Termout.org logo/LING


Update: February 24, 2023 The new version of Termout.org is now online, so this web site is now obsolete and will soon be dismantled.

Lista de candidatos sometidos a examen:
1) predicates (*)
(*) Términos presentes en el nuestro glosario de lingüística

1) Candidate: predicates


Is in goldstandard

1
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines192 - : [87]24 Though there is neither reference to the research nor the article, these cases are classified as research-oriented and article-oriented because the intervening predicates are of the same subtypes as the predicates underlying text-sentences which do explicitly refer to the research or the article, respectively . See below.

2
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines319 - : Carlson (1977) draws a distinction between two kinds of predicates: Stage-Level Predicates (hence SLPs ) that characterize properties of stages and Individual-Level Predicates (hence ILPs) that characterize properties of individuals. In Carlson´s terms (1977: 155-128), a stage is a ´space-time slice´ of an individual while individuals are “a series of stages… of the same thing”. Carlson (1977) argues that this distinction is based on the acceptability of certain predicates as complements of perception verbs. He observed that only predicates that express transitory or accidental qualities (SLPs) but not those that express permanent or essential qualities (ILPs) are acceptable as complements of perception verbs, as in (13).

3
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines319 - : Remember that Kratzer´s (1995) temporal interpretation depends on argument structure. While SL predicates have an external argument that allows them to be located in space and time, IL predicates lack this spatiotemporal variable . For Arche (2007), both IL and SL predicates have a spatiotemporal variable. This variable is bound by an over-occasions-quantifier that can be present with any kind of predicate if an appropriate context is built up. Thus, temporal interpretation depends on the content of the Topic Time (TT) with respect to the Reference Time (RT). For example:

4
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines319 - : We have seen that several researchers have tried to account for ser and estar based on syntactic, semantic and pragmatic approaches. This just shows how complex it is to characterize the behavior of the two Spanish copulas. Leaving aside the controversial topic of whether the relevant distinctions are encoded in the syntax, the semantics, the pragmatics of either, the copulas or the whole predication, most of the influential proposals seem to converge on the following general picture: Predicates with ser and estar give rise to different interpretations: ser predicates are generally (but not necessarily ) associated with properties that are perceived to last, to be permanent, to be inherent while estar predicates are commonly (but not always) associated with properties that are perceived as temporary, non-inherent and easy to change. Thus, most analyses agree that ser predicates are more relaxed than estar predicates in temporal terms. Importantly, ser is seen as disconnected from the

5
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines424 - : In the analysis of our examples, we have delimited these two subclasses taking into account two parameters, (i) the degree of autonomy and (ii) the temporal distance between the subevents that make up the reciprocal event. By autonomy, we refer to the perception of their independence by speakers (Kemmer, 1993 labels this ‘visibility’). As for temporal distance, we find different approaches. Lichtenberk (1985) and Evans (2008) consider that reciprocal situations can be either simultaneous or sequential. Nevertheless, Kemmer (1993) and Dimitriadis (2008) consider that this is only the case with verbs that are not naturally reciprocal (i.e. non-symmetric predicates); naturally reciprocal events are always simultaneous. From our analysis of Spanish symmetric predicates, we observe three types of temporal restrictions: verbs that impose a simultaneous interpretation, verbs that impose a sequential interpretation and, finally, verbs with no temporal restrictions specified .

Evaluando al candidato predicates:


1) temporal: 7
2) verbs: 5 (*)
4) interpretation: 4 (*)
5) reciprocal: 4
7) perception: 3 (*)
8) characterize: 3

predicates
Lengua: eng
Frec: 56
Docs: 15
Nombre propio: / 56 = 0%
Coocurrencias con glosario: 3
Puntaje: 3.842 = (3 + (1+4.75488750216347) / (1+5.83289001416474)));
Candidato aceptado

Referencias bibliográficas encontradas sobre cada término

(Que existan referencias dedicadas a un término es también indicio de terminologicidad.)
predicates
: Aske, J. (1989). Path predicates in English and Spanish: A closer look. Ponencia presentada en Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Universidad de California Berkeley, Berkeley, Estados Unidos de Norteamérica.
: Espinal, T. (2013). Bare nominals, bare predicates. Properties and related types. En J. Kabatek & J. Wall (Eds.), New Perspectives on Bare Noun Phrases In Romance and Beyond (pp. 63-94). Ámsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
: Ginzburg, J. (1990). On the Non-Unity of Symmetric Predicates: Monadic Comitatives and Dyadic Equivalence Relations. Proceedings of North-Eastern Linguistic Society (NELS), 20(1), 135-149.
: Kratzer, A. (1989). Stage and individual level predicates. Papers on quantification. NSF Grant Report, Linguistics Department, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. USA.
: Kratzer, A. (1995). Stage-Level and Individual-Level Predicates. In G. Carlson & F. Pelletier (Eds.), The Generic Book (pp. 125-175). Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
: Messina, S. & Langella, A. (2015). Paraphrases V(N(A in one class of Psychological Predicates. En J. Monti, M. Silberztein, M. Monteleone & M. di Buono (Eds.), Formalising Natural Languages with NooJ 2014 (pp. 140-149). Newcastle: Cambridge.