scholarly journals On visual access to letter case and lexical/semantic information

1985 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 392-404 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lloyd L. Avant ◽  
Alice A. Thieman
Keyword(s):  
Semantic Information ◽  
Lexical Semantic ◽  
Visual Access ◽  
Letter Case

The time-course of morphosyntactic and semantic priming in late bilinguals: A study of German adjectives

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 435-456 ◽  
Author(s):  
SINA BOSCH ◽  
HELENA KRAUSE ◽  
ALINA LEMINEN
Keyword(s):  
Semantic Processing ◽  
Time Course ◽  
Semantic Information ◽  
Temporal Dynamics ◽  
Native Speaker ◽  
Behavioral Experiment ◽  
Lexical Semantic ◽  
Brain Responses ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Spatially Extended

How do late proficient bilinguals process morphosyntactic and lexical-semantic information in their non-native language (L2)? How is this information represented in the L2 mental lexicon? And what are the neural signatures of L2 morphosyntactic and lexical-semantic processing? We addressed these questions in one behavioral and two ERP priming experiments on inflected German adjectives testing a group of advanced late Russian learners of German in comparison to native speaker (L1) controls. While in the behavioral experiment, the L2 learners performed native-like, the ERP data revealed clear L1/L2 differences with respect to the temporal dynamics of grammatical processing. Specifically, our results show that L2 morphosyntactic processing yielded temporally and spatially extended brain responses relative to L1 processing, indicating that grammatical processing of inflected words in an L2 is more demanding and less automatic than in the L1. However, this group of advanced L2 learners showed native-like lexical-semantic processing.

scholarly journals Lexicon and rhetoric in Fet's translation of Goethe's Hermann und Dorothea

2012 ◽  
Vol 40 (1/2) ◽  
pp. 121-154
Author(s):  
Emily Klenin
Keyword(s):  
Semantic Information ◽  
Local Domain ◽  
Partial Loss ◽  
Specific Nature ◽  
Lexical Semantic ◽  
Important Material ◽  
Early School ◽  
Small Domain ◽  
Poetic Text ◽  
School Training

A. A. Fet's translation of J. W. Goethe's Hermann und Dorothea is an important early example of Fet's lifelong practice as a translator and attests to his well-known fidelity to his source texts. His strongest preference is to maintain the versification characteristics of his source, but the degree of his lexical-semantic fidelity is also very strong and far outranks fidelity on other levels (phonetic, grammatical). The poet evidently translated holistically within very small textual domains, within which he sometimes isolated pivots of core semantic information (which he located in translation as they were in the original), around which less important material was fitted, insofar as space permitted. In Fet's text, versification limitations sometimes led to lexical-semantic mismatches of semantic denotation, and these mismatches are characterized in the paper: they typically involve repetitions, repeated mentions, or known information, and the mismatch may entail full or partial loss or enrichment of the semantics of the original. In addition, conflicts sometimes arise between denotative requirements within the local domain and the cumulative (usually connotative) associations generated across the larger domain of the whole text. When such conflicts arise, Fet resolves them in favour of small-domain accuracy, resulting in semantic changes ('shifts') in the domain of the poetic text, which thereby loses some rhetorical or poetic force, relative to the original. Dissonance between large- and smalldomain semantics is often inevitable, because of the language-specific nature of connotation. To the extent that the semantics of Fet's translation are a consequence of his personal preferences, they may be viewed in the context of, first, his early school training (not far behind him when he translated Hermann und Dorothea) and, second, his status as both professional poet, writing in Russian, and educated native German-Russian bilingual.

Semantics and morphosyntax in predictive L2 sentence processing

2015 ◽  
Vol 53 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Holger Hopp
Keyword(s):  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Sentence Comprehension ◽  
Semantic Information ◽  
Lower Sensitivity ◽  
Lexical Semantic ◽  
L2 Processing ◽  
Verb Semantics ◽  
Anticipatory Processing ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
L1 English

AbstractIn the context of current approaches to anticipation in native and non-native sentence processing, this paper investigates whether late second-language (L2) learners integrate morphosyntax, i.e. case marking, and verb semantics to generate anticipations in L2 sentence comprehension. In a visual-world eye-tracking experiment with 45 L1 English L2 learners of German and 12 German natives, German natives are found to integrate morphosyntactic and lexical-semantic information in anticipatory processing, while L2 learners only rely on lexical-semantic information for prediction. Moreover, there is no indication that increasing proficiency leads to the involvement of morphosyntax in predictive L2 processing. We discuss reasons for the lower sensitivity to morphosyntax in anticipatory L2 sentence processing.

scholarly journals Antonym-Synonym Classification Based on New Sub-Space Embeddings

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 ◽  
pp. 6204-6211
Author(s):  
Muhammad Asif Ali ◽  
Yifang Sun ◽  
Xiaoling Zhou ◽  
Wei Wang ◽  
Xiang Zhao
Keyword(s):  
Large Scale ◽  
Semantic Information ◽  
Relation Extraction ◽  
Specific Information ◽  
Lexical Semantic ◽  
Word Level ◽  
Novel Approach ◽  
Proposed Model ◽  
Low Performance ◽  
And Performance

Distinguishing antonyms from synonyms is a key challenge for many NLP applications focused on the lexical-semantic relation extraction. Existing solutions relying on large-scale corpora yield low performance because of huge contextual overlap of antonym and synonym pairs. We propose a novel approach entirely based on pre-trained embeddings. We hypothesize that the pre-trained embeddings comprehend a blend of lexical-semantic information and we may distill the task-specific information using Distiller, a model proposed in this paper. Later, a classifier is trained based on features constructed from the distilled sub-spaces along with some word level features to distinguish antonyms from synonyms. Experimental results show that the proposed model outperforms existing research on antonym synonym distinction in both speed and performance.

Roles of verb and construction cues

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 332-362
Author(s):  
Gyu-Ho Shin ◽  
Hyunwoo Kim
Keyword(s):  
Argument Structure ◽  
Sentence Comprehension ◽  
Semantic Information ◽  
Sorting Task ◽  
Lexical Semantic ◽  
Verb Semantics ◽  
Sentence Meaning ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
Constructionist Approach

Abstract This study investigates how speakers of English and Korean, two typologically distinct languages, derive information from a verb and a construction to achieve sentence comprehension. In a sentence-sorting task, we manipulated verb semantics (real versus nonce) in each language. The results showed that participants from both languages were less inclined to sort sentences by a verb cue when the lexical-semantic information about a verb was obscured (i.e., nonce verb). In addition, the Korean-speaking participants were less likely affected by the verb semantics conditions than the English-speaking participants. These findings suggest the role of an argument structure construction in sentence comprehension as a co-contributor of sentence meaning, supporting the constructionist approach. The findings also imply language-specific mechanisms of sentence comprehension, contingent upon the varied impact of a verb on sentence meaning in English and Korean.

scholarly journals Accessing different types of lexical semantic information: Evidence from priming.

1995 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 863-883 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen E. Moss ◽  
Ruth K. Ostrin ◽  
Lorraine K. Tyler ◽  
William D. Marslen-Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Semantic Information ◽  
Lexical Semantic ◽  
Different Types

Coordinating comprehension and production in simultaneous interpreters: Evidence from the Articulatory Suppression Effect

2011 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 329-339 ◽  
Author(s):  
CAROLINA YUDES ◽  
PEDRO MACIZO ◽  
TERESA BAJO
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Articulatory Suppression ◽  
Semantic Information ◽  
Simple Complex ◽  
Phonological Working Memory ◽  
Suppression Effect ◽  
Simultaneous Interpreting ◽  
Lexical Semantic ◽  
Production Processes

This study aimed to investigate the capacity of coordinating comprehension and production processes and the role of phonological working memory in simultaneous interpreting. To this end we evaluated the Articulatory Suppression (AS) effect in three groups of participants, monolingual controls, students of interpreting and professional interpreters. Three variables were examined, the material to be studied (words, pseudo-words), the complexity of the articulations (simple, complex) and the articulatory rate (participants produced their speech at their own rate). Monolingual controls showed AS effect in all study conditions; students of interpreting showed AS effect in complex study conditions and professional interpreters showed AS effect only when they studied pseudo-words and produced complex articulations. These results suggest that coordinating comprehension and production processes in interpreters is mediated by the retrieval of lexical–semantic information and the distribution of the speech.

Morphological errors and the representation of morphology in the lexical—semantic system

1994 ◽  
Vol 346 (1315) ◽  
pp. 79-87 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Semantic Information ◽  
Word Meaning ◽  
Word Form ◽  
Derivational Morphology ◽  
Semantic System ◽  
Lexical Semantic ◽  
Lexical Representations ◽  
Base Form ◽  
Semantic Errors

Neuropsychological studies support the hypothesis that morphology is represented autonomously, both at the level of word meaning and at the level of word form. In output processes, morphologically organized semantic information activates lexical representations of roots and affixes, which are composed before production. In input processes, the stimulus is parsed along the morphological dimension, to access root and affix lexical representations, which in turn activate morphologically organized semantic information. Inflectional and derivational morphology are represented independently in the lexicon. Inflected words are fully decomposed; derived words are decomposed into base form + inflection. In aphasia, morphological errors in transcoding tasks always co-occur with semantic and/or phonemic errors. Morphological errors in transcoding tasks require combined damage to morphological representations in the semantic—lexical system and to sublexical conversion procedures; they co-occur with semantic errors when also root representations are damaged. The co-occurrence of morphological and phonemic errors can be accounted for by several hypotheses, but its theoretical meaning is still uncertain.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document