Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.014231484 = product of:
  0.042694453 = sum of:
    0.013968632 = weight(_text_:in in 66) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013968632 = score(doc=66,freq=40.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.23523843 = fieldWeight in 66, product of:
          6.3245554 = tf(freq=40.0), with freq of:
            40.0 = termFreq=40.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=66)
    0.028725822 = weight(_text_:und in 66) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028725822 = score(doc=66,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.2968967 = fieldWeight in 66, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=66)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

In verschiedenen Bereichen der Linguistik, im Strukturalismus, in der mathematischen Text- und Literaturtheorie spielen Äquivalenzrelationen als mathematische Modelle für empirische Relationen eine zentrale Rolle. Ohne im Einzelfall um einen detaillierten Nachweis bemüht zu sein, geht man im allgemeinen davon aus, daß die Gesetze, die eine Äquivalenzrelation in abstracto charakterisieren, in dem von der Äquivalenzstruktur modellierten realen Phänomen erfüllt sind. Bei genauer Analyse der jeweiligen Situation zeigt es sich jedoch häufig, daß die betreffenden empirischen Relationen nicht allen charakteristischen Eigenschaften der Äquivalenzrelationen genügen bzw. daß es große Schwierigkeiten bereitet, die Gültigkeit z.B. der Eigenschaft der Transitivität nachzuweisen. In all diesen Fällen schlagen wir daher vor, der abstrakten Modellbildung einen schwächeren Begriff, den der "Toleranzrelation" (bzw. des "Toleranzraumes") zugrundezulegen. In den Teilen 1. und 2. stellen wir die formalen Theorien der Äquivalenzrelationen und der Toleranzrelationen einander gegenüber und zeigen, wie sich beide in die Methodologie der Wissenschaften einordnen. In Teil 3. zeigen wir am Problembereich des Synonymenbegriffs inwiefern die schwächere Struktur des Toleranzraumes in vielen Fällen die konkrete Situation angemessener darstellt als ein Äquivalenzgebilde. Wir werden in diesem Zusammenhang die Elemente der von einer Toleranzrelation induzierten Topologie entwickeln und die Grundbeziehungen einer entsprechenden Topologisierung des Wortraumes einer gegebenen Sprache vorstellen. Die letztgenannte Modellstruktur, die zu einer Topologisierung von Worträumen Anlaß gibt, läßt sich auch ausgehend von Modellvorstellungen der inhaltbezogenen Grammatik motivieren. Von zentraler Bedeutung ist dort der Begriff des Wortfeldes. Wir werden mit diesem Begriff bewußt keine physikalischen Vorstellungen verbinden. Zu "Kraft" und "Kraftlinien" im physikalischen Modell lassen sich im (indogermanischen) Sprachbereich im Sinne der inhaltbezogenen Grammatik nur sehr dürftige Entsprechungen finden, die wenigstens in einigen ihrer Eigenschaften den Bezug auf die physikalischen Begriffe "Kraft" und "Kraftlinie" rechtfertigten. Physikalische Analogien scheinen im Zusammenhang mit dem Wortfeld` nur den metaphorischen Charakter eines hermeneutischen Gefasels zu haben.
Wir beschränken uns daher auf die Darstellung des sprachlichen Feldbegriffes durch ein mathematisches Modell ... bzw.: wir definieren das sprachliche Feld über ein mathematisches Modell. Die Feldeigenschaften in einem System sprachlicher Entitäten sind zunächst solche des gegenseitigen Benachbartseins. Wir können von syntaktischen und/oder semantischen Umgebungen sprechen, in denen jeweils alle zu einem Wort (einer sprachlichen Einheit) synonymen oder sinnverwandten oder strukturverwandten Worte (Einheiten) liegen. Die Eigenschaften von Wortfeldern sind also in dieser Sicht vornehmlich topologischer Natur. Dabei bleibt es gleichgültig, welchem Autor man folgt, wenn man den Feldbegriff in der Sprache zu erfassen trachtet. Immer sind es Umgebungs-, Nachbarschaftsrelationen und fundierende Toleranzrelationen, die als formaler, sprich: mathematischer Kern inhärent sind. Bemerkungen über die Möglichkeit einer algebraisch-topologischen Kennzeichnung von Wortfeldsystemen beschließen Teil 3. In Teil 4. stellen wir den Begriff der k-Toleranzrelation vor. Relationen dieser Art stehen in gewissem Sinne zwischen den Äquivalenzrelationen und den Toleranzrelationen. Mit Modellbildungen auf der Basis von k-Toleranzrelationen kommt man der Realität der Sprache vielleicht am nächsten. Für den Problemkreis der Synonymität bedeutet ihre Einführung, daß man jetzt weder die Gültigkeit strenger Äquivalenz noch die schwache Bedingung der Ununterscheidbarkeit fordert, sondern nur eine k-Ununterscheidbarkeit. Relationentheoretisch entspricht dem die Forderung einer abgeschwächten Transitivität. In Teil 5. deuten wir an, wie man die in Teil 3. angegebenen Definitionsschemata für Synonyma auf der Grundlage der k-Toleranzräume verschärfen kann.

Footnote

Vgl. auch: Rieger, B.: Unscharfe Semantik natürlicher Sprache. Zum Problem der Repräsentation und Analyse vager Wortbedeutung. Unter: http://www.ldv.uni-trier.de/ldv_archiv/http/www/public_html/ldvpage/rieger/pub/aufsaetze/scharf/scharf81.html.

0.008037223 = product of:
  0.024111668 = sum of:
    0.010709076 = weight(_text_:in in 3568) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010709076 = score(doc=3568,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 3568, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3568)
    0.013402591 = weight(_text_:und in 3568) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013402591 = score(doc=3568,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.13852294 = fieldWeight in 3568, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3568)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

BK

18.00 Einzelne Sprachen und Literaturen allgemein

Classification

18.00 Einzelne Sprachen und Literaturen allgemein

Content

G. Gainotti, M.C. Silveri, A. Daniele, L. Giustolisi, Neuroanatomical Correlates of Category-specific Semantic Disorders: A Critical Survey. J. S. Snowden, H. L. Griffiths, D. Neary, Autobiographical Experience and Word Meaning. L. Cipolotti, E.K. Warrington, Towards a Unitary Account of Access Dysphasia: A Single Case Study. E. Forde, G.W. Humphreys, Refractory Semantics in Global Aphasia: On Semantic Organisation and the Access-Storage Distinction in Neuropsychology. A. E. Hillis, A. Caramazza, The Compositionality of Lexical Semantic Representations: Clues from Semantic Errors in Object Naming. H.E. Moss, L.K. Tyler, Investigating Semantic Memory Impairments: The Contribution of Semantic Priming. K.R. Laws, S.A. Humber, D.J.C. Ramsey, R.A. McCarthy, Probing Sensory and Associative Semantics for Animals and Objects in Normal Subjects. K.R. Laws, J.J. Evans, J. R. Hodges, R.A. McCarthy, Naming without Knowing and Appearance without Associations: Evidence for Constructive Processes in Semantic Memory? J. Powell, J. Davidoff, Selective Impairments of Object-knowledge in a Case of Acquired Cortical Blindness. J.R. Hodges, N. Graham, K. Patterson, Charting the Progression in Semantic Dementia: Implications for the Organisation of Semantic Memory. E. Funnell, Objects and Properties: A Study of the Breakdown of Semantic Memory. L.J. Tippett, S. McAuliffe, M. J. Farrar, Preservation of Categorical Knowledge in Alzheimer's Disease: A Computational Account. G. W. Humphreys, C. Lamote, T.J. Lloyd-Jones, An Interactive Activation Approach to Object Processing: Effects of Structural Similarity, Name Frequency, and Task in Normality and Pathology.

0.0022260942 = product of:
  0.013356565 = sum of:
    0.013356565 = weight(_text_:in in 3670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013356565 = score(doc=3670,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.22493094 = fieldWeight in 3670, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3670)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The concept of semantic roles has been central to linguistic theory for many decades. More specifically, the assumption of such representations as mediators in the correspondence between a linguistic form and its associated meaning has helped to address a number of critical issues related to grammatical phenomena. Furthermore, in addition to featuring in all major theories of grammar, semantic (or 'thematic') roles have been referred to extensively within a wide range of other linguistic subdisciplines, including language typology and psycho-/neurolinguistics. This volume brings together insights from these different perspectives and thereby, for the first time, seeks to build upon the obvious potential for cross-fertilisation between hitherto autonomous approaches to a common theme. To this end, a view on semantic roles is adopted that goes beyond the mere assumption of generalised roles, but also focuses on their hierarchical organisation. The book is thus centred around the interdisciplinary examination of how these hierarchical dependencies subserve argument linking - both in terms of linguistic theory and with respect to real-time language processing - and how they interact with other information types in this process. Furthermore, the contributions examine the interaction between the role hierarchy and the conceptual content of (generalised) semantic roles and investigate their cross-linguistic applicability and psychological reality, as well as their explanatory potential in accounting for phenomena in the domain of language disorders. In bridging the gap between different disciplines, the book provides a valuable overview of current thought on semantic roles and argument linking, and may further serve as a point of departure for future interdisciplinary research in this area. As such, it will be of interest to scientists and advanced students in all domains of linguistics and cognitive science.

Content

Inhalt: Argument hierarchy and other factors determining argument realization / Dieter Wunderlich - Mismatches in semantic-role hierarchies and the dimensions of role semantics / Beatrice Primus - Thematic roles : universal, particular, and idiosyncratic aspects / Manfred Bierwisch - Experiencer constructions in Daghestanian languages / Bernard Comrie and Helma van den Berg - Clause-level vs. predicate-level linking / Balthasar Bickel - From meaning to syntax semantic roles and beyond / Walter Bisang - Meaning, form and function in basic case roles / Georg Bossong - Semantic macroroles and language processing / Robert D. Van Valin, Jr. - Thematic roles as event structure relations / Maria Mercedes Pinango - Generalised semantic roles and syntactic templates: Anew framework for language comprehension / Ina Bornkessel and Matthias Schlesewsky

Series

Trends in linguistics. Studies and monographs; 165

0.0017848461 = product of:
  0.010709076 = sum of:
    0.010709076 = weight(_text_:in in 5134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010709076 = score(doc=5134,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 5134, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5134)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Metadata research has emerged as a discipline cross-cutting many domains, focused on the provision of distributed descriptions (often called annotations) to Web resources or applications. Such associated descriptions are supposed to serve as a foundation for advanced services in many application areas, including search and location, personalization, federation of repositories and automated delivery of information. Indeed, the Semantic Web is in itself a concrete technological framework for ontology-based metadata. For example, Web-based social networking requires metadata describing people and their interrelations, and large databases with biological information use complex and detailed metadata schemas for more precise and informed search strategies. There is a wide diversity in the languages and idioms used for providing meta-descriptions, from simple structured text in metadata schemas to formal annotations using ontologies, and the technologies for storing, sharing and exploiting meta-descriptions are also diverse and evolve rapidly. In addition, there is a proliferation of schemas and standards related to metadata, resulting in a complex and moving technological landscape - hence, the need for specialized knowledge and skills in this area. The Handbook of Metadata, Semantics and Ontologies is intended as an authoritative reference for students, practitioners and researchers, serving as a roadmap for the variety of metadata schemas and ontologies available in a number of key domain areas, including culture, biology, education, healthcare, engineering and library science.

Footnote

Rez. in: Cataloging and classification quarterly 54(2016) no.7, S.504-505 (Claudia Horning).

0.0015740865 = product of:
  0.009444519 = sum of:
    0.009444519 = weight(_text_:in in 3275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009444519 = score(doc=3275,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.15905021 = fieldWeight in 3275, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3275)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Written by experts in the field, this book addresses theoretical, formal, and pragmatic issues of geographic knowledge representation and integration based on an ontological approach. The first section sets the context by emphasizing the importance of philosophical, cognitive, and formal theories in preserving the semantics of geographic concepts during ontology development and integration. Section two exhausts all theoretical issues related to the subject and section three introduces a number of formal tools. Section four introduces a general method with the necessary steps to ontology integration and applies it to a number of ontology integration cases.

Footnote

Rez. in: KO 36(2009) no.2/3, S.178-180 (Birger Hjørland): " ... Theories of Geographic Concepts offers, despite such omissions, a rich and valuable overview of a complicated field. The different perspectives it presents are views and concepts that are at the centre of attention in contemporary research. Our field of KO cannot afford to ignore this literature and it is important that we come in closer contact with specific domains, including geography. This book should therefore be included in libraries and collections serving research and teaching in Knowledge Organization."