Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (30507)
- Part of Periodical (11892)
- Book (8260)
- Doctoral Thesis (5703)
- Part of a Book (3710)
- Working Paper (3385)
- Review (2878)
- Contribution to a Periodical (2338)
- Preprint (2050)
- Report (1544)
Language
- German (42389)
- English (29171)
- French (1067)
- Portuguese (723)
- Multiple languages (309)
- Croatian (302)
- Spanish (301)
- Italian (194)
- mis (174)
- Turkish (148)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (75103) (remove)
Keywords
- Deutsch (1038)
- Literatur (807)
- taxonomy (760)
- Deutschland (543)
- Rezension (491)
- new species (449)
- Frankfurt <Main> / Universität (341)
- Rezeption (325)
- Geschichte (292)
- Linguistik (268)
Institute
- Medizin (7684)
- Präsidium (5156)
- Physik (4417)
- Wirtschaftswissenschaften (2688)
- Extern (2661)
- Gesellschaftswissenschaften (2372)
- Biowissenschaften (2180)
- Biochemie und Chemie (1972)
- Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies (FIAS) (1670)
- Center for Financial Studies (CFS) (1621)
This paper compares two approaches to computational semantics, namely semantic unification in Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammars (LTAG) and Lexical Resource Semantics (LRS) in HPSG. There are striking similarities between the frameworks that make them comparable in many respects. We will exemplify the differences and similarities by looking at several phenomena. We will show, first of all, that many intuitions about the mechanisms of semantic computations can be implemented in similar ways in both frameworks. Secondly, we will identify some aspects in which the frameworks intrinsically differ due to more general differences between the approaches to formal grammar adopted by LTAG and HPSG.
The work presented here addresses the question of how to determine whether a grammar formalism is powerful enough to describe natural languages. The expressive power of a formalism can be characterized in terms of i) the string languages it generates (weak generative capacity (WGC)) or ii) the tree languages it generates (strong generative capacity (SGC)). The notion of WGC is not enough to determine whether a formalism is adequate for natural languages. We argue that even SGC is problematic since the sets of trees a grammar formalism for natural languages should be able to generate is difficult to determine. The concrete syntactic structures assumed for natural languages depend very much on theoretical stipulations and empirical evidence for syntactic structures is rather hard to obtain. Therefore, for lexicalized formalisms, we propose to consider the ability to generate certain strings together with specific predicate argument dependencies as a criterion for adequacy for natural languages.
In this paper we present a parsing architecture that allows processing of different mildly context-sensitive formalisms, in particular Tree-Adjoining Grammar (TAG), Multi-Component Tree-Adjoining Grammar with Tree Tuples (TT-MCTAG) and simple Range Concatenation Grammar (RCG). Furthermore, for tree-based grammars, the parser computes not only syntactic analyses but also the corresponding semantic representations.
Multicomponent Tree Adjoining Grammars (MCTAG) is a formalism that has been shown to be useful for many natural language applications. The definition of MCTAG however is problematic since it refers to the process of the derivation itself: a simultaneity constraint must be respected concerning the way the members of the elementary tree sets are added. Looking only at the result of a derivation (i.e., the derived tree and the derivation tree), this simultaneity is no longer visible and therefore cannot be checked. I.e., this way of characterizing MCTAG does not allow to abstract away from the concrete order of derivation. Therefore, in this paper, we propose an alternative definition of MCTAG that characterizes the trees in the tree language of an MCTAG via the properties of the derivation trees the MCTAG licences.
Multicomponent Tree Adjoining Grammars (MCTAG) is a formalism that has been shown to be useful for many natural language applications. The definition of MCTAG however is problematic since it refers to the process of the derivation itself: a simultaneity constraint must be respected concerning the way the members of the elementary tree sets are added. This way of characterizing MCTAG does not allow to abstract away from the concrete order of derivation. In this paper, we propose an alternative definition of MCTAG that characterizes the trees in the tree language of an MCTAG via the properties of the derivation trees (in the underlying TAG) the MCTAG licences. This definition gives a better understanding of the formalism, it allows a more systematic comparison of different types of MCTAG, and, furthermore, it can be exploited for parsing.
Die Theorie des sprachlichen Lernens und Lehrens ist bis in die siebziger Jahre des 20. Jahrhunderts hinein eine "Meisterlehre" (Müller-Michaels 1980) gewesen. Große Vorbilder eines Volkes (z.B. Mose), Leiter philosophischer Schulen (z.B. Platon) oder Äbte von Klöstern (z.B. Augustinus) und schließlich staatlich geprüfte Oberstudiendirektoren (z.B. Ulshöfer) beschrieben den jüngeren Kollegen, was sich beim Lehren der Sprache über Jahrzehnte bewährt habe: wie man am besten den Sprachunterricht erteile (Müller 1922, Seidemann 1973, Ulshöfer 1968, Essen 1968). Mit der Etablierung der Sprachdidaktiken an den Universitäten ist das Konzept der "norm-setzenden Handlungswissenschaften" Müller-Michaels 1980, Ivo 1975) entwickelt worden. Der Forscher (nicht mehr als Meister der Praxis ausgewiesen) untersucht die Prozesse des sprachlichen Lehrens und Lernens, indem er im "Feld" des Praktikers Erhebungen anstellt, um anschließend die erhobenen Daten einer Hypothesenprüfung zu unterziehen. Als Handlungsfeld wird besonders die Schule berücksichtigt. Die Methoden der Forschung sind vorwiegend "quasi-experimentell". In der Nachfolge der Sprachtheorie Chomsky´s (Chomsky 1965) sind die experimentellen Ansätze zur Untersuchung des Spracherwerbs, der Spracherwerbsstörung und der betreffenden Interventionen entwickelt worden (de Villiers/ de Villiers 1970, Hörmann 1978). Ort der Untersuchung ist das Labor. Das Design dieser Sprachdidaktik (bzw. Psycholinguistik, Kognitionswissenschaften etc.) ist experimentell (z.B. Herrmann 2004). Alle drei Konzepte stehen sich in vielerlei Hinsicht antagonistisch gegenüber. Sie auseinander zu halten - und andererseits mit Gewinn aufeinander zu beziehen -, gehört zu den Basis-Fähigkeiten der linguosomatischen Berufe und ihrer zugrundeliegenden Theorie (Beispiel Sprachlehrberufe, Phoniatrie, Sprachheil-Sonderpädagogik, psychosomatische Sprachtherapien). Daher sind die signifikanten Gegensätze der drei Konzepte herauszuarbeiten und ihre widerstrebenden Konsequenzen aufeinander zu beziehen.
The present work reports two experiments on brain electric correlates of cognitive and emotional functions. (1) Studying paranormal belief, 35-channel resting EEG (10 believers and 13 skeptics) was analyzed with "Low Resolution Electromagnetic Tomography" (LORETA) in seven frequency bands. LORETA gravity centers of all bands shifted to the left in believers vs. sceptics, and showed that believers had stronger left fronto-temporo-parietal activity than skeptics. Self-rating of affective attitude showed believers to be less negative than skeptics. The observed EEG lateralization agreed with the ‘valence hypothesis’ that posits predominant left hemispheric processing for positive emotions. (2) Studying emotions, positive and negative emotion words were presented to 21 subjects while "Event-Related Potentials" (ERPs) were recorded. During word presentation (450 ms), 13 microstates (steps of information processing) were identified. Three microstates showed different potential maps for positive vs. negative words; LORETA functional imaging showed stronger activity in microstate #4 (106-122 ms) for positive words right anterior, for negative words left central; in #6 (138-166 ms) for positive words left anterior, for negative words left posterior; in #7 (166-198 ms), for positive words right anterior, for negative words right central. In conclusion: during word processing, the extraction of emotion content starts as early as 106 ms after stimulus onset; the brain identifies emotion content repeatedly in three separate, brief microstate epochs; and, this processing of emotion content in the three microstates involves different brain mechanisms to represent the distinction positive vs. negative valence.