Search (284 results, page 15 of 15)

9.504606E-4 = product of:
  0.007603685 = sum of:
    0.007603685 = product of:
      0.01520737 = sum of:
        0.01520737 = weight(_text_:22 in 3807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01520737 = score(doc=3807,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.112301625 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 3807, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3807)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

8.786863E-4 = product of:
  0.0070294905 = sum of:
    0.0070294905 = product of:
      0.014058981 = sum of:
        0.014058981 = weight(_text_:system in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014058981 = score(doc=2891,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10100432 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = queryNorm
            0.13919188 = fieldWeight in 2891, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2891)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Natural languages are both complex and dynamic. They are in part formalized through dictionaries and grammar. Dictionaries attempt to provide definitions and examples of various usages for all the words in a language. Grammar, on the other hand, is the system of rules that defines the structure of a language and is concerned with the correct use and application of the language in speaking or writing. The fact that these two mechanisms lag behind the language as currently used is not a serious problem for those living in a language culture and talking their native language. However, the correct choice of words, expressions, and word relationships is much more difficult when speaking or writing in a foreign language. The basics of the grammar of a language may have been learned in school decades ago, and even then there were always several choices for the correct expression for an idea, fact, opinion, or emotion. Although many different parts of speech and their relationships can make for difficult language decisions, prepositions tend to be problematic for nonnative speakers of English, and, in reality, prepositions are a major problem in most languages. Does a speaker or writer say "in the West Coast" or "on the West Coast," or perhaps "at the West Coast"? In Norwegian, we are "in" a city, but "at" a place. But the distinction between cities and places is vague. To be absolutely correct, one really has to learn the right preposition for every single place. A simplistic way of resolving these language issues is to ask a native speaker. But even native speakers may disagree about the right choice of words. If there is disagreement, then one will have to ask more than one native speaker, treat his/her response as a vote for a particular choice, and perhaps choose the majority choice as the best possible alternative. In real life, such a procedure may be impossible or impractical, but in the electronic world, as we shall see, this is quite easy to achieve. Using the vast text repository of the Web, we may get a significant voting base for even the most detailed and distinct phrases. We shall start by introducing a set of examples to present our idea of using the text repository an the Web to aid in making the best word selection, especially for the use of prepositions. Then we will present a more general discussion of the possibilities and limitations of using the Web as an aid for correct writing.

8.786863E-4 = product of:
  0.0070294905 = sum of:
    0.0070294905 = product of:
      0.014058981 = sum of:
        0.014058981 = weight(_text_:system in 104) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014058981 = score(doc=104,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10100432 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = queryNorm
            0.13919188 = fieldWeight in 104, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=104)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The dissertation establishes 'binominal lexeme' as a comparative concept and discusses its cross-linguistic typology and semantics. Informally, a binominal lexeme is a noun-noun compound or functional equivalent; more precisely, it is a lexical item that consists primarily of two thing-morphs between which there exists an unstated semantic relation. Examples of binominals include Mandarin Chinese ?? (tielù) [iron road], French chemin de fer [way of iron] and Russian ???????? ?????? (zeleznaja doroga) [iron:adjz road]. All of these combine a word denoting 'iron' and a word denoting 'road' or 'way' to denote the meaning railway. In each case, the unstated semantic relation is one of composition: a railway is conceptualized as a road that is composed (or made) of iron. However, three different morphosyntactic strategies are employed: compounding, prepositional phrase and relational adjective. This study explores the range of such strategies used by a worldwide sample of 106 languages to express a set of 100 meanings from various semantic domains, resulting in a classification consisting of nine different morphosyntactic types. The semantic relations found in the data are also explored and a classification called the Hatcher-Bourque system is developed that operates at two levels of granularity, together with a tool for classifying binominals, the Bourquifier. The classification is extended to other subfields of language, including metonymy and lexical semantics, and beyond language to the domain of knowledge representation, resulting in a proposal for a general model of associative relations called the PHAB model. The many findings of the research include universals concerning the recruitment of anchoring nominal modification strategies, a method for comparing non-binary typologies, the non-universality (despite its predominance) of compounding, and a scale of frequencies for semantic relations which may provide insights into the associative nature of human thought.

7.6885056E-4 = product of:
  0.0061508045 = sum of:
    0.0061508045 = product of:
      0.012301609 = sum of:
        0.012301609 = weight(_text_:system in 5089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012301609 = score(doc=5089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10100432 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = queryNorm
            0.1217929 = fieldWeight in 5089, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5089)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Content

Concepts & Language: Knowledge organization by procedures of natural language processing. A case study using the method GABEK (J. Zelger, J. Gadner) - Computer aided narrative analysis using conceptual graphs (H. Schärfe, P. 0hrstrom) - Pragmatic representation of argumentative text: a challenge for the conceptual graph approach (H. Irandoust, B. Moulin) - Conceptual graphs as a knowledge representation core in a complex language learning environment (G. Angelova, A. Nenkova, S. Boycheva, T. Nikolov) - Conceptual Modeling and Ontologies: Relationships and actions in conceptual categories (Ch. Landauer, K.L. Bellman) - Concept approximations for formal concept analysis (J. Saquer, J.S. Deogun) - Faceted information representation (U. Priß) - Simple concept graphs with universal quantifiers (J. Tappe) - A framework for comparing methods for using or reusing multiple ontologies in an application (J. van ZyI, D. Corbett) - Designing task/method knowledge-based systems with conceptual graphs (M. Leclère, F.Trichet, Ch. Choquet) - A logical ontology (J. Farkas, J. Sarbo) - Algorithms and Tools: Fast concept analysis (Ch. Lindig) - A framework for conceptual graph unification (D. Corbett) - Visual CP representation of knowledge (H.D. Pfeiffer, R.T. Hartley) - Maximal isojoin for representing software textual specifications and detecting semantic anomalies (Th. Charnois) - Troika: using grids, lattices and graphs in knowledge acquisition (H.S. Delugach, B.E. Lampkin) - Open world theorem prover for conceptual graphs (J.E. Heaton, P. Kocura) - NetCare: a practical conceptual graphs software tool (S. Polovina, D. Strang) - CGWorld - a web based workbench for conceptual graphs management and applications (P. Dobrev, K. Toutanova) - Position papers: The edition project: Peirce's existential graphs (R. Mülller) - Mining association rules using formal concept analysis (N. Pasquier) - Contextual logic summary (R Wille) - Information channels and conceptual scaling (K.E. Wolff) - Spatial concepts - a rule exploration (S. Rudolph) - The TEXT-TO-ONTO learning environment (A. Mädche, St. Staab) - Controlling the semantics of metadata on audio-visual documents using ontologies (Th. Dechilly, B. Bachimont) - Building the ontological foundations of a terminology from natural language to conceptual graphs with Ribosome, a knowledge extraction system (Ch. Jacquelinet, A. Burgun) - CharGer: some lessons learned and new directions (H.S. Delugach) - Knowledge management using conceptual graphs (W.K. Pun)