Languages & Linguistics
Semantic Analysis
Semantic analysis is the process of understanding the meaning of words, phrases, and sentences within a language. It involves examining the relationships between words and their interpretations in different contexts. This analysis helps to uncover the underlying meaning and intent behind linguistic expressions, contributing to the study of language comprehension and communication.
Written by Perlego with AI-assistance
Related key terms
1 of 5
11 Key excerpts on "Semantic Analysis"
eBook - PDF- Nitin Indurkhya, Fred J. Damerau, Nitin Indurkhya, Fred J. Damerau(Authors)
- 2010(Publication Date)
- Chapman and Hall/CRC(Publisher)
Semantic Analysis is also pertinent for much shorter texts, right down to the single word level, for example, in understanding user queries and matching user requirements to available data. Semantic Analysis is also of high relevance in efforts to improve Web ontologies and knowledge representation systems. Two important themes form the grounding for the discussion in this chapter. First, there is great value in conducting Semantic Analysis, as far as possible, in such a way as to reflect the cognitive reality of ordinary speakers. This makes it easier to model the intuitions of native speakers and to simulate their inferencing processes, and it facilitates human–computer interactions via querying processes, and the like. Second, there is concern over to what extent it will be possible to achieve comparability, and, more ambitiously, interoperability, between different systems of semantic description. For both reasons, it is highly desirable if semantic analyses can be conducted in terms of intuitive representations, be it in simple ordinary language or by way of other intuitively accessible representations. 93 94 Handbook of Natural Language Processing 5.1 Basic Concepts and Issues in Natural Language Semantics In general linguistics, Semantic Analysis refers to analyzing the meanings of words, fixed expressions, whole sentences, and utterances in context. In practice, this means translating original expressions into some kind of semantic metalanguage. The major theoretical issues in Semantic Analysis therefore turn on the nature of the metalanguage or equivalent representational system (see Section 5.2). Many approaches under the influence of philosophical logic have restricted themselves to truth-conditional meaning, but such analyses are too narrow to enable a comprehensive account of ordinary language use or to enable many practically required applications, especially those involving human–computer interfacing or naïve reasoning by ordinary users.
eBook - PDFMeaning in English
An Introduction
- Javier Valenzuela(Author)
- 2017(Publication Date)
- Cambridge University Press(Publisher)
The importance of semantics for the study of language cannot be overstated. Understanding how we construct meanings from the words and expressions we hear can be said to be the core of linguistic studies, since it amounts to understanding how language performs its main task, which is to convey meaning. Semantics is thus essential for all aspects of language study: how language is acquired (be it a first language or a second one) and how it is structured; how language changes over time and how it varies in different social contexts; how languages should be taught and how we (or machines) translate it; how language-related conditions such as aphasias work, etc. You could say that semantics lies at the very heart of the study of language. The practical applications of knowing in an accurate and detailed way how people associate their thoughts to linguistic objects, and how hearers use those objects to recover the intended meaning in a communicative exchange, are obviously enormous. Semantic search in the web has been called ‘the holy grail of computer-assisted research’ (McCloskey, 2013); natural-language computer query systems such as Apple’s Siri or IBM’s Watson would be delighted to have a complete story of how meaning really works. But semantics goes even further than that: it is also relevant for learning about the way in which we structure our thoughts. Indeed, many authors think that there are deep connections between our language and our con- ceptual structure and that semantics is a window that allows us to peek into the functioning of a substantial part of our cognitive system. Language has been shown to be one of the driving forces in our evolution, influencing our hearing range and the specific shape of our larynx and our vocal organs. In all probability, our semantic system and our brain structure also co- evolved, transforming us into the species we are today.
- N. G. Komlev(Author)
- 2012(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
Semantics as a scientific discipline has at present become so complex, and its very name has acquired so many meanings, that in order to avoid inaccuracies the term semantics itself should also undergo an extensive Semantic Analysis. But here we shall confine ourselves merely to the systematization of the conceptions of meaning. As a point of departure we shall use the following outline. 19 Meaning is: (1) the object named; (2) the idea of the object (or the ideal object); (3) the concept; (4) the relation: (a) between sign and object; (b) between the sign and the idea of the object (or the ideal object); (c) between sign and concept; (d) between the sign and human activity; (e) between signs; (5) the function of the word-as-sign; jazykoznanija [Fundamentals of Linguistics]; H. Arens, Sprachwissenschaft. Der Gang ihrer Entwicklung von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart; W. Doroszewski, ''jQzykoznawstwo a pogl^d na äwiat [Linguistics and Weltanschauung], 160; R. H. Robins, Ancient and Mediaeval Grammatical Theory in Europe; also by him, General Linguistics. An Introductory Survey; R. Lord, Comparative Linguistics, 201-59; H. Sperber, Einführung in die Bedeutungslehre. 18 Moreover, we are confining ourselves only to the meaning of the WORD . But it is well known that there are viewpoints according to which the word can be correlated with some content only by means of the sentence. E. Buyssens, Speaking and Thinking From the Linguistic Standpoint. 19 See N. G. Komlev, Komponenty soderzanija slova [Components of the Content of the Word], 3-4. See also: A. Saff, Vvedenie ν semantiku [A. Schaff, Introduction to Semantics], 232. APPROACHING THE MEANING OF THE WORD 17 (6) the invariant of information; (7) the reflection (representation) of reality. Let us expound these views. MEANING = OBJECT . The old idea that to every name there corresponds an object to which that name pertains, is not accurate.
eBook - PDFAsymmetrical Concepts after Reinhart Koselleck
Historical Semantics and Beyond
- Kay Junge, Kirill Postoutenko, Kay Junge, Kirill Postoutenko(Authors)
- 2014(Publication Date)
- transcript Verlag(Publisher)
From the lexical-semantic perspective, the study of socionym meanings is informed by general principles of categorization and, potentially, special principles of so-cial categorization. From a more social-contextual approach, the atten-tion is on the role that language plays in reflecting and constructing public beliefs and social ideologies, while the attention to contextual-ized textuality aims to reveal the semantic constructions that reflect the interest of particular groups in society. Both approaches start from a commitment to empirical evidence, whether they use data analysis to test hypotheses or they are instead totally driven by linguistic data. In recent decades, increased access to large, computerized corpora of lin-guistic data have aided some of the work we report below, and has led to challenges to formerly received notions about structure and mean-ing. L INGUISTIC S EMANTICS AND H ISTORICAL S EMANTICS | 53 M EANINGS , CONCEPTS , AND RELATIONS AMONG THEM We start by contrasting our lexical semantic approach to the semantic basis of Koselleck’s approach—that is, the structural semantics that dominated European semantics in the mid-20 th century. Structural se-mantics is itself a polysemous term (Coseriu/Geckler 1981), but at its root is Saussure’s notion that “the sign by itself would have no signifi-cation” (Saussure 1959: 130). This leads to the “associational” struc-tural semantics of his followers, such as Charles Bally (1940) who treated word meaning as an emergent property of a relatively uncon-strained set of associations between words. This brand of structural semantics did not make it far in the linguistic discipline, since it lacks explanatory value. An unconstrained notion of relation is not valuable in trying to explain what can or can not be a word meaning. More in-teresting for us is what Coseriu and Geckler (1981) termed the “analyt-ical sense” of structural semantics .
eBook - PDFPsychology of Language
A Critical Introduction
- Michael A Forrester(Author)
- 1996(Publication Date)
- SAGE Publications Ltd(Publisher)
3 Semantics: The Concept of Meaning One of the problems with syntactic approaches to the study of language is the precise role of semantics or meaning in the models proposed. On occasion critics of Chomsky have ridiculed the theory of transformational grammar as being largely irrelevant with respect to what words and sentences actually mean in context (Grice, 1957). However, it needs to be remembered that the Chomskian tradition in linguistics and psycholinguis-tics does not evade the question of meaning (see Figure 2.4, p. 25), and it is often recognised that transformational grammars and other such formal-isms, although providing insights into the form or structure of language, are not appropriate analytica l tools for studying meaning. Saussure and Chomsky, as structuralists, are concerned primarily with language as an abstract struct ure: language use in context (what utterances mean for communicators) is another issue altogether. In this chapter a number of approaches to the study of meaning are considered. In doing so, I will develop the argument that the study of meaning in psychology and psycholinguistics may be better understood within the broader framework of pragmatics. When many people discuss the nature of 'meaning ' it is very often where somebody has said something, or written something, that somebody else doesn't understand. What did she mean when she said that? What does this diagram mean? Does this sign on the wall mean something? The question of meaning arises whenever there is a gap or break in com munication -the recognition that somebody has tried to communicate something but this 'something ' is not clear. For the most part we consider meaning as trans-parent: meaning is something we generally take for granted.
eBook - PDF- Herman Parret, Jacques Bouveresse(Authors)
- 2012(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter(Publisher)
For my part I shall go even farther than that by suggesting that the Semantic Analysis of the verbs 'to mean' and 'to understand' may provide us with new insights into the real nature of their conceptual counterparts. Now of course this suggestion is bound to raise once more the methodological problems so widely discussed during the sixties about linguistic procedures in philosophical research: in order to avoid falling back into this kind of polemics, I shall begin by stating, in very broad outline, what has changed in linguistics since that time, what might now change in philosophical analysis as I see it, and the consequences such changes may have on the future of the relations between linguistics and philosophy. 2. First of all, it must be emphasized that the perspective in which the science of linguistics will be used here for the sake of philosophical analysis 62 Denis Zaslawsky is not that in which this has been done in most earlier attempts. Admittedly, the concepts I shall be using are unquestionably semantic ones (in the strictly linguistic sense of that word, which of course has nothing to do with logical semantics); but the main part of my argument, which will consist in generalizing these concepts, will eventually turn out to be more philosophical than linguistic. When linguists hit upon a set of basic concepts such as those involved in what will be called below 'focal structure', their main concern is to fit them into a given grammatical theory; thus, if we restrict our attention to the transformational-generative framework, we clearly see that current discussions about such notions as topic-comment sentence articulation (which I take to be equivalent to presupposition-focus structures) do not deal primarily with the notions themselves, but rather with the question of whether they should be introduced into grammar at the level of semantic interpretation, with the aid of what sort of formalism, and so forth.
eBook - PDF- Hans J. Eikmeyer, Hannes Rieser(Authors)
- 2015(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter(Publisher)
A number of people having worked in other areas of linguistics are now concerned with lexical analysis, cf. Gross 1975, C L S 15 (Parasession on Lexicology), Ballmer/Brennenstuhl 1971, 1978, Fillmore 1978, the authors of the contributions to the present book, etc. Lexical Analysis and Language Theory 415 complex sentences. Phonological and morphological problems were also treated by essential reference to syntax (cf. Chomsky-Halle 1968, Vennemann 1974). Recently the impressive and somewhat hypnotic character of syntax oriented sentential grammar has eventually been neutralized. A strong interest in units both larger and smaller than sentences has grown. Thus for examples texts, discourses and dialogues have gained a considerable amount of attraction (cf. v. Dijk 1972, 1976, Rieser 1977, Petöfi 1971, Schegloff 1974, Edmondson 1981, Beaugrande 1980). 2 On the other hand the study of single words also got more and more into focus (Leisi 1953, Hallig/v. Wartburg 1963, Fillmore 1974, Helbig-Schenkel 1969, Engelen 1975, Busse/Dubost 1977, cf. also fn. 1). We cannot believe that these developments are merely a historical accident simply determined by fads and fantasies. We rather assume that there are systematic reasons behind these changes of the linguistic research programme. Some of these reasons will be studied before we enter on our major topic lexical analysis and its relation to a theory of language. This preliminary discussion should serve the reader less familiar with lexicological questions as a motivation to proceed further into this field. 3. Why Lexical Analysis? What are the reasons then to turn our interest towards the word level of natural language? The basic reason as it seems is a semantic one. Nowadays there exist quite excellent methods to reduce the meaning of complex linguistic entities such as sentences and even texts to simpler units, especially to simple and complex words.
eBook - PDFLinguistics for Everyone
An Introduction
- Kristin Denham, Anne Lobeck(Authors)
- 2012(Publication Date)
- Cengage Learning EMEA(Publisher)
Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 330 • CHAPTER 10 Semantics and Pragmatics: Making Meaning with Sentences I n the previous chapter, we discussed word meanings and meaning relationships such as hyponymy, metaphor, antonymy, and so on. Our discussion concerned semantics, the study of the complex set of rules by which we assign meanings to linguistic sounds or signs. One way of thinking about semantics is that it is the study of meanings encoded in words regard-less of their context. In this chapter, we will discuss the meaning encoded in sentences, or sentence meaning . Like the word meanings we discussed in Chapter 9, sentence meaning is the meaning of a sentence on its own regard-less of its context. Consider, for example, the sentence Have you quit smoking? This sentence encodes more than just a question; it has the additional mean-ing that you smoked at some point in the past . We extract this meaning from the sentence regardless of the context in which the sentence is uttered—the meaning is encoded in the sentence itself. And what about this sentence: Jones was killed, but he didn’t die . The oddity of this sen-tence, a contradiction, comes from the fact that it is both false and true at the same time. We understand this as a contradiction regardless of context, just from the meanings of the words. The meanings encoded in words and sentences are not the only way we make meaning out of language, however. Sentences, like words, can also have nonliteral meanings. The sentence I want to be a linguistics major conveys exactly what it seems to—that you have a desire to be a linguistics major (sentence meaning).
- Lawrence Elwayne Nogle(Author)
- 2019(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
Students of semantics have been interested for a long time only in bits and pieces of the lexicon. Componential analysis is limited to highly structured paradigms, i.e., kinships, color, or ecology. The normal form definitions utilized by Katz and Fodor are determined by intuition and the needs of the projection com-ponent. The idea of the structure of a vocabulary is foreign to the semanticists with leanings toward transformational grammar. Their concern is with the context. The relationships of interest are those among semantic markers. Psychological approaches are also not helpful. The psychologist is usually interested in frequency of occurrence or some such variable. Nothing has been said so far about the sources of definitions. Like the professional lexicographer, the ordinary person probably derives many of his definitions by abstracting them from the use of terms in sentences. Roger Brown (1956) has discussed the work of Werner and Kaplan, two investigators interested in the question. Artificial words were placed in six sentence contexts. The children used as subjects in this experiment were told that the meaning of an artificial word remained unchanged through the various sentence contexts. Paul Ziff (1960) has considered the same problem but from a linguistic point of view. He indicates there are several steps in the formulation of a verbal definition. The first step in deter-mining a definition is to map out the membership of a word's Semantic Analysis AND OTHER FACTS 35 distributive and contrast sets. In other words, it is necessary to discover all the sentence contexts into which a term may fit. Then it is necessary to determine with what other terms the term in ques-tion contrasts within the distributive set. The next step is to dis-ambiguate the term in the contrast set. Thus 'That is a tiger' and 'That is a lion' differ in that one of the two utterances is the condi-tion of being striped (Ziff 1960: 189).
eBook - PDFPapers in Computational Linguistics
Proceedings of the 3rd International Meeting on Computational Linguistics held at Debrecen, Hungary
- Ferenc Papp, György Szépe, Ferenc Papp, György Szépe(Authors)
- 2020(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
We can expect that a natural language analysis system must be con-tinually making these associative implications in order to be able to use them when they are needed. Essentially we are setting up a peculiar kind of world model here. We are saying that people do things for reasons and that people say things for reasons Semantic Analysis AND SYNTHESIS 291 and understanding these reasons is an important part of understanding natural language utterances. It is the analysis of the intention of an utterance or ACT that is the primary element necessary to correctly respond to that utterance or ACT. 6. Conclusion This paper has presented the outline of a theory of human understanding which is designed to be used as a computer understanding system. A computer program that does all of what has been stated here (with the exception of the work in section 5) is now running at Stanford. I have tried here to present the basic theoretical parts of that system, but of course much has been left out. The remainder of the conceptual rules (about 10 more) and the details of the syntactic and conceptual processing system are described in Schank (in press). Stanford University, California Computer Science Department and Committee on Linguistics 292 Semantic Analysis AND SYNTHESIS REFERENCES Anderson, J. (1971) 'Recognition Confusions in Sentence Memory', unpublished paper, Stanford University, Stanford, California. Bower, G. (1970) 'Imagery as a Relational Organizer in Associative Learning', Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, vol. 9. Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, M.I.T. Press. Fillmore, C. (1968) 'The Case for Case', in ZJniversals in Linguistic Theory, Bach and Harms (eds.), Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Furth, H. (1966) Thinking Without Language, Free Press. Hays, D. (1964) 'Dependency Theory: A Formalism and Some Observations', Language, vol.
eBook - PDFThe Semantics of Polysemy
Reading Meaning in English and Warlpiri
- Nick Riemer(Author)
- 2008(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
We will return to this issue in the section on disconfirmation below. 2. Definition and semantic theory In sections three and four some specific aspects of NSM methodology will be examined. This section discusses its broader ideology and construal of the task of linguistic semantics. One of the most original aspects of the NSM style of Semantic Analysis is the fact that it departs less from any de-veloped theoretical understanding of those domains often taken as relevant to the analysis of meaning (e.g. conceptions of the nature of cognition, categorization, reference, or truth: cf. the importance of these questions in e.g. Jackendoff 1983, 1990, Lakoff 1987, and Allan 2001) than from some rather practical considerations about the nature of a particular metalinguis-tic practice, explanatory definition or ‘explication’, and the requirements that any actual definition or explication should supposedly meet if it is to successfully convey a word’s meaning. The locus of NSM explanation is not therefore the question ‘what is happening when I understand the mean-ing of a word?’, but ‘how can I explain the meanings of words (to others)?’. For a modern theory of semantics this is a somewhat novel emphasis, and it is worth dwelling on. For it is not obvious that the task of under-standing meaning – presumably the central task of semantic theory – should be identified so completely with that of providing explanatory definitions of individual words, in the sense of descriptions of separable semantic components whose composition results in the meaning of a word (cf. Wierzbicka 1980: 12–13). This is because there are many other metalin-guistic practices, such as non-definitional paraphrase, text interpretation, specification of lexical relations, or etymology, in which meaning is just as crucially implicated and which, as a result, have equal prima facie claim as candidates for the paradigms of semantic theory.
Index pages curate the most relevant extracts from our library of academic textbooks. They’ve been created using an in-house natural language model (NLM), each adding context and meaning to key research topics.
