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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CHAPTER 6. FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 230 several sets of a priori categories, some of them \natural" and some of them including what we really believe to be disparate examples. Presumably a set of categories which are closer to those which subjects had initially will be easier to apply, and will produce higher agreement on categorization of examples, both among subjects and with the experimenter's categorizations. This would be a procedure similar to that used by Rosch (1973), in which subjects were taught color names with two di erent sets of exemplars, one containing focal colors and one containing non-focal colors. We would expect other verbs (and nouns) of perception to have similar semantic structures, but most of them to be somewhat less elaborated, since see is one of the most important. Thus, we expect to nd at least a physical perception sense and a non-physical cognition sense for verbs such asglimpse, look at, perceive, and hear and phrases such as get a glimpse of , get/have a taste of , the smell of , etc. Many of these examples are easy to construct or to nd in corpora. It might be instructive to run similar experiments using avariety of these perception words, to test what sense divisions speakers have for them, whether this two-way distinction is reliable, and whether any other senses are similar to the kinds of elaborations found with see, such as discourse deixis (e.g. Ihear you, brother `I understand and sympathize with both your intended message and its implications'), classi cation (He perceives the proposal as just a delaying tactic), etc. We would also predict other sorts of prototype e ects in addition to those tested so far, with more central senses more likely to be spontaneously produced and sentences containing them to be better remembered. Standard experimental techniques could be used for eliciting \best examples" and testing recall. Corpus Studies and Word Sense Disambiguation From Senses to Statistical Pro les The frame semantic description of the senses given in Section 2.5 is intended to be precise and to contain all the appropriate information about the syntax and semantics of the arguments of each sense at the appropriate level of generality. But all of this information is discrete and categorical: a sense can occur with exactly the two arguments listed, the phrase typeoftheseen can be either S n or NP and nothing else, the semantic type of the seer is human (not merely sentient), etc. It seems clear from a variety ofpsycholinguistic experiments that speakers' knowl-
CHAPTER 6. FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 231 edge of language includes some knowledge of the relative frequencies of alternate forms for the same meaning and alternate meanings for the same form. This need not be seen as an additional \burden" on the language learner, a separate \coe cient" to be stored along with all the other syntactico-semantic knowledge. Rather, it should be a natural conse- quence of a spreading-activation model of language learning and language processing. It is probably premature to try to describe in much detail the relation between connectionist mental models and the patterns of preferences displayed by speakers, but a realistic model of the speaker's knowledge of senses should also include knowledge of the statistical pro les of the senses. There have been a number of corpus-based studies on inducing the possible argument structures for various verbs from large corpora (e.g. Manning 1993), but most of them have not had adequate sources of semantic knowledge about the arguments. Al- though part-of-speech tagged corpora have been available for some time, we are just now beginning to have parsers that are robust enough to allow ustorecordthesyntax of the argumentsofaverb in adequately (i.e. beyond a bigram or trigram grammar based on part-of speech tagging). At the same time, resources such asWordNet (Miller et al. 1990; Fellbaum 1998) are enabling us to do at least limited semantic typing of the heads of the argument NPs. 2 We should therefore be in a good position to undertake a corpus study of the argument structure of see, using the frame descriptions as a starting point and inducing statistical pro les of the syntax and semantics of the arguments of each sense. A similar study is being undertaken by Dan Jurafsky and his associates for several thousand words, many of them polysemous, in connection with the FrameNet project (Lowe et al. 1997; Baker et al. 1998). For the reasons just mentioned, we would expect that a careful study of corpus examples of see will show that even though there is a considerable overlap in the syntax and semantics of the arguments of di erent senses, the relative frequencies of di erent argument patterns will be quite di erent for di erent senses (as shown in similar studies of other 2 For the present, however, natural language processing systems must use primarily syntactic frames and relatively \shallow" semantics, because \real" semantics not only involves more world knowledge than any current NLP system incorporates, but also requires too much processing time. This is not necessarily a bad thing; the time constraints on human language processing suggest that people also do a very broad, \shallow" sort of processing, (cf. Jurafsky 1992), rather than performing a \deep" logical sort of deduction such as that envisioned by Hobbs et al. (1993). People do, however, integrate more types of evidence, especially semantic evidence, more rapidly than current AI systems.
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:
Page 191 and 192: CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SA
Page 241: CHAPTER 6. FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIO
Page 245 and 246: 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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?