semantic properties of both its 1) subject
Ex. Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. -> semantically anomalous!
- “sleep” require animate subjects.
and its 2) complements.
Ex. (1) John threw/tosses/kicked/flung the boy the ball.
(2) *John pushed/pulled/lifted/hauled the boy the ball.
(3)Mary faxed/radioed/e-mailed/phoned Helen the news.
(4)*Mary murmured/mumbled/muttered/shrieked He
Big(“about size”) vs Red(“about color”)
: too few semantic features
- Antonym(x)
Buy(“change in possession”) vs Sell(“change in possession”)
: share all but one semantic feature(direction of the change)
- Antonym(O)
1.5.1.Semantic Features of Nouns
1.5.2.Semantic Features of Verbs
1.5.3.Semantic Features interact with different a
Definition
A schematic representation which shows a predicate together with its arguments, and their categorical status.
Devour (verb)
[1, 2]
Predicate and arguments
Predicate: it is that we will refer to element that require the specification of the participants in the proposition expressed.
Argument: it is that a participant (role player) in proposition
Ex) The cro
It seems plausible to assume that the source of the ambiguity of [an old French student] is structural in nature, and that part of the ambiguity relates to the fact that ‘old’ and ‘French’ has two different categorical functions above. We can support this analysis with empirical evidences according to syntactic, semantic, and phonological views.
1. Syntactic analysis
As you can see, [a
Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana. Oettinger (1966)
컴퓨터가 자연적인 언어(natural language)를 처리하도록 하는 데에 있어서의 어려움에 대한 초기의 연구에서, Anthony Oettinger는 우리가 예상되는 구조(expected structure)에 기반하여 어떻게 문장을 번역하는지, 그리고 우리가 번역하며 오류를 범했을 때,