Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
The Game of Complexity and Linguistic Theorization Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

2017 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

2. Continuity in the Interactions Between Linguistic Units

verfasst von : Gilles Col, Rossana De Angelis, Thierry Poibeau

Erschienen in: Language in Complexity

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

We investigate the notions of continuity and interaction in linguistic models. There is now a quite rich tradition of work based on the hypothesis that natural language is not a discrete model. Instead, continuous models consider word sense, grammar rules and categories as continuous notions: some words are hard to categorize and some rules do not fully apply in certain contexts. Word meaning in context often corresponds to different meanings according to the dictionary. New models have been proposed that provide a more accurate view of these phenomena. Recent advances in natural language processing also support this idea by providing very rich models based on a multi-level representation of the context of use of linguistic items. We describe how these models provide an interesting convergence between linguistic and computational models.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Vorheriges Kapitel The Game of Complexity and Linguistic Theorization
Nächstes Kapitel Modeling Language Change: The Pitfall of Grammaticalization
Fußnoten
1
«Il n’y a dans la langue ni signes [dans le sens de “signifiants”—N.d.A.], ni significations, mais des différences de signes et des différences de significations: lesquelles 1° n’existent les unes absolument que par les autres, (dans les deux sens), et sont donc inséparables et solidaires; mais 2° n’arrivent à se correspondre directement» (de Saussure 2002: 70). Cf. also CLG, Part II, Chap. III, IV».
 
2
The simplest way to avoid answering the question is to consider the text as a sign. This solution is chosen by Pierce as well as Greimas and Eco (cf Eco 1988, p. 32: “le Message équivaut au Signe”). Yet, this solution pays little attention to the different levels of complexity characterizing signs and texts, and above all it prevents conceptualizing the impact of the global on the local, i.e. of the text on the signs (Rastier 1997).
 
3
Weinrich adopts the classical communicative model proposed by Shannon and Weaver (1949).
 
4
Cf. in the text by Eco (1979), from Schmidt (1976: 56): «un lessema si può concepire teoricamente come una regola (in senso ampio) o un’istruzione per la produzione di un dato “comportamento” verbale e/o non verbale… Il campo-contesto [il campo lessematico] assegna al lessema le sue possibilità generali di funzionamento nei testi».
 
5
In most studies, over has a temporal meaning in this kind of examples but it should be discussed if this is necessary, since the temporal meaning is mostly supported by the noun following over.
 
6
We do not describe the full processing of this nominal complex but various elements at different levels like the morpheme (-s) or prepositions (of) are to be distinguished.
 
Literatur
Anscombre, J. -C., & Ducrot, O. (1983). L’argumentation dans la langue, Mardaga, Coll. Philosophie et langage, 184 p.
Bar-Hillel, Y. (1970). Communication and argumentation in pragmatic languages [1968], in Aa. Vv., Linguaggi nella società e nella tecnica, Milano, Comunità.
Barsalou, W. L. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660.
Barsalou, W. L. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.CrossRef
Barsalou, W. L. (2010). Grounded cognition: Past, present, and future. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2, 716–724.CrossRef
Benveniste, E. (1966). Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard.
Bolinger, D. (1968). Aspects of language. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World.
Bolinger, D. (1976). Meaning and memory. Forum Linguisticum, 1, 1–14.
Col, G. (2012). Over the top: Quelle instruction sémantique pour l'unité over?. Revue de Sémantique et de Pragmatique, 31, 41–66.
Col, G., & Poibeau, T. (2014). An instruction-based analysis of over. Language and Cognition, 6(3), 370–407.
Col, G., Aptekman, J., Girault, S., & Poibeau, T. (2012). Gestalt compositionality and instruction-based meaning construction. Cognitive Processing, 13(2), 151–170.CrossRef
De Angelis, R. (2014). Il testo conteso. Semiotiche ed ermeneutiche nella seconda metà del Novecento, Pisa, ETS.
Deane, P. (1993). Multimodal spatial representations: On the semantic unity of ‘over’ and other polysemous Prepositions. Duisburg: Linguistic Agency, University of Duisburg (LAUD).
Deane, P. (2005). Multimodal spatial representation: On the semantic unity of over. In: B. Hampe, & J. E. Grady (Eds.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 235–282). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
De Beaugrande R. A. (1980). Text, discourse and Process. Toward a Multidisciplinary Science of Texts. In Advances in discourse processes (vol. XI). Norwood (New Jersey): Ablex Publishing Corporation.
De Beaugrande R. A. (1996). New foundations for a science of text and discourse. Cognition, communication and the freedom of access to knowledge and society. In Advances in discourse processes (vol. LXI). Norwood (New Jersey): Ablex Publishing Corporation.
de Saussure, F. (2002). Écrits de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard.
de Saussure, F. ([1916] 1922). Cours de linguistique générale, C. Bally et A. Séchehaye éds., avec la collaboration de A. Riedlinger, Paris, Payot.
Dewell, R. B. (1994). Over again: Image-schematic transformations in semantic analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 5, 351–380.
Ducrot, O. (1972). Dire et ne pas dire. Paris, Herman: Principe de sémantique linguistique.
Ducrot, O. (1984). Le Dire et le dit. Paris: Editions de Minuit.
Eco, U. (1979). Lector in fabula. Milano, Bompiani.
Eco, U. (1988). Sémiotique et philosophie du langage, Paris, PUF [first edition: 1984, Semiotica e filosofia del linguaggio, Torino: Einaudi].
Erk, K., & McCarthy, D. (2009). Graded word sense assignment. Proceedings of the Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Singapore.
Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Firth, J. R. (1957). A synopsis of linguistic theory 1930–55. In Selected papers of J. R. Firth (1952–59) (pp. 168–205). London: Longmans.
Frege, G. (1892). Über Sinn und Bedeutung. ¨Zeitschrift fur Philosophie und philosophische Kritik, 100, 25–50.
Fortis, J. -M. (2014). La linguistique cognitive comme réseau théorique. Colloque SHELD-HTL.
Fuchs C., & Victorri, B. (Eds.). (1994). Continuity in linguistic semantics. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: J. Benjamins Publishing.
Gaume B., Venant F., & Victorri B. (2005). Hierarchy in lexical organisation of natural languages. In D. Pumain (Ed.), Hierarchy in natural and social sciences (Vol. 3, Methodes series, pp. 121–143). Springer.
Girault, S., & Victorri, B. (2009). Linguistiques de corpus et mathématiques du continu. Histoire, Epistémologie, Langage, 31(1), 147–170.
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Grefenstette E., Sadrzadeh M., Clark S., Coecke B., & Pulman S. (2014). Concrete sentence spaces for compositional distributional models of meaning. In H. Bunt, J. Bos & S. Pulman (Eds.), Computing meaning (Vol. 4, pp. 71–86). Springer.
Guillaume, P. (1979). La Psychologie de la forme. Paris: Flammarion.
Harder, P. (2009). Meaning as input: The instructional perspective. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics, 15–26.
Harris, Z. S. (1954a). Distributional structure. Word, 10(23), 146–162.CrossRef
Harris, Z. S. (1954). Transfer grammar. International Journal of American Linguistics, 20(4), 259–270.
Köhler, W. (2000). Psychologie de la forme. Introduction à des nouveaux concepts en psychologie. Paris: Gallimard.
Manning, C. (2003). Probabilistic syntax. In R. Bod, J. Hay & S. Jannedy (Eds.), Probabilistic Linguistics (pp. 289–341). MIT Press.
Maturana H. R., & Varela F. J. (1980). Autopoiesis and Cognition. The Realization of the Living. Dordrecht, Holland/Boston, U.S.A./London, England: D. Reidel Publishing Company. (or. ed. De Maquinas y seres vivos, Editorial Universitaria S. A., Chile, 1972).
Moeschler, J. (2005). Connecteurs pragmatiques, inférences directionnelles et représentations mentales. Cahiers Chronos, 12, 35–50.
Nemo, F. (2001). Pour une approche indexicale (et non procédurale) des instructions sémantiques. Revue de Sémantique et de Pragmatique, 9–10, 195–218.
Nølke, H. (1994). Linguistique modulaire: de la forme au sens. Bibilothèque de l’Information Grammaticale. Paris-Louvain: Peeters.
Oller, J. W. (1979). Language tests at school: a pragmatic approach. London-New York: Longman.
Petitot-Cocorda, J. (1985). Morphogenèse du sens. Paris: PUF.
Rastier, F. (1989). Sens et textualité. Paris: Hachette.
Rastier, F. (1997). Herméneutique matérielle et sémantique des textes. In J. -M. Salanskis, F. Rastier, & R. Scheps (Eds.), Hermémenutique: Textes, sciences (pp. 119–148). Paris: PUF.
Rastier, F. (2001). Du signe aux plans du langage. Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure, 54, 177–200.
Rastier, F. (2006). Formes sémantiques et textualité. Langages, 163, 99–114.CrossRef
Rastier, F. (2010). Sémantique et recherches cognitives (3a ed.). Paris: PUF.
Sarikaya, R., Hinton, G. E. & Deoras, A. (2014). Application of deep belief networks for natural language understanding. IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech and Language Processing.
Schmidt, S. (1976). Texttheorie. München: Fink.
Shannon, C., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana Illinois: The University of Illinois Press.
Shutova, E., Van de Cruys, T., & Korhonen, A. (2012). Unsupervised metaphor paraphrasing using a vector space model. In Proceedings of COLING 2012, Mumbai, India.
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford University Press.
Talmy, L. (2005). The fundamental system of spatial schemas in language. In B. Hamp (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 199–234). Mouton de Gruyter.
Taylor, J. R. (1988). Contrasting prepositional categories: English and italian. In: B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics. John Benjamin.
Thom, R. (1972). Stabilité structurelle et morphogenèse. Paris: Interéditions.MATH
Thom, R. (1974). Modèles mathématiques de la morphogenèse, Collection 1018. Paris: Union Générale d’Éditions.
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2001). Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over. Language, 77, 724–765.
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2003). The semantics of english prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van de Cruys, T., Poibeau, T. & Korhonen, A. (2013). A tensor-based factorization model of semantic compositionality. In Proceedings Human Language Technologies: Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association of Computational Linguistics, Atlanta, Georgia (pp. 1142–1151).
Van Der Gucht, F., Willems, K., & De Cuypere, L. (2007). The iconicity of embodied meaning. Polysemy of spatial prepositions in the cognitive framework. Language Sciences, 29, 733–754
Victorri, B., & Fuchs, C. (1996). La Polysémie. Paris: Hermès.
Weinrich, H. (1976). Sprache in texten. Stuttgart: Enrst Klett.
Zlatev, J. (2003). Polysemy or generality? Mu. In: H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven, & J. Taylor (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics (pp. 447–494). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Metadaten
Titel
Continuity in the Interactions Between Linguistic Units
verfasst von
Gilles Col
Rossana De Angelis
Thierry Poibeau
Copyright-Jahr
2017
Buch
Language in Complexity

Print ISBN: 978-3-319-29481-0

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-29483-4

Copyright-Jahr: 2017

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29483-4_2