On Generating Semantic Dispositions in a Given Subject Domain

Modeling system structures of word meanings and/or world knowledge is to face the problem of their mutual and complex relatedness. In linguistic semantics, cognitive psychology, and knowledge representation most of the necessary data concerning lexical, semantic and/or external world information is still provided introspectively. In a rather sharp departure from that form of data acquisition the present approach has been based on the empirical analysis of discourse that real speakers/writers produce in actual situations of performed or intended communication in prescriptive contexts or subject domains. The approach makes essential use of statistical means to analyze usage regularities of words to map their fuzzy meanings and connotative interrelations in a format of stereotypes. Their dependencies are generated algorithmically as multi-perspective dispositions that render only those relations accessible to automatic processing which can - under differing aspects differently — be considered relevant. Generating such semantic dispositional dependencies dynamically by a procedure would seem to be an operational prerequisitie to and a promising candidate for the simulation of contents-driven (analogically-associative), instead of formal (logically-deductive) inferences in semantic processing.

[1]  Robert F. Stanners,et al.  Memory representation for prefixed words , 1979 .

[2]  D R Olson,et al.  Language and thought: aspects of a cognitive theory of semantics. , 1970, Psychological review.

[3]  E. E. Slosson Shorter communications and discussions: A lecture experiment in hallucinations. , 1899 .

[4]  M. Ross Quillian,et al.  Retrieval time from semantic memory , 1969 .

[5]  Burghard B. Rieger Semantic Relevance and Aspect Dependency in a given Subject Domain , 1984 .

[6]  H. R. Quillian In semantic information processing , 1968 .

[7]  Allan Collins,et al.  A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing , 1975 .

[8]  Hannes Rieser,et al.  Words, Worlds, and Contexts: New Approaches in Word Semantics , 1981 .

[9]  Terry Winograd,et al.  FRAME REPRESENTATIONS AND THE DECLARATIVE/PROCEDURAL CONTROVERSY , 1975 .

[10]  Burghard B. Rieger,et al.  Procedural Meaning Representation by Connotative Dependency Structures. An Empirical Approach to Word Semantics for Analogical Referencing , 1982, COLING.

[11]  D. Bobrow,et al.  Representation and Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science , 1975 .

[12]  R. F. Lorch,et al.  Priming and search processes in semantic memory: a test of three models of spreading activation , 1982 .

[13]  E. Rosch Cognitive Representations of Semantic Categories. , 1975 .

[14]  Burghard Rieger,et al.  LEXICAL RELEVANCE AND SEMANTIC DISPOSITION. ON STEREOTYPE WORD MEANING REPRESENTATION IN PROCEDURAL SEMANTICS , 1985 .