Thomas H. Peterson · Journal of Linguistics · 1983
In generative–transformational theories of language, semantics has always played handmaiden to syntax. For example, the extended standard theory (EST) has as its core a component of base phrase structure rules and a lexicon which supplies lexical items for the deep syntactic trees generated by the base rules; ‘semantic representations’ are created from these lexicalized P-markers at various stages of their syntactic derivation from deep to surface structure (Jackendoif, 1972: 4 ff.). Similarly, the semantic representations of a rival theory, generative semantics (GS), are taken from deep pre-lexical syntactic P-markers generated by base PS rules (McCawley, 1971). Both of these models reflect the historical roots of generative–transformational grammar, for at its inception, this theory provided only a model of syntax with no description of semantic structure (Chomsky, 1957). So it is natural, though not necessary, that linguists working in this tradition would construct their semantic models as outgrowths of the original syntactic core.
Cited by 4
Wernlein, Felix · Figshare · 2022
Semantic structure from my bachelorthesis as draw.io
Cited by 0Open access
Wernlein, Felix · Figshare · 2022
Semantic structure from my bachelorthesis as pdf.
Cited by 0Open access
Wernlein, Felix · Figshare · 2022
Semantic structure from my bachelorthesis as jpg.
Cited by 0Open access
Wernlein, Felix · Figshare · 2022
Semantic structure from my bachelorthesis as png.
Cited by 0Open access
Wernlein, Felix · Figshare · 2022
Semantic structure from my bachelorthesis as svg.
Cited by 0Open access
Wernlein, Felix · Figshare · 2022
Semantic structure from my bachelorthesis as html.
Cited by 0Open access
Wernlein, Felix · Figshare · 2022
Semantic structure from my bachelorthesis as svg.
Cited by 0Open access
Wernlein, Felix · Figshare · 2022
Semantic structure from my bachelorthesis as jpg.
Cited by 0Open access
Wernlein, Felix · Figshare · 2022
Semantic structure from my bachelorthesis as pdf.
Cited by 0Open access
Wernlein, Felix · Figshare · 2022
Semantic structure from my bachelorthesis as html.
Cited by 0Open access
Wernlein, Felix · Figshare · 2022
Semantic structure from my bachelorthesis as png.
Cited by 0Open access
Benjamins translation library · 2004
Cited by 0
1975
Cited by 0
Vyvyan Evans · Cognitive Linguistics · 2019
Cited by 0
Djalilova Sarvaroy Mekhrojovna · ACADEMICIA An International Multidisciplinary Research Journal · 2021
AbstractThe proverbs are historical features of humanity. Most of the scientists agreed that the proverbs are folklore speech. Yes, of course, because the people established these proverbs. Where was not only the person's point of view but also general people's outlook is expressed. Proverbs and sayings play important role in language. They give emotionality, expressiveness to the speech.
Cited by 0
Wernlein, Felix · Figshare · 2022
Semantic structure from my bachelorthesis as draw.io
Cited by 0Open access
Duthrie, Alan · The COCOON platform (University of Paris) · 1983
https://www.sil.org/resources/archives/87140
Cited by 0
Fausto Giunchiglia, Mikalai Yatskevich, Fiona McNeill · Unitn Eprints Research (Università Degli Studi di Trento) · 2007
Abstract The most common matching applications, e.g., ontology matching, focus on the computation of the correspondences holding between the nodes of graph structures (e.g., concepts in two ontologies). However there are applications, such as matching of web service descriptions, where matching may need to compute the correspondences holding between the full graph structures and to preserve certain structural properties of the graphs being considered. The goal of this paper is to provide a new matching operator, that we call structure preserving match. This operator takes two graph-like structures and produces a mapping between those nodes of the structures that correspond semantically to each other, (i) still preserving a set of structural properties of the graphs being matched, (ii) only in the case that the graphs globally correspond semantically to each other. We present an exact and an approximate structure matching algorithm. The latter is based on a formal theory of abstraction and builds upon the well known tree edit distance measures. We have implemented the algorithms and applied them to the web service matchmaking scenario. The evaluation results, though preliminary, show the e ciency and e ectiveness of our approach. 1
Cited by 18Open access
M.Yatskevich F.Giunchiglia P. Shvaiko · Oxford University Research Archive (ORA) (University of Oxford) · 2007
Cited by 0