Natural Language Processing Enabling machines to understand and respond to what people mean, so they can interact with a computer naturally – without having to adapt their behavior to a computer's limitations.
Resolving ambiguities in written and spoken language requires analyzing grammar, concepts, context, and human knowledge. For example:
"The company is ready to sell” is not easy for a computer to understand because the sentence is syntactically ambiguous – is the company opening for business, or does it want to be acquired?
Resolving this ambiguity requires understanding the context: is the sentence in the middle of an article on mergers and acquisitions? Or is the sentence followed by “Its shelves are stocked with all the hot products"? This succeeding sentence is helpful only if the computer understands that the possessive pronoun “its” refers to the company, and that “stocked” and “products” are more relevant to selling goods than to being acquired.
19.1
-Sound produced
-Physical construct
-Language and linguistic structure
19.1.1 Language as a formal system
-language and linguistic structure as” things
-set of sentence
19.1.2 Language as physical reality
-analogous to that of electrons in physics
-stream of speech
19.1.3language as a psychological reality
-mental code
-language process
2008年6月12日 星期四
7 Issue of Phonological Cpmplexity
˙in the first three comparison syllable structure is compared with the segment inventory variables
˙Two measures of vowel inventory shows a systematic relationship with syllable complexity.
˙Posthoc comparisons show that only the comparison between none and complex reaches significance
˙The final comparison is between the two categories variables reflecting complexity of syllable structure and tone system.
˙Post hoc
Post hoc is a Latin phrase, meaning "after this" or "after the event". It may refer to:
Post hoc ergo propter hoc, a logical fallacy
Post-hoc analysis, a form of statistical analysis
˙Fallacy: Post Hoc
Reference: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/post-hoc.html
˙Two measures of vowel inventory shows a systematic relationship with syllable complexity.
˙Posthoc comparisons show that only the comparison between none and complex reaches significance
˙The final comparison is between the two categories variables reflecting complexity of syllable structure and tone system.
˙Post hoc
Post hoc is a Latin phrase, meaning "after this" or "after the event". It may refer to:
Post hoc ergo propter hoc, a logical fallacy
Post-hoc analysis, a form of statistical analysis
˙Fallacy: Post Hoc
Reference: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/post-hoc.html
18 Controlled and Mechanical Properties
18.1Experimental approch
A.many of the properties encoded in the target pronunciation are manifested in the temporal domain
B.most of these properties are language-specific and are not phonetic universals resulting from vocal tract constraints
C. these effects are used by listeners in speech perception
D. perception constrains motor strategies, intended properties will be rescaled in duration across different rate and prosodic variations
18.2 Vowel Nasalization
Vowel Nasalization in American English /PDF 6-10 August 2007
A.many of the properties encoded in the target pronunciation are manifested in the temporal domain
B.most of these properties are language-specific and are not phonetic universals resulting from vocal tract constraints
C. these effects are used by listeners in speech perception
D. perception constrains motor strategies, intended properties will be rescaled in duration across different rate and prosodic variations
18.2 Vowel Nasalization
Vowel Nasalization in American English /PDF 6-10 August 2007
9 Perception , Variation, and Sound Change
Sound change
It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with phonological change. (Discuss)
This article does not cite any references or sources. (November 2006)Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.
Note: This page or section contains IPA phonetic symbols in Unicode. See Help:IPA for a pronunciation key.
Sound change includes any processes of language change that affect pronunciation (phonetic change) or word structures (phonemic change). Sound change can consist of the replacement of one speech sound (or, more generally, one phonetic feature) by another, the complete loss of the affected sound, and (rarely) even the introduction of a new sound in a place where there previously was none. Sound changes can be environmentally conditioned, meaning that the change in question only occurs in a defined sound environment, whereas in other environments the same speech sound is not affected by the change.
Sound change is assumed to be usually regular, which means that it is expected to apply mechanically whenever its structural condition is met, irrespective of any non-phonological factors (such as the meaning of the words affected). On the other hand, sound changes can sometimes be sporadic, affecting only one particular word or a few words, without any seeming regularity.
Of regular sound changes, the somewhat hyperbolic term sound law is also sometimes used. This term was introduced by the Neogrammarian school in the 19th century and is still commonly applied to some historically important sound changes, such as Grimm's law. While real-world sound changes often admit of exceptions (for a variety of known reasons, and sometimes without a known reason), the expectation of their regularity or "exceptionlessness" is of great heuristic value, since it allows historical linguists to define the notion of regular correspondence (see: comparative method).
Each sound change is limited in space and time. It means it functions within a specified area (only in some dialects) and within a specified period of time. These limitations are some of the reasons for which some scholars refuse using the term "sound law" (asserting that laws should not have such spatial and temporal limitations) and replace it with phonetic rule.
Contents
1 The formal notation of sound change
2 Principles of sound change
3 Terms for changes in pronunciation
4 Examples of specific historical sound changes
5 External links
˙LNG 201/ENGL 202Prof. G. Steinberg Sound Changes
˙Contextual Variations in Implicit Evaluation /PDF
Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_change
It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with phonological change. (Discuss)
This article does not cite any references or sources. (November 2006)Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.
Note: This page or section contains IPA phonetic symbols in Unicode. See Help:IPA for a pronunciation key.
Sound change includes any processes of language change that affect pronunciation (phonetic change) or word structures (phonemic change). Sound change can consist of the replacement of one speech sound (or, more generally, one phonetic feature) by another, the complete loss of the affected sound, and (rarely) even the introduction of a new sound in a place where there previously was none. Sound changes can be environmentally conditioned, meaning that the change in question only occurs in a defined sound environment, whereas in other environments the same speech sound is not affected by the change.
Sound change is assumed to be usually regular, which means that it is expected to apply mechanically whenever its structural condition is met, irrespective of any non-phonological factors (such as the meaning of the words affected). On the other hand, sound changes can sometimes be sporadic, affecting only one particular word or a few words, without any seeming regularity.
Of regular sound changes, the somewhat hyperbolic term sound law is also sometimes used. This term was introduced by the Neogrammarian school in the 19th century and is still commonly applied to some historically important sound changes, such as Grimm's law. While real-world sound changes often admit of exceptions (for a variety of known reasons, and sometimes without a known reason), the expectation of their regularity or "exceptionlessness" is of great heuristic value, since it allows historical linguists to define the notion of regular correspondence (see: comparative method).
Each sound change is limited in space and time. It means it functions within a specified area (only in some dialects) and within a specified period of time. These limitations are some of the reasons for which some scholars refuse using the term "sound law" (asserting that laws should not have such spatial and temporal limitations) and replace it with phonetic rule.
Contents
1 The formal notation of sound change
2 Principles of sound change
3 Terms for changes in pronunciation
4 Examples of specific historical sound changes
5 External links
˙LNG 201/ENGL 202Prof. G. Steinberg Sound Changes
˙Contextual Variations in Implicit Evaluation /PDF
Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_change
2008年6月8日 星期日
15 Discourse : Language comprehension in context
Discourse
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Discourses.
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.Please improve this article if you can. (March 2007)
Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to:
Discourse
Philosophy Portal
Discourse (L. discursus, "running to and from") means either "written or spoken communication or debate" or "a formal discussion or debate" [1]. The term is often used in semantics and discourse analysis.
In semantics, discourses are linguistic units composed of several sentences; in other words, conversations, arguments, or speeches. In discourse analysis, which came to prominence in the late 1960s, the word "discourse" is shorthand for "discursive formation", which is what Michel Foucault called communication that involves specialized knowledge of various kinds. It is in this sense that the word is most often used in academic studies.
Studies of discourse have been carried out within a variety of traditions that investigate the relations between language, structure and agency, including feminist studies, anthropology, enthnography, cultural studies, literary theory and the history of ideas. Within these fields, the notion of discourse is itself subject to discourse, that is, debated on the basis of specialized knowledge. Discourse can be observed in the use of spoken, written and signed language and multimodal/multimedia forms of communication, and is not found only in 'non-fictional' or verbal materials.
Contents[hide]
1 The Social Scientific Conception of Discourse
2 Modernism
3 Structuralism
4 Postmodernism
5 Feminism
6 See also
8 References
9 External links
The Social Scientific Conception of Discourse
This section does not cite any references or sources. (April 2008)Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.
In the social sciences (following the work of Michel Foucault), a discourse is considered to be an institutionalized way of thinking, a social boundary defining what can be said about a specific topic, or, as Judith Butler puts it, "the limits of acceptable speech"—or possible truth. Discourses are seen to affect our views on all things; it is not possible to escape discourse. For example, two notably distinct discourses can be used about various guerrilla movements describing them either as "freedom fighters" or "terrorists". In other words, the chosen discourse delivers the vocabulary, expressions and perhaps also the style needed to communicate. Discourse is closely linked to different theories of power and state, at least as long as defining discourses is seen to mean defining reality itself.
This conception of discourse is largely derived from the work of French philosopher Michel Foucault (see below)
Modernism
Modern theorists were focused on achieving progress and believed in the existence of natural and social laws which could be used universally to develop knowledge and thus a better understanding of society [2]. Modernist theorists were preoccupied with obtaining the truth and reality and sought to develop theories which contained certainty and predictability [3]. Modernist theorists therefore viewed discourse as a being relative to talking or way of talking and understood discourse to be functional [4]. Discourse and language transformations are ascribed to progress or the need to develop new or more “accurate” words to describe new discoveries, understandings or areas of interest [5]. In modern times, language and discourse are dissociated from power and ideology and instead conceptualized as “natural” products of common sense usage or progress [6]. Modernism further gave rise to the liberal discourses of rights, equality, freedom and justice however this rhetoric masked the substantive inequality and failed to account for differences [7].
Structuralism
Structuralist theorists, such as Ferdinand de Saussure and Jacques Lacan, argue that all human actions and social formations are related to language and can be understood as systems of related elements [8]. This means that the “...individual elements of a system only have significance when considered in relation to the structure as a whole, and that structures are to be understood as self-contained, self-regulated, and self-transforming entities” [9]. In other words, it is the structure itself that determines the significance, meaning and function of the individual elements of a system. Structuralism has made an important contribution to our understanding of language and social systems. Saussure’s theory of language highlights the decisive role of meaning and signification in structuring human life more generally [10].
Postmodernism
Following the perceived limitations of the modern era, emerged postmodern theory [11]. Postmodern theorists rejected modernist claims that there was one theoretical approach that explained all aspects of society [12]. Rather, postmodernist theorists were interested in examining the variety of experience of individuals and groups and emphasized differences over similarities and common experiences [13].
In contrast to modern theory, postmodern theory is more fluid and allows for individual differences as it rejected the notion of social laws. Postmodern theorists shifted away from truth seeking and instead sought answers for how truths are produced and sustained. Postmodernists contended that truth and knowledge is plural, contextual, and historically produced through discourses. Postmodern researchers therefore embarked on analyzing discourses such as texts, language, policies and practices [14].
French social theorist Michel Foucault developed an entirely original notion of discourse in his early work, especially the Archaeology of Knowledge (1972). In Discursive Struggles Within Social Welfare: Restaging Teen Motherhood, [15] summarizes Foucault's definition of discourse as “systems of thoughts composed of ideas, attitudes, courses of action, beliefs and practices that systematically construct the subjects and the worlds of which they speak." He traces the role of discourses in wider social processes of legitimating and power, emphasizing the construction of current truths, how they are maintained and what power relations they carry with them.” Foucault later theorized that discourse is a medium through which power relations produce speaking subjects [16]. Foucault (1977, 1980) argued that power and knowledge are inter-related and therefore every human relationship is a struggle and negotiation of power. Foucault further stated that power is always present and can both produce and constrain the truth [17]. Discourse according to Foucault (1977, 1980, 2003) is related to power as it operates by rules of exclusion. Discourse therefore is controlled by objects, what can be spoken of, ritual, where and how one may speak and the privileged, who may speak [18]. Coining the phrases power-knowledge Foucault (1980) stated knowledge was both the creator of power and creation of power.
Feminism
Feminists have explored the complex relationships that exist among power, ideology, language and discourse.[19] Feminist theory talks about ‘doing gender’ and/or ‘performing gender’.[20] It is suggested that gender is a property, not of persons themselves but of the behaviours to which members of a society ascribe a gendering meaning. “Being a man/woman involves appropriating gendered behaviours and making them part of the self that an individual presents to others. Repeated over time, these behaviours may be internalized as ‘me’ – that is, gender does not feel like a performance or an accomplishment to the actor, it just feels like her or his ‘natural’ way of behaving”.[21] Feminist theorists have attempted to recover the subject and 'subjectivity'. Chris Weedon, one of the best known scholars working in the feminist poststructuralist tradition, has sought to integrate individual experience and social power in a theory of subjectivity.[22] Weedon defines subjectivity as 'the conscious and unconscious thoughts and emotions of the individual, her sense of herself, and her ways of understanding her relation to the world.[23] Judith Butler, also another well known post structuralist feminist scholar, explains that the performativity of gender offers an important contribution to the conceptual understanding of processes of subversion. She argues that subversion occurs through the enactment of an identity that is repeated in directions that go back and forth which then results in the displacement of the original goals of dominant forms of power.[24]
See also
Foucault's episteme
Critical discourse analysis
Political discourse analysis
Postcolonial literature
Parrhesia
Discourse Community
References
S. Best & D. Kellner (1997). The postmodern turn. The Guilford Press.
M. Foucault (1972). Archaeology of knowledge. New York: Pantheon.
M. Foucault (1977). Discipline and Punish. New York: Pantheon.
M. Foucault (1980). "Two Lectures," in Colin Gordon, ed., Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews.. New York: Pantheon.
M. Foucault (2003). Society Must Be Defended. New York: Picador.
D. Howarth (2000). Discourse. Philadelphia, Pa.: Open University Press.
J. Larrain (1994). "Ideology and cultural identity: Modernity and the third world presence". Cambridge: Polity Press.
I. Lessa (2006). "Discoursive struggles within social welfare: Restaging teen motherhood". British Journal of Social Work 36: 283–298.
A. McHoul & W. Grace (1993). A Foucault primer: Discourse, power, and the subject. Melborne: Melborne University Press.
J. Motion & S. Leitch (2007). "A toolbox for public relations: The oeuvre of Michel Foucault". Public Relations Review 33 (3): 263–268.
R. Mullaly (1997). Structural social work: Ideology, theory, and practice, 2nd ed, New York: Oxford University Press.
B. Norton (1997). "Language, identity, and the ownership of English". TESOL Quarterly 31 (3): 409–429.
Research as resistance: Critical, indigenous and anti-oppressive approaches.(2005). In Brown L. A., Strega S. (Eds.), Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press.
S. Strega (2005). The view from the poststructural margins: Epistemology and methodology reconsidered. In L. Brown, & S. Strega (Eds.), Research as resistance (pp. 199-235). Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press.
J. Sunderland (2004). Gendered discourses. New York: PalgraveMacmillan.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Discourses.
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.Please improve this article if you can. (March 2007)
Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to:
Discourse
Philosophy Portal
Discourse (L. discursus, "running to and from") means either "written or spoken communication or debate" or "a formal discussion or debate" [1]. The term is often used in semantics and discourse analysis.
In semantics, discourses are linguistic units composed of several sentences; in other words, conversations, arguments, or speeches. In discourse analysis, which came to prominence in the late 1960s, the word "discourse" is shorthand for "discursive formation", which is what Michel Foucault called communication that involves specialized knowledge of various kinds. It is in this sense that the word is most often used in academic studies.
Studies of discourse have been carried out within a variety of traditions that investigate the relations between language, structure and agency, including feminist studies, anthropology, enthnography, cultural studies, literary theory and the history of ideas. Within these fields, the notion of discourse is itself subject to discourse, that is, debated on the basis of specialized knowledge. Discourse can be observed in the use of spoken, written and signed language and multimodal/multimedia forms of communication, and is not found only in 'non-fictional' or verbal materials.
Contents[hide]
1 The Social Scientific Conception of Discourse
2 Modernism
3 Structuralism
4 Postmodernism
5 Feminism
6 See also
8 References
9 External links
The Social Scientific Conception of Discourse
This section does not cite any references or sources. (April 2008)Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.
In the social sciences (following the work of Michel Foucault), a discourse is considered to be an institutionalized way of thinking, a social boundary defining what can be said about a specific topic, or, as Judith Butler puts it, "the limits of acceptable speech"—or possible truth. Discourses are seen to affect our views on all things; it is not possible to escape discourse. For example, two notably distinct discourses can be used about various guerrilla movements describing them either as "freedom fighters" or "terrorists". In other words, the chosen discourse delivers the vocabulary, expressions and perhaps also the style needed to communicate. Discourse is closely linked to different theories of power and state, at least as long as defining discourses is seen to mean defining reality itself.
This conception of discourse is largely derived from the work of French philosopher Michel Foucault (see below)
Modernism
Modern theorists were focused on achieving progress and believed in the existence of natural and social laws which could be used universally to develop knowledge and thus a better understanding of society [2]. Modernist theorists were preoccupied with obtaining the truth and reality and sought to develop theories which contained certainty and predictability [3]. Modernist theorists therefore viewed discourse as a being relative to talking or way of talking and understood discourse to be functional [4]. Discourse and language transformations are ascribed to progress or the need to develop new or more “accurate” words to describe new discoveries, understandings or areas of interest [5]. In modern times, language and discourse are dissociated from power and ideology and instead conceptualized as “natural” products of common sense usage or progress [6]. Modernism further gave rise to the liberal discourses of rights, equality, freedom and justice however this rhetoric masked the substantive inequality and failed to account for differences [7].
Structuralism
Structuralist theorists, such as Ferdinand de Saussure and Jacques Lacan, argue that all human actions and social formations are related to language and can be understood as systems of related elements [8]. This means that the “...individual elements of a system only have significance when considered in relation to the structure as a whole, and that structures are to be understood as self-contained, self-regulated, and self-transforming entities” [9]. In other words, it is the structure itself that determines the significance, meaning and function of the individual elements of a system. Structuralism has made an important contribution to our understanding of language and social systems. Saussure’s theory of language highlights the decisive role of meaning and signification in structuring human life more generally [10].
Postmodernism
Following the perceived limitations of the modern era, emerged postmodern theory [11]. Postmodern theorists rejected modernist claims that there was one theoretical approach that explained all aspects of society [12]. Rather, postmodernist theorists were interested in examining the variety of experience of individuals and groups and emphasized differences over similarities and common experiences [13].
In contrast to modern theory, postmodern theory is more fluid and allows for individual differences as it rejected the notion of social laws. Postmodern theorists shifted away from truth seeking and instead sought answers for how truths are produced and sustained. Postmodernists contended that truth and knowledge is plural, contextual, and historically produced through discourses. Postmodern researchers therefore embarked on analyzing discourses such as texts, language, policies and practices [14].
French social theorist Michel Foucault developed an entirely original notion of discourse in his early work, especially the Archaeology of Knowledge (1972). In Discursive Struggles Within Social Welfare: Restaging Teen Motherhood, [15] summarizes Foucault's definition of discourse as “systems of thoughts composed of ideas, attitudes, courses of action, beliefs and practices that systematically construct the subjects and the worlds of which they speak." He traces the role of discourses in wider social processes of legitimating and power, emphasizing the construction of current truths, how they are maintained and what power relations they carry with them.” Foucault later theorized that discourse is a medium through which power relations produce speaking subjects [16]. Foucault (1977, 1980) argued that power and knowledge are inter-related and therefore every human relationship is a struggle and negotiation of power. Foucault further stated that power is always present and can both produce and constrain the truth [17]. Discourse according to Foucault (1977, 1980, 2003) is related to power as it operates by rules of exclusion. Discourse therefore is controlled by objects, what can be spoken of, ritual, where and how one may speak and the privileged, who may speak [18]. Coining the phrases power-knowledge Foucault (1980) stated knowledge was both the creator of power and creation of power.
Feminism
Feminists have explored the complex relationships that exist among power, ideology, language and discourse.[19] Feminist theory talks about ‘doing gender’ and/or ‘performing gender’.[20] It is suggested that gender is a property, not of persons themselves but of the behaviours to which members of a society ascribe a gendering meaning. “Being a man/woman involves appropriating gendered behaviours and making them part of the self that an individual presents to others. Repeated over time, these behaviours may be internalized as ‘me’ – that is, gender does not feel like a performance or an accomplishment to the actor, it just feels like her or his ‘natural’ way of behaving”.[21] Feminist theorists have attempted to recover the subject and 'subjectivity'. Chris Weedon, one of the best known scholars working in the feminist poststructuralist tradition, has sought to integrate individual experience and social power in a theory of subjectivity.[22] Weedon defines subjectivity as 'the conscious and unconscious thoughts and emotions of the individual, her sense of herself, and her ways of understanding her relation to the world.[23] Judith Butler, also another well known post structuralist feminist scholar, explains that the performativity of gender offers an important contribution to the conceptual understanding of processes of subversion. She argues that subversion occurs through the enactment of an identity that is repeated in directions that go back and forth which then results in the displacement of the original goals of dominant forms of power.[24]
See also
Foucault's episteme
Critical discourse analysis
Political discourse analysis
Postcolonial literature
Parrhesia
Discourse Community
References
S. Best & D. Kellner (1997). The postmodern turn. The Guilford Press.
M. Foucault (1972). Archaeology of knowledge. New York: Pantheon.
M. Foucault (1977). Discipline and Punish. New York: Pantheon.
M. Foucault (1980). "Two Lectures," in Colin Gordon, ed., Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews.. New York: Pantheon.
M. Foucault (2003). Society Must Be Defended. New York: Picador.
D. Howarth (2000). Discourse. Philadelphia, Pa.: Open University Press.
J. Larrain (1994). "Ideology and cultural identity: Modernity and the third world presence". Cambridge: Polity Press.
I. Lessa (2006). "Discoursive struggles within social welfare: Restaging teen motherhood". British Journal of Social Work 36: 283–298.
A. McHoul & W. Grace (1993). A Foucault primer: Discourse, power, and the subject. Melborne: Melborne University Press.
J. Motion & S. Leitch (2007). "A toolbox for public relations: The oeuvre of Michel Foucault". Public Relations Review 33 (3): 263–268.
R. Mullaly (1997). Structural social work: Ideology, theory, and practice, 2nd ed, New York: Oxford University Press.
B. Norton (1997). "Language, identity, and the ownership of English". TESOL Quarterly 31 (3): 409–429.
Research as resistance: Critical, indigenous and anti-oppressive approaches.(2005). In Brown L. A., Strega S. (Eds.), Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press.
S. Strega (2005). The view from the poststructural margins: Epistemology and methodology reconsidered. In L. Brown, & S. Strega (Eds.), Research as resistance (pp. 199-235). Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press.
J. Sunderland (2004). Gendered discourses. New York: PalgraveMacmillan.
10 Lexical semantics
Lexical semantics
Lexical semantics is a subfield of linguistic semantics. It is the study of how and what the words of a language denote (Pustejovsky, 1995). Words may either be taken to denote things in the world, or concepts, depending on the particular approach to lexical semantics.
The units of meaning in lexical semantics are lexical units. One can continually add new lexical units throughout one's life, learning new words and their meanings. By contrast, one can only easily learn the grammatical rules of one's native language during a critical period when one is young.
Lexical semantics covers theories of the classification and decomposition of word meaning, the differences and similarities in lexical semantic structure between different languages, and the relationship of word meaning to sentence meaning and syntax.
One question that lexical semantics explores is whether the meaning of a lexical unit is established by looking at its neighbourhood in the semantic net (by looking at the other words it occurs with in natural sentences), or if the meaning is already locally contained in the lexical unit. Another topic that is explored is the mapping of words to concepts. As tools, lexical relations like synonymy, antonymy (opposites), hyponymy and hypernymy are used in this field.
See also
Lexical chain
Lexical markup framework
Lexicology
Ontology
Polysemy
Thematic role
Word sense
References
Philip Edmonds on near-synonyms (Chapter 4.1 Lexical semantics)
Bibliography of linguistics papers dealing with lexical semantics
The Lexical Semantics of a Machine Translation Interlingua by Rick Morneau
Lexical Semantics by D.A. Cruse. Cambridge University Press, 1986. ISBN 0-521-27643-8
Pustejovsky, James, The Generative Lexicon, 1995, MIT Press; presents a theory of lexical semantics.
This linguistics article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexical_semantics"
From Semantic Enhancement of Lexical-Semantic Resources
TLC:"The teachable language comprehender", a program designed to be capable of being taught to 'comprehened' English text.
Lexical semantics is a subfield of linguistic semantics. It is the study of how and what the words of a language denote (Pustejovsky, 1995). Words may either be taken to denote things in the world, or concepts, depending on the particular approach to lexical semantics.
The units of meaning in lexical semantics are lexical units. One can continually add new lexical units throughout one's life, learning new words and their meanings. By contrast, one can only easily learn the grammatical rules of one's native language during a critical period when one is young.
Lexical semantics covers theories of the classification and decomposition of word meaning, the differences and similarities in lexical semantic structure between different languages, and the relationship of word meaning to sentence meaning and syntax.
One question that lexical semantics explores is whether the meaning of a lexical unit is established by looking at its neighbourhood in the semantic net (by looking at the other words it occurs with in natural sentences), or if the meaning is already locally contained in the lexical unit. Another topic that is explored is the mapping of words to concepts. As tools, lexical relations like synonymy, antonymy (opposites), hyponymy and hypernymy are used in this field.
See also
Lexical chain
Lexical markup framework
Lexicology
Ontology
Polysemy
Thematic role
Word sense
References
Philip Edmonds on near-synonyms (Chapter 4.1 Lexical semantics)
Bibliography of linguistics papers dealing with lexical semantics
The Lexical Semantics of a Machine Translation Interlingua by Rick Morneau
Lexical Semantics by D.A. Cruse. Cambridge University Press, 1986. ISBN 0-521-27643-8
Pustejovsky, James, The Generative Lexicon, 1995, MIT Press; presents a theory of lexical semantics.
This linguistics article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexical_semantics"
From Semantic Enhancement of Lexical-Semantic Resources
TLC:"The teachable language comprehender", a program designed to be capable of being taught to 'comprehened' English text.
科學家現可'解讀'人的心思
美國科學家發現人們在看不同物體的時候大腦會有不同的活動，這些活動會在大腦掃描圖上會呈現特定的圖像。這意味著通過研究人腦掃描圖，研究人員最終可以歸納出那個人當時心中所想。
此前所進行的研究已經顯示，人腦顳腦葉上的特定區域會對人臉、房屋或地方做出反應。
但是美國國家腦健康學院的研究人員發現整個顳腦葉都會做出反應，而且不同的物體會令顳腦葉在掃描圖上呈現不同的圖案。他們的研究報告發表在學術刊物《科學》雜誌上
腦健康學院大腦認知實驗室的赫克斯比博士認為，這項研究可以幫助研究人員解讀大腦對不同物體或人臉做出的反應，瞭解各種物體和人臉的信息是如何在"視覺、結構以及語義上發生聯繫的"。
某研究對象的大腦對鞋的反應
赫克斯比博士說："大腦掃描圖不僅可以向我們顯示大腦何時會對信息進行編碼，還可以幫助我們瞭解這種過程是如何進行的。"
人的大腦之內有一個特定區域負責辨認地點，但是這項研究發現這一部分大腦也會對鞋、貓或椅子等其他物體做出特定反應。他們將這稱為"物體形狀地形學"。
英國劍橋醫學研究學會認知及大腦科學小組的愛潑斯坦博士也對人腦顳腦葉進行了研究。他的研究發現在人們看到地點或房屋時，他們的顳腦葉會出現活動。
他表示，美國科學家的研究顯示面對相同的物體，不同人的大腦可能會做出不同的反應。
他還指出，這項研究可以用於對中風患者的治療上。醫生們可以通過研究患者的大腦掃描圖得知患者對哪些物體的認知受到了影響。
Referece:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/chinese/trad/hi/newsid_1570000/newsid_1570200/1570248.stm
此前所進行的研究已經顯示，人腦顳腦葉上的特定區域會對人臉、房屋或地方做出反應。
但是美國國家腦健康學院的研究人員發現整個顳腦葉都會做出反應，而且不同的物體會令顳腦葉在掃描圖上呈現不同的圖案。他們的研究報告發表在學術刊物《科學》雜誌上
腦健康學院大腦認知實驗室的赫克斯比博士認為，這項研究可以幫助研究人員解讀大腦對不同物體或人臉做出的反應，瞭解各種物體和人臉的信息是如何在"視覺、結構以及語義上發生聯繫的"。
某研究對象的大腦對鞋的反應
赫克斯比博士說："大腦掃描圖不僅可以向我們顯示大腦何時會對信息進行編碼，還可以幫助我們瞭解這種過程是如何進行的。"
人的大腦之內有一個特定區域負責辨認地點，但是這項研究發現這一部分大腦也會對鞋、貓或椅子等其他物體做出特定反應。他們將這稱為"物體形狀地形學"。
英國劍橋醫學研究學會認知及大腦科學小組的愛潑斯坦博士也對人腦顳腦葉進行了研究。他的研究發現在人們看到地點或房屋時，他們的顳腦葉會出現活動。
他表示，美國科學家的研究顯示面對相同的物體，不同人的大腦可能會做出不同的反應。
他還指出，這項研究可以用於對中風患者的治療上。醫生們可以通過研究患者的大腦掃描圖得知患者對哪些物體的認知受到了影響。
Referece:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/chinese/trad/hi/newsid_1570000/newsid_1570200/1570248.stm
嬰兒咿呀學語是早期的語言
科學家們說，嬰兒寶寶口中發出的比如吧，吧，吧或嗒，嗒，嗒的聲音是語言發展的第一步。
到目前為止，有些人指出，這種咿呀學語是講話的開始﹔而另外一些人則認為，寶寶們只是在發出一些沒有任何意思的聲響而已。
現在，美國和加拿大的科學家們表示，他們已經有證據可以證明嬰兒是在學習表達真正的語言。
他們發現，在嬰兒咿呀時，是在鍛煉左部大腦，而左部大腦是控制語言的部分。這種情況在五個月大的兒童就存在。
派蒂托教授指出，"這項發現首次顯示了嬰兒的左半腦對語言能力的鍛煉與成人一樣。這就意味著大腦中的語言功能從年齡很小就開始。"
這一結論是在研究人員對10名5個月到12個月大的嬰兒的生活錄像分析後得出的。
錄像中包括嬰兒咿呀、微笑以及發出其它聲音。
派蒂托教授和她的同事將錄像以慢鏡頭放出，來測量嬰兒們口部左邊和右邊的張開程度。
這種測量很重要，原因是左腦控制右臉，反之亦然。
他們在《科學》雜誌上撰文指出，嬰兒們在咿呀時嘴的右邊張開相對比較大。
但嬰兒微笑或發出其它聲音時，嘴的左邊張開相對較大。
這項研究可能會幫助解釋嬰兒咿呀時口型的變化，也可能有助於對語言障礙做出早期診斷。
Referece: BBC中文網
到目前為止，有些人指出，這種咿呀學語是講話的開始﹔而另外一些人則認為，寶寶們只是在發出一些沒有任何意思的聲響而已。
現在，美國和加拿大的科學家們表示，他們已經有證據可以證明嬰兒是在學習表達真正的語言。
他們發現，在嬰兒咿呀時，是在鍛煉左部大腦，而左部大腦是控制語言的部分。這種情況在五個月大的兒童就存在。
派蒂托教授指出，"這項發現首次顯示了嬰兒的左半腦對語言能力的鍛煉與成人一樣。這就意味著大腦中的語言功能從年齡很小就開始。"
這一結論是在研究人員對10名5個月到12個月大的嬰兒的生活錄像分析後得出的。
錄像中包括嬰兒咿呀、微笑以及發出其它聲音。
派蒂托教授和她的同事將錄像以慢鏡頭放出，來測量嬰兒們口部左邊和右邊的張開程度。
這種測量很重要，原因是左腦控制右臉，反之亦然。
他們在《科學》雜誌上撰文指出，嬰兒們在咿呀時嘴的右邊張開相對比較大。
但嬰兒微笑或發出其它聲音時，嘴的左邊張開相對較大。
這項研究可能會幫助解釋嬰兒咿呀時口型的變化，也可能有助於對語言障礙做出早期診斷。
Referece: BBC中文網
科學家發現腦白質決定語言天賦
語言天才之所以特殊，是因為他們的大腦擁有更多的處理聲音的腦白質。
與常人大腦相比，語言天才的大腦更不對稱。
科學家們的這項研究成果被發表在《大腦皮層》雜誌上。他們希望這項成果有助於解釋語言學習的困難。
科學家們的實驗調查對象全部是以法語為母語的人們。科學家從不同的外語中選出一個發音相似的聲音，即"d"。
第一個"d"是調查對象母語法語中的"d"。這個"d"以舌尖前伸，抵住上齒發出。
第二個"d"是印地語中的"d"。這個"d"以舌頭上捲，抵住上□發出。
接著，在這兩個"d"之後加上"a"，這樣被調查對象可以發出"da"的聲音。
這兩種"da"聲音的差別可以在40微秒的時間內中聽見。研究人員測試了所有參加者處理這一聲音信息的速度。
準確率超過80%以上的人被要求參加更多辨別相似聲音的測試。
其中速度最快的人可以在幾分鐘內就能夠說出眾多不同聲音的細微區別，而速度最慢的人即便在20分鐘以後還只能瞎猜。
腦白質
主持這項研究的倫敦大學戈勒斯塔尼教授說：有些人之所以具有語言天賦，是因為他們的大腦下部初生皮層處理聲音信息的部位擁有更多的腦白質。
她介紹說，大腦不同部分由纖維聯接，而語言天才的腦容量更大，這意味著這些人的大腦纖維更加厚。
腦白質對於聯接大腦各部有著重要作用。腦白質多，就意味著處理聲音的能力強。
掃描顯示：在處理聲音信息的左半腦，語言天才的腦白質多於常人。
Referece: BBC中文網
與常人大腦相比，語言天才的大腦更不對稱。
科學家們的這項研究成果被發表在《大腦皮層》雜誌上。他們希望這項成果有助於解釋語言學習的困難。
科學家們的實驗調查對象全部是以法語為母語的人們。科學家從不同的外語中選出一個發音相似的聲音，即"d"。
第一個"d"是調查對象母語法語中的"d"。這個"d"以舌尖前伸，抵住上齒發出。
第二個"d"是印地語中的"d"。這個"d"以舌頭上捲，抵住上□發出。
接著，在這兩個"d"之後加上"a"，這樣被調查對象可以發出"da"的聲音。
這兩種"da"聲音的差別可以在40微秒的時間內中聽見。研究人員測試了所有參加者處理這一聲音信息的速度。
準確率超過80%以上的人被要求參加更多辨別相似聲音的測試。
其中速度最快的人可以在幾分鐘內就能夠說出眾多不同聲音的細微區別，而速度最慢的人即便在20分鐘以後還只能瞎猜。
腦白質
主持這項研究的倫敦大學戈勒斯塔尼教授說：有些人之所以具有語言天賦，是因為他們的大腦下部初生皮層處理聲音信息的部位擁有更多的腦白質。
她介紹說，大腦不同部分由纖維聯接，而語言天才的腦容量更大，這意味著這些人的大腦纖維更加厚。
腦白質對於聯接大腦各部有著重要作用。腦白質多，就意味著處理聲音的能力強。
掃描顯示：在處理聲音信息的左半腦，語言天才的腦白質多於常人。
Referece: BBC中文網
說漢語者使用大腦更多部分
英國的研究人員發現，說漢語普通話的人可能比說英語的人用更多大腦。研究表明，說漢語普通話者講話時同時使用大腦兩邊。
說英語者只使用大腦一邊。研究人員說，這項研究能夠促進瞭解大腦處理語言的過程。
另外，這項研究還可以幫助研究人員找到更好的辦法，幫助人們在中風或者腦部受到類似損害後重新學習，掌握語言技能。
在這項研究中，操漢語普通話和操英語的兩組人接受腦部掃描。研究人員發現，人們講英語時，靠近左太陽穴的左顳葉開始活躍。
他們發現，大腦這個區域的功能是把發音聯繫起來，形成單個詞匯。
研究發現，人們說漢語時，左顳葉和右顳葉一起活躍。研究人員說，說不同語言時，人的大腦在以不同方式破譯語言。這就推翻了長期以來的看法。
漢語普通話十分難學。不同於操英語者，說漢語者使用音調區分不同詞的不同意思。比如"馬"音，用不同音調發音，可以是馬，媽等不同的意思。
Referece: BBC中文網
說英語者只使用大腦一邊。研究人員說，這項研究能夠促進瞭解大腦處理語言的過程。
另外，這項研究還可以幫助研究人員找到更好的辦法，幫助人們在中風或者腦部受到類似損害後重新學習，掌握語言技能。
在這項研究中，操漢語普通話和操英語的兩組人接受腦部掃描。研究人員發現，人們講英語時，靠近左太陽穴的左顳葉開始活躍。
他們發現，大腦這個區域的功能是把發音聯繫起來，形成單個詞匯。
研究發現，人們說漢語時，左顳葉和右顳葉一起活躍。研究人員說，說不同語言時，人的大腦在以不同方式破譯語言。這就推翻了長期以來的看法。
漢語普通話十分難學。不同於操英語者，說漢語者使用音調區分不同詞的不同意思。比如"馬"音，用不同音調發音，可以是馬，媽等不同的意思。
Referece: BBC中文網
專家稱學習外語影響大腦組織
大腦掃描顯示外語學習對腦組織的影響科學研究發現那些有外語能力的人的大腦與那些沒有外語能力的人的腦組織有不同的地方。
專家說，新研究發現可以說明為什麼那些從小學習外語的人，其外語能力超越那些成年時才學習外語的人。
大腦組織密度
專家對那些參與研究的人的大腦進行掃描。結果顯示，具有雙語能力的人的大腦左半球低位頂葉前極皮層（inferior parietal cortex）的“灰質”（Grey Matter）的密度比較高。
專家同時發現，那些在五歲之前學習外語的人身上的這種情況特別明顯。一個人開始學習外語的年齡越大，其大腦出現改變的幾率越低。
一直以來，科學家都知道，人的大腦可以在受到刺激的情況下出現轉變。不過，專家一直都不清楚究竟可以出現多大程度的改變。
新的研究顯示，語言學習可以在很大程度上改變大腦的結構。這種情況在小孩子身上特別明顯。
外語能力
英國倫敦大學學院的梅凱利博士領導的研究包括了25名“右撇子”。這些人只說英語。與此同時，小組也研究了同樣數目的在五歲前已經學習外語的人。
與此同時，專家也包括了33名在10到15歲期間學習外語的雙語英國人。這些人經常使用外語已經有最少五年時間。
專家為這些人進行大腦掃描。他們發現，有雙語能力的人的大腦左半球低位頂葉前極皮層的“灰質”密度高於那些沒有外語能力的人。
這種情況在那些在年幼時已經開始學習外語的人身上特別顯著。
不過，BBC科學事務記者羅根說，目前仍未解答的問題是，一個人在學懂外語之後，密度已經增高的大腦部分是否會令學習第三種或者第四種外語更加容易。
Referece: BBC中文網
專家說，新研究發現可以說明為什麼那些從小學習外語的人，其外語能力超越那些成年時才學習外語的人。
大腦組織密度
專家對那些參與研究的人的大腦進行掃描。結果顯示，具有雙語能力的人的大腦左半球低位頂葉前極皮層（inferior parietal cortex）的“灰質”（Grey Matter）的密度比較高。
專家同時發現，那些在五歲之前學習外語的人身上的這種情況特別明顯。一個人開始學習外語的年齡越大，其大腦出現改變的幾率越低。
一直以來，科學家都知道，人的大腦可以在受到刺激的情況下出現轉變。不過，專家一直都不清楚究竟可以出現多大程度的改變。
新的研究顯示，語言學習可以在很大程度上改變大腦的結構。這種情況在小孩子身上特別明顯。
外語能力
英國倫敦大學學院的梅凱利博士領導的研究包括了25名“右撇子”。這些人只說英語。與此同時，小組也研究了同樣數目的在五歲前已經學習外語的人。
與此同時，專家也包括了33名在10到15歲期間學習外語的雙語英國人。這些人經常使用外語已經有最少五年時間。
專家為這些人進行大腦掃描。他們發現，有雙語能力的人的大腦左半球低位頂葉前極皮層的“灰質”密度高於那些沒有外語能力的人。
這種情況在那些在年幼時已經開始學習外語的人身上特別顯著。
不過，BBC科學事務記者羅根說，目前仍未解答的問題是，一個人在學懂外語之後，密度已經增高的大腦部分是否會令學習第三種或者第四種外語更加容易。
Referece: BBC中文網
