Thats a unique idea.You should consider the following idea to enhance your idea so that it would impact uniquely: The modern computational lexical semantics has reached a point in its development when it has become useful to compare the goals and methods of the various approaches to it. This article proposes several choices in terms of which these goals and methods can be discussed. It is argued that the central questions include the use of lexical rules for generating word senses; the role of syntax and formal semantics in the specification of lexical meaning; the use of a world model, or ontology, as the organizing principle for lexical-semantic descriptions; the relation beten static and dynamic resources; the commitment to descriptive coverage; the tradeoff beten generalization and idiosyncracy; and finally, the adherence to the “supply side” (method-oriented) or “demand side” (task-oriented) ideology of research. The discussion is inspired by, but not limited to, the comparison beten the generative lexicon approach and the ontologic semantic approach to lexical semantics. It is fair to say that lexical semantics, the study of word meaning and of its representation in the lexicon, experienced a porful resurgence within the last decade. The lexical semantics community is quite heterogeneous. It includes former syntacticians, reformed and dyed-in-the-wool formal semanticists, and a considerable chunk of the NLP community. It includes both linguists and computer scientists, some with a strong statistical and probabilistic bent and others pursuing the use of large corpora and MRDs, some actively engaged in developing NLP systems and some others working on designs for the systems of the immediate future. It also includes some “engineer” types who opt to view the field through the prism of an individual concrete application or technique. This article attempts to carry out a comparative analysis of several major directions in lexical semantics. Accordingly, this article differs in genre from most “standard” contributions in the field in that instead of describing a particular phenomenon, method, or system, it intends take stock of the field in its current state of development. There is nothing really novel in this genre, since every academic field at a certain stage develops a need for self-assessment in substantive terms. Articles such as this are often couched, overtly or implicitly, as polemics. While the works Chomsky (1959) or inreich (1966) could not be called purely theoretical articles, their contribution to the scientific process was outstanding and arguably more important than that of many nonpolemical works. While not competing with these classics, this article follows, as it re, in their footsteps. Our main objective has been to try to tease out the often unstated preferences and differences among the practicioners of lexical semantics. Our device for this is to propose a set of issues that  think are important for the field and to try to recreate the attitudes of various researchers toward these issues. By doing so,  may have created a few “straw men” on the way, but no position  will list is without ll-recorded support in the community.
['Sergei Nirenburg', 'Victor Raskin']
I am writing a research paper on a idea CHOICES FOR LEXICAL SEMANTICS
[{"from": "human", "value": "I am writing a research paper on a idea CHOICES FOR LEXICAL SEMANTICS"}, {"from": "gpt", "value": "Thats a unique idea.You should consider the following idea to enhance your idea so that it would impact uniquely: The modern computational lexical semantics has reached a point in its development when it has become useful to compare the goals and methods of the various approaches to it. This article proposes several choices in terms of which these goals and methods can be discussed. It is argued that the central questions include the use of lexical rules for generating word senses; the role of syntax and formal semantics in the specification of lexical meaning; the use of a world model, or ontology, as the organizing principle for lexical-semantic descriptions; the relation beten static and dynamic resources; the commitment to descriptive coverage; the tradeoff beten generalization and idiosyncracy; and finally, the adherence to the \u201csupply side\u201d (method-oriented) or \u201cdemand side\u201d (task-oriented) ideology of research. The discussion is inspired by, but not limited to, the comparison beten the generative lexicon approach and the ontologic semantic approach to lexical semantics. It is fair to say that lexical semantics, the study of word meaning and of its representation in the lexicon, experienced a porful resurgence within the last decade. The lexical semantics community is quite heterogeneous. It includes former syntacticians, reformed and dyed-in-the-wool formal semanticists, and a considerable chunk of the NLP community. It includes both linguists and computer scientists, some with a strong statistical and probabilistic bent and others pursuing the use of large corpora and MRDs, some actively engaged in developing NLP systems and some others working on designs for the systems of the immediate future. It also includes some \u201cengineer\u201d types who opt to view the field through the prism of an individual concrete application or technique. This article attempts to carry out a comparative analysis of several major directions in lexical semantics. Accordingly, this article differs in genre from most \u201cstandard\u201d contributions in the field in that instead of describing a particular phenomenon, method, or system, it intends take stock of the field in its current state of development. There is nothing really novel in this genre, since every academic field at a certain stage develops a need for self-assessment in substantive terms. Articles such as this are often couched, overtly or implicitly, as polemics. While the works Chomsky (1959) or inreich (1966) could not be called purely theoretical articles, their contribution to the scientific process was outstanding and arguably more important than that of many nonpolemical works. While not competing with these classics, this article follows, as it re, in their footsteps. Our main objective has been to try to tease out the often unstated preferences and differences among the practicioners of lexical semantics. Our device for this is to propose a set of issues that  think are important for the field and to try to recreate the attitudes of various researchers toward these issues. By doing so,  may have created a few \u201cstraw men\u201d on the way, but no position  will list is without ll-recorded support in the community."}]