 10/12/1998, p. 15)
¬ School courtyard carefully swept by a gardener
N2)
le traitement approfondi de quelques événements importants devrait être préféré au balayage
exhaustif et rapide de toute l’actualité. (Le Monde, 4/7/1998, p. 17)
¬ Treating several important events in depth should be preferred to exhaustive and rapid
review of all current events.
N3)
Mais le prix du travail de Duneton tient moins à son balayage historique – parfaitement sérieux – qu’à l’humanité profonde de son approche (Le Monde, 20/11/1998, p. 7)
¬ However, the value of Duneton’s work comes more from profound humaneness of his approach than from his review of history, perfectly serious though
V3)
Hanin balayait l’histoire, des Années folles à l’Occupation (Le Monde, 10/7/1998, p. 3)
¬ Hanin examined (reviewed) the entire historical period, from Crazy Years to the Occupation
V4)
du jazz au flamenco en passant par l’électroacoustique ou l’harmonie régionale, il balaye dans
sa sixième édition tous les genres (Le Monde, 15/11/1997, p. 28)
¬ From jazz to flamenco, passing through the eletroacoustique and regional harmony, in his
sixth edition, he covers all types of genres
N4)
mille cinq cents heures de balayage au sonar des eaux tourbeuses du loch (Le Monde, 26/3/1998,
p. 7)
¬ one thousand and five hundred hours of sonar sweeping in the peaty waters of the loch
N5)
Le balayage progressif du MV-1 lit toutes les lignes, garantissant une netteté des photos (Le
Monde, 29/11/1997, p. 22)
¬ MV-1 progressive scanning reads all the lines warranting a perfect clarity of photos
N6)
L’absence de résultats des observations du satellite canadien Radarsat, malgré son balayage
[228 Ð
régulier de la zone, donnait alors
corps aux pires hypothèses. (Le Monde, 20/1/1997, p. 18)
¬ The absence of results from the Canadian satellite Radarsat observations, in spite of its regular scanning of the area, gave rise to the worst hypotheses.
T1 – Meaning and the Generation of Reference
N7)
419
où s’harmonisent les respirations humaines, les pas dans la neige, le balayage mat des essuieglaces et la rumeur feutrée des hélices d¹une ferme éolienne (Libération, 18/5/2000)
¬ where human breathing, footsteps in the snow, dull sweeping of windshield wipers and
noiseless murmur of screws from an air-motor farm
V5)
ce programme balayait systématiquement pour “Analyzer” les serveurs du Web à la recherche
d’une faille (Le Monde, 20/7/1998, p. 27)
¬ This program was systematically scanning Web servers for possible problems
V6)
le vent glacé qui balayait ce flanc fangeux de colline (Le Monde, 14/3/1998, p. 14)
¬ A freezing wind that was sweeping this filthy hill side
V7)
Hervé Laurent était parti le premier dans la tempête de novembre qui balayait déjà le golfe
de Gascogne. (Le Monde, 27/2/1997, p. 35)
¬ Hervé Laurent was the first to leave into the November storm that was already raging in
the gulf of Gascogne.
V8)
L’œil du cyclone financier qui balaye, depuis plus d’un an maintenant, les régions émergentes
s’est en effet déplacé brutalement (Le Monde, 13/10/1998, p. 4)
¬ The eye of the financial cyclone raging for over a year now in the developing countries, has
suddenly moved
V9)
Tuomas Ketola a été balayé en moins d’une heure et demie (6-1, 6-1, 6-1). (Le Monde, 6 avril
1998, p. 21)
¬ Tuomas Ketola was eliminated in less than an hour and a half (6-1, 6-1, 6-1)
V10)
la nouvelle génération de dirigeants socialistes qui ont balayé, en octobre 1995, le gouvernement de centre-droite au pouvoir depuis dix ans à Lisbonne (Le Monde, 4/3/1997, p. 3)
¬ A new generation of socialist leaders who in October 1995 made a clean sweep of the central right wing government that was in power since 10 years in Lisbon
V11)
M Bonino a balayé de la main les accusations (Le Monde, 18/12/1997, p. 31)
¬ Bonino dismissed with a wave of a hand all accusations
V12)
Junior Baiano a balayé ces pièces à conviction (Le Monde, 27/6/1998, p. 1)
¬ Baiano Junior brushed aside this material evidence
V13)
Le résultat est impressionnant parce qu’il balaye d’un revers de main tous les a priori de la
société actuelle sur les banlieues. (Le Monde, 10/4/1998, p. 27)
¬ The result is impressive since it dismisses with a wave of a hand all the a priori of the
modern society on suburbs
V14)
Deux films furieux, secs, rugueux, inventifs, qui balayaient d’un coup de main les conventions
narratives alors en vogue dans le cinéma japonais. (Le Monde, 18/9/1997, p. 15)
¬ Two furious, harsh, rough, inventive films that swept away all narrative conventions in
fashion at the time in Japanese cinema.
N8)
On apprend également la technique du balayage du regard : “Il faut regarder les élèves un
par un très vite, cela permet d’anticiper la situation.” (Libération, 12/9/2000)
¬ One also learns the technique of a “glance sweeping”: “It is necessary to look at each pupil
one by one very rapidly. This allows to anticipate the situation.”
420
Des usages en corpus aux descriptions dictionnairiques : HDR – N. Gasiglia
Among all the uses observed, it is possible to distinguish various degrees of conventionality. Some uses of balayage, for instance, seem to be the most conventional
ones: sweeping the floor is probably the use most people would have in mind if asked
out of context “what does balayage refer to?”. This use, however, represents only 4 of
the 36 observed uses of balayage, a frequency that is even much lower if one considers
the uses of balayer. Some other uses, such as balayage électronique are denominative
too: some machines (notably microscopes) are conventionally named balayage électronique machines. Other uses such as balayage au sonar, balayage satellitaire seem fairly
close to the previous use, but their denominative status is ambiguous: the fact of calling
balayage what a spy-satellite does may be denominative or not: it may be the case that
[229
we have actually no other word for it and that it is actually the conventional Ðname
for it among the specialists concerned, but it may also not be the case and be only an
outsider’s name. The same thing can be said about the balayage in judo: it may be denominative (balayage being the way the movement is actually called in judo) or communicative (balayage replacing a Japanese name for it to allow the outsiders to understand what is referred to), etc. On the contrary, balayage historique may seem unconventional but is clearly recurrent through time in our corpus, and probably regular in
its specific context (as is confirmed also by the balayer uses).
The observation of the data shows however, and overwhelmingly, the following:
– there is no fixed set of (m,ri), hence, it is clear that what m exactly refers to changes
from one context to another;
– the nature of the referent in terms of IP is fairly unstable from one context to another,
even though some clusters may be observed (such as electronic, sonar, X-rays, satellite
sweepings);
– the fact whether a use is denominative or not may often be unpredictable for the
listeners;
– the fact whether a use is conventional or not, denominative or not, regular or not,
frequent or not, part of the lexical memory or not, seems to make little difference as
far as the association (m,r) is concerned: in each context what m refers to is found,
whatever it may be.
Thus the idea that speakers have in their mind some kind of a Sense Enumerative
Lexicon, resembling a dictionary, is extensively falsified. Only two considerations would
actually support such a limitation: the little amount of space available in our dictionaries to describe a lexical item and the fact that dictionaries are not concerned with
language use but language usage, and consequently limit themselves to denominative
uses.
3.
Generating referents in the light of the Generative Lexicon theory
When constructing descriptive structures of various meanings of a lexical item in
the light of the Generative Lexicon model, whether one makes use of his/her intuition
(« normal relation » to something) or whether one uses the analysis of collocations or
dictionary entrees, one will always arrive at approximately the same two descriptive
structures that are the following:
T1 – Meaning and the Generation of Reference
421
balayage
AS
=
ARG1
ARG2
ARG3
ARG4
ARG5
= x:entité
= y:artefact
= z:entité
= w:espace
= v:cheveux
ES
=
E1 =e1:processus
QS
=
TELIC
= nettoyer(e1,x,w)
parcourir(e1,x,w)
parcourir(e1,y,w)
éliminer(e1,x,z)
décolorer(e1,x,v)
FORMAL = être-manipulé-par(e1,y,x)
balayer
=
ARG1 = x:entité
ARG2 = y:artefact
ARG3 = z:entité
ARG4 = w:espace
AS
ES
=
E1 =e1:processus
E2 =e2:état
Restr = <α
Head = E1
QS
=
TELIC
= nettoyer(e1,x,w)
parcourir(e1,x,w)
parcourir(e1,y,w)
éliminer(e1,x,z)
FORMAL = être-manipulé-par(e1,y,x)
In our generative perspective, these descriptions can be tested on the examples extracted from the corpora presented above. The most important point is to determine
which encoded information can effectively generate referents. The question is what the
respective roles of the Argument and the Qualia Structures (AS et QS respectively) are
and how each piece of information is integrated in the function r = f(m,c) previously
described.
First, we will concentrate on two AS problems: the first one is linked to principle
of AS constructions; the second one deals with the attribution of a type to arguments.
The latter is dependant on the presence of IPs in employed types, but both problems
[230 Ð
steam from the fact that ASs presented above are incorporating referential
information and consecutively block rather than participate in generating referents. Secondly, we will make use of the only structure that can encode EPs and that is hence
generative: the QS, but we must before anything else specify how we should use it.
1) When one constructs descriptive structures using « normal relation » to object, collocations or dictionary entrees and attributes an argument type to all arguments (implied in predicative declarations present in the QSs), a strong link between a definition and all possible referents of a lexical item is established. The structure is encoding
not only the meanings but also contextual information and becomes able to represent
422
Des usages en corpus aux descriptions dictionnairiques : HDR – N. Gasiglia
referents. It thus only offers the possibility to select one referent among several learnt
referents. In other terms, the structure is integrating the results of the function f(m,c)
in the descriptive structure of m, which is unacceptable in a generative perspective.
2) Another problem comes to light if we examine the role of each piece of information
included in QSs and ASs. If we take into account only the predicates in the QSs, we
observe that:
– the most conventional use (V2) can be “normally” represented by the predicate nettoyer(e1,x,w) where x is the gardener and w is the school courtyard (the tool used by
the gardener is normally a broom);
– the less conventional use (V6) can be represented by the predicate parcourir(e1,x,w)
where x is the wind and w is the side (and here no tool like the one in the previous
example is implied).
Therefore, it seems that we can predict all possible referents of the verb balayer
and the noun balayage. But in spite of this, the task becomes impossible if we consider
then the argument types as they are defined in the AS. Right from the moment of constructing a descriptive structure, an entity type should be attributed to the agent of
the action as well as to the affected object, both general enough to be able to include a
human, an artefact or a meteorological phenomenon, etc. for the former (N3, N7, V7,
V8) and a human, an idea, an institution, an artefact, etc. for the latter (V9, V13, V10,
V5, V12). At the same time, the sweeping tool should be classified as an artefact (N4)
and the action of sweeping should be considered as taking place inside a delimited
space (V2). Yet, judging from examples (V11, V13, V14, N8), the sweeping tool can be
represented by a hand (de la + (d’un (revers + coup) de) main) or a glance (du regard),
and if we can easily admit that the Gulf of Gascogne (V7) or a school courtyard (V2)
have a space reading, it is much more difficult to find the same reading for history
(N3, V3), news (N2), or musical genres (V4). These problems of type attribution are
depending upon the fact that IPs, which are implicitly present in argument typing,
block the generation of new uses (in new contexts).
We consequently consider that the generative power is contained solely in the QSs.
An alternative solution to Generative Lexicon structures envisaged before would be to
continue to make use of the QSs in order to encode EPs as we have proposed earlier.
The ASs will no longer serve to attribute a type to a variable. Instead, they will simply serve to characterize the role of a variable: for balayage and balayer it is necessary to say that an agent x allows the tool y to cover the space w from one end to the
other, meeting on its way an affected object z. Thus, we propose the following new descriptive structures 7 that can effectively generate the references of all uses of studied
words. We can successfully test these structures on our examples.
In these new descriptions, the predicate parcourir is included in the QSs because it
represents the process from the point of view of an agent or of a tool 8 (V2, N4, V6 or N6).
[230 Ð
7
8
In these definitions, we introduce the symbol “+” to represent the fact that the subject of the predicate parcourir(e1,x+y,w) can function either as an agent or as a tool which are joint in some cases (N6, V6).
This point of view is the only one possible for the noun balayage, therefore we encode only the predicate
parcourir(e1,y,w) and être-affecté-par(e1,y,x) in its Qualia Structure.
T1 – Meaning and the Generation of Reference
423
balayage
[231 Ð
AS
=
ARG1
ARG2
ARG3
ARG4
= x:agent
= y:moyen
= z:objet-affecté
= w:espace
ES
=
E1 = e1:processus
QS
=
TELIC = parcourir(e1,x+y,w)
FORMAL = être-affecté-par(e1,y,x)
balayer
AS =
ARG1 = x:agent
ARG2 = y:moyen
ARG3 = z:objet-affecté
ARG4 = w:espace
ES
=
E1 = e1:processus
E2 = e2:état
Restr = <α
Head = E1
QS
=
TELIC = parcourir(e1,x+y,w)
FORMAL = être-affecté-par(e1,y,x)
être-écarté-par(e2,z,x+y)
On the other hand, from the point of view of an affected object (the use that we find
in (V9)) with the passive voice 9 and in (V10) where the journalist takes the point of
view of an affected object in his/her description of the situation), the sweeping that
the affected object undergoes is not only a movement but also a force against which it
cannot fight. This force can have an entire spectrum of actions from leaving the object
“unaffected” to wiping it out completely (N3, N5 to V13, V9). This authorizes us to encode (in the verb’s QS) a possible state of the affected object, being wiped out entirely,
as a resulting state of the process.
Hence, the predicate nettoyer(e1,x,w) which was mentioned in first descriptive structures and, which allowed to express directly the most conventional uses (N1, V1, V2),
appears in fact to be a combination of the information taken from m = balayage or
m = balayer (parcourir(e1,y,w), être-affecté-par(e1,y,x) and être-écarté-par(e2,z,y)), with
contextual indices (as, for example, the goal of a human x action is to induce a broom
y movement which eliminates all things z on its way). Encoding the predicate nettoyer
in QSs of balayer and balayage 10 means integrating to m one of the possible results
(r1) of the function r = f(m,c) and consecutively leaving the generative perspective.
From the confrontation of our descriptive structures with the corpora, it is clear
that the information attached to m, should not include contextual or referential indices
[231 Ð
9
10
This is a very frequent use for the verb. The noun balayage cannot be employed in this manner.
In hairdresser’s vocabulary, a balayage is the name for highlighting the hair. Here we have a denominative
use of the noun. For the same reason, it is no longer necessary to encode the predicate décolorer(e1,x,v) (to
discolor) with object’s type equal cheveux (hair) since when a hairdresser “makes” a balayage, he covers the
entire length of separate hairs.
424
Des usages en corpus aux descriptions dictionnairiques : HDR – N. Gasiglia
and that the QS is the only structure that can account for the generative power of the
lexicon (r = f(m,c)).
Encoded meaning, generativity and memorized meaning: a conclusion
If we return now from lexical structure description back to our r = f(m,c) function,
we may start to describe how referents are generated in a given context and spell out
the nature of the relationship between our generative function and lexical structure.
As far as the first question is concerned, it becomes indeed possible to describe
f(m,c) as follows:
– the linguistic unit m encodes and provides an indication Im:
The linguistic unit balayage encodes an indication like: “A movement is going on, from one
point to another (from one side to another)”.
– the indication Im has its own semantics, i.e. it implies the existence of various elements whose relations are described by the indication:
A movement from one side to the other is made by an agent (x) with the tool (y) to cover the
space (w), meeting on its way a (consequently affected) object (z).
– understanding the indication Im in a given context is understanding what the elements in the context are which may unify with the elements provided by the indication:
Saying (N6) thus implies that [the satellite]x balaye [the sea surface]w [by looking with a ‘camera’]y [for a (lost) sailboat]z, because it forces the listener to look for the referents of x, y, w
and z in the context, and to relate the satellite, camera, sea surface and sailboat through the
existence of a scanning movement.
– this Contextual Unification allows the generation of a specific referent for balayage
in each context.
Without developing this description here (for details, see Nemo, 1998, 1999, forthcoming), the function f(m,c) may be characterized by the nature of its argument m (Im,
[232 Ð
is neither
conceptual nor procedural but declarative) and by the indexical nature
of the relation between m and r through c (i.e. the instruction to look for what the indication refers to in the context, see Nemo, 1998, forthcoming).
As far as the second question is concerned, i.e. the relation between f(m,c) and the
lexical structure, the key issue is the fact that contexts are actually fairly repetitive.
The function f(m,c) may be the same in any use of m, and all the uses may be accounted
for with f(m,c). Thus, from a strictly generative point of view, we need nothing else but
f(m,c). But it will nevertheless still be the case that some contexts are new and some
others are not, and that as far as describing lexical memory is concerned, the fact that
the result r1, r2, r3 of f(m,c) may be memorized and may become available in
lexical memory is very important in order to distinguish in the lexical structure between the encoded information Im and the memorized information. If language is to
T1 – Meaning and the Generation of Reference
425
be considered a generative phenomenon, the distinction between encoded generative
meaning (Im) and memorized generated meaning (information about r) is essential:
the fact that some results of f(m,c) are available at any moment because they have been
memorized, a point which is beyond discussion, should not lead us to believe that semantics equals memory, both because new uses appear all the time and because many
f(m,c) uses will never be memorized.
Acknowledgements
Our special thanks go to Katia Paykin and Leland Tracy.
References
ANICK P. & PUSTEJOVSKY J. (1990), « An application of lexical semantics to knowledge acquisition from corpora », in COLING’90. Proceedings of the 13 th Conference on Computational Linguistics, August 20-25, 1990, University of Helsinki, Finland, vol. 2, pp. 7-12.
BOUILLON P. & VIEGAS E. (1994), « A semi-polymorphic approach to the interpretation of
adjectival constructions: A cross-linguistic perspective », in W. Martin, W. Meijs, M.
Moerland, E. ten Pas, P. van Sterkenburg & P. Vossen eds, EURALEX’94. Proceedings
of the Sixth EURALEX International Congress, Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit, pp. 36-44.
CADIOT P. (1994), « Représentations d’objets et sémantique lexicale : qu’est ce qu’une boîte ? »,
Journal of French Language Studies 4.1, pp. 1-23.
CADIOT P. & NEMO F. (1997a), « Pour une sémiogenèse du nom », Langue française 113,
pp. 24-34.
CADIOT P. & NEMO F. (1997b), « Propriétés extrinsèques en sémantique lexicale », Journal
of French Language Studies 7.2, pp. 127-146.
CADIOT P. & NEMO F. (1997c), « Sémantique des doubles caractérisations », Sémiotiques 13,
pp. 123-143.
GASIGLIA N. (1998), Constructions de représentations sémantiques de séquences polylexicales
de structure N1 à N2 désignant des instruments à partir des indices portés par la préposition à, la morpho-sémantique des N1 et N2 et de propriétés extraites sur ces noms,
thèse de doctorat nouveau régime, 2 vol., Université Paris VII.
Le Petit Robert = Le Nouveau Petit Robert. Dictionnaire alphabétique et analogique de la
langue française, nouv. éd. remaniée et amplifiée, Paris, Dictionnaires Le Robert, 1993.
NEMO F. (1992), Contraintes de pertinence et compétence énonciative : l’image du possible
dans l’interlocution, thèse de doctorat nouveau régime, Paris, EHESS.
NEMO F. (1998), « Enfin, encore, toujours entre indexicalité et emplois », in A. Englebert,
M. Pierrard, L. Rosier & D. van Raemdonck Hrsg., Actes du XXII e Congrès International
de Linguistique et de Philologie Romanes. Bruxelles, 23-29 juillet 1998, t. VII, Sens et
fonctions, Tübingen,Max Niemeyer Verlag, pp. 499-511.
NEMO F. (1999), « The pragmatics of signs, The semantics of relevance, and the semantic/
pragmatic interface », in K. Turner ed., The Semantics-Pragmatics Interface from Different Points of View, Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface, vol. 1,
Oxford, Elsevier, chap. 13, pp. 343-417.
426
Des usages en corpus aux descriptions dictionnairiques : HDR – N. Gasiglia
NEMO F. (forthcoming), « Using words: morphems, utterances and cognition », paper read
at IPRA 2000, 7 th International Pragmatics Conference (Budapest, 9-14 July 2000), to
appear in a special issue of the Journal of Pragmatics under the title « Dropping the
conceptual/procedural distinction. An introduction to indexical semantics ». [Non publié.]
PUSTEJOVSKY J. (1993), « Type coercion and lexical selection », in J. Pustejovsky ed., Semantics and the Lexicon, Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, vol. 49, Dordrecht /
Boston, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 73-94.
PUSTEJOVSKY J. (1995), The Generative Lexicon, Cambridge (Mass.), The MIT Press.
PUSTEJOVSKY J., ANICK P. & BERGLER S. (1993), « Lexical semantic techniques for corpus
analysis », Computational Linguistics 19.2, pp. 331-358.
PUSTEJOVSKY J. & BOGURAEV B. (1993), « Lexical knowledge representation and natural
language processing », Artificial Intelligence 63.1-2, pp. 193-223.
PUSTEJOVSKY J. & BOGURAEV B. eds (1996), Lexical Semantics: the Problem of Polysemy,
Oxford, Clarendon Press / New York, Oxford University Press.