Questions related to Linguistic Semantics
I have a question on a framing effect-like issue. Well, everyone of us has the immediate feeling that there's a huge difference between saying - for instance - "you should respect the environment" and "we should respect the environment", or also "the environment should be respected".
The difference might lie in how such sentences are interpreted by our minds and of course it affects the compliance to the described behavior (i.e., "respect the environment").
I'm convinced that I'm no genius and there must be a huge literature behind such an effect; but I'm not skilled in these themes, so I'm calling for help. Any clues?
P.S.: I know that nudge units and behavioral interventions teams in general promote the "make it personal" magic recipe to increase compliance, but I wonder where such strategies come from. I'm particularly interested in understanding the differences between "you should /we should", that is how grammatical phrasing (i.e., switching the person in the phrase) affects the interpretation and the relative compliance.
thanks in advance for any help
all the best,
What do you think about alternative systems of identification of species? Is DNA barcoding going to replace Linnaean binomial nomenclature? What are the advantages of a numeric system? Nomenclature is the topic of my dissertation and subject of my further research so I am interested in your opinions.
This question comes from a simple observation that really puzzles me.
Constructions (in CxG) are defined as form-function pairings. My focus here is not so much on the function of constructions but rather on their form. If we take the ditransitive construction (as in I sent her a letter), for instance, it is often described to have the form in (1). However, in the literature, you also often find the form of the ditransitive construction to be discussed as in (2), as the ‘double-object’ construction.
(1) NP V NP NP
(2) SUBJ V OBJ OBJ2
The problem for me is that in (2), the 'form' of the ditransitive construction is not described in terms of syntactic properties (such as ‘NP’), but in terms of functional properties (an object is a function, not a form). So my question is simple: why use the description in (2), a semantic/functional description, instead of the description in (1) to talk about the formal properties of the ditransitive construction? Is there a particular purpose for using one instead of the other? Or is it simply because (1) might fail to properly differentiate the ditransitive construction from other syntactic patterns? (e.g. They elected him president, also an <NP V NP NP> pattern, yet supposedly instantiating a different (resultative?) construction) And in the latter case, is that not a problem for the theory?
These questions may have to do with the syntax/semantics interface, but should CxG therefore not address these questions more explicitely?
I am looking for a suitable estimate of semantic similarity (between two words) which is based on comparison of two binary vectors (each word has a vector of "0s" and "1s" where each 0 or 1 represents association or dissociation with/from a semantic feature).
E.g. (the 10 columns represent 10 semantic features)
Word A: 0-0-0-0-0-1-1-1-1-1
Word B: 0-1-1-0-0-0-0-1-1-1
The problem with the common metrics (such a correlation) is that if the both words are dissociated from a feature (e.g. first column = 0 for both), this is counted as "match", so the similarity is increased. An extreme case, if the two vectors are composed of 0s only, the correlation is r = 1 even thou there is no overlapping semantic feature.
So, I would need a measure of similarity that increases with matching features (a column for both words is 1),decreases with mismatching features (one word has 1 and the other 0 in a column or vice versa), and does nothing when both words do not match to a semantic feature (two 0s).
Thank you for any advice!
I am currently stuggling with finding an appropriate English word for what I am trying to say.
I want to investigate whether the antecedents and consequences of a certain construct change over time (e.g., some antecedents become insignficant, the effect of the construct on a consequence increases over time, etc.).
I am currently using the term "nomological network" for it, but it seems that this term is more tied to the measurement of the particular construct.
So I wonder whether I could use this term or if not, which term seems more suitable? conceptual framework? theoretical framework? conceptual network?
Looking forward to your advice!
I'm currently trying to construct a philosophical paper that proves/disproves that the meaning of source text and the meaning of translated text is retained or still has the same meaning despite the inevitable 'loss' in the translation process. I'm currently looking for articles or philosophers that denies the notion that meaning is retained and claims that the source text and translated text are different from each other OR that even though the translator is successful in interpreting and translating meaning the two texts are still essentially 'different'.
Inspired by something I read from Diana Deutsch, I'd like to see if the same word, articulated by African tone language speakers but separated by a period of time (say two weeks), will have the same F0 profile.
If you are a speaker of an African tone language, and is willing to provide some recordings for me, please write to me at firstname.lastname@example.org. I shall share with you my findings for some other languages too as soon as I am done with the experiment. Forgive me for not being able to provide more details at the moment since that would spoil the game.
Many thanks in advance.
I need to implement n-gram language model to calculate information content for semantic similarity. I found some corpus like AQUAINT-2 and NICIR-8. But these are not freely available.
Can someone please clarify English evaluative adjectives, adverbs, verbs and nouns? their semantis, classifications and lists of common ones
The central problem of language, the one that must be solved if human language is to emerge, is that relatively few linguistic patterns—such as words, syntactic patterns, and suprasegmental patterns—must be applicable to vast ranges of conceptual structure. Language must be available to be used in any and every situation.
In Basque when you say "five euros" you do not add the plural morpheme to the noun which follows the number, thus you say "bost euroØ" (i.e. five euro). In questions when you are asking the quantity, you do not need any plural marking either, e.g. "Zenbat etxeØ dago?" (i.e. "How many apple?"). I would like to know what languages share the same characteristics with Basque.
To semantically match two strings.
String 1: The book is on the table
String 2: The novel is on the desk
The two strings String 1 and String 2 have the same meaning. Thus match semantically.
Searching for an efficient way to implement the concept into a program.
I'mresearching Enlgish noun phrases. I want to know the difference between first use and secondary use of noun phrase, and whether the secondary use is the predicative use of noun phrase.
any suggestions on where I can download a Persian/Farsi monolingual corpus? I want to do keyness testing--compare actual frequencies of words in a corpus of interest against expected frequencies from a reference corpus of general language. The Tehran Monolingual Corpus seems like a good choice, but although I have written to the listed contact email address (email@example.com) I haven't gotten a response. Thanks!
I am making a research to create indexes that will contain names and other keywords. My resource texts are written in Greek polytonic characters. I think that it would be very useful to find a way to make them editable and searchable. Furthermore, in order to summarize and classify the information mined, I believe that a software with stylometry function is needed. For the above reasons I am looking for: a) OCR software, b) stylometry software.
Any kind of help will be greatly appreciated! Thank you!
Some researchers assert that language ideologies precede language attitudes, and that language ideologies are the mother of language attitudes. Even, some go further to claim that what researchers are talking of as 'attitudes' are indeed ideologies. That's why, I'm wondering how the conceptual clarity between these concepts can be determined in scholarly discussions.
I'm looking at gender differences in the use of African American English among adults in two narrative conditions: story-retelling and story generation. I need to determine if there are significant differences in the use of AAE features. Would Mann-Whitney U test be appropriate?
I am initiating a funded research project on helping Chinese ESL learners improve their writings , e.g. locating grammatical errors and correcting semantically misusing words. We have already gotten a ESL corpus but it contains a lot of tagging mistakes. Would you please point out any related work or tool or corpus? If you did such kind of research before, welcome any of your research data and publications.
"Every" involves downward entailment as "Every person is driving" entails "Every drunk person is driving". But why is it an entailment relationship between "Few people are driving" and "Few drunk people are driving"? Any intuitive explanation?
Koptjevskaja-Tamm's "Action nominal constructions in the langauges of Europe" describes action nominals as being a parasite:
"ANC Universal 1: ANC a parasite
No language has syntactic means (dependent-marking, head-marking, word order) which are exclusively used in ANCs."
Are there other constructions that follow this definition? If so, what are they and is there more information on this category of a "parasite"?
Harris who tutored Noam Chomsky was an avowed structuralist. However, Chomsky has made his own strong positions sometimes different from his mentor. A lot of materials in the literature either support or discount this fact. What was his actual attitude towards structuralism?
In cognitive linguistics, natural languages are divided into three categories known as nouns (to-be), verbs (to-do), and modifiers. Therefore, the semantics of “to-do” structures in linguistics needs to be dealt with by suitable mathematical means such as behavioral process algebra and semantic algebra.
Me: a hard believer in linguistic analysis as a tool to discover why processes don't go the way we want them to go and presuming that there are a lot of taboos in talking business in OI (maybe to maintain 'face' (Goffman))
The work field: sees a lot of problems trying to get (potential) partners to speak up about their expectations and contributions in an OI collaboration, feels things can improve a lot in order to achieve a higher succes ratio for projects
The professor: things may not be that problematic and simple managerial skills and courses may solve, what is is essentially, a lack of assertiveness
You: good references, sources, ideas that will support either of the three views
Thank you a lot for thinking along!
Whereas it is used as a term in the English-language scientific articles and monographs?
( Петров Р.В. Иммунология. М.: Медицина 1987. 416 с.
Петров Р. В., Хаитов Р. М., Манько В. М., Михайлова А. А. Контроль и регуляция иммунного ответа. – М.: Медицина, 1981. – 312 с.
Хаитов Р.М., Игнатьева Г.А., Сидорович И.Г. Иммунология. 2-е изд., перераб. и доп. -М.: Медицина, 2002.-536 с.)
Is syntactic analysis merely sufficient?
What are the roles of semantic analysis and synthesis?
I am trying to find a semantic database (preferably in Dutch) that yields semantic similarities between words. I know the Latent Semantic Analysis Boulder online tool can do this, but the results ( at least using only single terms with the Matrix option), are sometimes really weird, and don't follow common sense ("shoe" is linked stronger than "key" with "door"). Does anyone know about any alternatives?
I am investigating polysemy using semantic priming paradigms. Usually, context words appear before a prime word, biasing its interpretation (between alternative senses). However I would like to use a context word after the prime, and before target. Do you know any experiments like this?
I'm collecting essays written by Chinese and British students to compare the cohesion structures and linguistic features of these written productions. The problem is it's hard to find essays with similar topics written by both Chinese and British college students. So, can I ignore the limitation of the topics and collect essays with different topics?