Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
tested with 44 subjects (López De Luise, 2005). The results showed that this treatment, even
without directly managing semantics, could communicate the original content. Volunteers
were able to reconstruct the original text content successfully in 100% of the cases. As MLW
is based on E ci structure, it follows that it:
-
represents keywording well.
-
performs well independent of an individual's knowledge on a specific subject.
-
performs well independent of an individual's knowledge of informatics.
2.4.3 Language comprehension detection
As language is an expression of mind and its processes, it becomes also the expression of
meaning (or lack of meaning) in general. This fact is also true when the subject is the
language itself. A recent study focused on the most frequently recurrent morphosyntactic
uses in a group of students who study Spanish as a foreign language (González Negrón,
2011) revealed a peculiar distribution of nouns and personal pronouns. These parts of
speech were present at a higher frequency than in the speech of native speakers, probably to
guarantee the reader comprehension of the text. Other findings included preposition
repetition and a significant number of misplaced prepositions. Thus, morphosyntactic
statistics detect deficient language understanding. A similar study was performed in
(Konopka, 2008) with Mexican subjects living in Chicago (USA). In the case of MLW, the E ci
and E ce structures will shape irregular language usage and make detection of incorrect
language practices easy.
2.4.4 Semantics detection
Morphosyntactics can be used to detect certain types of semantics in a text. An analysis of
vowel formant structure and vowel space dispersion revealed overall spectral reduction for
certain talkers. These findings suggest an interaction between semantic and indexing factors
in vowel reduction processes (Cloppera, 2008).
Two morphosyntactic experimental studies of numeral quantifiers in English ( more than k, at
least k, at most k, and fewer than k) (Koster-Moeller, 2008) showed that Generalized
Quantifier Theory (GQT) 3 must be extant to manage morphosyntactic differences between
denotationally equivalent quantifiers. The formal semantic is focused on the correct set of
entailment patterns of expressions but is not concerned with deep comprehension or real-
time verification. However, certain systematic distinctions occur during real-time
comprehension. The degree of compromise implicit in a semantic theory depends on the
types of semantic primitives it assumes, and this also influences its ability to treat these
phenomena. In (López De Luise, 2008b), sentences were processed to automatically obtain
specific semantic interpretations. The shape of the statistics performed over the E ci 's internal
weighting value (named p o ) is strongly biased by the semantics behind sentence content.
3 Generalized Quantifier Theory is a logical semantic theory that studies the interpretation of noun
phrases and determinants. The formal theory of generalized quantifiers already existed as a part of
mathematical logic (Mostowski, 1957), and it was implicit in Montague Grammar (Montague, 1974). It
has been fully developed by Barwise & Cooper (1981) and Keenan & Stavi (Barwise, 1981) as a
framework for investigating universal constraints on quantification and inferential patterns concerning
quantifiers.
Search WWH ::




Custom Search