<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C96-1065">
  <Title>Discourse Semantics Meets Lexical Field Semantics</Title>
  <Section position="2" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="intro">
    <SectionTitle>
1 Introduction
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> The construction of lexical entries is one of the crucial and challenging tasks given in the field of computational linguistics. In the ideal case, lexical entries fulfill, among others, two requirements.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> First, the representations are suitably fine grained such that they capture lexeme-speeific distinctions. Second, the lexical entries are sufficiently general, for reflecting similarities between single lexemes. Furthermore, the information they contain should systematically link various levels of description, e.g. syntax and semantics as well as referential and inferential potential. The latter is of special interest for text analysis as opposed to sentence analysis (eft for example (Haenelt, 1994); (Haenelt and KSnyves-Tdth, 1991)).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> Corresponding to these requirements, we exploit the specific strengths of two distinct semantic theories. These theories are Discourse Representation Theory (DRT) ((Kamp and Reyle, 1993); (FraCaS-DS, 1994)) and Semantic Emphasis Theory (SET)((Kunze, 1991); (Kunze, 1993)).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> However, our central goal is an integration of D113' and SET. It will be shown that this integration is possible and of benefit to both theories as well as to the construction of lexical entries. To achieve our overall objective, the following four points will be exemplified by joined representations of German verbs: * DRT profits from SET's systematic derivations of thematic roles and of morpho-syntaetic features on the basis of predicate-argumentstructures. These features include both grammatical and prepositional case.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> * DRT gains a purely semantically motivated orientation towards lexical fields.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> * Dll\[l' covers much more semantic phenomena than SET. Therefore, DI{T offers SET the possibility to test its results against a semantic background that e.g. includes plurals, tenses, and attitudes.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> * DRT's fine grained lexical analyses are grounded in inferential behaviour. These lexical distinctions mark possible starting points for refining SET's representations.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> The paper is structured as follows: DRT's and SET's basic motivations, principles and formal means concerning lexical semantics are retraced ~n sections 2 and 3. The new joined representation format is introduced in section 4 by analysing the German verbs leihen (in its variant to lend) and verschenken (in its variant to give as a present).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8"> Moreover, section 4 provides evidence that the four main points stated above are backed up by the joined analyses. Finally, directions for further research are pointed out in section 5.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>