Seeing clearly: Frame Semantic, Psycholinguistic, and Cross ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Chapter 6 Future Research Directions and Conclusions In the rst part of this chapter, I will outline the research that needs to be un- dertaken to answer some of the remaining questions Finally, I will attempt to synthesize the contributions of the various approaches discussed in the last four chapters, to see what generalizations can be made about the results. 6.1 Future Research Directions Psycholinguistic Experiments Further Analysis of Existing Data There is certainly room for more analysis of the data already collected. My col- league Jane Edwards and I are continuing to work on analyzing the data from the timed tasks on both Experiments 2 and 3, eliminating outliers and nding appropriate ways to standardize the measurements. As noted in Section 4.4, however, a good analysis of the Experiment 3 reaction time data will probably not be possible unless we gather more data to reduce the number of missing values. One of the questions which wewanted to answer was, \What is the nature of individual variation in the semantics of see? For example, can speakers be categorized on the basis of cognitive style (such as \lumpers" vs. \splitters")? (This might be a stable personality trait, not limited to the particular range of senses in question.) Is there an 228
CHAPTER 6. FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 229 implicational hierarchy oflevels of sense di erentiation, so that any individual who makes distinction A would also make distinction B? 1 We are not ready to make any claims on this point, but there are some indications that our subjects do vary on such a dimension. The technique of clustering on the basis of agreement statistics, described in Sec- tion 4.3 above, is useful in revealing certain aspects of the underlying structure of the senses. It is, however, one-dimensional, and thus cannot reveal the complexity underlying the sense divisions; in this respect, it has the same weakness as was noted above with regard to experiments using similarity judgements. Several approaches for further, multidimensional analysis are being considered. One way of getting at the larger number of dimensions that are assumed to underly the sense judgements would be to consider the responses on the classi cation tasks as (partially) independent dimensions, and to nd a method to reduce their dimensionality. The most conservative approach might be to consider each category as orthogonal to all the others and look for responses to the same item in two or more categories that could be reduced to a single dimension based on their relative frequencies. We are currently considering the relative merits of discrete vs. continuous-valued representations, and of various methods of reduction of dimensionality. New Experiments In accordance with Williams 1992, we expect that probes for senses closely related to the prime will be facilitated more than probes for relatively distant senses. The distance between senses might be measured along trees based on clustering by cross-rater agreement (Section 4.3) or based on inheritance of frames (Section 2.5). However, we will probably need to collect much more reaction time data (especially for the 14 senses used in Experiment 3) before we can prove or disprove this hypothesis. One question that naturally arises with regard to our data (especially from the last two tasks) is whether, by the end of the experiment, the subjects have simply learned the categories that we de ned a priori and are responding on the basis of what they have learned in the last hour, rather than on the basis of sense divisions which they had coming into the experiment. It may be that the only way to resolve this question would be to create 1 This might in some ways be similar to Kay & McDaniel's (1978) discovery of an implicational hierarchy for distinctions of color terms across languages. In that case, however, the cross-linguistic di erences have to do with the existence of names for categories, which ismuch easier to prove than the discrimination of categories which donothave names, like those for the senses of see.
Page 1 and 2:
Seeing clearly: Frame Semantic, Psy
Page 3 and 4:
Seeing clearly: Frame Semantic, Psy
Page 5 and 6:
Next three psycholinguistic experim
Page 7 and 8:
BasicSenses........................
Page 9 and 10:
Acknowledgements Careful citations
Page 11 and 12:
acquisition. Aside from needing to
Page 13 and 14:
Chapter 1 Introduction Xue er bu s,
Page 15 and 16:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 3 In lingui
Page 17 and 18:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 5 Although
Page 19 and 20:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 7 part on t
Page 21 and 22:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 9 is not cl
Page 23 and 24:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 11 1980:10-
Page 25 and 26:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 13 L.U. Lex
Page 27 and 28:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 15 spondenc
Page 29 and 30:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 17 happy an
Page 31 and 32:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 19 shows th
Page 33 and 34:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 21 Regular
Page 35 and 36:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 23 base for
Page 37 and 38:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 25 d. The i
Page 39 and 40:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 27 (12) a.
Page 41 and 42:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 29 linguist
Page 43 and 44:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 31 Introspe
Page 45 and 46:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 33 on the o
Page 47 and 48:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 35 they con
Page 49 and 50:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 37 meaning
Page 51 and 52:
Chapter 2 A Frame Semantic Analysis
Page 53 and 54:
CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSI
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Chapter 3 Other Cognitive Approache
Page 125 and 126:
CHAPTER 3. OTHER COGNITIVE APPROACH
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Semantics of Seer entity setting ph
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
CHAPTER 4. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIM
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SA
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190: CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SA
Page 239: CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SA
Page 243 and 244: CHAPTER 6. FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIO
Page 251 and 252: BIBLIOGRAPHY 239 Bierwisch, Manfred
Page 253 and 254: BIBLIOGRAPHY 241 ||, & B.T.S. Atkin
Page 255 and 256: BIBLIOGRAPHY 243 ||. 1990. The inva
Page 257 and 258: BIBLIOGRAPHY 245 Osgood, C.E. 1970.
Page 259 and 260: BIBLIOGRAPHY 247 Wasow, Thomas. 198
Page 261 and 262: Appendix A Additional Corpus Exampl
Page 263 and 264: APPENDIX A. ADDITIONAL CORPUS EXAMP
Page 265 and 266: APPENDIX A. ADDITIONAL CORPUS EXAMP
Page 267 and 268: APPENDIX B. SUMMARY OF MORPHOLOGY A
Page 269 and 270: APPENDIX C. EXPERIMENT 1 257 Recogn
Page 271 and 272: APPENDIX C. EXPERIMENT 1 259 to lea
Page 273 and 274: APPENDIX C. EXPERIMENT 1 261 At the
Page 275 and 276: Appendix D Stimuli for Experiments
Page 277 and 278: APPENDIX D. STIMULI FOR EXPERIMENTS
Page 287 and 288: Index activation, 13, 136, 137, 231
Page 289 and 290: INDEX 277 description, 82 see proce
Page 291:
INDEX 279 173{178, 186, 190{192, 20
show all

Seeing clearly: Frame Semantic, Psycholinguistic, and Cross ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?