Termout.org logo/LING


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

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

1) Candidate: semantically


Is in goldstandard

1
paper CO_FormayFuncióntxt202 - : In this article a general description of Mazahua adverbs or adjuncts is made. Adverbs are the least homogeneous grammatical category semantically, syntactically, and morphologically. Adjuncts appear in lexical, phrasal, and sentential bound forms. These units have a specific syntactic behavior; modify different parts of the sentence, and display mobility and restrictions inside the sentence construction. Adverbs exhibit different phenomena such as affixation, clitization, incorporation and reduplication. Semantically, these units are classified as different types of adverbs, for instance: space, locative, goal, proximity, direction and time, among others .

2
paper CO_FormayFuncióntxt260 - : In the examples 4i, 4j, 4k and 4l, we present processual intransitive verbs of psychological nature, followed by pp headed by «kay. Equally, these PPS are of adjunct nature, even though semantically they are more necessary to understand the verb:

3
paper PE_Lexistxt90 - : ^27 "The notion inalienable is not a semantically uniform one, since the membership of the closed class varies from language to language" (Nichols 1988: 572 ).

4
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.

5
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:

6
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

7
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):

8
paper corpusSignostxt334 - : Traditionally the difference between ser and estar has been casted in terms of permanent or inherent and temporary or non-inherent properties (Bello, 1951; Gili Gaya, 1955; Vañó-Cerdá, 1982), but it is now widely accepted by most linguists that temporal notions alone cannot determine the ser and estar distribution (Schmitt, 1992, 1996, 2005; Maienborn, 2003, 2005; Arche, 2006). Here, we follow Schmitts (2005) proposal that views ser andestar as the exponents of the permanent and temporary copula as the result of a pragmatic phenomenon. The two copulas are semantically distinct: while ser is underspecified for aspect, estar is specified for aspectual properties . Since ser is aspectually unspecified it gives rise to an implication that a property holds independent of time while estar is a state that holds at a certain time (time t), and therefore gives rise to an implicature of temporariness.

9
paper corpusSignostxt488 - : “invisible borrowing [...] in which the lexical item [in the source language] is replaced by semantically, phonetically or phono-semantically related morphemes or lexemes [in the target language]” (^[94]Zuckermann, 2003: 37 ).

Evaluando al candidato semantically:


4) lexical: 4 (*)
5) frame: 4 (*)
7) aspectual: 4 (*)
8) adverbs: 4 (*)
10) specified: 3
12) schmitt: 3
13) properties.: 3
15) molecules: 3
16) subjunctive: 3 (*)
17) linguists: 3 (*)

semantically
Lengua: eng
Frec: 84
Docs: 57
Nombre propio: 1 / 84 = 1%
Coocurrencias con glosario: 6
Puntaje: 6.827 = (6 + (1+5.12928301694497) / (1+6.4093909361377)));
Candidato aceptado

Referencias bibliográficas encontradas sobre cada término

(Que existan referencias dedicadas a un término es también indicio de terminologicidad.)
semantically
: Azuelos-Atías, S. (2010). Semantically cued contextual implicatures in legal texts. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(3), 728-743. [77]https://doi. org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.07.009
: Bentivogli, L. y Pianta, E. 2005. "Exploiting Parallel Texts in the Creation of Multilingual Semantically Annotated Resources: The MultiSemCor Corpus", en Natural Language Engineering, Special Issue on Parallel Texts 11 (3), pp. 247-261.
: Fujita, Atsushi. (2005). Automatic Generation of Syntactically well-formed and Semantically Appropriate Paraphrases. Tesis de doctorado en Ingeniería. Nara Institute of Science and Technology (NAIST).
: 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.
: Keenan, E. L. (1972). On semantically based grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 3(4), 413-461.
: Kutas, M. & Hillyard, S. A. (1980a). Event-related brain potentials to semantically inappropriate and surprisingly large words. Biological Psychology, 11(2), 99-116. doi: 10.1016/0301-0511(80)90046-0
: Terrell, Tracy & Hooper, Joan Bybee. 1974. "A semantically based analysis of mood in Spanish", en Hispania 57 (3), pp. 484-494.
: Zipoli, R., Coyne, M., & McCoach, D. (2011). Enhancing vocabulary intervention for kindergarten students: Strategic integration of semantically related and embedded word review. Remedial and Special Education, 32(2), 131-143. [DOI: 10.1177/0741932510361262] .
: [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.