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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CHAPTER 6. FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 232 words, e.g. Resnik 1993). From Statistical Pro les to Senses A statistical pro le of this sort is interesting in its own right from the linguistic point of view, but for those working on NLP, it is only a means to the end of word sense disambiguation, which is increasingly recognized as a key problem in building practical NLU systems (witness the fact that an entire issue of Computational Linguistics was recently devoted to the topic). The statistical study of FrameNet words mentioned above istypical of the sorts of work now being done, in that it will use the hand-tagged examples of senses of words from FrameNet as a training set for an algorithm that will then look through the whole BNC for sentences containing those words and make a guess as to the sense of the word and the roles of its arguments, based on the statistical similarity of the contexts to those in the training set. (For an overview of current word sense disambiguation techniques, see Ide & Veronis 1998, and Light 1997.) The real test of the statistical pro les of the senses see developed in the rst step would therefore be how well they can be used to predict the sense from the syntax and semantics of the arguments. Standard evaluation procedures such as cross-validation can then be used to judge the accuracy of this method in comparison with other word-sense disambiguation algorithms currently in use. Cross-linguistic Survey The purposes of a cross-linguistic survey would be (1) to test whether native speakers of various languages actually use the terms listed in bilingual dictionaries to convey the various meanings of see and (2) to nd out the relative frequencies of the words used in such cases.For this purpose, we could use a translation task; this is less than ideal from a psycholinguistic point of view, since we aretestingavery high-level skill (translation), rather than a more direct meaning to form correspondence. However, it is much simpler to gather cross-linguistic data in this way than to try to replicate a psychological experiment in each of the countries, especially when dealing with meanings that are very di cult to depict, such as those of see. The survey would include at least 40 English sentences containing see, covering the range of senses. For each target language, at least 10 subjects would translate all of
CHAPTER 6. FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 233 the sentences into their native language, so that some idea could be obtained about variant expressions for each sense. As in the dictionary study, it is expected that some of the instances of see will be uniformly (or nearly uniformly) translated by the basic verb for `see' in the target language. Those uses could then be argued to constitute universal parts of human visual experience 3 , and hence, plausibly grouped together as one general sense or at least a few related senses, perhaps related by event metonymy, pro ling of di erent participants, etc. Other uses, which are lexicalized in a variety ofways, would have a better claim to be treated as separate, less related senses. Other Methods In addition to those mentioned above, other research methods would be required to investigate predictions such asthefollowing: We would expect that core senses of see such aseye and recognize will be older historically and more likely than peripheral senses and collocations to serve as sources for new extensions. We would expect that core senses would be acquired earlier and more completely than than peripheral senses. (But note that Johnson's (1996) work on acquisition data suggests that the earliest-acquired senses of see are more general, and the acquisition process involves splitting larger semantic areas into ner senses, rather than adding to a collection of distinct senses.) We would also expect the central senses to be retained better in vocabulary loss, whether due to disuse (as in language death), senility, or external agents (such as brain damage or drugs). By combining syntactic and semantic information in our frame de nitions and corpus studies, we may also in a sense be modeling the actual process of rst language acquisition. As Naigles et al. (1993:60) have suggested, ...the child confronts the problem of acquiring a verb lexicon from two imperfect data bases. Both situations (extra-linguistic observation) and utterances (linguistic observation) provide only probabilistic evidence for the determination of verb meanings. Yet we know that children acquire categorical (or close to 3 Cf. Wierzbicka's (1996) language-universal semantic primitives, which now include see (eye).
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:
Page 193 and 194: CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SA
Page 241 and 242: CHAPTER 6. FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIO
Page 243: 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?