/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) semantic (*)
(*) Términos presentes en el nuestro glosario de lingüística
1) Candidate: semantic
Is in goldstandard
1
paper CL_LiteraturayLingüísticatxt189 - : Carrell states that, "Although Goodman did not characterize his theory as top - down model, and continues to resist this characterization himself (Goodman 1981), several other reading experts (Anderson 1978; Cziko 1978) have recently characterized it basically as a concept-driven, top - down pattern in which 'higher level processes interact with, and direct theflow of information through, lower- level processes' (Stanovich 1980:34). In any event, the impact that Goodman's psycholinguistic theory had on both first or native language reading, and later on, on second or foreign language reading, was to make the reader an active participant in the reading process, making and confirming predictions, primarily from his or her background knowledge of the various linguistic levels (graphophonic, syntactic, and semantic) in the broadest sense of these terms (Carrell, 1990:3 )".
2
paper CL_LiteraturayLingüísticatxt71 - : When dealing with semantic analysis, the researcher can proceed from different angles and perspectives, such as from the level of the word to more complex units of analysis in semantics: the sentence, utterance, proposition and text .
3
paper CL_LiteraturayLingüísticatxt71 - : Literature is an interesting field of linguistic analysis, even though it takes us away from the contents we usually study during any course in semantics, to the extent that in literature, language plays a different role. If we have studied language during our academic years, exploring its semantic potential at the sentence and utterance level and so on, in literature we shall see that language plays the function of triggering or creating new worlds: the worlds of fiction .
4
paper CL_LiteraturayLingüísticatxt71 - : [28]Crystal, D. (1987:100) argues that «...only in certain fields such as literature do we tolerate personal deviations from the semantic norms of the language.... He states one of the favorite quotations of semanticists from Lewis Carroll's book Through the Looking Glass (1872, Chapter 6), in which Humpty Dumpty turns our conventional understanding of meaning on his head, and makes us see more clearly what it has to be about:
5
paper CL_LiteraturayLingüísticatxt153 - : Latent Semantic Analysis: A psychological theory of the meaning ?
6
paper CL_LiteraturayLingüísticatxt466 - : Ways of semantic access of «kanji» writing in non-native speakers: phonological or orthographic ? Beliefs and strategies
7
paper CO_ColombianAppliedLinguisticsJournaltxt244 - : ‘I’m sorry to hear…,’ ‘I’m sorry that…,’ ‘sorry,’ ‘I’m sorry,’ or ‘I’m+ intensifier+ sorry’ (elementary level: 46.9%, intermediate level: 52.3%, and advanced level: 42.3%). The next common semantic formula among the EFL participants was ‘Please accept my condolences’ (elementary level: 27 .5%, intermediate level: 24.8%, and advanced level: 20.4%), followed by adjectives like ‘bad,’ ‘terrible,’ ‘sad,’ etc. (elementary level: 13.5%, intermediate level: 12.9%, and advanced level: 18.6%). Also, a few of the EFL learners’ responses contained the word ‘sympathy’ (elementary level: 1.4%, intermediate level: 3.4%, and advanced level: 3.3%). Finally, a number of the EFL learners’ responses were formulated by the semantic formula ‘I’m sorry for your loss’ (elementary level: 2.3%, intermediate level: 6.5%, and advanced level: 13.6%).
8
paper CO_ColombianAppliedLinguisticsJournaltxt244 - : ‘Offer of assistance’ had the third highest frequency of occurrence among the intermediate and advanced-level EFL learners, and it came fourth for the elementary-level learners. The semantic formulas that the EFL learners adopted to formulate this condolence strategy were of three types: offering help (e .g., ‘Let me know if there is anything I can do’), offering the bereaved to take a few days off from work (e.g., ‘You can take a leave’), and offering emotional help (e.g., ‘Let me be with you in this difficult time’).
9
paper CO_ColombianAppliedLinguisticsJournaltxt244 - : Finally, ‘acknowledgement of death’ was found to be the fourth condolence strategy among elementary and intermediate-level EFL learners, and the fifth condolence strategy among advanced-level learners. The semantic formulas Persian-speaking EFL learners used for ‘acknowledgement of death’ were, for the most part, ‘Oh’ (elementary level: 88 .3%, intermediate level: 78.2%, and advanced level: 87.5%) or ‘Oh, my God’ (elementary level: 0%, intermediate level: 17.3%, and advanced level: 12.5%). Other interjections like ‘Damn’ (4.5%) and ‘Alas’ (11.7%) were also used by elementary and intermediate-level participants. Interestingly, ‘expression of concern’ was not used by any of the proficiency-level groups.
10
paper CO_ColombianAppliedLinguisticsJournaltxt244 - : (p. 256). The second frequently-used semantic formula by the three proficiency-level groups was ‘I would like to offer my condolences.’ Persian-speaking EFL learners’ preference for this formal semantic formula probably stems from three facts: first of all, under the influence of their L1, Persian-speaking EFL learners literally translate the semantic formula tæsliæt migæm from Persian into English resulting in formal utterances like ‘Please accept my condolences’ or ‘I would like to offer my condolences .’ Second, Persian-speaking EFL learners must rely on instructional materials to receive input in the L2, as such they oftentimes interact with their textbooks (Morady Moghaddam, 2012) which prescribe the use of formal expressions, which are more appropriate for writing rather than speaking. Third, ^[88]Trosborg (1995) contends that the L2 learners who have not thoroughly mastered the distinctions between written and oral language may transfer characteristics of the written medium which
11
paper CO_ColombianAppliedLinguisticsJournaltxt199 - : audiences" (see [39]Figure 3). Lexical coherence is attained through repetition of words such as "rhetoric," "rhetorical analysis," and "you" and through the inclusion of words or nominal groups that are common in the semantic field of rhetoric: speech, politicians, audience, manipulate, position, move, and rhetorical analysis .
12
paper CO_ColombianAppliedLinguisticsJournaltxt144 - : Semantics studies word content which can be types, occurrences, and textual and non-textual signs, and defines as a sub-discipline of semiotics. The literary text is a group of textual signs to which the semantic analysis is of paramount importance if the analyst can establish a network of relations between terms and settles on a more or less one meaning. Todorov (1981) argues that semantics of literature is concerned with two main questions: "how does a text signify ? [and] what does a text signify?" (p.16). The former is the concern of linguistic semantics while the second of substantial semantics (Todorov, 1981). Linguistic semantics studies the compositionality aspect of the word and is more concerned with literal meaning. Substantial semantics, however, studies the variable distance between the signifier and signified and tries to establish semantic relations despite the indeterminacies of signs in the text.
13
paper CO_ColombianAppliedLinguisticsJournaltxt144 - : The idea behind intentional semantics is the philosophical view that words may contain multiple senses as part of their semantic structure. Meaning is cast upon its real use which assigns sets of readings. Jerrold J. Katz was the first linguist to talk about projecting meaning from underlying structures and paved the way for undertaking interpretation of ambiguous meaning within the linguistic description. This pragmatic view to meaning as being produced by many meanings was further developed in other more accountable models. In particular, Stanley Fish (1980) views the sentence in the literary text as an event to which he gives a particular meaning from a semantic analysis proceeding first from raising possible meanings and then expanding the analysis to the limitation and assertion of a one meaning which is established from the coming words in the text. Fish's semantic analysis is shown in the following example he took from Paradise Lost of John Milton:
14
paper CO_ColombianAppliedLinguisticsJournaltxt144 - : When literary meaning is not clear from words' constituency, it is put distanced whereby values of words get represented in a restricted form. If this has to signal something to the understanding of literary meaning it is the necessity to analyse words into different components or what we can call all possible components, whether major or minor, because they set the lexical interaction. As such, meaning obtains from a lexical decomposition which is a pure semantic task free from syntactic constraints. Modern semantic theories stand all on the principle of compositionality despite their different frameworks. For this reason the componential analysis becomes a basis of the semantic analysis:
15
paper CO_ColombianAppliedLinguisticsJournaltxt304 - : The Interpreter also has dense and complicated language structures. The first paragraph of the novel can scare an average, and even educated, reader of English as a second language. The morphosyntactic and semantic configurations of the entire novel are dense and complex, as in sample 10 below:
16
paper CO_CuadernosdeLingüísticaHispánicatxt29 - : The lexical presence of the Muisca language in Cundiboyacense dialect is a proof that its influence is still in force. The objective of this article is to present the loanwords and possible borrowings from Muisca in current Spanish, classified in semantic fields. The data were collected at the municipalities of Machetá and Tiribita in the department of Cundinamarca; Guateque, Sutatenza, Guayatá, La capilla, Garagoa, Chinavita y Pachativa in the department of Boyac. The results were organized into seven semantic fields: country and farming ; mining; space; animals; family and life cycle; human body; containers, food and housing. The study concluded that the most influential fields are those corresponding to farming and animals.
17
paper CO_CuadernosdeLingüísticaHispánicatxt42 - : This research project is aimed at describing the uses of verb "traer" in imperfective events in Mexican Spanish, based on the Gramática de Construcciones de Goldberg (1995) and a previous study by Rábago and Alarcón (2012) regarding the stative "traer". A series of syntactic, semantic and pragmatic aspects is explored, regarding the relationships among participants: Subject, Object and their Complements . Examples from two oral register corpora are analyzed: the Sociolinguistic Corpus of Ciudad de México, and the Speech Corpus of Monterrey. The following tendency is shown: alienable objects are used with predicative complements, while inalienable objects combine the preferred structure with adverbial complements or secondary predicates which enable and sometimes strengthen the discursive setting.
18
paper CO_FormayFuncióntxt275 - : The article describes the syntactic and semantic behavior of two very common verbal forms in Peruvian Spanish: parar+gerund and pasarse+gerund . It is very interesting that, despite being almost homophonous, these forms display different syntactic structures. The former is a raising verb, and the latter a control verb. However, their common frequentative value produces a plurality reading of the accompanying verbal complement: whereas parar functions as an auxiliary operator of the verb, pasar coerces or forces a plural reading because of its lexical content. On the other hand, we will show that both verbal forms are in a process of grammaticalization i.e. loss of lexical content and gain of functional features, although, in its auxiliary function, parar has advanced more in this process.
19
paper CO_FormayFuncióntxt241 - : This paper examines the polysemy of the Bribri postposition «ã» from the perspective of cognitive linguistics. It suggests a semantic network in which all the senses of the word are directly or indirectly linked to one central meaning: the static spatial location of a trajector within a landmark conceived as a three-dimensional container (inessive ). Several semantic extensions emerge from this proto-scene through metaphors, metonymies, and subjectification, thus creating different continua of associated meanings. In this manner, the primary sense extends to both the temporal domain and the dynamic spatial sub-domain. Likewise, a series of uses of «ã» as a marker of the more abstract semantic roles of recipient, addressee, and beneficiary derives from the function of the metaspatial marker.
20
paper CO_FormayFuncióntxt260 - : In the example 2i', the subject is «puy bu» 'snake' and the object is «bekicat» 'child'. These grammatical relations are confirmed by the constituent order and the cross-reference markers in the verb. If the subject were a second person, «puy bu» 'snake' would be replaced by «ẽn» 'You', and «o'=» 3Sa would be replaced by «e=» 2s. In the example 2i', «puy bu» 'snake' is the agent and «bekicat» 'child' is the patient. In Munduruku, it is possible to introduce a new agent: an indirect agent (the causer). A transitive verb like «a» 'bite' will be followed by the suffix «-at», which is responsible for turning transitive verbs into causative verbs. The direct agent (the causee) is moved to the end of the sentence and it becomes part of a postpositional phrase (^[48]Gomes, 2014). The example 2i' ' shows a pp with a semantic role of direct agent where the head is «be»:
21
paper CO_FormayFuncióntxt260 - : In the example 2k, the pp «[[o=kipit] pe]» 'for my brother' has the semantic role of dative of interest:
22
paper CO_FormayFuncióntxt140 - : The article presents the results of a research project regarding constituent order in trivalent Latin verbs, using Dik's functional grammar. Results show that the prototypical order when there are three constituents is accusative - prepositional syntagm - verb, and nominative - accusative - prepositional syntagm - verb, when there are four. With respect to the semantic structure, the prototypical order is: beneficiary, goal, verb .
23
paper CO_FormayFuncióntxt105 - : As regards the translation of the novel's opening line, which plays such a crucial role in the development of the narrative, Rabassa also reflects on how he translated some key words: "Había de could have been would (How much wood can a woodchuck chuck?), but I think was to has a better feeling to it. I chose remember over recall because I feel that it conveys a deeper memory. Remote might have aroused thoughts of such inappropriate things as remote control and robots. Also I liked distant when used with time" (ibid., p. 97). Finally, as to the translation of the original term 'conocer el hielo', Rabassa does a semantic analysis:
24
paper CO_Lenguajetxt193 - : It is evident that this also applies to cases such as those of [V] or [VI^s]. A semantic approach such as that of the mental model theory sees language not as a construction of pieces that fit because they fulfill logic rules and principles, but as a set of expressions that enable thinking about reality in an iconic way . Thus, it can be very enlightening to remind ourselves that [VI] in English and [VI^s] in Spanish are linked to the same iconic picture. Theoretically, [VI^s] should cause difficulties (since it refers to the concept of the bear). Nevertheless, neither [VI] nor [VI^s] appear to create problems in everyday conversations. The reason could be, as stated, that despite the compound form of the words, they are in fact related to exactly the same iconic representation.
25
paper CO_Lenguajetxt150 - : The interlingual category is described by Corder (as cited in ^[44]Sari, 2016). It is described as an interference with the mother tongue. Interlingual errors are caused when the learners prevent to acquire the rules of a second language. ^[45]Kaweera (2013) in the study makes a detailed revision of the interlingual interference naming three aspects: (1) lexical interference: learners make errors on syntax, lexis, morphology, and orthography. Two semantic errors are described based on lexis: the confusion of sense relation which is related to a wrong meaning used by learners . For example, the use of “touch the guitar” instead of “play the guitar”. The collocational error which is related to an unnecessary placement of words in a sentence. For example, the use of “to” in the phrase “near to my house”. (2) Syntactic interference: learners use the mother tongue to translate directly to the target language. These errors imply subject-verb agreement, wrong structure, and difficulties with word
26
paper CO_Íkalatxt49 - : In this connection, interoperability needs to be seen through the eyes of content - not only through the glasses of content management systems.Then it can be recognized that content interoperability goes beyond the concept of semantic interoperability, as it is generally seen. Content interoperability is the capability of content items/ entities (i.e. structured content at the level of lexical semantics) to be:
27
paper CO_Íkalatxt49 - : The OASIS development will provide an open source complementary solution to the direction now being pursued in the SemanticWeb approach to ontology design: whereas in the Semantic Web re-usability is pursued across open ontologies, the OASIS solution will show how re-usability can be achieved following the tried and tested results of decades of practical experience in software engineering . Crucially, the open Semantic Web approach entails that small local modules may have global side-effects (for example, by changing class membership); in contrast, the OASIS hyper-ontology will demonstrate how interoperability can be achieved within strict modularity. Side effects in software design are a source of major system instability, development and maintenance costs - avoiding them for ontology design will therefore be a major innovative contribution of considerable benefit.
28
paper CO_Íkalatxt59 - : [73]4 Nwogu señala: ''Las movidas y sus elemengos constitutivos asignan funciones a segmentos de información que en conjunto en el artículo de investigación constituyen la macroestructura semantica del texto'' (traducción mía) [The moves and their constituent elements assign functions to segments of information which together in the research paper constitute the overall semantic macrostructure of such texts] (1997: 135 ).
29
paper CO_Íkalatxt17 - : [129]6 Croft define un dominio conceptual como ''a semantic structure that functions as the base for at least one concept profile'' [una estructura semántica que funciona como la base para, por lo menos, un perfil conceptual] (1993: 340 ). Tal definición, a su vez, se basa en los conceptos de base y perfil (conceptual), desarrollados por Langacker (1987: 183 184), para quien el perfil es el concepto simbolizado por la palabra en sí, mientras que la base es el conocimiento enciclopédico del mundo necesario para la interpretación de dicha unidad léxica.
30
paper CO_Íkalatxt33 - : The bearer is a Ghanaian of Akan stock. Kwame means Saturday - born and is expected to be creative (Obeng in Agyekum, 2006). Agyeman (2006:212) attests to the reality of temporal deixis where every Akan ''has an automatic birthday first name that points to the day of the week that s/he was born''. The first name in Akan is called Kradin (i.e. soul's name, a name offered to the bearer by his/her soul. The particular day is expected to affect in one way or the other the behaviour, fate and future of the child. According to Agyekum, Piesie is an ordinal, and a beautiful metaphorical name denoting the first born. The name has two interesting semantic segments: pie and sie . Sie signifies an anthill and is metaphorically used to stand for the woman's stomach from where the first child is conceptualized as erupting (pie). After Piesie come Manu, Mensa (or Mansa for a female child), Anane / Annan etc. All these names represent Akan numerals.
31
paper CO_Íkalatxt101 - : Another important form of the influence of the indigenous language on this variety is its combination with English through blending to create lexical items by semantic association as we can see in 2:
32
paper MX_ElAnuariodeLetrastxt38 - : Based on the lexicalization patterns presented in Talmy’s pioneering work (1985), motion verbs classifications for Spanish mainly recognize two groups: verbs of manner and verbs of direction (Lamiroy, 1991; Cifuentes Honrubia, 1988-1989; Crego García, 2000; Morimoto, 2001, among others). This research offers a much more detailed classification, by means of the use of a finer set of features and semantic participants that may be lexicalized by motion verbs in any language of the world, namely: the aspectual features of punctuality and telicity ; the participants theme, source, path, goal, point of reference, location-path and trajectory; and the parametric features of displacement, movement, manner, change of place and direction. The result is a classification of eight different verb groups that account for the lexical and syntactic mechanisms present in the encoding of the Spanish motion events.
33
paper MX_ElAnuariodeLetrastxt52 - : Previous typological studies have shown that temporal clauses, unlike other adverbial clauses, can occur before or after the main clause, and this order variation has been observed across languages and within the same language. In the case of Spanish, some studies have found that temporal clauses tend to occur at the beginning of the clause. In this paper, we extend the assumptions of typological studies into the analysis of temporal clauses introduced by cuando ‘when’. Based in used data, we found that the initial position is preferred in oral data, while both positions are equally common in writing data. We examine some semantic, syntactic, and pragmatic motivations that, together, may explain this order variation: the semantic nature of cuando, sequential iconicity, length, and syntactic complexity, as well as pragmatic order .
34
paper PE_Lexistxt78 - : ^14 Linell y colaboradores emplean el término de dominancia semántica; sin embargo, nos parece más adecuado hablar de una dominancia temática al tratarse de una dimensión discursiva. Este tipo es definido como sigue: "In talking about semantic dominance, one would characterize a person as dominant if he or she determined the topics sustained in a discourse, and imposed interpretive perspectives on things talked about" (Linell y Luckmann 1991: 9), y se distingue de otros tres tipos: cuantitativa, interaccional y estratégica .
35
paper PE_Lexistxt63 - : A primary goal of ethnoscience is to abstract general principles of classification and nomenclature from comparative studies of whole semantic domains in a variety of languages and cultures and then to understand cultural diversity against that universalist background [por antecedente universalista se refiere a las categorías semánticas supuestamente universales del pensamiento, como las relaciones de parentesco] . (Hunn 1996: 6)
36
paper UY_ALFALtxt136 - : Osswald, Rainer y Anja Latrouite. 2009. Semantic representation and complement realization: The case of remember revisited, Comunicación presentada en la 10 ^th Role and Reference Grammar International Conference, Berkeley, agosto 2009 . [ [116]Links ]
37
paper UY_ALFALtxt53 - : However, it can be argued that this is a result of a semantic restriction [se refiere a la imposibilidad de 49 ; AS]. The interpretable [person] feature in T forces an inclusive relation with the set defined by the internal nominal. In that sense, the situation is similar to other cases of inclusive relations. ([116]Rodríguez-Mondoñedo 2007: 48)
38
paper UY_ALFALtxt13 - : Despite the importance of linguistic variation for linguistic description, the study of the phenomenon has been almost reduced to the phonetic level in sociolinguistics. Through the analysis of specific lexicography and semantic literature we can distinguish two main reasons to explain the small number of lexical variation research: the theoretical definition of variants and the methodological aspects related to collecting data . However, research carried out at the University of Cadiz shows the prospects and usefulness of this kind of studies.
39
paper UY_ALFALtxt20 - : Within a wider research on syntactic, semantic and discursive features of con + absolute clause constructions ([29]Giammatteo et al. 2006 and [30]2010), in this article we study a particular subset of these: those that refer to a part of the body (con la boca abierta, con las manos atadas, con los pies sobre la tierra, con el rabo entre las piernas). These are structures with varying degrees of lexicalization, whose two constituents, unitarily, display adjective value, and whose internal analysis shows that one of these refers to a body part, while the other adopts modal values or locative-orientational. From a semantic point of view, all these constructions are usually interpreted in a metaphorical sense, which corroborates the postures that hold more abstract meanings derived from basic cognitive experiences: the perception of the body and the relationship with the immediate environment .
40
paper VE_BoletindeLinguisticatxt64 - : 4. TE: A construction is described as a conventional pattern of linguistic structure which is paired with features of interpretation. A construction may thus be specified with respect to lexical, morphological, or syntactic properties, but it will also be provided with semantic and/or pragmatic features of interpretation. The structural part of a construction may involve an assembly of patterns found elsewhere in the language, but in any particular construction the selected patterns are associated with special meaning (semantic, pragmatic, or both). The way in which constructions receive their interpretation is not fully compositional, but the non-predictable semantic and pragmatic information is in fact associated with the formal features of the construction in a conventional way (Dancygier 1998: 5 ).
41
paper VE_BoletindeLinguisticatxt84 - : This diachronic-contrastive study focuses on the syntactic-semantic combinations of donde and PAR (Preposition + (Article) + Relative) structures in XVI-XVIII century Spanish of America and Spain. The linguistic parameters proposed are: i. semantic:Type and function of the antecedent (ANT ), meaning of the relative form, type of verb in the main and subordinate clauses; and ii. syntactic: Presence or absence of preposition in ANT, syntactic category and function of ANT, syntactic function of the relative and type of relative construction. The results show that donde and PAR are not totally equivalent. Instead, the relative forms combine with others linguistic elements according to theirs semantic and syntactic characteristics.
42
paper VE_BoletindeLinguisticatxt45 - : The features that account for the meaning of telic se in sentences like El niño se comió la manzana are not found in the verbal aspect. Instead, we show that se in this construction is a reflexive dative of interest that is associated with the following semantic characteristics: a ) beneficiary/ maleficiary, i.e. the action is performed in favor of or against the referent of the dative; b) possessive, i.e. the referent of the dative is the possessor of the direct object; c) singularity of the agent, i.e. the subject of the construction has full responsibility for the action; d) specificity of the theme, i.e. the direct object has to be specific; e) intentionality, i.e. the subject performs the action willingly. To prove our hypothesis we have analyzed the results obtained from an anonymous questionnaire completed by 32 native Spanish speakers. Findings show that the specificity of the theme is a sufficient condition for the occurrence of se.
43
paper VE_BoletindeLinguisticatxt20 - : This paper examines the prepositional construction with the Spanish verb mirar "to look". The high frequency of the intransitive construction "mirar + locative prepositional phrase (PP)" evidences the affinity between mirar and the semantic field of motion verbs. On the basis of an empirical analysis of authentic text material, light is shed upon the hybrid statute of the locative PPS that occur with mirar. It is shown that, depending on their meaning, these locative PPs take on different syntactic functions. Three semantic categories, which display their own syntactic behaviour, can be distinguished: i ) the dynamic locative PPS that indicate the object of perception or percept (prepositional complement); ii) the dynamic PPs that denote the trajectory or path of gaze (prepositional complement or adjunct) and iii) the static PPS that help localize the perceiver or the percept (adjunct).
44
paper VE_Letrastxt214 - : semantic load: that of being an animal .
45
paper VE_Núcleotxt2 - : Among the diverse factors that condition the election between the forms of the Spanish past imperfect and pluscuamperfect of subjunctive, -ra and -s e, the semantic factor has provoked the greatest controve r s y. The hypothesis of some linguists (among them Lamíquiz, 1971), according to which -se reflects situations less real than ra, is rejected by others, like Pottier (1975), who attributes the value of non-reality to -ra and reality to -se. The analysis made in this article tries to demonstrate that in the written and oral Spanish of Venezuela the forms -ra and -se are semantically equivalent and the selection among them could be justified by the etimology of these forms: the subjunctive origin of -se (< lat . amavissem) favors its use in contexts that are associated to the characteristic values of this verbal mood, such as non-assertion, non-reality and doubt, in contrast to -ra (< lat. amaveram), the modal semantics of which has joined the values of the subjunctive and the indicative.
46
paper corpusLogostxt85 - : En tanto, el tránsito de Hasan, desde Pakistán hasta Edimburgo, luego a Leeds, Londres y, por último, Australia, va desde la literatura a la lingüística, pasando por su trabajo con Bernstein, que sin duda ha resultado un aporte difundido a los estudios lingüísticos y sociales. El análisis del Potencial de Estructura Genérica y el trabajo con cuentos para niños están entre los logros que más destaca la investigadora. Reconoce especialmente, a partir de su trabajo en Macquarie, el aporte de Carmel Cloran y de David Butt. Vale la pena destacar la importancia que le otorga a la pasión docente y al lugar de Bernstein en la investigación educativa. Añade Hasan que el aporte de este sociólogo, si bien muy relevante para las prácticas educativas, ha tenido muy poco impacto en las mismas por razones complejas que no enumera y que dejan al lector con ganas de saber más (consúltese para ello el Volumen 2 de sus obras completas publicadas en 2009, Semantic variation: Meaning in society ).
47
paper corpusRLAtxt217 - : In her literature review, she points out that the following pragmatic strategies and semantic formulas have functions associated with disagreement because of their shared linguistic features: account, challenges, clarification, contradictions, correction, counterclaims, criticism, defense, empathy, evasion, gratitude, irrelevancy claims, justification, partial agreement, positive remarks (or positive statement ), postponement of decision, refraining from expressing opinion, suggestion, and token agreement. Some of these categories may have a questionable label; 'partial agreement', for example, might not be strictly considered a function, but an indirect form of disagreement. Other categories seem to overlap, or do not clearly correspond to possible linguistic functions, such as 'postponement of decision'. Unlike the strategies of disagreement based on the theoretical framework offered by Brown and Levinson ([1978] 1987), such as those of ^[51]Rees-Miller (2000) and ^[52]Xuehua (2006), those
48
paper corpusRLAtxt173 - : Hino, Yasushi; Lupker, Stephen J. y Pexman, Penny M. (2002). Ambiguity and Synonymy Effects in Lexical Decision, Naming, and Semantic Categorization Task: Interactions Between Ortography, Phonology, and Semantics, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 28 .4, 686-713. [ [91]Links ]
49
paper corpusRLAtxt138 - : Gentner, Dedre y Melissa Bowerman. (2009). Why some spatial semantic categories are harder to learn than others: The typological prevalence hypothesis . En Jiansheng Guo, Elena Lieven, Nancy Budwig, Susan Ervin-Tripp, Keiko Nakamura y §eyda Ozçaligkan (eds.), Cognitive approaches to the psychology of language (pp. 465-481). New York: Psychology Press. [ [41]Links ]
50
paper corpusRLAtxt124 - : of its constituents". 'Phraseological unit' is another term that is increasingly used in phraseological research to denote a stable combination of words with a fully or partially figurative meaning (Kunin: 1970: 210), or a lexicalized, reproducible bilexemic or polylexemic word group in common use, which has relative syntactic and semantic stability, may be idiomatized, may carry connotations, and may have an emphatic or intensifying function in a text (Gláser, 1998: 125 ). According to Gláser (1984: 348), phraseological unit is used in some Slavonic and German linguistic traditions as a superordinate term for multi-word lexical items. 'Phraseme' is also used as a superordinate term (e.g., in Mel'cuk, 1995, but also in Slovene phraseological research, e.g, Krzisnik, 2010: 84), though not in the Anglo-American tradition. Other terms also encountered in the phraseological literature are multi-word lexical unit (Cowie, 1992), fixed expression (Moon, 1992a, Svensson, 2008), fixed phrase
51
paper corpusRLAtxt102 - : Goddard further develops Wierzbicka's approach and concludes that the tiger explication “contains many semantically complex words, such as: animal, jungle, cat, black, stripes, yellow, sharp, claws, teeth, kill, zoo, fierce, powerful, afraid… they function as units ('semantic molecules')” (1998: 247 ). Furthermore, semantic molecules are “composed directly of primitive semantic features'” (1998: 255), and can be supported by linguistic evidence such as the following expressions: a game of cat and mouse, a cat-nap, a catfight, etc. (1998: 249). Other semantic molecules are for example:
52
paper corpusRLAtxt102 - : Furthermore, personification is observable as revealed in [32]Table I. We see that the semantic molecule +people ranks high in both languages: No . 1 in Chinese and 2 in Spanish. As just mentioned, if we count the molecule differently, +people will be much higher. Personification is a sentence or an utterance in which an inanimate object or abstract conception is given a human quality or said to perform human-like actions. We will discuss more about personification later.
53
paper corpusRLAtxt102 - : This study focused on hand expressions in Chinese and Spanish. It examined the semantic molecules and underlying conceits of these expressions for which there are several findings: (1 ) +people, +action, and +power are the most significant semantic molecules for hand expressions, (2) body-part expressions tend to combine more than one vehicle in an expression, (3) the most frequently occurring underlying conceits for the generation ofhand expressions are 'behavior' and 'function', and (4) though there are unique underlying conceits in specific languages, the association of the body-part vehicle hand and the meaning of the hand expressions are for the most part the same in both languages (see [37]Table II).
54
paper corpusRLAtxt102 - : The present study supports previous research concerning personification and the holist vs. individualist modes of thinking. Personification is a pervasive linguistic phenomenon that has been examined in various studies (e.g., Hsieh & Chiu, 2004; Chang, 2008; Sun, 2009; Ahrens, 2002; Hsieh, 2009, in press) and is observed in the ¿¿«¿expressions of the present work. The semantic molecule +people ranks high in both languages: No . 1 in Chinese and 2 in Spanish. As part of a body, the vehicle hand gives more than that. It provides a metonymic device that indicates the person who performs whatever is referred to in the expression.
55
paper corpusRLAtxt31 - : A computer program was developed to support psycholinguistic analyses of words elicited in lexical availability tests. By means of an algorithm based on word sequence relations, our program, DispoGrafo, inputs elicited words to automatically generate graphs in which nodes represent words and lines the links between them. Graphs are then interpreted as semantic networks displaying the latent semantic ties underlying the data . The software also allows users to remove weak connections so that only those representing stronger relations remain to ensure a better representation of semantics.
56
paper corpusRLAtxt161 - : Whitney, C., Kirk, M., O'Sullivan, J., Lambon Ralph, M. A. & Jefferies, E. (2011). The Neural Organization of Semantic Control: TMS Evidence for a Distributed Network in Left Inferior Frontal and Posterior Middle Temporal Gyrus . Cerebral Cortex, 21(5), 1066-1075. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhq180 [ [80]Links ]
57
paper corpusRLAtxt157 - : Caponigro, Ivano. (2004). The semantic contribution of wh-words and type shifts: Evidence from free relatives crosslinguistically . En Robert B. Young (Ed.), SALT 14: Proceedings from the 14th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (pp. 38-55). Ithaca, NY, Estados Unidos: CLC Publications. [ [55]Links ]
58
paper corpusRLAtxt111 - : b. Purely Semantic: Use of the incorrect copula with an adjective that changes meaning depending on which copula it appears with . For example, adjective listo means 'ready' if it appears with estar and 'clever' if it appears with ser. A child may utter María es lista 'M. is clever' with ser to mean that 'María is ready' although he/she should have used estar.
59
paper corpusSignostxt417 - : The semantic prosody of the words inmigración and inmigrante in the Spanish written media: A corpus-based study of two national newspapers
60
paper corpusSignostxt417 - : 1.1. The concept of semantic prosody: Origins and perspectives
61
paper corpusSignostxt417 - : Two perspectives towards the study of semantic prosody are distinguished: (i ) the discoursal perspective and (ii) the corpus-based perspective. From the first one, semantic prosody is defined as the evaluative speaker’s intention with regard to a topic, in other words, the individual speaker’s attitude towards a phenomenon in a given text. According to Sinclair (2004a), this is the basic, primary choice of a speaker, and the rest of choices about that item relate to this initial choice. The second perspective, which is corpus-based, consists of analysing items that appear together many times in many texts (Sinclair, 2004a). These two perspectives are two ways of approaching the same phenomenon and can be exemplified by a wider viewpoint, ‘priming’, which is followed by linguists such as Hoey (2005), Xiao and McEnery (2006) or Morley (2007). Indeed, Hoey (2005) states that lexical items carry primings, that is, suggestions on how those items can be used, and prosody is one of these primings.
62
paper corpusSignostxt417 - : According to Whitsitt (2005), semantic prosody is not a univocal concept, but it has been described from three different points of view, which have provided prosody with various nuances: from a diachronic point of view (Louw, 1993 ; Bublitz, 1996) as opposed to a synchronic one (Sinclair, 2003), from a pragmatic perspective (Sinclair, 1996; Stubbs, 1995, 2001b) and, finally, from the point of view of its connection with connotation (Louw, 2000; Partington, 1998, 2004; Hunston, 2002).
63
paper corpusSignostxt417 - : Regarding the diachronic-synchronic axis, according to Stewart (2010), there is a tendency to use both diachronic and synchronic criteria when approaching semantic prosody, without being aware of the differences that each approach involves. As for the diachronic point of view, semantic prosody is defined as an attached meaning or as a meaning which is transferred from one word to another during the course of time (Stewart, 2010). In his critical evaluation of semantic prosody, Stewart (2010) summarizes how this phenomenon has been approached within a diachronic framework, where we can find a wide range of metaphors describing semantic prosody as a meaning transferable to an item over time:
64
paper corpusSignostxt417 - : Although numerous scholars have defined and described semantic prosody from a diachronic perspective, only a few of them have carried out strict diachronic analyses. On the contrary, most authors have adopted a synchronic point of view, despite “briefly introducing and defining semantic prosody as the result of a diachronic phenomenon” (Stewart, 2010: 55 ).
65
paper corpusSignostxt417 - : As opposed to the diachronic orientation, we have adopted a synchronic approach which sees semantic prosody as an extending meaning, that is to say, as a feature which characterizes a group of items rather than a single item. Understood in synchronic terms, semantic prosody refers, as Stubbs (2001a: 65 ) points out, to “a feature which extends over more than one unit in a linear string”. In this sense, semantic prosody is described as a meaning which “belongs to or is distributed over a unit of language” (Stewart, 2010: 53), ranging over several units or combinations of words (Sinclair, 2003). Our analysis therefore focuses on semantic prosody as a synchronic process in which the meaning is extended over groups of words.
66
paper corpusSignostxt417 - : Nonetheless, Bednarek (2008) warns that semantic prosody cannot always be identified as a pragmatic element. The author continues explaining that collocational clashes can only result in pragmatic meanings when items exhibit “a very strong preference” (Bednarek, 2008: 127) for negative or positive meanings. Consequently, we have to bear in mind that semantic prosody is not a “pragmatic backdrop” (Sorli, 2013: 108 ). In Sorli’s words, it has to be understood as “a result of empirically identifiable elements of the meaning structure” (Sorli, 2013: 108).
67
paper corpusSignostxt417 - : Louw (2000) amplifies his definition of semantic prosody as ‘aura of meaning’ and considers it as something distinguishable from connotation. In the context of semantic prosody, connotation is understood as evaluative meaning. Connotation is frequently identified as semantic prosody (Sinclair, 2003). Thus, connotation and semantic prosody can be closely related but they should be considered different phenomena. Connotation is more obvious and consistent, as well as related to individual items, whereas semantic prosody is less evident and more prone to changing with context:
68
paper corpusSignostxt417 - : Semantic prosody should not be confused with semantic preference, although the terms are closely related (Partington, 2004; O’ Halloran, 2007; Bednarek, 2008). Scholars such as Sorli (2013), Hoey (2005) or Philip (2009) argue that meaning is structured on different levels of abstraction, semantic prosody being the most abstract, followed by what they call semantic preference. In Sorli’s words (2013), semantic preference is to be distinguished from semantic prosody. Although neither is directly observable, the former “can be stated upon the examination of the preferred lexis” (Sorli, 2013: 101). Within Sinclair’s model (2004a: 33), semantic preference refers to the words an item co-occurs with, since “some words prefer, or even require, a semantic profile of the words with which they combine” (Dam-Jensen & Zethsen, 2008: 206 ). Semantic prosody, however, refers to relations that involve evaluative meaning or evaluative prosodic patterns. Therefore, according to Partington (2004), it could be
69
paper corpusSignostxt417 - : The semantic prosody of a lexical item is commonly classified in three different categories: positive, negative and neutral . Other evaluative labels have been used in the literature: favourable and unfavourable, desirable and undesirable, pleasant and unpleasant. Indeed, Xiao and McEnery (2006: 108) point out that:
70
paper corpusSignostxt417 - : Thus, intuition and introspection may not be enough, but that does not mean that they should be discarded. In fact, Stewart (2010) suggests that there is no empirical evidence that semantic prosody cannot be intuitively or introspectively reached. This author advocates for a role of intuition and introspection in the study of semantic prosody: “[…] we should perhaps think twice before stigmatizing intuition and introspection as inaccurate and unreliable by comparison with corpus data” (Stewart, 2010: 134 ). The author continues explaining that corpus searches and finds do not simply happen, but are triggered by “moments of intuition and introspection” (Stewart, 2010: 135).
71
paper corpusSignostxt417 - : Nonetheless, the two perspectives developed above do not have to oppose each other. McEnery and Wilson (2001) do not consider intuition and the corpus-based approach mutually exclusive but complementary. Zhang (2013) does not question this idea but he highlights that semantic prosody is less accessible only through intuition, and computation would contribute to a better and more complete approach towards semantic prosody: “it is computational research and corpus linguistics that make it possible to highlight its existence” (Zhang, 2013: 64 ).
72
paper corpusSignostxt417 - : The linguistic results obtained here are in the line of different sociological studies on the phenomenon of immigration. Thus, the last sociological study about immigration published by the CIS (Spanish Centre of Sociological Research) in 2011 explored the Spanish people’s attitudes towards this phenomenon. It reveals that over 8% of the population considers immigration the biggest problem of the country, even more serious than gender violence, drugs or corruption. These data are interesting given the fact that the big economic crisis in which we are immersed had already started in 2011. According to the CIS, over 60% think that immigrants receive a lot of help or enough help and protection on the part of the government. The negative semantic prosody shown by our results and therefore mirrored by linguistic behaviour is in line with the answer to one of the CIS questions: what is the first thing that comes to your mind when you hear the word immigration ? Up to 43% of the respondents’
73
paper corpusSignostxt517 - : Shirai, Y. (2014). Semantic bias and morphological regularity in the acquisition of tense-aspect morphology: What is the relation ? Linguistics [en línea]. Disponible en: [125]https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2010.005 [ [126]Links ]
74
paper corpusSignostxt577 - : It is also worth noting that complex NP structures occur in simple syntactic patterns (e.g. Subject-Verb-Subject Predicative) and convey semantic meanings in a very concrete way:
75
paper corpusSignostxt192 - : CLG rules are organized into two components: the semantic component and the form component. The semantic component contains two different subtypes complying with the implication (4i): system network rules (SNRs ), and same pass preference resetting rules (SPRs). The form component contains three subtypes of realization rule (RR) which also comply with (4i): realization rules proper and graphological rules^[29]5. The set of all CLG rules allow for the generation of linguistic representations like Diagram 3. Let us now elaborate on the distinctive traits of each subtype.
76
paper corpusSignostxt453 - : In FrameNet there are two main units of analysis: i.e. frames and lexical units. A frame is a schematic representations of a situation type (^[66]Fillmore, Petruck & Wright, 2003b), which can be defined in terms of participants and their functions. Frames are evoked by a set of lexical units (i.e. words taken in one of their senses). This means that, as much as it is done in FunGramKB, the separate senses of a polysemous word are connected to different semantic frames/concepts. Additionally, FrameNet supplies valence information, which is specified both semantically and syntactically via the following elements: (i )frame elements (i.e. the entities taking part in the situation depicted by a given frame), and (ii) phrase types (e.g. NP, PP, etc.) and their corresponding grammatical functions (Subject, Object, etc.) (Fillmore, Johnson & Petruck, 2003a). Consider the case of the verbal predicate 'tear', which evokes the ‘Cause to fragment’ frame, i.e. 'An Agent suddenly and often violently
77
paper corpusSignostxt453 - : The semantic description of these realizations in terms of COREL can be literally paraphrased as follows: ‘The hearer is not doing something in a given situation or scene . As a result, the speaker tells the hearer to do (this) something (that he is not doing) because the speaker thinks that this could be beneficial for the hearer’.
78
paper corpusSignostxt453 - : * a. Semantic description: ‘The speaker thinks that he can do something beneficial for the hearer . The hearer may accept the speaker’s proposal’.
79
paper corpusSignostxt453 - : * a. Semantic description: ‘The speaker says that he can do something beneficial for the hearer . The hearer may accept the speaker’s proposal’.
80
paper corpusSignostxt453 - : * a. Semantic description: The speaker thinks that he can do something beneficial for the hearer . The hearer may accept the speaker’s proposal and participate in the bringing about of such a proposal.
81
paper corpusSignostxt453 - : ^3Because RRG is a monostratal theory, syntax and semantics are directly linked without abstract syntactic representations or deep structures. In RRG, there is only one level of representation from the semantic representation of a clause or logical structure to the actual order of constituents. Thus, the theory poses a linking algorithm that contains a number of principles that “illustrate the workings of the syntax-semantics-pragmatics interface” (^[169]Van Valin, 2005: 128 ). One of the distinguishing properties of the RRG linking algorithm is the fact that it is bidirectional, that is, it connects the semantic and syntactic representations as well as the syntactic and semantic representations.
82
paper corpusSignostxt252 - : These investigations have brought about the study of the distinctive element of the hypertext, namely, the link. Lewis et al. (1999) explored the history of links and drew a distinction between navigation and retrieval in information handling. Hammerich and Harrison (2002) studied the nature of the semantic relationships and rhetorical principles underlying link development and proposed a classification of link types from business websites for researchers and Web production teams . However, to the best of our knowledge, no study has been carried out concerning the characteristics of links in popular science hyperarticles.
83
paper corpusSignostxt252 - : Hyperlinks are the elements that define web-based texts and allow multiple texts to be connected. These connections make the web a different medium of communication by relating a text to another text, a text to a song, a text to a graphic, establishing "...a relationship that is semantic by nature and rhetorical by purpose" (Harrison, 2006:9 ). In the 1980s, links were designed and created by the author of the hypertext and were permanently fixed to the documents they referred to. However, links have evolved in a variety of ways and achieved their popularity on the Internet. In some systems links are held in link databases separately from the document to which they refer (Lewis, 1999). The evolution of the links brought about a vast classification of hyperlinks according to different and varied criteria. For instance, Lewis et al. (1999) classify them according to the hypermedia system design as static, i.e., point-to-point connections that are fixed and embedded in a hypertext and dynamic,
84
paper corpusSignostxt184 - : The term appraisal will be used here for the semantic resources used to negotiate emotions, judgements, and evaluations, alongside resources for amplifying and engaging with these evaluations (Martin, 2003: 145 ).
85
paper corpusSignostxt217 - : The one-student-one-tutor is coupled to one-tutor-more-students, whereas one-room-one-bath is coupled with one-bath-one-room. Only interpretation could prevent the integration of incorrect propositions. The different meanings cannot be pointed out in a simple propositional representation. Again, a formal semantic representation in underlying events does offer a solution for the multiple quantifer problem:
86
paper corpusSignostxt375 - : Casanovas, P., Casellas, N. & Vallbé, J. (2009). An ontology-based decision support system for judges. En J. Breuker, P. Casanovas, M. Klein & E. Francesconi (Eds.), Law, ontologies and the Semantic Web: Channelling the legal information flood (pp . 165-175). Ámsterdam: IOS Press. [ [73]Links ]
87
paper corpusSignostxt375 - : Francesconi, E. & Tiscornia, D. (2008). Building semantic resources for legislative drafting: The DALOS Project . En P. Casanovas, G. Sartor, R. Rubino & N. Casellas (Eds.), Computable Models of the Law, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 56-70). Berlín-Heidelberg: Springer. [ [86]Links ]
88
paper corpusSignostxt375 - : Gangemi, A., Sagri, M. & Tiscornia, D. (2005). A constructive framework for legal ontologies. En V. R. Benjamins, P. Casanovas, J. Breuker & A. Gangemi (Eds.), Law and the Semantic Web: Legal ontologies, methodologies, legal information retrieval, and applications (pp . 97-124). Berlín-Heidelberg: Springer. [ [90]Links ]
89
paper corpusSignostxt375 - : Saias, J. & Quaresma, P. (2003). A methodology to create legal ontologies in a logic programming information retrieval system. En V. R. Benjamins, P. Casanovas, J. Breuker & A. Gangemi (Eds.), Law and the Semantic Web: Legal Ontologies, Methodologies, Legal Information Retrieval, and Applications (pp . 185-200). Berlín-Heidelberg: Springer. [ [116]Links ]
90
paper corpusSignostxt158 - : En LSF, el lenguaje es funcional en tres sentidos distintos aunque estrechamente relacionados: en su interpretación de los textos, del sistema, y de los elementos de las estructuras lingüísticas. La teoría es funcional en el sentido de que está diseñada para dar cuenta de cómo se usa el lenguaje (Halliday, 1994: xiii). Pero en un sentido más estricto, el concepto de función es interno al lenguaje: "In other words, function will be interpreted not just as the use of language but as a fundamental property of language itself, something that is basic to the evolution of the semantic system" (Halliday, 1989: 17 ).
91
paper corpusSignostxt158 - : "The system network is a theory about language as a resource for making meaning. Each system in the network represents a choice: not a conscious decision made in real time but a set of possible alternatives, like statement/question or singular/plural or falling tone/rising tone. These may be semantic, lexicogrammatical or phonological" (Halliday, 1994: xxvi ).
92
paper corpusSignostxt545 - : The decreased performance of Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) patients in semantic tasks is related to the progressive loss of the semantic attributes underlying category representation . The present study examined the extent to which semantic tasks focused on the ‘living beings’ category are affected as a function of the type of semantic relation between the nodes and the degree of cognitive impairment associated to AD. One hundred and eight volunteer participants from the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires, Argentina (Age M = 71 years old, SD = 6, Education M = 10 years old, SD = 5) completed a true-false sentence verification task. The task evaluated three types of semantic relation: taxonomic, part-whole and evaluative. The sample was divided into four groups, based on their cognitive performance: controls (n = 27), mild cognitive impairment or MCI (n = 50), mild AD (n = 36) and moderate AD (n = 14). The results showed decreased performance in false statements and greater impairment of the
93
paper corpusSignostxt183 - : This paper uses Systemic-Functional theory to explain the semantic motivations underlying the different uses of the clitic 'se' in Spanish, as shown in the folloging examples: (1 ) Se venden libros (books for sale); (2) Se vende libros (books for sale); (3) Pedro se cortó (Peter cut himself); (4) Pedro y María se miraron (Peter and Mary looked at each other); (5) Se ha roto el vaso (the glass has broken); (6) Pedro se ha ido (Peter has left). The assignment of experiential functions to 'se' will allow us to appreciate the differences and points in common in the various uses of this pronoun, thus providing a rationalization with important practical consequences. Among these, the possible contribution to second language teaching, both facilitating the understanding of complex issues, like the uses of 'se' in Spanish, and allowing the design of proficiency-oriented syllabuses that favour the teaching of languages in a meaningful way through the understanding of their uses. This way,
94
paper corpusSignostxt500 - : FunGramKB is grounded on two robust and complementary linguistic models: (i) the projectionist model of Role and Reference Grammar (RRG)^[39]^2 (^[40]Van Valin & LaPolla, 1997; Van Valin, 2005), which provides the knowledge base with some basic assumptions related to the linking algorithm for the merging of lexical structures into constructional configurations (for example, Aktionsart ascription, macrorole assignment, status of variables, or logical structures, to name but a few); and (ii) the Lexical Constructional Model (LCM) (^[41]Mairal & Ruiz de Mendoza-Ibáñez, 2008; ^[42]Ruiz de Mendoza-Ibáñez & Mairal, 2008; ^[43]Ruiz de Mendoza-Ibáñez, 2013; ^[44]Ruiz de Mendoza-Ibáñez & Galera, 2014), which contributes to providing a layered structure of meaning construction that has helped to “fully integrate constructional meaning into RRG to deepen semantic processing” (^[45]Periñán-Pascual, 2013: 206 ). The LCM also offers a notion of construction that is more adequate for the computational
95
paper corpusSignostxt500 - : In the last step in the parsing process, the CLS has to be automatically transduced into “a purely semantic conceptual representation in COREL” (^[61]Fumero & Díaz, 2017: 37 ). COREL (Conceptual Representation Language) is the machine-readable metalanguage that is used in the conceptual semantic representation of CLSs “that serves as the input for the reasoning engine” (^[62]Van Valin & Mairal 2014: 217), as shown below in the COREL scheme for the L1-locative construction that appears in the Grammaticon module in FunGramKB:
96
paper corpusSignostxt598 - : 5. “Modality is the semantic category associated with the basic human cognitive ability of thinking that things might be otherwise, that is thinking of alternatives: situations other than what is the case . Modality refers generally to the linguistic means that allow “one to say things about , or on the basis of, situations which need not be real” (^[39]Portner, 2009: 1, emphasis is ours). (^[40]Rocci, 2017: 3)
97
paper corpusSignostxt322 - : Summaries assessment in Spanish using Latent Semantic Analysis: A possible implementation
98
paper corpusSignostxt336 - : Semantic relations between collocations: A Spanish case study
99
paper corpusSignostxt336 - : There are cases in which a given lexical function represents one elementary meaning, as Oper, Func, Real, for which we have explained their meanings and listed examples. More functions representing elementary meanings have been discovered: Labor (Lat. laborare, to work, toil), Incep (Lat. incipere, to begin), Cont (Lat. continuare, to continue), Fin (Lat. finire, to cease), Caus (Lat. causare, to cause), Perm (Lat. permittere, to permit), Liqu (Lat. liquidare, to liquidate), etc. But there are still more cases when the verb’s semantic content in verb-noun collocations is complex and includes several elementary meanings. For example, consider the semantics of ‘begin to realize an action or begin to manifest an attribute’ from [31]Table 2, which consists of two elements:‘begin’ and ‘realize / manifest’ .To represent such compound meanings, complex lexical functions are used, those being combinations of elementary lexical functions, termed ‘simple lexical functions’. All lexical functions
100
paper corpusSignostxt336 - : The fact that the semantic aspect of collocation outweighs the statistical one has an important effect on the definition of collocations. Definition of a concept must contain necessary and sufficient criteria for distinguishing this concept from other concepts. The debate over the most relevant criterion for defining collocations has already lasted over a long period. Should this criterion be statistical or semantic? (Wanner, 2004) gives a good concise overview of this debate.The statistical definition of collocation, i.e. based on probabilistic knowledge, says that collocation is the syntagmatic association of lexical items, quantifiable, textually, as the probability that there will occur, at n removes (a distance of n lexical items) from an item x, the items a, b, c ... (Halliday, 1961). The semantic definition of collocation explains how the collocational meaning is formed: a collocation is a combination of two words in which the semantics of the base is autonomous from the combination
101
paper corpusSignostxt546 - : Lexical-semantic ability in Alzheimer’ disease: A study of verbal fluency with semantic categories
102
paper corpusSignostxt546 - : Language impairments in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) primarily affect lexical and semantic levels, which significantly depend on the speaker’s memory state. Qualitative shifts in semantic memory are due to neurodegenerative processes underlying dementia and give rise to anomia, or the speaker’s inability to access and retrieve lexical units and their conceptual backgrounds . In this paper we aim at studying cognitive and semantic features of anomic deficit in AD and exploring the possibility to apply them in tests for early detection of dementia. For that purpose, we analyze the results from our experimental version of a classical test on semantic verbal fluency (SemVF) with non-pathological aged persons, persons with Mild Cognitive Impairment and persons with AD. The experimental version of the test introduces a division into four 15-minute intervals, in order to find out which processes of semantic access, either automatic or controlled, are impaired in different cognitive states of the
103
paper corpusSignostxt546 - : Joubert, S., Vallet, G. T., Montembeault, M., Boukadi, M., Wilson, M. A., Laforce, R. J., Rouleau, I. & Brambati, S. M. (2017). Comprehension of concrete and abstract words in semantic variant of primary progressive aphasia and Alzheimer’s disease: A behavioural and neuroimaging study . Brain and Language, 170, 93-102. [ [150]Links ]
104
paper corpusSignostxt546 - : Montembeault, M., Brambati, S. M., Joubert, S., Boukadi, M., Chapleau, M., Laforce, R. J., Wilson, M. A., Macoir, J. & Rouleau, I. (2017). Naming unique entities in the semantic variant of primary progressive aphasia and Alzheimer’s disease: Towards a better understanding of the semantic impairment . Neuropsychologia, 95, 11-20. [ [162]Links ]
105
paper corpusSignostxt546 - : Raboutet, C., Sauzéon, H., Corsini, M. M., Rodrigues, J., Langevin, S. & N’Kaoua, B. (2010). Performance on a semantic verbal fluency task across time: Dissociation between clustering, switching and categorical exploitation processes . Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 32, 268-280. [ [168]Links ]
106
paper corpusSignostxt546 - : Raoux, N., Amieva, H., Le Goff, M., Auriacombe, S., Carcaillon, L., Letenneur, L. & Dartigues, J. F. (2008). Clustering and switching processes in semantic verbal fluency in the course of Alzheimer’s disease subjects: results from the PAQUID longitudinal study . Cortex, 44(9), 1188-1196. [ [170]Links ]
107
paper corpusSignostxt546 - : Vita, M. G., Marra, C., Spinelli, P., Caprara, A., Scaricamazza, E., Castelli, D., Canulli, S., Gainotti, G. & Quaranta, D. (2014). Typicality of words produced on a semantic fluency task in amnesic mild cognitive impairment: Linguistic analysis and risk of conversion to dementia . Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, 42(4), 1171-1178. [ [189]Links ]
108
paper corpusSignostxt319 - : Like other linguists (Fernández-Leborans, 1999; Porroche, 1990; Camacho, 1997; Luján, 1981), Schmitt (1992, 1996, 2005) has argued that the difference between ser and estar lies in their aspectual properties. For Schmitt (1992) the two copulas are semantically distinct: while ser is underspecified for aspect, estar is specified for aspectual properties . Ser is interpreted as a state that does not contribute any semantic content. Hence, it does not allow temporal interpretations unless aspectual operators such as ahora ´now´ are added. For example consider the pair in (32):
109
paper corpusSignostxt319 - : 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
110
paper corpusSignostxt283 - : Within this framework, Appraisal has been defined as " [...] the semantic resources used to negotiate emotions, judgments and valuations, alongside resources for amplifying and engaging with these evaluations" (Martin, 2000: 145 ). This theory was developed with the main purpose of analyzing the resources of intersubjective stance (White, 2003a) and to trace:
111
paper corpusSignostxt181 - : Lexical-semantic similarity in scientific research articles in Spanish: An approach to Latent Semantic Analysis
112
paper corpusSignostxt463 - : This paper is part of a comprehensive study on the psycholinguistic processing of causality and counter-causality in discourse. The particular aim is to analyze the articulation between the semantic and syntactic information during this process. That is, how the syntactic complexity is related to the processing complexity when readers have to understand pieces of discourse that express particular semantic relationships: causal and counter-causal . One of the main objectives will be to study how the performance pattern changes when the possibility / impossibility to involve world knowledge conditions the process. We present a psycholinguistic experiment, which aims at analyzing the comprehension of causal and counter-causal relations, expressed by sentences with different syntactic structure -coordinates and subordinates- and in two conditions regarding the type of information: every-day items -the speaker may involve their world knowledge- and technical items -this intervention of previous
113
paper corpusSignostxt124 - : Latent Semantic Analysis: an Overview of its Development
114
paper corpusSignostxt282 - : Within this framework, Appraisal has been defined as " [...] the semantic resources used to negotiate emotions, judgments and valuations, alongside resources for amplifying and engaging with these evaluations" (Martin, 2000: 145 ). This theory was developed with the main purpose of analyzing the resources of intersubjective stance (White, 2003a) and to trace:
115
paper corpusSignostxt382 - : Raskin is credited with a significant contribution to the notion of ‘script’, a central concept of the Semantic Script Theory of Humour (SSTH). The script is defined as a cognitive structure that "represents the native speaker’s knowledge of a small part of the world" and contains semantic information about a word or information evoked by it. Formally, it can be represented by "a graph with lexical nodes and semantic links between the nodes" (Raskin, 1985: 81 ). The scripts store encyclopaedic information and express approximations of reality.
116
paper corpusSignostxt317 - : “[…] represented by others means, for instance, by abstract nouns or by concrete nouns whose meaning do not include the semantic feature ‘human’” (Van Leeuwen, 2008: 46 ).
117
paper corpusSignostxt206 - : La coexistencia de enfoques acerca de la cognición, que en algunos casos ha dado como resultado modelos de comprensión híbridos (Kintsch, 1988, 1998), también puede advertirse en el trabajo de Rolf Zwaan. En este caso particular, la confluencia de diversos enfoques está presente, en forma relativamente explícita y clara. En su primera versión, el Modelo de In-dexación de Eventos (Zwaan, Langston & Graesser, 1995) plantea un formato de representación no definido claramente. En esta propuesta, the semantic meaning representation, the text base, is conceived of as a propositional network (Zwaan, Langston & Graesser, 1995: 292), pero al mismo tiempo se sostiene que the strength of the link between two memory nodes coding for story events is a function of the number of shared situational indexes (Zwaan, Langston & Graesser, 1995: 293 ).
118
paper corpusSignostxt176 - : Latent Semantic Analysis:
119
paper corpusSignostxt176 - : El LSA (del inglés Latent Semantic Analysis) es un tipo de análisis computacional que permite determinar y cuantificar la similitud semántica entre piezas textuales -sean palabras, documentos o palabras y documentos- de un corpus de textos pertenecientes a un mismo dominio de conocimiento . Para ello, el sistema computacional del LSA sigue un algoritmo matemático que tiene como centro a la técnica de factorización lineal conocida como descomposición de valores singulares (SVD, sigla del inglés Singular Value Decomposition), a partir de la cual se genera una representación vectorial del corpus o espacio semántico en cuya conformación y posterior utilización reconocemos dos supuestos lingüísticos acerca del significado: (1) el significado es contextualmente dependiente y (2) en el uso contextual hay relaciones de similitud semántica que están latentes.
120
paper corpusSignostxt396 - : The corpus key words classified into semantic sub-fields of project management:
121
paper corpusSignostxt494 - : Analytical and Holistic Approaches Influence the Semantic Integration: Evidence from the N400 effect
122
paper corpusSignostxt313 - : Examples of semantic calques in professional lexis may be found in the terminology of computer science (and some in business terminology), but it is important to point out that they are not very specialized terms and some of them are used in parallel to their foreign counterpart: a aplica (Engl . to apply), a descarca un fisier (Engl. to download a file), a licentia^[34]10 (Engl. to licence), a naviga (Engl. to surf), a opera (Engl. to operate), provocare (Engl. challenge), portofoliu de produse (Engl. product portfolio), promotie (Engl. promotion), virus (Engl. virus), vierme, (Engl. worm)^[35]11, etc.
123
paper corpusSignostxt400 - : In a specific context of use, a given pronominal clitic or verb ending realizes a constellation of semantic features pertaining to six semantic categories: ‘thematic’ ‘status’, ‘number’, ‘gender’, ‘person’, ‘deixis’ and ‘case’ (García, 1975 ). Each of these systems comprises either two or three semantic features. Now, a given clitic or verb ending used in a specific context will realize ‘only one’ of the features included in each system (see below for an explanation). Thus, the basic semantic relationships for Spanish pronominal clitics and verb endings must be represented with downward unordered ‘or’ nodes as shown in Figure 5.
124
paper corpusSignostxt400 - : Now, the networks in Figures 7 and 8 do not operate separately; rather, activation flows travel through them at the same time in the processing of a given sentence. In this sense, Figure 9 illustrates the integration of both networks –only the semantic connections of the clitic se are included, lest the network proves unintelligible due to the inclusion of too many lines .
125
paper corpusSignostxt400 - : Third, the networks formalize a connectionist account of morphotactics which does away with rules, transformations, displacement operations, and other constructs of questionable cognitive plausibility (Lamb, 1999). The present model characterizes the morphotactics of clitics and verb endings by virtue of connections and flows of activation traveling along those connections. Consequently, the semantic, morphotactic, and morphological representations of both systems are processed by the same type of cognitive mechanism: flows of dynamic signals leading to the concerted activation of specific patterns of nodes . As regards the systems’ morphotactics, what determines the relative order of the representations in sentence processing is the specific pattern of sequential and disjunctive connections in the morphotactic network. In such a network, the activation of each ordered ‘and’ node triggers multiple obligatory sequential connections, whereas ‘or’ nodes lead to several paradigmatic options
126
paper corpusSignostxt510 - : “If the denotation of one sense of a lexical item is "dependent" on another, then that dependency is part of the semantic representation of that lexical item. A familiar example is father or mother, where the relational nature must be part of the semantics of the noun” (^[132]Pustejovsky & Anick, 1988: 519 ).
127
paper corpusSignostxt408 - : Visual recognition and semantic categorization of novel words in English as a foreign language ( L2): The role of incidental reading and vocabulary exercises
Evaluando al candidato semantic:
2) lexical: 34 (*)
3) prosody: 33 (*)
6) syntactic: 26 (*)
9) linguistic: 22 (*)
12) speaker: 15 (*)
14) cognitive: 14 (*)
16) verb: 14 (*)
20) pragmatic: 13 (*)
semantic
Lengua: eng
Frec: 1567
Docs: 532
Nombre propio: 23 / 1567 = 1%
Coocurrencias con glosario: 8
Puntaje: 8.725 = (8 + (1+7.4262647547021) / (1+10.6147098441152)));
Candidato aceptado
Referencias bibliográficas encontradas sobre cada término
(Que existan referencias dedicadas a un término es también indicio de terminologicidad.)| semantic |
: Tulving, E. 1972. Episodic and Semantic Memory. In: Tulving, E. & Donaldson, W. (Eds.), Organization of Memory. New York: Academic Press. : ------------.1999. "Idiom comprehension in children: Are the effects of semantic analysability and context separable?". European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 11, 1, 51-66. : ----. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structures in lexical forms. Language typology and syntactic description, 3(99), 36-149. : 1. Arce Arenales, Manuel. 1989. Semantic structure and syntactic function: The case of Spanish "se". Tesis doctoral. Boulder, CO: Universidad de Colorado. : 13. Kempson, Ruth. 1977. Semantic theory. Londres: Cambridge University Press. : 14. Krifka, Manfred. 2003. [En línea]. Semantic and pragmatic conditions for the dative alternation. Disponible en: www.amor.rz.hu-berling.de/ssh2816i3x [Consulta: 10 de junio de 2004]. : 15. Wolfe, M. B. W., Magliano, J. P., & Larsen, B. (2005). Causal and semantic relatedness in discourse understanding and representation. Discourse Processes, 39(2/3), 165. : 16.Papafragou, Anna. 1998 a. The acquisition of modality. Implication for a theory of semantic representation. Mind and Language 13. 370-399. : 18. Hovy, E. H. (2002). Comparing sets of semantic relations in ontologies. En Green, R., Bean, C.A. y Myaeng, S. H. (Eds.), The Semantics of Relationships: An Interdisciplinary Perspective (pp. 91-110). Dordrecht: Kluwer. : 18. Nida, E. (1975). Componential Analysis of Meaning. An Introduction to Semantic Structures. París, Francia: Mouton. : 20. León Araúz, P. y Faber, P. (2010). Natural and contextual constraints. Workshop on semantic relations. Theory and applications. Malta, mayo. : 23. Levin, Beth y Malka Rappaport Hovav. 2002. The semantic determinants of argument expression: A view from the English resultative construction. En Jacqueline Guéron y Jacqueline Lecarme (eds.), The syntax of time, 477-494. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. : 26. Mel'cuk, Igor (1988). Semantic description or lexical units in an explanatory combinatorial dictionary. Basic principles and heuristic criteria. International Journal of Lexicography, 1 (3), 165-188. : 26. Murphy, L. M. (2003). Semantic Relations and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. : 27. Jackendoff, R. (1972) Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. journals.cambridge.org/production/action/cjoGetFulltext?fulltextid : 27. Raskin, r. y Pan,M. (2003). Semantic Web for Earth and Environmental Terminology (SWEET). Proceedings of the Workshop on Semantic Web Technologies for Searching and Retrieving Scientific Data (SCISW). Sanibel Island, Florida. : 3. Harris, Zellig. 1982. Discourse and sublanguage. En Richard Kittredge y John Lehrberger (eds.), Sublanguages: Studies on language in restricted semantic domains, 231-236. Berlín: Walter de Gruyter. : 30. Sure, Y. y Studer, R. (2003). A methodology for ontology-based knowledge management. En Davis, J. Fensel, D. y Harmelen, F. van (Eds.). Towards the Semantic Web. Ontology-Driven Knowledge Management. Londres: John Wiley & Sons. : 4. Erickson, T., & Mattson, M. (1981). From words to meaning: A semantic illusion. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 540–551. : 41. Gyõri, G. (2000). Semantic change as linguistic interpretation of the world. En S. Niemeyer y R. Dirven (Eds.), Evidence for Linguistic Relativity (pp. 71-89). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. : 42. Gyõri, G. (2002). Semantic change and cognition. Cognitive Linguistics, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, XIII, 2, 123-166. : 5. Boas, H. (2005). Semantic frames as interlingual representations for multilingual lexical databases. International Journal of Lexicography, 18: 445-478. : 50. Stubbs, M. (2007). Collocations and Semantic Profiles: on the Cause of the Trouble with Quantitative Studies. In: W. Teubert, & R. Krishnamurthy, Corpus Linguistics: Critical Concepts in Linguistics. Londres e Nova Iorque: Routledge. : 8. Faber, P., León Araúz, P., Prieto Velasco, J. A. (2008). Semantic relations, dynamicity and terminological knowledge bases. Proceedings of the XVIII FIT World Congress. Shanghai. : 8. Friederich, P. (1972). Social context and semantic feature: The Russian pronominal usage. En J. Gumperz y D. Hymes (Comps.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication (pp. 270-300). Nueva York: Holt Rinehart and Winston. : 9. Chomsky, N. (1971) Deep structure, surface structure and semantic interpretation. In semantic, Interdisciplinary Ready in Linguistic, Philosophy and Psychology. ed. D. Steinberg and L. Jakobovits, 183-216. Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press. : 9. Dowty, David. 1977. Towards a semantic analysis of verb aspect and the English imperfective progressive. Linguistics and Philosophy 1. 45-77. : Abad, M.J., Noguera, C. y Ortells, J.J. (2003). Influence of prime-target relationship on semantic priming effects from words in a lexical-decision task.Acta Psychologica, 113, 283-295. : Alarcón, Rodrigo; Sierra, Gerardo;Aguilar, César y Bach, Carme. (2008). Definitional verbal patterns for semantic relation extraction. Terminology, 14(1), 74-98. : Alcaraz-Mármol, G. & Soto Almela, J. (2016). The semantic prosody of the words inmigración and inmigrante in the Spanish written media: A corpus-based study of two national newpapers. Revista Signos. Estudios de Lengüística, 49(91), 145-167. : Along the same lines, Stubbs (2001a) underlines the pragmatic and discourse function of semantic prosody, so he prefers the term ‘discourse prosody’. In fact, Stubbs (2001a: 65) underlines the attitudinal nature of semantic prosody by stating that: : Anderson, S. R. (1971). On the role of deep structure on semantic interpretation. Foundations of Language, 7, 387-396. : Angwin, A. J., Chenery, H. J., Copland, D. A., Arnott, W. L., Grattan, R., Murdoch, B. E., & Silburn, P. A. (2006). Priming of semantic features in Parkinson’s disease. Brain and Language, 99(1-2), 102-103. : Ardila, A. (1998). Semantic paralexias in spanish language. Aphasiology, 12, 885-900. : Arroyo-Anlló, E. V., Bellouard, S., Ingrand, P. & Gil, R. (2011). Effects of automatic/controlled access processes on semantic memory in Alzheimer’s disease. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, 25(3), 525-533. : Attardo, S. (2001a). Humorous texts: A semantic and pragmatic analysis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. : Balota, David A. & Coane, Jennifer H. (2008). Semantic Memory. En J. H. Byrne, H. Eichenbaum, R. Menzel, H. L. Roediger III & D. Sweatt (eds.), Handbook of learning and memory: A comprehensive reference (pp. 512-531). Amsterdam: Elsevier. : Barnden, J.A. (1995). Semantic networks. En M.A. Arbib (Ed.), The Handbook of Brian Theory and Neural Networks (pp. 854-857). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. : Barsalou, L. W. (1992). Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields. En A. Lehrer & E.F. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, Fields and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization (pp. 21-74). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. : Basile, P., Caputo, A. & Semeraro, G. (2014). An enhanced lesk word sense disambiguation algorithm through a distributional semantic model. Proceedings of COLING 2014, the 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers (pp. 1591-1600). : Bednarek, M. (2008). Semantic preference and semantic prosody re-examined. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 4(2), 119-139. : Benítez Castro, M. A. (2013). Formal, syntactic, semantic and textual features of English shell nouns. Tesis doctoral, Universidad de Granada, Granada, España. : Bergmann, K., Aksu, V. & Kopp, S. (2011). The relation of speech and gestures: Temporal Synchrony Follows Semantic Synchrony. Ponencia presentada en el 2nd Workshop on Gesture and Speech in Interaction, Bielefeld, Alemania. : Bickel, B. (1997). Aspectual scope and the difference between logical and semantic representation. Lingua, 102, 115-131. : Binder, J. R., Desai, R. H., Graves, W. W. & Conant, L. L. (2009). Where Is the Semantic System? A Critical Review and Meta-Analysis of 120 Functional Neuroimaging Studies. Cerebral Cortex, 19(12), 2767-2796. doi:10.1093/ cercor/bhp055 : Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell. : Blakemore, D. (2004). Relevance and Linguistic Meaning The semantic and pragmatics of Discourse Markers. England: Cambridge University Press. : Blanco, X. (2016). A hierarchy of semantic labels for Spanish dictionaries. Communications in computer and information science, 667, 66-73. : Blansitt, E. (1978), “Stimulus as a semantic role”, en W. Abraham (ed.), Valence, semantic case, and grammatical relations, Ámsterdam/Filadelfia, John Benjamins, pp. 311-325. : Bolinger, Dwight. 1971. Semantic overloading: A restudy of the verb remind, Language, 47: 522-547. : Bon, B., & Nowak, K. (2013). Wiki lexicographica. Linking medieval latin dictionaries with semantic mediaWiki. Electronic lexicography in the 21st century: thinking outside the paper: proceedings of the eLex 2013 conference, 407-420. : Bondi, M. (2010). Metadiscursive practices in Introductions: Phraseology and Semantic Sequences across Genres. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 99-123. : Bonial, C., Corvey, W., Palmer, M., Petukhova, V. V. & Bunt, H. (2011). A hierarchical unification of LIRICS and VerbNet semantic roles. Ponencia presentada en Semantic Computing (ICSC), 2011 Fifth IEEE International Conference (pp. 483-489). Palo Alto, California. : Boonthum, C., Levinstein, I., & McNamara, D.S. 2007. "Evaluating self-explanations in iSTART: Word matching, latent semantic ana lysis, and topic models". In A. Kao & S. Poteet (Eds.), Natural Language Processing and Text Mining. Londres: Springer-Verlag UK, pp. 91-106. : Borge-Holthoefer, Javier & Arenas, Alex. (2009). Navigating word association norms to extract semantic information. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2777-2782). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society. : Borge-Holthoefer, Javier & Arenas, Alex. (2010). Semantic Networks: Structure and dynamics. Entropy, 12, 1264-1302. : Boulos, M. N. K. (2009). Semantic Wikis: A comprehensible introduction with examples from the health sciences. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Web Intelligence, 1(1), 94-96. : Bowerman, Melissa. (1989). Learning a semantic system: What role do cognitive predispositions play? En M. L. Rice y R. L. Schiefelbuch (eds.), The teachability of languages (pp.133-169). Baltimore: Brookes. : Bradley, M. M. & Lang, P. J. (1994). Measuring emotion: The self-assessment mannikin and the semantic differential. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 25(1), 49-59. : Breuker, J., Casanovas, P., Klein, M. C. A. & Francesconi, E. (2009). Law, ontologies and the Semantic Web: Channelling the legal information flood. Ámsterdam: IOS Press. : Brouwer, H., Fitz, H. & Hoeks, J. (2012). Getting real about semantic illusions: Rethinking the functional role of the P600 in language comprehension. Brain Research, 1446, 127-143. : Bublitz, W. (1996). Semantic Prosody and Cohesive Company: Somewhat Predictable. Leuvense Bijdragen, 85, 1-32. : Buchanan, Loti; Westbury, Chris & Burgess, Curt. (2001). Characterizing semantic space: Neighborhood effects in word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 8 (3), 531-544. : Burianova, H., Mcintosh, A. & Grady, C. (2010). A common functional brain network for autobiographical, episodic, and semantic Memory retrieval. Neuroimage, 49, 865-874. : Busa, F., Calzolari, N. & Lenci, A. (2001). Generative Lexicon and the SIMPLE model: Developing Semantic Resources for NLP. En P. Bouillon & F. Busa (Eds.), The language of word meaning (pp. 333-349). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. : Busa, F., Calzolari, N., Lenci, A. & Pustejovsky, J. (2001). Building a semantic lexicon: Structuring and generating concepts. En H. Bunt, R. Musken & E. Thijsse (Eds.), Computing Meaning (pp. 29-51). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. : Bustos, A. (1974) A syntactic correlate of semantic andpragmatic relations: The subjunctive mood in Spanish. University of Illinois. : Cacciari, C. & M.C. Levorato. 1999. "The effect of semantic analisability of idioms in metalinguistic tasks". Metaphor and Symbol 13(3), 159-178. : Capitani, E., Laiacona, M., Mahon, B. & Caramazza, A. (2003). What are the facts of semantic category-specific deficits? A critical review of the clinical evidence. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20(3), 213-61. : Caputi, N., Di Giacomo, D., Aloisio, F. & Passafiume, F. (2016). Deterioration of semantic associative relationships in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer Disease. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, 23(3), 186-195. : Cariani, P. (1989). On the design of devices with emergent semantic functions (PhD Thesis). State University of New York at Binghamton. : Casado, P., Martín-Loeches, M., Muñoz, F. & Fernández-Frías, C. (2005). Are semantic and syntactic cues inducing the same processes in the identification of word order? Cognitive Brain Research, 24, 526–543. : Catricalà, E., Della Rosa, P. A., Plebani, V., Garrard, P. & Cappa, S. F. (2015). Semantic feature degradation and naming performance. Evidence from neurodegenerative disorders. Brain and Language, 147, 58-65. : Chen, M., Chen, W. & Lee, H. (2019). Memory performance of people with different dementia severity for different semantic hierarchies. Experimental Aging Research, 45(3), 266-281. : Chomsky, Noam. 1971. Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation, em D. Steinberg et al. (Eds.), Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. : Chávez, M., Rodríguez, Y., Acosta I., García N., de la Torre, G. & Sosa, A. (2015). Semantic verbal fluency in elderly Mexican adults: reference values. Neurología (English Edition), 30(4), 189-194. : Collins, Allan M. & Quillian, M. Ross (1969). Retrieval time from semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 240-247. : Collins, Allan. M. & Loftus, Elisabeth F. (1975). A Spreading-activation theory of semantic processing, en Psychological Review, 82 (6), 407-428. : Copland, D. (2003). The basal ganglia and semantic engagement: Potential insights from semantic priming in individuals with subcortical vascular lesions, Parkinson’s disease, and cortical lesions. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 9(7), 1041-1052. : Coulson, Seana. (2001). Semantic Leaps: Frame-shifting and Conceptual Blending in Meaning Construction. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. : Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T. & McNamara, D. S. (2010b). The development of semantic relations in second language speakers: A case for Latent Semantic Analysis. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7, 55-74. : Cuetos, F., Rodríguez-Ferreiro, J. & Menéndez, M. (2009). Semantic markers in the diagnosis of neurodegenerative dementias. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders, 28(3), 267-274. : Cutting, J. C. & Bock, K. (1997). That's the way the cookie bounces: Syntactic and semantic components of experimentally elicited idiom blends. Memory and Cognition, 25(1), 57-71. : Cyrille, M., Astésano, C., Aramaki, M., Ystad, S., Kronland, R. y Besson, M. (2007). Influence of Syllabic Lengthening on Semantic Processing in Spoken French: Behavioral and Electrophysiological Evidence. Cerebral Cortex, (17), 2659-2668. : Dam-Jensen, H. & Zethsen, K. K. (2008). Translator awareness of semantic prosodies. Target, 20(2), 203-221. : De Deyne, S., Peirsman, Y. & Storms, G. (2009). Sources of semantic similarity. Ponencia presentada en el 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp.1834-1839). Amsterdam: Netherlands. : De Deyne, Simon & Storms, Gert. (2008). Word Association: Network and semantic properties. Behavior Research Methods, 40 (1), 213-231. : De Deyne, Simon; Peirsman, Yves & Storms, Gert (2009). Sources of semantic proximity. En N.A. Taatgen y H. van Rijn (eds.), Proceedings of the 31th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp.1834-1839). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society. : De Haan, F. (2010). Building a semantic map: Top-down versus bottom-up approaches.Linguistic Discovery, 8(1), 102-117. : Deerwester, S., Dumais, S. T., Furnas, G. W., Landauer, T. K. & Harshman, R. (1990). Indexing by Latent Semantic Analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41(6), 391-407. : Denhiére, G., Lemaire, B., Bellissens, C. & Jhean-Larose, S. (2007). A semantic space modeling children's semantic memory. En T. Landauer, D. McNamara, S. Dennis & W. Kintsch (Eds.) The handbook of Latent Semantic Analysis (pp. 143-167). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. : Dennis, S., Landauer, T., Kinstch, W. & Quesada, J. (2003). Introduction to latent semantic analysis [en línea]. Disponible en: [36]http://lsa.colorado.edu/~quesadaj/pdf/LSATutorial.pdf : Diana Pérez, Alfio Gliozzo, Enrique Alfonseca, Carlo Strapparava, Bernardo Magnini & Pilar Rodríguez, About the effects of combining Latent Semantic Analysis with natural language processing techniques for free-text assessment : Dik, Simon. 1985. Formal and semantic adjustment of derived constructions, em M. Bolkstein et al. (eds.), Predicates and terms in Functional Grammar, Dordrecht, Foris: 1-28. : DispoGrafo. A new computational tool for the analysis of semantic relations in lexical availability : Dixon, R. (1991). A new approach to English grammar on semantic principles. Oxford: Clarendon Press. : Dixon, R. M. W. (1982). Where have all the adjectives gone? En R. M. W. Dixon (Ed.), Where have all the adjectives gone? And other essays in Semantic and Syntax (pp. 1-62). Berlín: De Gruyter Mouton. : Dodge, E. & Petruck, M. (2014). Representing caused motion in Embodied Construction Grammar. In Proceedings of the ACL 2014 workshop on semantic parsing (pp. 39-44). Baltimore: Maryland. : Dunn, J., Almeida, O., Barclay, L., Waterreus, A. & Flicker, L. (2002). Latent semantic analysis: A new method to measure prose recall. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 24(1), 26-35. : Duvala, C., Desgrangesa, B., De la Sayette, V., Belliard, S., Eustachea, F. & Piolino, P. (2012). What happens to personal identity when semantic knowledge degrades? A study of the self and autobiographical memory in semantic dementia. Neuropsychologia, 50, 254-265. : Eckardt, Regine. 2006. Meaning change in grammaticalization. An enquiry into semantic reanalysis, Oxford, Oxford University Press. : Ehrlich, K. y Rayner, K. (1983). Pronoun assignment and semantic integration during reading: Eye movement and immediacy of processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22(1), 75-87. : Erickson, T. A. & Mattson, M. E. (1981). From words to meaning: A semantic illusion. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 540-552. : Escobar, A. M. (1992). Revisiting the «present perfect»: Semantic analysis of Andean colonial documents. Lingua, 122, 470-480. : Espinal, M. (2009). Clitic incorporation and abstract semantic objects in idiomatic constructions. Linguistics, 47(6), 1221-1271. doi: [128]https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2009.044 : Federmeier, K. D., McLennan, D. B., De Ochoa, E. & Kutas, M. 2002. "The impact of semantic memory organization and sentence context in spoken language processing by younger and older adults: An ERP study". En Psychophysiology, 39, pp. 133-146. : Feijóo, S. (2010). Learning from the input: Syntactic, semantic and phonological cues to the noun category in English. Doctoral dissertation, Universitat de Barcelona, Spain. : Fellbaum, C. (1990). English verbs as a semantic net. International Journal of Lexicography, 3(4), 278-301. : Fernando, S. & Stevenson, M. (2008). A semantic similarity approach to paraphrase detection. Ponencia presentada en el 11th Annual Research Colloquium of the UK Special Interest Group for Computational Linguistics, Oxford, United Kingdom. : Fernández Fontecha, A. & Jiménez Catalán, R.M. (2003). Semantic derogation in animal metaphor: A contrastive–cognitive analysis of two male/female examples in English and Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 771–797. : Ferreira, R. A., Göbel, S., Hymers, M. & Ellis, A. W. (en prensa). The neural correlates of semantic richness: Evidence from an f MRI study of word learning. Brain and Language. : Fillmore, C. & Atkins, B. T. (1992). Towards a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. En A. Lehrer & E. F. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, Fields and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization (pp. 75-102). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. : Flavell, J. H. & Flavell, E. R. (1959). One determinant of judged semantic and associative connection between words. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58(2), 159–165. : Foltz, P. (1990). Using latent semantic indexing for information filtering. En R. Allen (Ed.), Actas de the Conference on Office Information Systems (pp. 40-47). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. : Foltz, P. (1996). Latent Semantic Analysis for text-based research. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 28(2), 197-202. : Foltz, P. (1998) Quantitative Approches to Semantic Knowledge Representations. Discourse Processes, 25(2&3), 127-130. : Foltz, P. , Kintsch, W. & Landauer, T. (1998). The measurement of textual coherence with latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 285-307. : Foltz, P. W. (1990) Using Latent Semantic Indexing for Information Filtering. En R. B. Allen (Ed.) Proceedings of the Conference on Office Information Systems, 40-47. Cambridge, MA,: MIT Press. : Foltz, P. W. (1996) Latent Semantic Analysis for text-based research. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers. 28(2), 197-202. : Foltz, P., Kintsch, W. & Landauer, T. (1998). The measurement of textual coherence with latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25 (2-3), 285-307. : Fuentes, L.J., y Santiago, E. (1999). Spatial and semantic inhibitory processing in schizophrenia. Neuropsychology, 13, 259-270. : García-Miguel, J. M., González Domínguez F. & Vaamonde G. (2010). ADESSE. A Database with Syntactic and Semantic Annotation of a Corpus of Spanish. Ponencia presentada en Seventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (pp. 1903-1910). Valletta, Malta. : Garrard, P., Ralph, M. A. L., Watson, P. C., Powis, J., Patterson, K. & Hodges, J. R. (2001). Longitudinal profiles of semantic impairment for living and nonliving concepts in dementia of Alzheimer’s type. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 13(7), 892-909. : Garrod, S. & Anderson, A. (1987). Saying what you mean in dialogue: A study in conceptual and semantic co-ordination. Cognition, 27(2), 181-218. : Garrod, S. & Sanford, A. (1977). Interpreting anaphoric relations: The integration of semantic information while reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 16. 7790. : Garrod, S. y Anderson, A. (1987). Saying what you mean in dialogue: A study inconceptual and semantic coordination. Cognition, 27, 181-18. : Garrod, S. y Sanford, A. (1977). Interpreting Anaphoric relations: The Integration of Semantic Information while Reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16(1), 77-90. : Geeraerts, D. (2006). Cultural models of linguistic standardization. En D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Words and other wonders. Papers on lexical and semantic topics (pp. 272-306). Berlín/Nueva York: Mouton de Gruyter. : Gelbuk, A. & Kolesnikova, O. (2011). Supervised learning for semantic classification of Spanish collocations. En J. Martínez-Trinidad, J. Carrasco-Ochoa & J. Clitter (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 362-371). Berlin: Springer- Verlag. : Gennari, S. & Poeppel, D. (2003). Processing correlates of lexical semantic complexity. Cognition, 89, 27-41. : Ghiasinejad, S. & Golden, R. (2002). An empirical evaluation of the AUTOCODER system for automatic semantic coding of children summarization data. Poster presentado en the 12th Annual Meeting of the Society for Text and Discourse, Chicago, Estados Unidos de Norteamérica. : Gildea, D. & Jurafsky, D. (2002). Automatic labeling of semantic roles. Computational Linguistics, 28, 245-288. : Goddard, C., & Wierzbicka, A. (2007). Semantic primes and cultural scripts in language learning and intercultural. Applied Cultural Linguistics: Implications for second language learning and intercultural communication, 7(1), 105-124. [140]https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.7.08god : Goddard, Cliff. (1998). Semantic analysis: A practical introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. : Goldberg, Adele. (2010). Verbs, constructions and semantic frames. En Edit Doron y Ivy Sichel (eds.), Syntax, Lexical Semantics and Event Structures (pp. 39-58). Oxford: Oxford University Press. : Gollan, T. H., Montoya, R. I. & Werner, G. A. (2002). Semantic and letter fluency in Spanish-English bilinguals. Neuropsychology, 16, 562-576. : Gopnik, A., Choi, S., & Baumberger, T. (1996). Cross-linguistic differences in early semantic and cognitive development. Cognitive Development, 11(2), 197-225. [DOI: 10.1016/S0885-2014(96)90003-9] . : Graesser, A., Wiemer-Hastings, P., Wiemer-Hastings, K., Harter, D., Person, N. & Tutoring Research Group (2000). Using latent semantic analysis to evaluate the contributions of students in AutoTutor. Interactive Learning Environments, 8, 129-148. : Green, A. E., Kraemer, D. J. M., Fugelsang, J. A., Gray, J. R. & Dunbar, K. N. (2010). Connecting Long Distance: Semantic Distance in Analogical Reasoning Modulates Frontopolar Cortex Activity. Cerebral Cortex, 20(1), 70-76. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhp081 : Grice, H. (1975). Logic and conversation. En P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantic. Speech Acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press. : Grossman, M., Peelle, J. E., Smith, E. E., McMillan, C. T., Cook, P., Powers, J., et al. (2013). Category-specific semantic memory: Converging evidence from bold fMRI and Alzheimer’s disease. NeuroImage, 68, 263-274. : Gulan, T. & Valerjev, P. (2010). Semantic and related types of priming as a context in word recognition. Review of Psychology, 17(1), 53-58. : Hakimpour, F. & Geppert, A. (2001). Ontologies: An approach to resolve semantic heterogeneity in databases. Informe técnico, Universidad de Zúrich, Zúrich, Suiza. : Halliday, M. A. K. (1977). Text as semantic choice in social contexts. En T. van Dijk & J. S. Petöfi (Eds.), Grammars and Descriptions (pp.176-225). Berlín: Mouton de Gruyter. : Hargreaves, I. S. & Pexman, P. M. (2012). Does richness lose its luster? Effects of extensive practice on semantic richness in visual word recognition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 234. : Harris, Z. (1982). Discourse and sublanguage. En R. Kittredge & J. Lehrberger (Eds.), Sublanguages: Studies on language in restricted semantic domains (pp. 231-236). Berlín: W. de Gruyter. : Hart, J. & Kraut, M. (2007). Neural basis of semantic memory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. : Harvey, D. Y. & Schnur, T. (2016). Different loci of semantic interference in picture naming vs. word-picture matching task. Frontiers in Psychology: Accessing conceptual representations for speaking, 7, 31-49. : Hasan, R. (1989). Semantic variation and sociolintuistics. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 9(2), 221. : Haspelmath, M. (2003). The geometry of grammatical meaning: Semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison. En M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language Vol. 2 (pp. 211-242). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. : Henning, G. (1973) Remembering foreign language vocabulary: Acoustic and semantic parameters. Language Learning, 23: 185-196. : Hodges, J. R. & Paterson, K. (1995). Is semantic memory consistently impaired early in the course of Alzheimer’s disease? Neuroanatomical and diagnostic implications. Neuropsychologia, 33(4), 441-459. : Hodges, J. R., Salmon, D. P. & Butters, N. (1992). Semantic memory impairment in Alzheimer’s disease: Failure of access or degraded knowledge? Neuropsychologia, 30, 301-314. : Holcomb, P. J., & Neville, H. (1990). Auditory and Visual Semantic Priming in Lexical Decision: A Comparison Using Event-Related Potentials. Language and Cognitive Processes, 5, 281-312. : Hunston, S. (2007). Semantic prosody revisited. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 12(2), 249-268. : Hutchison, Keith & Balota, David. (2005). Decoupling semantic and associative information in false memories: Explorations with semantically ambiguous and unambiguous critical lures. Journal of Memory and Language, 52 (1), 1-28. : Hutchison, Keith. (2003). Is semantic priming due to association strength or feature overlap? A microanalytic review. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 10 (4), 785-813. : Indurkhya, B. (1986). Constrained Semantic Transference: A Formal Theory of Metaphor. Synthese, 68, 515-551. : Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. : Jackendoff, R. (1976). Toward an explanatory semantic representation. Linguistic Inquiry 7, (pp. 89-150). : Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic Structures. Cambridge-Londres: MIT Press. : Jackendoff, R. S. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. : Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. : Jasińska, K. & Laura-Ann, P. (2017). Age of bilingual exposure is related to the contribution of phonological and semantic knowledge to successful reading development. Child Development, 89(1), 310-331. : Jeon, Hyeon-A; Lee, Kyoung-Min; Kim, Young-Bo y Cho, Zang-Hee. (2009). Neural substrates of semantic relationships: common and distinct left-frontal activities for generation of synonyms vs. antonyms, Neuroimage, 48(2), 449- 457. : Jiang, J. & Conrath, D. (1997). Semantic similarity based on corpus statistics and lexical taxonomy. Ponencia presentada en el International Conference on Research in Computational Linguistics. Taiwán. : JohnsonLaird, P., Herrmann, D. & Chaffin, R. (1984). Only connections: A critique of semantic networks. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 292315. : Jones, M. N., Willits, J. & Dennis, S. (2015). Models of semantic memory. Oxford handbook of Mathematical and Computational Psychology (pp. 232-254). Oxford: Oxford University Press. : Kalénine, S., Mirman, D. & Buxbaum, L. J. (2012). A combination of thematic and similarity-based semantic processes confers resistance to deficit following left hemisphere stroke. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6(106), 1-12. : Kamp, H. (1981). A theory of truth and semantic representations. En J. Groenendijk, T. M. V. Janssen, & M. Stokhof (eds.), Formal Methods in the Study of Language (pp. 277-322). Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum. : Katz, Jerrold J. & Fodor, Jerry A. (1963). The structure of a semantic theory. Language, 39, 170-210. : Katz, Jerrold J. (1972). Semantic Theory. New York: Harper and Row. : Kelly, G. J., y Bazerman, C. (2003). How Students Argue Scientific Claims: A Rhetorical- Semantic Analysis. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 28-55. : Kempson M. (1977). Semantic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. : Kenett, Yoed N.; Kenett, Dror Y.; Ben-Jacob, Eshel & Faust, Miriam. (2011). Global and local features of semantic Networks: Evidence from the Hebrew Mental Lexicon. Plos One, 6 (8), 1-14. : Kennedy, C., & McNally, L. (2005). Scale structure and the semantic typology of gradable predicates. Language, 81(2), 345-381. : Kim, A. & Osterhout, L. (2005). The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 205-225. : Kim, J. & Moldovan, D. (1993). Acquisition of semantic patterns for Information Extraction from Corpora. Proceedings of the 9^th IEEE Conference on AI for Applications, 171-176. : Kintsch, W. (2007). Meaning in context. En T. Landauer, D. McNamara, S. Dennos & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Handbook of Latent Semantic Analysis (pp. 89-105). Mahwah, NJ.: Erlbaum. : Kirchberg, B. C., Cohen, J. R., Adelsky, M. B., Buthorn, J. J., Gomar, J. J., Gordon, M., et al. (2012). Semantic distance abnormalities in mild cognitive impairment: Their nature and relationship to function. American Journal of Psychiatry, 169(12), 1275-1283. : Kittilä, S., K. Västi y J. Ylikoski (2011), “Introduction to case, animacy and semantic roles”, en S. Kittilä, K. Västi y J. Ylikoski (eds.), Case, animacy and semantic roles, Ámsterdam/Filadelfia, John Benjamins, pp. 1‑26. : Kolda, T. & O'Leary, D. (1998). A semi-discrete matriz descomposition for latent semantic indexing in information retrieval [en línea]. Disponible en: [54]http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=291131 : Kolesnikova, O. & Gelbukh, A. (2012). Semantic relations between collocations: A Spanish case study. Revista Signos. Estudios de Lingüística, 45(78), 44-59. : Kounios, J. & Holcomb, P. (1994). Concreteness effects in semantic processing: ERP evidence supporting dualcoding theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 804823. : Kowal, M. & Swain, M. (1997).From semantic to syntactic processing: How can we promote it in the immersion classroom? In R. K. Johnson & M. Swain (Eds.), Immersion education: International perspectives (pp. 284-310). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press . : Kripke, S. (1977). Speakers reference and semantic reference. En P. French, T. Uehling & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Contemporary perspective in the philosophy of language. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. : Kutas, M. & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207, 203-205. : Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2000). Electrophysiology Reveals Semantic Memory Use in Language Comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(12), 463-470. : Laisney, M., Giffard, B., Belliard, S., de la Sayette, V., Desgranges, B. & Eustache, F. (2011). When the zebra loses its stripes: Semantic priming in early Alzheimer’s disease and semantic dementia. Cortex, 47(1), 35-46. : Landauer, T. & Dumais, S. (1997) A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211-240. : Landauer, T. K. & Psotka, J. (2000). Simulating text understanding for educational applications with latent semantic analysis: Introduction to LSA. Interactive Learning Environments, 8(2), 73-86. : Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W. & Laham, D. (1998). Introduction to Latent Semantic Analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 259-284. : Landauer, T., McNamara D., Dennis, S. & Kintsch, W. (2007). Handbook of latent semantic analysis, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. : Landauer, T.K. & Dumais, S.T. (1997). A solution to Plato´s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211-240. : Landauer, Th. (1999) Latent Semantic Analysis: A Theory of the Psychology of language an Mind. Discourse Processes, 27(3), 303-310. : Landauer, Th., y Dumais, S. (1997) A solution to Platos problem: the latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211-240. : Landauer,Th.; Foltz,P. y Laham,D. (1998) An Introduction to Latente Semantic Analysis. Discourse Processes.25(2&3), 259-284. : Landis, T., Regard, M., Graves, R. y Goodglass, H. (1983). Semantic paralexia: A release of right hemisphere function from left hemispheric control?Neuropsy-chologia, 21, 359-364. : Laxström, N., & Kanner, A. (2015). Multilingual Semantic MediaWiki for Finno-Ugric dictionaries. Septentrio Conference Series, 2, 75-86. : Lehmann, F. 1992. "Semantic networks", en F. Lehmann (Ed.) Semantic Networks inArtificial Intelligence. Oxford: Pergamon Press. : Lehrer, A. & Kittay, E. F. (1992). Frames, fields and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. : Lehrner, J., Coutinho, G., Mattos, P., Moser, D., Pflüger, M., Gleiss, A., et al. (2017). Semantic memory and depressive symptoms in patients with subjective cognitive decline, mild cognitive impairment, and Alzheimer's disease. International Psychogeriatrics, 29(7), 1123-1135. : Lemaire, B. & Denhiére, G. (2006). Effects of high-order co-occurrences on word semantic similarity. Current Psychology Letters, 1 (18), 628-637. : Leonetti, M. (2003). Specificity and object marking: The case of Spanish a. Ponencia presentada en el Congreso Semantic and Syntactic Aspects of Specificity in Romance Languaje, Université Konstanz, Konstanz. : Leskovec, J., Grobelnik, M. & Milic-Frayling, N. (2004). Learning semantic graph mapping for document summarization. Ponencia presentada en ECML/PKDD-2004 Workshop on Knowledge Discovery and Ontologies, Pisa, Italia. : Levin, Beth. 2009. "Aspectual Approaches to Lexical Semantic Representation". UC Berkeley. Consultado: s/f. <[53]http://www.stanford.edu/~bclevin/lsa09aspapp.pdf> . : León, I, Olmos, R., Escudero, I., Cañas, J. & Salmerón, L. (2006). Assessing short summaries with human judgments procedure and Latent Semantic Analysis in narrative and expository texts. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 38(4), 616-627. : Louw (2000) claims that while semantic prosody depends on the co-text and thus can be explored in a corpus through regular co-occurrences of an item, connotation is related to instinctive semantic associations that are often made of an item, regardless of the collocates. : Louw, B. & Chateau, C. (2010). Semantic prosody for the 21st century: Are prosodies smoothed in academic contexts? A contextual prosodic theoretical perspective. In Proceedings of 10th International Conference on Statistical Analysis of Corpus Study (pp. 755-764). : Louw, B. (1993). Irony in the Text or Insincerity in the Writer? The Diagnostic Potential of Semantic Prosodies. In M. Baker, G. Francis & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair (pp. 157-175). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. : Louw, B. (2000). Contextual Prosodic Theory: Bringing Semantic Prosodies to Life. In C. Heffer, H. Sauntson & G. Fox (Eds.), Words in Context: A Tribute to John Sinclair on his Retirement (pp. 48-94). Birmingham: ELR. : Louwerse, M. (2004). Semantic variation in idiolect and sociolect: Corpus linguistic evidence from literary texts. Computers and the Humanities, 38, 207-221. : Lucas, Margery. (2000). Semantic priming without association: a metha-analityc review. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 7 (4), 618-630. : Luraghi, S. (2011). The coding of spatial relations with human landmarks. En S. Kittilä, K. Västi & J. Ylikoski. (coords.), Case, animacy and semantic roles (pp. 209-234). Ámsterdam/Filadelfia: John Benjamins . : López-Astorga, M. (2015). The disjunction introduction rule: Syntactic and semantic considerations. Pragmalingüística, (23), 141-149. doi: [91]http://dx.doi.org/10.25267/Pragmalinguistica.2015.i23.08 : Magliano, J. P., Wiemer-Hastings, K., Millis, K. K., Muñoz, B. D., & McNamara, D. S. (2002). Using latent semantic analysis to assess reader strategies. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 34,181-188. : Manschreck, T. C.; Maher, B. A.; Milavetz, J. J.; Ames, D.; Weisstein, C. C., y Schneyer, M.L. (1988). Semantic priming in thought disordered schizophren ic patients. Schizophrenia Research 1, pp. 61-66. : Martin, A. & Fedio, P. (1983). Word production and comprehension in Alzheimer’s disease: The breakdown of semantic knowledge. Brain Language, 19, 124-141. : Martin, D. & Berry, M. (2007). Mathematical foundations behind latent semantic analysis. En T. Landauer, D. McNamara, S. Dennos & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Handbook of Latent Semantic Analysis (pp. 35-56). Mahwah, NJ.: Erlbaum. : Matthewson, L. (2004). On the Methodology of Semantic Fieldwork. International Journal of American Linguistics, 70(4), 369-415. [136]https://doi.org/10.1086/429207 : McGinnis, Martha. (2001). Semantic and morphological restrictions in experiencer predicates. En John T. Jensen & Gerard Van Herk (eds.), Proceedings of the 2000 CLA Annual Conference (pp. 245-256). Ottawa, Canada: Cahiers Linguistiques d'Ottawa. : McGlone, S., Glucksberg, S. & Cacciari, C. (1994). Semantic productivity and idiom comprehension. Discourse Processes, 17(2), 167-190. : McRae, K. & Jones, M. N. (2013). Semantic memory. En D. Reisberg (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Psychology (pp. 206-219). Oxford, UK: Ofxord University Press. : McRae, K., Cree, G. S., Seidenberg, M. S. & McNorgan, C. (2005). Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things. Behavior Research Methods, 37(4), 547-559. : Melchuck, I. (1986). Semantic bases of linguistic description (Meaning-Text linguistic theory). En M. Marino & L. Pérez (Eds.), The Twelfth LACUS Forum. Lake Bluff: LACUS. : Miller, G. A., Chodorow, M., Landes, S., Leacock, C. y Thomas, R. G. 1994. "Using a semantic concordance for sense identification". En Proceedings of the ARPA Human Language Technology Workshop. Plainsboro, New Jersey, pp. 240-243. : Miller, T. (2003). Essay Assessment with Latent Semantic Analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29(4), 495-512. : Mirman, Daniel & Magnuson, James S. (2008). Attractor dynamics and semantic neighborhood density: Processing is slowed by near neighbours and speeded by distant neighbours. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34 (1), 65-79. : Montefinese, M., Ambrosini, E., Fairfield, B. & Mammarella, N. (2014). Semantic significance: A new measure of feature salience. Memory & Cognition, 42(3), 355-369. : Montrul, Silvina, y Slabakova, Roumyana. (2002). "The L2 acquisition of morphosyntactic and semantic properties of the aspectual tenses preterite and imperfect". En Pérez y Muñoz (Eds.), The acquisition of Spanish morphosyntax (pp. 115-151). Amsterdam: Springer Netherlands. : Morales-Reyes, A., & Gómez, I. (2016). Transfer and Semantic Universals in the L2 Acquisition of the English Article System by Child L2 Learners. Language Acquisition, 23(1), 57-74. [126]https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2015.1067318 : Moreno-Martínez, F. J., Quaranta, D. & Gainotti, G. (2019). What a pooled data study tells us about the relationships between gender and knowledge of semantic categories. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 41(6), 634-643. : Morley, J. & Partington, A. (2009). A few Frequently Asked Questions about semantic –or evaluative– prosody. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(2), 139-158. : Moss, H. E. & Tyler, L. K. (2000). A progressive category-specific semantic deficit for non-living things. Neuropsychologia, 38, 60-82. : Moss, H. E., Tyler, L. K. & Devlin, J. (2002). The emergence of category specific deficits in a distributed semantic system. En E. Forde & G. Humphreys (Eds.),Category-specificity in brain and mind (pp. 115-148). Sussex: Psychology Press. : Murphy, L. M. (2003). Semantic relations and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. : Myers-Pease, D., Berko-Gleason, Jean and Alexander-Pan, B. (1993). Learning the Meaning of Words: Semantic Development and Beyond. In Jean Berko-Gleason. (Ed.) The Development of Language. Nueva York: Macmillan Publishing Company. Chapter 4: 116-149. : Narrog, H. (2012). Modality, subjectivity, and semantic change. Oxford: Oxford University Press . : Naskar, S. K. & Bandyopadhyay, S. (2007). JU-SKNSB: Extended WordNet based WSD on the English all-words task at SemEval-1. Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluations (pp. 203-206). Association for Computational Linguistics. : Nation, K. & Snowling, M. J. (1998). Semantic processing and the development of word recognition skills: Evidence from children with reading comprehension difficulties. Journal of Memory and Language, 39(1), 85-101. : Nebes, R. D. (1992). Semantic memory dysfunction in Alzheimer’s disease: Disruption of semantic knowledge or information-processing limitation? En L. R. Squire & N. Butters (Eds.), Neuropsychology of memory (pp. 233-240). Nueva York: The Guilford Press. : Neely, J. H. (1991). Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: A selective review of current findings and theories. Basic processes in reading: Visual word recognition, 11, 264-336. : Nieuwland, M. S. & van Berkum, J. J. (2008). The interplay between semantic and referential aspects of anaphoric noun phrase resolution: Evidence from ERPs. Brain and Language, 106(2), 119-131. : Norrick, N. R. (1985). How Proverbs Mean. Semantic Studies in English Proverbs. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. : Not every morphological representation of the clitic and verb-ending systems can realize any of the semantic features above. Tables 1-5, adapted from Castel (2012), list all the semantic features that clitics and verb endings necessarily or optionally express. : Ocampo, A. M. (2008). The Present Perfect in Spanish: A Study on Semantic Variation. California: University of South California. : Painter, C. (2000). Preparing for school: Developing a semantic style for educational knowledge. En F. Christie (Ed.), Pedagogy and the shaping of consciousness. Linguistic and social processes (pp. 66-87). London: Continuum. : Palmer, M., Gildea, D. & Kingsbury, P. (2005). The proposition bank: An annotated corpus of semantic roles. Computational linguistics, 31(1), 71-106. : Pantel, P. & Pennacchiotti, M. (2006). Espresso: Leveraging generic patterns for automatically harvesting semantic relations. En Proceedings of Conference on Computational Linguistics Association for Computational Linguistics. Sydney: ACL. : Partington, A. (2004), “‘Utterly content in each other’s company’: semantic prosody and semantic preference”, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), pp. 131-156. : Patwardhan, S., Banerjee, S. & Pedersen, T. (2003). Using measures of semantic relatedness for word sense disambiguation. International Conference on Intelligent Text Processing and Computational Linguistics (pp. 241-257). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. : Pederson, E., Danziger, E., Wilkins, D., Levinson, S., Kita, S., y Senft, G. (1998). Semantic typology and spatial conceptualization. Language, 74 (3), 557-589. doi: 10.2307/417793. : Peelle, J., Chandrasekaran, K., Powers, J., Smith, E. & Grossman, M. (2013). Age-related vulnerability in the neural systems supporting semantic processing. Frontiers in aging neuroscience, 5(46), 1-11. : Peeters, B. (Ed.). (2006). Semantic primes and universal grammar: Empirical evidence from the Romance languages. John Benjamins Publishing. [178]https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.81 : Peraita, H., Díaz, C. & Anllo Vento, L. (2008). Processing of semantic relations in normal aging and Alzheimer's disease. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 23(1), 33-46. : Peters, W & Kilgarriff, A. (2000). Discovering Semantic Regularity in Lexical Resources. International Journal of Lexicography, 13(4), 287-312. : Pexman, P. M., Siakaluk, P. D. & Yap, M. J. (2013). Introduction to the research topic meaning in mind: Semantic richness effects in language processing. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 723. : Plaza, L. (2010). The use of semantic graphs in automatic summarization: Comparative case studies in Biomedicine, Journalism and Tourism. Tesis doctoral, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, España. : Plaza, L., Díaz, A. & Gervás, P. (2011). A semantic graph-based approach to biomedical summarisation. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 53(1), 1-14. : Pobric, G., Jefferies, E. & Lambon Ralph, M. A. (2010). Category-specific versus category-general semantic impairment induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation.Current biology,20(10), 964-968. : Pradhan, S. S., Loper, E., Dligach, D. & Palmer, M. (2007). SemEval-2007 task 17: English lexical sample, SRL and all words. Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluations (pp. 87-92). Association for Computational Linguistics. : Pulvemüller, F., Cooper-Pye, E., Dine, C., Hauk, O., Nestor, P. J. & Patterson, K. (2010). The word processing deficit in Semantic Dementia: All categories are equal, but some categories are more equal than others. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 2027-2041. : Pustejovsky, J. & Anick, P. (1988). On the semantic interpretation of nominal. Ponencia presentada en el 12 th International Conference On Computational Linguistics, Budapest, Hungría. : Pustejovsky, J. & Jezek, E. (2009). Semantic ccoercion in language: Beyond distributional analysis. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 20(2), 181-214. : Pustejovsky, J. & Jezek, E. (2016). Integrating Generative Lexicon and Lexical Semantic Resources [en línea]. Disponible en: [134]http://lrec2016.lrec-conf.org/media/filer_public/2016/05/10/tutorialmaterial_pustejovsky.pdf : Pustejovsky, J. & Ježek, E. (2008). Semantic Coercion in Language: Beyond Distributional Analysis. Rivista di Linguistica, 20(1), 182-214. : Pérez Hernández, L. & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. (2002). Grounding, semantic motivation, and conceptual interaction in indirect directive speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 259-284. : Pérez, D., Alfonseca, E., Rodriguez, P., Gliozzo, A., Strapparava, C, &Magnini, B. (2005). About the effects of combining Latent Semantic Analysis with natural language processing techniques for free-text assessment. Revista Signos, 38(59), 325-343. : Quesada, J., Kintsch, W. & Gómez, E. (2002). A theory of complex problem solving using latent semantic analysis [en línea]. Disponible en: [81]http://lsa.colorado.edu/~quesadaj/pdf/QuesadaKintschGomezCogSci02.pdf : Quillian, M. Ross. (1968). Semantic memory, in M. Minsky (ed.), Semantic Information Processing, 227-270. : ROSEN, C. G. (1984). The Interface between Semantic Roles and Initial Grammatical Relations. En PERLMUTTER, D. M. & ROSEN, C. G. (Eds.) Studies in Relational Grammar, 2 (pp. 38-77). Chicago and London: The U. of Chicago Press. : Rada, R. (1990), Hypertext writing and document reuse: the role of a semantic net. Electronic Publishing, vol. 3(3), 125-140 (August 1990). Retrieved on December 12^th, 2005 from [54]http://www.cajun.cs.nott.ac.uk/compsci/epo/papers/volume3/issue3/ep036rr.pdf : Rainer, F. (2003). Semantic fragmentation in word-formation: The case of Spanish -azo. En R. Singh & S. Starosta (Eds.), Explorations in Seamless Morphology. (pp. 197-211). Nueva Dehli: Sage. : Ramakrishnan, G., Prithviraj, B. & Bhattacharyya, P. (2004). A gloss-centered algorithm for disambiguation. Proceedings of SENSEVAL-3: Third International Workshop on the Evaluation of Systems for the Semantic Analysis of Text. : Raskin, V. (1985). Semantic mechanisms of humor. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers Group. : Raskin, Victor. 1985. Semantic Mechanisms of Humor, Dordrecht, D. Reidel Pub. Co. : Ravid, D. (2006). Semantic development in textual contexts during the school years: Noun scale analyses. Journal of Child Language, 33(4), 791-821. [137]https://doi.org/10.1017/s0305000906007586 : Rego, L. L. B. & Bryant, P. E. (1993). The connection between phonological, syntactic and semantic skills and children’s reading and spelling. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 8(3), 235-246. : Rehder, B., Schreiner, M. E., Wolfe, M. B., Laham, D., Landauer, T. K. & Kintsch, W. (1998). Using Latent Semantic Analysis to assess knowledge: Some technical considerations. Discourse Processes, 25, 337-354. : Reilly, J., Peelle, J., Antonucci, S. & Grossman, M. (2011). Anomia as a marker of distinct semantic memory impairments in Alzheimer’s disease and semantic dementia. Neuropsychology, 25(4), 413-426. : Reinhart, Tanya. 1983 Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation. Londres: Croom Helm. : Reisinger, D., Rudinger, R., Ferraro, F., Harman, C., Rawlins, K. & Van Durme, B. (2015). Semantic proto-roles. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 3, 475-488. : Resnik, P. (1995). Using information content to evaluate semantic similarity in a taxonomy. Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 448-453). Montreal. : Rhee, S. (2004). Semantic Structure of English Prepositions: An Analysis from a Grammaticalization Perspective. Language Research, 40(2), 397-427. : Riemer, N. (2001). Remetonymizing metaphor: hypercategories in semantic extension. Cognitive Linguistics, 12, 379-401. : Riley, E. A. & Thompson, C. K. (2010). Semantic typicality effects in acquired dyslexia: Evidence for semantic impairment in deep dyslexia. Aphasiology, 24(6-8), 802-813. : Robbins, P. (2007). Minimalism and modularity. En G. Preyer y G. Peter (eds.) Context-sensitivity and semantic minimalism, (pp. 303-319). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. : Rodd, J., Gaskell, G. & Marslen-Wilson, W. (2002). Making sense of semantic ambiguity: Semantic competition in lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 46(2), 245-266. : Rodd, J., Gaskell, G. & Marslen-Wilson, W. (2004). Modelling the effects of semantic ambiguity in word recognition. Cognitive Science, 28, 89-104. : Rooth, M. (1996). Focus. En S. Lappin (Ed.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory (pp. 271-298). Oxford: Blackwell. : Rosch, E. (1973). On internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. En T. E. Moore (ed.). Cognitive Development and Acquisition of Language (pp. 111– 144). Nueva York: Academic Press. : Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 104, 192–233. : Rosser, A. & Hodges, J. R. (1994). Initial letter and semantic category fluency in Alzheimer’s disease, Huntington’s disease, and progressive supranuclear palsy. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 57(11), 1389-1394. : Sailor, K. M., Bramwell, A. & Griesing, T. A. (1998). Evidence for an impaired ability to determine semantic relations in Alzheimer's disease patients. Neuropsychology, 12(4), 555-64. : Sajjadi, S. A., Patterson, K., Tomek, M. & Nestor, P. J. (2012). Abnormalities of connected speech in semantic dementia vs Alzheimer’s disease. Aphasiology, 26(6), 847-866. : Salas, A. (1978). Semantic Ramifications of the Category of Person in the Mapuche Verb. Tesis doctoral, State University of New York, Buffalo, USA. : Salehi, M., Mohsen, R. & Ghasisin, L. (2017). Lexical retrieval or semantic knowledge? Which one causes naming errors in patients with mild and moderate Alzheimer’s Disease? Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders Extra, 7(3), 419-429. : Sanders, T. (1997). Semantic and pragmatic sources of coherence: On the categorization of coherence relations in context. Discourse Processes, 24, 119-147. : Sardinha, T. (2000). Semantic prosodies in English and Portuguese: A contrastive study. Cuadernos de Filología Inglesa, 9, 93-109. : Sartori, G. & Lombardi, L. (2004). Semantic relevance and semantic disorders. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 439-452. : Schlesinger, Izchack, "Instruments as agents: on the nature of semantic relations", Journal of Linguistics, 25, 1989, 189-210. : Schmidt, G., DeBuse, C. & Seger, C. (2005). Right hemisphere metaphor processing. Characterizing the lateralization of semantic processes. Brain and Language, 100, 127-141. : Seco, N., Veale, T. & Hayes, J. (2004). An intrinsic information content metric for semantic similarity in WordNet. Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 1089-1090). Valencia. : Semantic MediaWiki (Bon & Nowak, 2013). : Shanon, B. (1988). Semantic representation of meaning: A critique. Psychological bulletin, 104(1), 70-83. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.104.1.70 : Sierra, G., Alarcón, R., Aguilar, C. & Bach, C. (2008). Definitional verbal patterns for semantic relation extraction. Terminology, 14(1), 74-98. : Simoes Loureiro, I. & Lefebvre, L. (2016). Retrogenesis of semantic knowledge: Comparative approach of acquisition and deterioration of concepts in semantic memory. Neuropsychology, 30(7), 853-859. : Sinha, R. & Mihalcea R. (2007). Unsupervised graph-basedword sense disambiguation using measures of word semantic similarity. Proceedings of the Semantic Computing (ICSC), 2007 IEEE International Conference (pp. 363-369). California: Irvine. : Snow, R., Jurafsky, D. & Ng, A. (2006). Semantic taxonomy induction from heterogeneous evidence. En Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Sydney: Association for Computational Linguistics. : Sorli, M. (2013). Forms of encoding pragmatic meaning: Semantic prosody. A lexicographic perspective. Lingue e Linguaggi, 10, 95-111. : Spitzer, M.; Weisker, I.; Winter, M.; Maier, S.; Hermle, L. y Maher, B.A. (1994). Semantic and phonological priming in schizophrenia, Journal of Abnormal Psychology 103, pp. 485-494. : Stechow, A. von. (1984). Comparing semantic theories of comparison. Journal of Semantics, 3, 1-77. : Steinhart, D. (2001). Summary Street: An intelligent tutoring system for improving student writing through the use of latent semantic analysis. Tesis doctoral, University of Colorado, Boulder, USA. : Stewart, D. (2010). Semantic Prosody. A Critical Evaluation. London: Routledge. : Steyvers, M. & Tenenbaum, J. (2001). The large-scale structure of semantic networks [en línea]. Disponible en: [72]http://psiexp.ss.uci.edu/research//papers/smallworlds.pdf : Steyvers, Mark & Tenenbaum, Joshua B. (2005). The large-scale structure of semantic networks: Statistical analyses and a model of semantic growth. Cognitive Science, 29, 41-78. : Strain, E., Patterson, K.E. & Seidenberg, M.S. (1995). Semantic effects in single-word naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 21(5), 1140-54. : Stubbs, M. (1995), “Collocations and semantic profiles: On the cause of trouble with quantitative studies”, Functions of Language, 1, pp. 23-55. : Stubbs, M. (1995). Collocations and Semantic Profiles. Functions of Language, 2, 23-55. : Stubbs, M. (2001b). On inference theories and code theories: corpus evidence for semantic schemas. Text, 21, 436-465. : Studies of cross-linguistic influence in SLA have been conducted at all the linguistic levels: phonological, lexical, syntactical and semantic (For a brief account see Liu, 2001). For the purpose of this paper, let us now concentrate on the syntactical and lexical levels only. : Sweetser, Eve E. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure, New York, Cambridge University Press. : Sánchez López, Elena. (2015). Phraseologization as a Process of Semantic Change. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 14, 159-177. Available at: [92]http://revistes.uab.cat/catJL/article/view/v14-sanchez. : Tabossi, P., Spivey-Knowlton, M., McRae, K. & Tanenhaus, M. (1994). Semantic effects on syntactic ambiguity resolution. En C. Umilta & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and Performance XV (pp. 589-615). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. : Taler, V., Voronchikhina, A., Gorfine, G. & Lukasik, M. (2016) Knowledge of semantic features in mild cognitive impairment, Journal of Neurolinguistics, 38, 56-70. : Talmy, L. (1985), “Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms”, en T. Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic descriptions, vol. 3, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 57-149. : Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantic. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. : Talmy, Leonard (1985), “Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms”, en T. Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 3, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 57-149. : Tarski, A. (1944). The semantic conception of truth and the foundations of semantics. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 4, 341-376. : The use of ψ-propositions has become subject of criticism (Moore, 1995). This criticism does not really concern the use of a semantic representation as such, but the actual definition of propositions. Four examples will be given why ψ-propositions are rather problematic. : Traugott, E. & Dasher, R.B. (2002). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. : Traugott, E. (2006). Semantic change: bleaching, strengthening, narrowing, extension. En, K. Brown (Ed.) Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (pp. 124-131). New York, USA: Elsevier. : Traugott, E. C. & Dasher, R. B. (2004). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. : Traugott, E. C. (1989). On the Rise of Epistemic Meanings in English: An Example of Subjectification in Semantic Change. Language, 65, 31-55. : Traugott, E. C. y Dasher, R. (2002). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: University Press. : Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K. & Garnsey, S. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(3), 285. : Tsatsaronis, G., Varlamis, I. & NørvÃ¥g, K. (2010). SemanticRank: Ranking keywords and sentences using semantic graphs. Ponencia presentada en el 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Beijing, China. : Tulving, E. (1972). Episodic and semantic memory. En E. Tulving & W. Donaldson (Eds.), Organization of Memory (pp. 381-403). Nueva York: Academic Press. : Tyler, L. K. & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1977). The on-line effects of semantic context on syntactic processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16(6), 683-692. : Valente, A. (2005). Types and roles of legal ontologies. En V. R. Benjamins, P. Casanovas, J. Breuker & A. Gangemi (Eds.), Law and the Semantic Web: Legal ontologies, methodologies, legal information retrieval, and applications (pp. 65-76). Berlín-Heidelberg: Springer. : Van Berkum, J., Hagoort, P. y Brown, C. (1999) Semantic integration in sentences and discourse: evidence from the N400. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 11 (6): 657-671. : Van Dijk, T. A. (1985). Semantic discourse analysis.Handbook of discourse analysis, 2, 103-136. : Van Petten, C., Coulson, S., Rubin, S., Plante, E. & Parks, M. (1999). Time course of word identification and semantic integration in spoken language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(2), 394-417. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.25.2.394 : Van Valin & Lapolla (1997, p. 274) comparten la idea de no universalidad sobre la base de que: "only where the behavior patterns are not reducible to semantic or pragmatic relations can we say there is evidence of syntactic relations". : Van Valin Jr, R. D. (2004). Semantic macroroles in role and reference grammar. En R. Kailuweit & M. Hummel (Eds.), Semantische Rolen (pp. 62-82). Tubinga: Nar [en línea]. Disponible en: [159]http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~rrgpage/rrg/vanvalin_papers/SemMRsRRG.pdf : Van Valin, R. (2005). Exploring the syntax and semantic interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press . [96]https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610578 : Van Valin, Robert D. (1990). Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Language, 66, 221-60. : Van Valin, Robert D. y David P. Wilkins. 1993. Predicting syntactic structure from semantic representation: remember in English and its equivalents in Mparntwe Arrernte, en R. Van Valin (ed.), Advances in Role and Reference Grammar, Amsterdam, John Benjamins : 499-534. : Van der Auwera, J. & Plungian, V. (1998). Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology, 2(1), 79-124. : Velardi, P., Pazienza, M. T. & Fasolo, M. (1991). How to encode semantic knowledge: A method for meaning representation and computer-aided acquisition. Computational Linguistics, 17(2), 153-170. : Venegas, R. (2007). Using Latent Semantic Analysis in a Spanish research article corpus. En G. Parodi (Ed.), Working with Spanish corpora (pp. 195- 216). London: Continuum. : Venneri, A., Mitolo, M. & De Marco, M. (2016). Paradigm shift: Semantic memory decline as a biomarker of preclinical Alzheimer's disease. Biomarkers in Medicine, 10(1), 5-8. : Vigliocco, G; Butterworth, B; & Semenza, C. (1995) Constructing Subject-Verb Agreement in Speech: The Role of Semantic and Morphological Factors. In Journal of Memory and Language. (34) pp. 186-215. : Vigliocco, Gabriella & Vinson, David. (2007). Semantic representation. En M. G. Gaskell (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 195-215). Oxford: Oxford University Press. : Vossen, P. 1996. "EuroWordNet: Building a Multilingual WordNet Database with Semantic Relations between Words", en Procesamiento del lenguaje natural 18, pp. 145-158. : Walchi, B., & Cysouw, M. (2012). Lexical typology through similarity semantics: Toward a semantic map of motion verbs. Linguistics 50-3, 671-710. : Wang, T., Rao, J. & Hu, Q. (2014). Supervised word sense disambiguation using semantic diffusion kernel. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 27, 167-174. : Wanner, L. (2004). Towards automatic fine-grained semantic classification of verb-noun collocations. Natural Language Engineering, 10(2), 95–143. : We can use a given item to refer to some new meaning by implicitly or explicitly claiming a semantic relationship or similarity between its established and its intended new meaning. (Hock, 1986:285) : Weakley, A. & Schmitter-Edgecombe, M. (2014). Analysis of verbal fluency ability in Alzheimer’s disease: The role of clustering, switching and semantic proximities. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 29(3), 256-268. : Weinreich, U. (1966). On the Semantic Structure of English. En: A. González Salinas. XVII Congreso internacional de Lingüística y Filología de América latina (ALFAL 2014), Paraiba, Brasil. : West, W. C. y Holcomb, P J. 2000. "Imaginal, semantic, and surface-level. Processing of concrete and abstract words: An electrophysiological Investigation", en Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 12, pp. 1024-1037. : Whatmough, C., Chertkow, H., Murtha, S., Templeman, D., Babins, L. & Kelner, N. (2003). The semantic category effect increases with worsening anomia in Alzheimer's type dementia. Brain and Language, 84(1), 1, 134-147. : Whichmann, A., Simon-Vandenberger, A. M. & Aijmer, K. (2010). How prosody reflect semantic change: a synchronic case study of ‘of course’. In K. Davidse (Ed.), Subjectification, Intersubjectification and grammaticalization (pp. 103-154). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. : Whitsitt, S. (2005). A critique of the concept of semantic prosody. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 10, 283-305. : Wichmann, S. (2008). The study of semantic alignment: retrospect and state of the art. En M. Donohue, & S. Wichmann (eds.). The typology of semantic alignment (pp. 3-23). New York: Oxford University Press . : Wierzbicka, A. (1987). English speech act verbs. A semantic dictionnary. Sydney: Academic Press. : Wierzbicka, Anna. 1972. Semantic primitives, Frankfurt, Athenäum Verlag. : Wierzbicka, Anna. 2007b. Bodies and their parts: An NSM approach to semantic typology, Language Science, 29: 14-65. : Willers, I. F., Feldman, M. L. & Allegri, R. F. (2008). Subclinical naming errors in mild cognitive impairment. A semantic deficit? Dementia & Nueropsychologia, 2(3), 217-222. : Wolfe, M. & Goldman, S. (2003). Use of latent semantic analysis for predicting psychological phenomena: Two issues and proposed solutions. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35(1), 22-32. : Wolfe, M. B. W., Magliano, J. P. , & Larsen, B. 2005. Causal and semantic relatedness in discourse understanding and representation. Discourse Processes, 39 (2&3), 165-187. : Wolfe, M. B.; Schreiner, M. E.; Rehder, B.; Laham, D.; Foltz, P. W.; Kintsch, W. y Landauer, T. K. (1998). Learning from text: Matching readers and text by Latent Semantic Analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 309-336. : Woodard, J., Seidenberg, M., Nielson, K. A., Antuono, P., Guidotti, L., Durgerian, S., et al. (2009). Semantic memory activation in amnestic mild cognitive impairment.Brain, 32(8), 2068-2078. : Xiao, R. & McEnery, T. (2006). Collocation, Semantic Prosody, and Near Synonymy: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Applied Linguistics, 27, 103-129. : Yap, M. J., Pexman, P. M., Wellsby, M., Hargreaves, I. S. & Huff, M. J. (2012). An abundance of riches: Cross-task comparisons of semantic richness effects in visual word recognition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 72. : Ye, Z., Stolk, A., Toni, I. & Hagoort, P. (2017). Oxytocin modulates semantic integration in speech. : Yuanrong, D., y Mingcai, S. (2010). Analyzing interlanguage of non-English majors by proposed semantic criteria. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 33(2), 48-59. : Zhang, R. (2013). A corpus-based study of semantic prosody change: The case of the adverbial intensifier. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics, 39(2), 61-82. : Zhou, X., Shu, H., Bi, Y., & Shi, D. (1999). Is there phonologically mediated access to lexical semantic in reading Chinese? En J. Wang, A.W. Inhof, & H.C. Chen (Eds.), Reading Chinese script: A cognitive analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum : Zipke, M., Ehri, L. C., & Cairns, H. S. (2009). Using Semantic Ambiguity Instruction to Improve Third Graders’ Metalinguistic Awareness and Reading Comprehension: An Experimental Study. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(3), 300-321.[142]https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.44.3.4 : [126]Crevels[127], Mily.[128] 2000. Concessives on different semantic levels: a typological perspective, en Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen y Bernd Kortmann (eds.), Cause, condition, concession, contrast, Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter: 313-339. : [136]Talmy, Leonard. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms, In: T. Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 57-149. : [137]Jackendoff, Ray 1990. Semantic Structures, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. : [141]Traugott[142], Elisabeth Closs e Richard B. Dasher.[143] 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. : [151]Van Valin, Robert. 1990. Semantic parameters of split intransitivity, Language, 66, 2: 221-260. : [154]Vidal, Alejandra. 2008. Affectedness and viewpoint in Pilagá (Guaykuruan): a semantically aligned case-marking system, en M. Donohue y S. Wichmann (eds.), The typology of semantic alignment, Oxford, Oxford University Press: 412-430. : [161]Talmy, Len. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms, en T. Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, 3: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon, Cambridge, CUP: 57-149. : [180]Sweetser[181], Eve E. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics: metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. : [194]Traugott, Elizabeth e Dasher, Richard.[195] 2005. Regularity in semantic change, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. : [209]Dowty, David. 1989. On the semantic content of the notion ‘Thematic Role’, em G. Chierchia, B. Partee e R. Turner (eds.), Properties, types and meaning II, Dordrecht, Kluwer: 69-129. : ^[48]11 For an extensive list of semantic calques from English in various registers of Romanian (Stoichitoiu-Ichim, 2006: 78-79). : ________. (1984). Semantic Correlates of the Ergative/Absolutive Distinction. En Linguistics, 22, 197-223. : van Herten, M., Kolk, H. H. & Chwilla, D. J. (2005). An ERP study of P600 effects elicited by semantic anomalies. Cognitive Brain Research, 22, 241-255. : van der Auwera, J. & Plungian, V. A. (1998). Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology, 2(1), 79-124. : Álvarez de Mon Rego, I. & Álvarez-Bolado Sánchez, C. (2013). Semantic neology in the domain of videogames in Spanish. Ibérica, 25, 63-84. : Šimík, Radek. 2013. The PRO-wh connection in modal existential wh-constructions: An argument in favor of semantic control, Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 31: 1163-1205. |