Katz, Jerrold and Jerry Fodor (1963). "The Structure of a Semantic Theory". Language, vol. 39, pp. 170-210.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....such world knowledge into a natural language processing system is highly di#cult, however, because of its sheer enormity. An alternative approach is to make use of only lexical semantic knowledge, specifically case frame patterns (Fillmore, 1968) or their near equivalents: selectional patterns (Katz and Fodor, 1963), and subcategorization patterns (Pollard and Sag, 1987) That is, to represent the content of a sentence or a phrase with a case frame having a head and multiple slots, and to incorporate into a natural language processing system the knowledge of which words can fill into which slot of ....

....can take right now. As is made clear in the above example, case frame patterns mainly include generalized information, e.g. that a member of the word class can be the value of the arg2 slot for the verb eat. Classically, case frame patterns are represented by selectional restrictions (Katz and Fodor, 1963), i.e. discretely represented by semantic features, but it is better to represent them continuously, because a word can be the value of a slot to a certain probabilistic degree, as is suggested by the following list (Resnik, 1993b) 1) Mary drank some wine. 2) Mary drank some gasoline. 3) ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Katz, J. J. and J. A. Fodor. 1963. The structure of semantic theory. Language, 39:170--210.

....and methods for implementing explaining away in other graphical frameworks are discussed. 1 Selectional preference and sense ambiguity Regularities of a verb with respect to the semantic class of its arguments (subject, object and indirect object) are called selectional preferences (SP) (Katz and Fodor, 1964; Chomsky, 1965; Johnson Laird, 1983) The verb pilot carries the information that its object will likely be some kind of vehicle; subjects of the verb think tend to be human; and subjects of the verb bark tend to be dogs. For the sake of simplicity we will focus on the verb object relation ....

J. J. Katz and J. A. Fodor. 1964. The structure of a semantic theory. In J. J. Katz and J. A. Fodor, editors, The Structure of Language. Prentice-Hall.

.... but the main principle remains the same: we use predicates that correspond to types of objects encountered in the sentence in our logical form, while the semantic theory provides the rules for joining them in the expression corresponding to the meaning of the sentence [All94] 3 Katz and Fodor [KF64] noted that the function of a semantic theory is, given a set of syntactically correct interpretations of a string, to perform semantic disambiguation and selecting those that are semantically plausible. For example, a grammar analyzer can see at least two possible analyses for the sentence in ....

Jerrold J. Katz and J. A. Fodor. The structure of a semantic theory. In J. A. Fodor and Jerrold J. Katz, editors, The Structure of Language: Readings in the Philosophy of Language, pages 479-518. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Clis, New Jersey, 1964.

....model of lexical knowledge as used in many computational systems is inadequate for representing nearsynonyms. Near synonymy in lexical semantics Current models of lexical knowledge used in computational systems, which are based on decompositional and relational theories of word meaning (Katz Fodor 1963; Jackendoff 1990; Lyons 1977; Nirenburg Defrise 1992; Lehrer Kittay 1992b; Evens 1988; Cruse 1986) cannot account for the properties of near synonyms. In outline, the now conventional view is that the denotation of a lexical item is represented as a concept, or a structure of concepts (i.e. ....

Katz, J. J., and Fodor, J. A. 1963. The structure of a semantic theory. Language 39:170--210.

.... that people could achieve this, due the complex inferential processes that the interpretation of contrastive focus demands (e.g. Ferreira Clifton 1989) or more generally that information about the world is too complex to recruit efficiently in the early stages of language processing (e.g. Katz Fodor 1963). Therefore, I am inclined to agree with Sedivy that The robust and pervasive effects of contrast across all of these varied experimental conditions challenge the frequent 4 assumption in the sentence processing literature that information about the world is too cumbersome or idiosyncratic to be ....

Katz, J. & J.A. Fodor. 1963. The structure of a semantic theory. Language, 39, 170--210.

....This raises the dangerous possibility of unanticipated interactions between coincidental similarities in clusters and the structure 12 of WordNet. More generally, the problem here is that meaning can be viewed as multidimensional, reminiscent of the feature vectors of Katz Fodor style semantics[20], and structurally similar to Schutze s word space. The WordNet hierarchy, however, only forms IS A links along a certain dimension. When the cluster is related along the same dimension as the WordNet hierarchy, correct disambiguation is promoted; when the cluster is related along a different, ....

J. J. Katz and J. A. Fodor. The structure of a semantic theory. In J. A. Fodor and J. J. Katz, editors, The Structure of Language, chapter 19, pages 479--518. Prentice Hall, 1964.

....same for technical or common words. We have turned to a componential approach to lexical semantics; each word is associated with a set of semantic components corresponding to elementary units of meaning, word meaning being derived from the assembly of its components. Early componential theories (Katz and Fodor, 1963) failed to give satisfactory results for several reasons. We list only the two most important from a computer science viewpoint: 1. There were no clear principles governing lexical decomposition, nor did any indication exist on how far a decomposition had to be carried out. 2. These componential ....

....to the same semantic subset. For example words such as adenoma and adenocarcinoma, both belonging to the set of histological values, differ in a pathological component. These theories, which have a linguistic basis, are termed differential (Rastier, 1987a) as opposed to referential theories (Katz and Fodor, 1963). Within this linguistically Marc Cavazza and Pierre Zweigenbaum Rapport Interne RI 86 Accepted for publication in Applied Artificial Intelligence. 12 27 Semantic Analysis and In Depth Understanding of Technical Texts motivated approach, the problem turns out to be how world knowledge is ....

Katz, J. J., and Fodor, J. A., 1963. The structure of a semantic theory. Language, 39, 170--210.

....is a well known issue in philosophy of language, in particular it is the fundamental principle of Montague Grammar. The discussions in philosophy of language will be reviewed in several sections of this chapter. In linguistics the principle was put forward by Katz and Fodor (Katz 1966, p. 152) (Katz Fodor 1963, p.503) They use it to design a finite system with infinite output: meanings for all sentences. There is also a psychological motivation in their argument, as, in their view, the principle can explain how a human being can understand sentences never heard before, an argument proposed by Frege ....

Katz, J.J. & Fodor, J.A. (1963), `The structure of a semantic theory', Language 39, 170--210.

....process of the polysemous related senses that are represented in the qualia structure. 3. 1 Qualia Structure GL presumes a relational model of lexical semantics [3] which represents word meaning not by decomposing it into primitives as in lexical decomposition models (all of which go back on [6]) but by showing the relations between lexical semantic objects. These relations are to be seen in a formal way, constituting a semantic network, through which reasoning paths connect lexical semantic objects to each other. Essentially, qualia structure represents four different relations that ....

J. Katz and J. A. Fodor. The structure of a semantic theory. Language, (39):170--210, 1963.

....ourselves in the framework of continental structural linguistics [Greimas 66] Pottier 87] Rastier 87] This theory is lexicon centered and describes lexical content in terms of meaning components, called semes 1 . Several approaches have been taken with semantic components among which those of Katz and Fodor [1963] and Schank [1972] have been the most debated. Le Ny [1979] has studied components from a psychological viewpoint. However in our framework, components have a linguistic basis. To emphasize this point this theory has been termed dioeerential decomponential theory [Rastier 87b] This term refers to ....

....as opposed to dioeerential ones [Rastier 87b] this is because the components used by Katz and Fodor were in fact properties of the referent, hence incorporating encyclopedic knowledge into an endless description. This also explains why the dictionary encyclopedia controversy is active in Katz and Fodor s [1963] paper. We can give some evidence that lexical decomposition into linguistically motivated components bears resemblance with a ipurej dictionary de nition: as a matter of fact, dictionary de nitions use structural relations such as hyperonym (i.e. arthritis is an inAEammatory disease) and ....

Katz, J. and Fodor J., 1963. The structure of a semantic theory. Language 39: 170-210.

....But intelligent action in humans also involves reason, understanding and language, and ultimately these processes too are learned from the environment. The meaning of meaning has too often in philosophy and AI been given an atomistic understanding, eg Katz and Fodor s semantic primitives ([20]) but yet again this suffers from a closed box problem. In conclusion, it is possible to escape from the box, a machine can learn new phenomena without the domain being pre characterised, but there is a price. The price is that once the machine has learned a large amount of knowledge from the ....

Katz J.J. and Fodor J.A., The structure of a semantic theory. Language, (1963), 39, 170210.

....teller machine. Following the classical view an ATM is defined by an enumeration of its features, e.g. screen, key pad and card slot. These features are often referred to as the extension of an NL statement. In linguistics, this view has emerged in the componential analysis of Katz and Fodor [Katz Fodor 63] Leech and Bierwisch continue this line of research [Bierwisch Lang 87] This, indeed, is the typical form of the classical view in linguistics: the meaning of a word is essentially decomposable into a set of features. The features that represent the meaning of a word are just those which ....

J.J. Katz, J. Fodor, The Structure of a Semantic Theory, Language, vol. 39, pp. 170-210, -- 38 --

....of building a natural language interface for your intelligent system involved coding up a grammar, then coding up selectional restrictions for your lexicon to enable your parser to efficaciously choose from among hundreds of syntactically plausible interpretations. Selectional restrictions [Katz and Fodor, 1963] have been successfully used in many NLP systems. In a limited domain, they can be constructed to eliminate much ambiguity. Essentially, a selectional restriction is a restriction on the types of arguments allowed for by a predicate. For example, the verb eat is said to select for an edible ....

J.J. Katz and J.A. Fodor, "The Structure of Semantic Theory," Language, 39:170--210, 1963.

....constraints are limitations on the applicability of predicates to arguments. For example, the statement The number two is blue may be syntactically well formed, but at some level it is anomalous BLUE is not a predicate that can be applied to numbers. According to the influential theory of (Katz and Fodor, 1964), a predicate associates a set of defining features with each argument, expressed within a restricted semantic vocabulary. Despite the persistence of this theory, however, there is widespread agreement about its empirical shortcomings (McCawley, 1968; Fodor, 1977) As an alternative, some critics ....

....it is anomalous BLUE is not a predicate that can be applied to numbers. Philosophers have called examples like this one category mistakes, and generative linguists have called them selectional violations. The most influential theory of selectional constraints has been the one proposed by Katz and Fodor (1964), according to which a predicate associates a set of defining features with each argument, expressed within a restricted semantic vocabulary. Despite the persistence of this theory, however, there is widespread agreement about its empirical shortcomings (McCawley, 1968; Fodor, 1977) As an ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

J. J. Katz and J. A. Fodor. 1964. The structure of a semantic theory. In J. A. Fodor and J. J. Katz, editors, The Structure of Language, chapter 19, pages 479--518. Prentice Hall.

....linguistically relevant properties of concepts: i.e. properties of the concept described in section 5.3 which, like traditional selectional restrictions, restrict the 8 See chapter 3, especially sections 3.2.2 and 3.3, for experimental evidence. combinatorial potential of the expression (cf. Katz and Fodor 1963). In particular, each concept must be specified for its type; may be specified for mode properties such as definite and polarity, as well as core properties, such the thematic roles agent and theme which determine the valency of verbs like wash; but is never specified for constraints. ....

Katz, J. and J. Fodor (1963). The structure of semantic theory. Language, 39: 170--210.

....as a basic tenet that there are natural kinds of entities (and events) in the world, each kind being a category based on shared essential properties. Mental models reflect those natural categories of the world, defined by a conjunctive list of necessary and sufficient attributes (cf. Frege 1952, Katz Fodor 1963, Medin Smith 1984) The members of each conceptual category share exactly the same attributes or, in the terms of this paper, are all bounded by the same list of attributes (i.e. if the members of a category are graphically represented in a multidimensional space, whose axis are the list of ....

Katz, J. J. & Fodor, J.A. (1963). The Structure of a Semantic Theory. Language, 39, 170210.

....lexemes and have to be represented as such. However, we concentrate here on the interface between the concept taxonomy and the lexicon and thus neglect the collocations. 3. 3 Decomposition The idea of systematically decomposing words into elementary units of meaning was promoted notably by Katz and Fodor [1963], who suggested dividing these units into semantic markers and distinguishers. The markers were supposed to be the units that recur in the definitions of many words, and that constitute the systematic part of word meaning, whereas the distinguishers were names for the remaining differences that ....

J.J. Katz, J.A. Fodor. "The structure of a semantic theory." In: Language 39, 1963.

.... hence not reducible to partial identity of feature sets was, of course, a main tenet of Gestalt psychology, as well as more recent approaches based on prototypes ) The treatment of microfeatures in the Connectionist literature would appear to be very close to early proposals by Katz and Fodor (1963) and Katz and Postal (1964) where both the idea of a feature analysis of concepts and the idea that relations of semantical containment among concepts should be identified with set theoretic relations among feature arrays are explicitly endorsed. 13 Connectionism and Cognitive ....

Katz, J.J. & Fodor, J.A. (1963). The structure of a semantic theory, Language, 39, 170-210.

....theories that a purely denotational lexicon clearly could not meet, hence which are supposed to motivate a richer notion of lexical semantic representation than a denotational lexicon could provide. With one exception, these are familiar from discussions in lexical semantics dating as far back as Katz and Fodor (1963). Consonant with our overall project, we propose to discuss them only briefly, putting aside those that are motivated either by IRS or what we regard as other tendentious assumptions. This will leave for Part 3 to consider what we take to be JP s main line of argument and the main contribution of ....

....at all sure what JP s dot operator does (see 92ff) but we suspect that it has the effect of allowing components of lexical entries to combine freely, in the way that features do. If that s the right reading, then JP s lexical entries are even less constrained than those of classical SELs, like Katz and Fodor (1963). 21. If this is right, then there are perhaps three kinds of lexical entries: ones which specify only a composition rule (the, and) ones specify only of a denotation (Tom, eat) and ones which specify both (want, believe, good) ....

Katz, J. and Fodor, J. (1963) "The Structure of A Semantic Theory," Language, 39, 170-210.

No context found.

Katz, J. and Fodor, J. (1962), "The structure of a semantic theory," Language, 39, 170-210.

No context found.

Katz, Jerrold and Jerry Fodor (1963). "The Structure of a Semantic Theory". Language, vol. 39, pp. 170-210.

No context found.

Katz, J. J. & Fodor, J. A. (1963). The structure of a semantic theory. Language, 39, 170-210.

No context found.

Katz, J. J. & Fodor, J. A. (1963). The structure of a semantic theory. Language, 39: 170-210.

No context found.

J. Katz and J. Fodor. The structure of a semantic theory. In J. Katz and J. Fodor, editors, The structure of language, pages 479--518. Prentice Hall, NY, 1964.

No context found.

Katz, J. J. & Fodor, J. A. (1963). The structure of semantic theory. Language, 39(2), 170-211.

No context found.

Katz, J., Fordor, J.: The Structure of Semantic Theory. In Fordor, J., Katz, J.: The Structure of Language: Readings in the Philosophy of Language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall (1964) 479-518

No context found.

Katz, J. J., Fodor, J. A., The Structure of a Semantic Theory, in Language 39, pp. 170-210, 1963.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC