Search (99 results, page 1 of 5)

  • × theme_ss:"Begriffstheorie"
  1. Axelos, C.; Flasch, K.; Schepers, H.; Kuhlen, R.; Romberg, R.; Zimmermann, R.: Allgemeines/Besonderes (1971-2007) 0.13 
    0.13150796 = product of:
  0.39452386 = sum of:
    0.35925394 = weight(_text_:2f in 4031) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.35925394 = score(doc=4031,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.38742664 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045697823 = queryNorm
        0.92728245 = fieldWeight in 4031, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4031)
    0.0352699 = weight(_text_:der in 4031) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0352699 = score(doc=4031,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.10207828 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045697823 = queryNorm
        0.34551817 = fieldWeight in 4031, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4031)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Als Erfinder des «Allgemeinen» gilt, gemäß dem Bericht des Aristoteles und seit diesem Bericht, Sokrates. Er ist es, der nicht mehr danach suchte, woraus ein Ding zu dem geworden ist, was es ist, oder wie es entstanden ist, sondern danach, «was [ein Ding] ist», und somit ist Sokrates der erste gewesen, der die Herausarbeitung des Allgemeinen (?a?????) forderte und mit seinen Fragen seine Gesprächspartner zu dieser Herausarbeitung trieb bzw. lockte; die Definition (???sµ??) war das Ziel des sokratischen Gesprächs, und die sokratische Aporie war das Vehikel.
    Footnote
    DOI: 10.24894/HWPh.5033. Vgl. unter: https://www.schwabeonline.ch/schwabe-xaveropp/elibrary/start.xav#__elibrary__%2F%2F*%5B%40attr_id%3D%27verw.allgemeinesbesonderes%27%5D__1515856414979.
    Source
    Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie. Hrsg.: J. Ritter, K. Gründer u. G. Gabriel
  2. Miller, G.A.: Wörter : Streifzüge durch die Psycholinguistik (1993) 0.05 
    0.051014923 = product of:
  0.15304476 = sum of:
    0.12117812 = weight(_text_:einzelne in 1458) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12117812 = score(doc=1458,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.26896578 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.885746 = idf(docFreq=333, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045697823 = queryNorm
        0.4505336 = fieldWeight in 1458, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.885746 = idf(docFreq=333, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1458)
    0.031866636 = weight(_text_:der in 1458) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031866636 = score(doc=1458,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.10207828 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045697823 = queryNorm
        0.3121784 = fieldWeight in 1458, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1458)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Wörter sind der sprachliche Ausdruck unseres Denkens, von uns selbst geschaffen, und doch etwas, das wir selten einer näheren Betrachtung unterziehen. Dabei kann uns gerade diese Betrachtung einiges darüber sagen, was in unseren Gehirnen vor sich geht. Die Sprachforschung hat in den letzten Jahrzehnten durch die Ansätze der Kognitionspsychologie neuen Schwung bekommen - und Georg A. Miller hat als einer der Begründer der modernen Psycholinguistik einen nicht unwesentlichen Anteil daran gehabt. In diesem Buch erzühlt er, oft geürzt mit seinem ganz besonderen Humor, was die Linguistik im Reich der Wörter so alles entdeckt hat. Miller führt dem Leser die verschiedenen Seiten von Wörtern vor Augen; jedes einzelne davon ist das Zusammenspiel einer Äußerung - in der phonetischen Aussprache - , einer Bedeutung - in der Semantik - und einer Rolle im Satz - in der Syntax. Diese drei Seiten sieht Miller als Einheit, wobei er dem Leser die Theorien und Methoden, mit denen die Forschung den Wörtern zu Leibe rückt, anschaulich vorstellt
    BK
    18.00 / Einzelne Sprachen und Literaturen allgemein
    Classification
    ET 500 Allgemeine und vergleichende Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft. Indogermanistik. Außereuropäische Sprachen und Literaturen / Einzelgebiete der Sprachwissenschaft, Sprachbeschreibung / Semantik und Lexikologie / Lexikologie (diachrone und synchrone)
    18.00 / Einzelne Sprachen und Literaturen allgemein
    RVK
    ET 500 Allgemeine und vergleichende Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft. Indogermanistik. Außereuropäische Sprachen und Literaturen / Einzelgebiete der Sprachwissenschaft, Sprachbeschreibung / Semantik und Lexikologie / Lexikologie (diachrone und synchrone)
  3. Voß, V.: Denken, verstehen, wissen : eine sprachvergleichende Untersuchung zu lexikalischen Bezeichnungen mentaler Tätigkeiten, Vorgänge und Zustände (2009) 0.05 
    0.04716363 = product of:
  0.14149089 = sum of:
    0.123676896 = weight(_text_:einzelne in 504) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.123676896 = score(doc=504,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.26896578 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.885746 = idf(docFreq=333, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045697823 = queryNorm
        0.4598239 = fieldWeight in 504, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.885746 = idf(docFreq=333, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=504)
    0.01781399 = weight(_text_:der in 504) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01781399 = score(doc=504,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10207828 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045697823 = queryNorm
        0.17451303 = fieldWeight in 504, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=504)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Diese onomasiologische Arbeit untersucht sprachvergleichend lexikalische Benennungen mentaler Tätigkeiten (wie z.B. denken), Vorgänge (verstehen) und Zustände (wissen). Dabei stehen Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede der sprachlichen Erschließung dieser Bereiche im Blickpunkt. Bereits im deutschen Wortschatz zeigen sich verschiedene Motivationsverhältnisse: von relativ durchsichtigen Ausdrücken (begreifen, erwägen) über als komplex analysierbare, aber nicht eigentlich durchschaubare Ausdrücke (überlegen, verstehen) bis zu undurchsichtigen Simplizia (denken, wissen). Die Leitfrage lautet: Welche Bilder wiederholen sich durch verschiedene Sprachen und Kulturen? Gibt es bestimmte Bahnen, in denen sich die bezeichnungsmäßige Erschließung bewegt? Es zeigt sich, daß es sich um einen sehr heterogenen Bereich mit zahlreichen Bezeichnungsmustern handelt, von denen sich aber drei Muster - Bezeichnungen aus den Quellbereichen GREIFEN/NEHMEN, SEHEN und HÖREN - als stark verbreitet in verschiedenen Unterbereichen und in unterschiedlichen Sprachen herauskristallisieren.
    BK
    18.00 Einzelne Sprachen und Literaturen allgemein
    Classification
    18.00 Einzelne Sprachen und Literaturen allgemein
    Series
    Wissenschaftliche Schriften der WWU Münster / Reihe 12; Bd.1
  4. Grolier, E. de: From theories to concepts and from facts to words (1990) 0.04 
    0.040174317 = product of:
  0.24104589 = sum of:
    0.24104589 = weight(_text_:theories in 3198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24104589 = score(doc=3198,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2496233 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045697823 = queryNorm
        0.9656386 = fieldWeight in 3198, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3198)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  5. Zawada, B.; Swanepoel, P.: On the empirical adequacy of terminological concept theories : the case for prototype theory (1994) 0.04 
    0.040174317 = product of:
  0.24104589 = sum of:
    0.24104589 = weight(_text_:theories in 2004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24104589 = score(doc=2004,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2496233 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045697823 = queryNorm
        0.9656386 = fieldWeight in 2004, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2004)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  6. Hjoerland, B.: Concepts, paradigms and knowledge organization (2010) 0.04 
    0.036902465 = product of:
  0.22141479 = sum of:
    0.22141479 = weight(_text_:theories in 3512) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.22141479 = score(doc=3512,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.2496233 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045697823 = queryNorm
        0.8869957 = fieldWeight in 3512, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3512)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    It is argued that concepts are the building blocks of knowledge organizing systems (KOS). Objections to this view are considered and answers are provided. By implication the theory of concepts constitutes the foundation for knowledge organization (KO). The theory of concepts is understood as related to and derived from theories of knowledge. Different theories of knowledge such as empiricism, rationalism, historicism and pragmatism imply different theories of concepts. Such different epistemologies and their associated theories of concepts represent different methodological ideals which probably compete in all knowledge domains. Different approaches to KO are also in fundamental ways associated with different theories of concepts. The paper holds that the historicist and pragmatic theory of concept should be considered most valuable. By implication is it is necessary to know about competing theories in the fields being organized. A further implication of the pragmatic view is that the construction of a KOS must be understood as a way of participating in the discourses in the domain that is being represented.
  7. Kageura, K.: Theories of terminology : a quest for a framework for the study of term formation (1999) 0.04 
    0.035152525 = product of:
  0.21091515 = sum of:
    0.21091515 = weight(_text_:theories in 6290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21091515 = score(doc=6290,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2496233 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045697823 = queryNorm
        0.84493375 = fieldWeight in 6290, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6290)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  8. Thiel, C.: ¬Der klassische und der moderne Begriff des Begriffs : Gedanken zur Geschichte der Begriffsbildung in den exakten Wissenschaften (1994) 0.03 
    0.03238148 = product of:
  0.09714443 = sum of:
    0.07532684 = weight(_text_:theories in 7868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07532684 = score(doc=7868,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2496233 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045697823 = queryNorm
        0.30176204 = fieldWeight in 7868, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7868)
    0.021817593 = weight(_text_:der in 7868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021817593 = score(doc=7868,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10207828 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045697823 = queryNorm
        0.21373394 = fieldWeight in 7868, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7868)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Up to the present day, difficulties have confronted all attempts at establishing a theory of concepts that would comprise the various kinds of concept-formation in the disciplines of the spectrum of sciences. Not a few philosophical dictionaries, under the entry 'concept', still offer doctrinies which were current far back in the history of philosophy and have little in coomon with concept-formations in the sciences today. The paper aims at an improvement in this situation. After a sketch of the 'classical' notion of concept, already developed in antiquity (essentially a logic of 'classification', although 'class-formation' in tis present understanding had not yet been conceived), the canonical modern doctrine of concepts is outlined. With an eye to application in the exact sciences, it is shown how in the nineteenth century the view of concept as an additive complex of characteristics yields to a functional approach systematized, in the last quarter of the century, by classical quantificational logic. Almost simultaneously, Mach, Frege, Peano, Weyl and others set out to shape the modern theory of abstraction. It is these two theories that today permit philosophers of science not only to deal with functional processes of concept-formation but also to represent in a formally coorect manner metalinguistic propositions about concepts and their properties. Thus it seems that the fundamental tasks of a modern theory of concept have finally been taken care of
  9. Hjoerland, B.: Concept theory (2009) 0.03 
    0.028072655 = product of:
  0.16843593 = sum of:
    0.16843593 = weight(_text_:theories in 3461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16843593 = score(doc=3461,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.2496233 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045697823 = queryNorm
        0.67476046 = fieldWeight in 3461, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3461)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Concept theory is an extremely broad, interdisciplinary and complex field of research related to many deep fields with very long historical traditions without much consensus. However, information science and knowledge organization cannot avoid relating to theories of concepts. Knowledge organizing systems (e.g., classification systems, thesauri, and ontologies) should be understood as systems basically organizing concepts and their semantic relations. The same is the case with information retrieval systems. Different theories of concepts have different implications for how to construe, evaluate, and use such systems. Based on a post-Kuhnian view of paradigms, this article put forward arguments that the best understanding and classification of theories of concepts is to view and classify them in accordance with epistemological theories (empiricism, rationalism, historicism, and pragmatism). It is also argued that the historicist and pragmatist understandings of concepts are the most fruitful views and that this understanding may be part of a broader paradigm shift that is also beginning to take place in information science. The importance of historicist and pragmatic theories of concepts for information science is outlined.
  10. Dahlberg, I.: Begriffsarbeit in der Wissensorganisation (2010) 0.03 
    0.027256822 = product of:
  0.081770465 = sum of:
    0.05700477 = weight(_text_:der in 3726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05700477 = score(doc=3726,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.10207828 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045697823 = queryNorm
        0.5584417 = fieldWeight in 3726, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3726)
    0.024765696 = product of:
      0.049531393 = sum of:
        0.049531393 = weight(_text_:22 in 3726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049531393 = score(doc=3726,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16002598 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045697823 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3726, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3726)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Ausgehend von der Notwendigkeit, das Wissen der Wissensorganisation in ihren Wissenseinheiten (Begriffen) zu erfassen, wird auf Vorgängerarbeiten (E.Wüster, F.Riggs) hingewiesen. Für die notwendigen Arbeiten wird der noematische Wissensbegriff herangezogen und es wird gezeigt, wie begriffsanalytisch (merkmalsbezogen und durch Merkmale auch systembildend) an eine mögliche Begriffsarbeit herangegangen werden sollte. Die sieben notwendigen Schritte hierzu werden erläutert.
    Series
    Fortschritte in der Wissensorganisation; Bd.11
    Source
    Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly
  11. Dahlberg, I.: ¬Die gegenstandsbezogene, analytische Begriffstheorie und ihre Definitionsarten (1987) 0.03 
    0.02620329 = product of:
  0.07860987 = sum of:
    0.0352699 = weight(_text_:der in 880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0352699 = score(doc=880,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10207828 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045697823 = queryNorm
        0.34551817 = fieldWeight in 880, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=880)
    0.043339968 = product of:
      0.086679935 = sum of:
        0.086679935 = weight(_text_:22 in 880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.086679935 = score(doc=880,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16002598 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045697823 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 880, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=880)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Pages
    S.9-22
    Source
    Beiträge zur Begriffsanalyse: Vorträge der Arbeitsgruppe Begriffsanalyse, Darmstadt 1986. Hrsg. von B. Ganter, R. Wille u. K.E. Wolff
  12. Bauer, G.: ¬Die vielseitigen Anwendungsmöglichkeiten des Kategorienprinzips bei der Wissensorganisation (2006) 0.02 
    0.022775894 = product of:
  0.06832768 = sum of:
    0.046657696 = weight(_text_:der in 5710) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046657696 = score(doc=5710,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.10207828 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045697823 = queryNorm
        0.4570776 = fieldWeight in 5710, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5710)
    0.021669984 = product of:
      0.043339968 = sum of:
        0.043339968 = weight(_text_:22 in 5710) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043339968 = score(doc=5710,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16002598 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045697823 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5710, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5710)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Fast alle berühmten Philosophen der letzten Jahrhunderte haben sich mit den allgemeinen Begriffen befasst und sie sehr unterschiedlich formuliert und interpretiert. Eine Auswahl philosophischer Kategorien: - Platon (427-347): Sein, Identität, Verschiedenheit, Veränderung, Beharrung - Aristoteles (384-322): Substanz, Qualität, Quantität, Relation, Ort. Haben, Tun, Leiden - Kant (1724-1804): Qualität, Quantität, Relation, Modalität - Lotze (1891): Ding, Eigenschaft, Tätigkeit, Relation Unter Kategorien versteht man die allgemeinsten Stammbegriffe des Verstandes, unter welchen alle Gegenstände der Erfahrung fallen und von denen die übrigen Begriffe abgeleitet werden können. Für die Informationspraxis sind die ursprünglichen philosophischen Kategorien modifiziert worden.
    Pages
    S.22-33
    Series
    Fortschritte in der Wissensorganisation; Bd.9
    Source
    Wissensorganisation und Verantwortung: Gesellschaftliche, ökonomische und technische Aspekte. Proceedings der 9. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation Duisburg, 5.-7. November 2004. Hrsg. von H.P. Ohly u.a
  13. Friedman, A.; Thellefsen, M.: Concept theory and semiotics in knowledge organization (2011) 0.02 
    0.021305649 = product of:
  0.12783389 = sum of:
    0.12783389 = weight(_text_:theories in 292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12783389 = score(doc=292,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2496233 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045697823 = queryNorm
        0.5121072 = fieldWeight in 292, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=292)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to explore the basics of semiotic analysis and concept theory that represent two dominant approaches to knowledge representation, and explore how these approaches are fruitful for knowledge organization. Design/methodology/approach - In particular the semiotic theory formulated by the American philosopher C.S. Peirce and the concept theory formulated by Ingetraut Dahlberg are investigated. The paper compares the differences and similarities between these two theories of knowledge representation. Findings - The semiotic model is a general and unrestricted model of signs and Dahlberg's model is thought from the perspective and demand of better knowledge organization system (KOS) development. It is found that Dahlberg's concept model provides a detailed method for analyzing and representing concepts in a KOS, where semiotics provides the philosophical context for representation. Originality/value - This paper is the first to combine theories of knowledge representation, semiotic and concept theory, within the context of knowledge organization.
  14. Treude, L.: ¬Das Problem der Konzeptdefinition in der Wissensorganisation : über einen missglückten Versuch der Klärung (2013) 0.02 
    0.019522194 = product of:
  0.05856658 = sum of:
    0.03999231 = weight(_text_:der in 3060) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03999231 = score(doc=3060,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.10207828 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045697823 = queryNorm
        0.3917808 = fieldWeight in 3060, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3060)
    0.018574271 = product of:
      0.037148543 = sum of:
        0.037148543 = weight(_text_:22 in 3060) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037148543 = score(doc=3060,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16002598 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045697823 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3060, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3060)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Alon Friedman und Richard P. Smiraglia kündigen in ihrem aktuellen Artikel "Nodes and arcs: concept map, semiotics, and knowledge organization" an, eine "empirical demonstration of how the domain [of knowledge organisation] itself understands the meaning of a concept" durchzuführen. Die Klärung des Konzeptbegriffs ist ein begrüßenswertes Vorhaben, das die Autoren in einer empirischen Untersuchung von concept maps (also Konzeptdiagrammen) aus dem Bereich der Wissensorganisation nachvollziehen wollen. Beschränkte sich Friedman 2011 in seinem Artikel "Concept theory and semiotics in knowledge organization" [Fn 01] noch ausschließlich auf Sprache als Medium im Zeichenprozess, bezieht er sich nun auf Visualisierungen als Repräsentationsform und scheint somit seinen Ansatz um den Aspekt der Bildlichkeit zu erweitern. Zumindest erwartet man dies nach der Lektüre der Beschreibung des aktuellen Vorhabens von Friedman und Smiraglia, das - wie die Autoren verkünden - auf einer semiotischen Grundlage durchgeführt worden sei.
    Source
    LIBREAS: Library ideas. no.22, 2013, S.xx-xx
  15. Barsalou, L.W.: Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields (1992) 0.02 
    0.017754707 = product of:
  0.10652824 = sum of:
    0.10652824 = weight(_text_:theories in 3217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10652824 = score(doc=3217,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2496233 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045697823 = queryNorm
        0.426756 = fieldWeight in 3217, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3217)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    In this chapter I propose that frames provide the fundamental representation of knowledge in human cognition. In the first section, I raise problems with the feature list representations often found in theories of knowledge, and I sketch the solutions that frames provide to them. In the second section, I examine the three fundamental concepts of frames: attribute-value sets, structural invariants, and constraints. Because frames also represents the attributes, values, structural invariants, and constraints within a frame, the mechanism that constructs frames builds them recursively. The frame theory I propose borrows heavily from previous frame theories, although its collection of representational components is somewhat unique. Furthermore, frame theorists generally assume that frames are rigid configurations of independent attributes, whereas I propose that frames are dynamic relational structures whose form is flexible and context dependent. In the third section, I illustrate how frames support a wide variety of representational tasks central to conceptual processing in natural and artificial intelligence. Frames can represent exemplars and propositions, prototypes and membership, subordinates and taxonomies. Frames can also represent conceptual combinations, event sequences, rules, and plans. In the fourth section, I show how frames define the extent of conceptual fields and how they provide a powerful productive mechanism for generating specific concepts within a field.
  16. Sekhar, M.; Ekbote, E.R.: Cognitive skills of conceptualisation process and types of concepts (1992) 0.02 
    0.017576262 = product of:
  0.105457574 = sum of:
    0.105457574 = weight(_text_:theories in 2381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.105457574 = score(doc=2381,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2496233 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045697823 = queryNorm
        0.42246687 = fieldWeight in 2381, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2381)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Based upon the existing cognitive theories and available related literature, the hypothesis "Conceptualisation process involves a set of specific cognitive skills" has been evolved. An attempt has been made to identify these cognitive skills that are directly involving in conceptualisation process and the outcome is the identification of 13 cognitve skills that are essential for conceptualisation process. This research is directed towards evolving a new concept classification to facilitate learning and teaching. Here we classify the concepts into six categories based upon their attributes and attribute's relations. A specific "Concept analysis ability" tool is also developed to measure the 'concept analysis ability' of secondary school teachers
  17. Bonnevie, E.: Dretske's semantic information theory and meta-theories in library and information science (2001) 0.01 
    0.012554473 = product of:
  0.07532684 = sum of:
    0.07532684 = weight(_text_:theories in 4484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07532684 = score(doc=4484,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2496233 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045697823 = queryNorm
        0.30176204 = fieldWeight in 4484, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4484)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  18. Thellefsen, M.M.; Thellefsen, T.; Sørensen, B.: Information as signs : a semiotic analysis of the information concept, determining its ontological and epistemological foundations (2018) 0.01 
    0.012554473 = product of:
  0.07532684 = sum of:
    0.07532684 = weight(_text_:theories in 4241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07532684 = score(doc=4241,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2496233 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045697823 = queryNorm
        0.30176204 = fieldWeight in 4241, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4241)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    The purpose of this paper is to formulate an analytical framework for the information concept based on the semiotic theory. Design/methodology/approach The paper is motivated by the apparent controversy that still surrounds the information concept. Information, being a key concept within LIS, suffers from being anchored in various incompatible theories. The paper suggests that information is signs, and it demonstrates how the concept of information can be understood within C.S. Peirce's phenomenologically rooted semiotic. Hence, from there, certain ontological conditions as well epistemological consequences of the information concept can be deduced. Findings The paper argues that an understanding of information, as either objective or subjective/discursive, leads to either objective reductionism and signal processing, that fails to explain how information becomes meaningful at all, or conversely, information is understood only relative to subjective/discursive intentions, agendas, etc. To overcome the limitations of defining information as either objective or subjective/discursive, a semiotic analysis shows that information understood as signs is consistently sensitive to both objective and subjective/discursive features of information. It is consequently argued that information as concept should be defined in relation to ontological conditions having certain epistemological consequences. Originality/value The paper presents an analytical framework, derived from semiotics, that adds to the developments of the philosophical dimensions of information within LIS.
  19. Szagun, G.: Sprachentwicklung beim Kind : eine Einführung (1993) 0.01 
    0.011108975 = product of:
  0.06665385 = sum of:
    0.06665385 = weight(_text_:der in 26) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06665385 = score(doc=26,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.10207828 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045697823 = queryNorm
        0.652968 = fieldWeight in 26, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=26)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Dieses Lehrbuch zur Psychologie der Sprachentwicklung zeigt vor allem die Einflüsse der Generativen Transformationsgrammatik und der psychologischen Arbeiten zur Semantik auf die Vorstellungen zum Erwerb morphologischer, syntaktischer, semantischer und pragmatischer Komponenten der Sprachbeherrschung nach. Die Darstellung ist exakt und weitgehend vollständig, allerdings hat es der Leser mit der etwas spröden Art der Darstellung nicht immer leicht
  20. Gipper, H.: Sprachliche Voraussetzungen wissenschaftlicher Begriffsbildung (1977) 0.01 
    0.010622213 = product of:
  0.06373327 = sum of:
    0.06373327 = weight(_text_:der in 1520) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06373327 = score(doc=1520,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.10207828 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045697823 = queryNorm
        0.6243568 = fieldWeight in 1520, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1520)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Erörterung der Funktionen von 'Wort' und 'Name' sowie der vorwissenschaftlichen und wissenschaftlichen Begriffe und ihrer Termini. Darlegung der Äußerung klassifikatorischen Wissens in den Gliederungen der Alltagssprache, des Stellenwertes der wissenschaftlichen Begriffe in Denksystemen und der sprachlichen Formen bei neuen Begriffen. Bedeutung der Grundbegriffe als Ordnungsfaktoren des Verstehens
    Source
    Prinzipien der Klassifikation. Proc. der 1. Fachtagung der Gesellschaft für Klassifikation, Münster, 4.6.1977. Red.: I. Dahlberg u.a

Authors

Years

Languages

  • d 75
  • e 22
  • m 2
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 71
  • m 20
  • s 7
  • el 3
  • p 2
  • d 1
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications