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) similarity (*)
(*) Términos presentes en el nuestro glosario de lingüística

1) Candidate: similarity


Is in goldstandard

1
paper CO_ColombianAppliedLinguisticsJournaltxt282 - : Data Collection: With the finalised list of stimuli and upon receiving authorisation by the administration and guardians of the participating students, the card-sorting activity was implemented with high school students at four different schools located in the city of Chillan, Chile. During the activity, the researcher provided each student volunteering a bag with 33 cards which represented the different stimuli previously identified and were instructed to sort the cards into diverse groups on the basis of a personally identified similarity with the only rule being that they could not sort the cards on the basis of a grammatical similarity (ex: no grouping of verbs ). The students identified their different groups using the numbering of the stimuli and recorded this information on a translated and culturally-adapted version of the card-sorting instrument designed and used by ^[50]Kono (2001). Once finished, the students were asked to complete a demographic questionnaire.

2
paper CO_ColombianAppliedLinguisticsJournaltxt53 - : In terms of linguistic transfer at the lexical level, Ringbom's work has been one of the most influential contributions. In his study of comparable groups of learners of English as a foreign language with different L1s (Finnish and Swedish), he found great predominance of L1 influence on lexis. Ringbom (1987) argues that the cross-linguistic similarities between L1 and L2 can be assumed to play an important role in the storage of lexical items. He defines lexical knowledge as "a system or set of systems which can be used for the purposes of both comprehension and production." Ringbom (1986) clarifies that lexical influence can manifest itself in other more complex ways which go beyond merely formal similarity between individual items. Following his discussion of cross-linguistic influence on production, he proposes a distinction between overt and covert cross-linguistic influence which is based on whether or not similarity is perceived by the learner: "Whereas covert cross-linguistic

3
paper CO_ColombianAppliedLinguisticsJournaltxt53 - : influence is due to lack of perceived similarity, overt cross-linguistic influence depends on perceived similarities" (Ringbom, 1986:50 )

4
paper CO_ColombianAppliedLinguisticsJournaltxt79 - : The third noteworthy similarity was the occurrence of 'the candidate solution: demand', which occurred with a low frequency in both data sets . (t = -0.38 > -2.021, p = 1 > 0.05).

5
paper CO_FormayFuncióntxt240 - : Palacios, A., & Pfänder, S. (2014). Similarity effects in language contact: Taking the speakers' perceptions of congruence seriously . En J. Besters-Dilger, C. Dermarkar, S. Pfänder & A. Rabus (eds.), Congruence in Contact-induced Language Change. Language Families, Typological Resemblance, and Perceived Similarity (pp. 219-238). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. [ [176]Links ]

6
paper CO_FormayFuncióntxt218 - : Wichmann, S., Müller, A., Velupillai, V., Brown, C. H., Brown, P., Holman, E. W., ... Valenzuela, P. (2013, Octubre). ASJP World Language Tree of Lexical Similarity: Version 4 (Octubre 2013 ). Recuperado de [100]http://asjp.clld.org. [ [101]Links ]

7
paper PE_Lexistxt121 - : rity, and the necessary concomitant of similarity: differentiation” (citado en ^[108]Jeong 2017: 3 ).

8
paper corpusRLAtxt134 - : La exploración de los tipos de información contenidos en el conocimiento semántico debe pasar por una clasificación de cada una de sus dimensiones o, al menos, por la delimitación de aquella que se está estudiando. De Deyne, Peirsman y Storms (2009) señalan, por ejemplo, cuatro tipos de fuentes de información semántica para definir el concepto de similitud (semantic similarity): los rasgos semánticos, la libre asociación, la co-ocurrencia léxica en textos y conocimiento experto en Thesaurus . Este mismo enfoque se observa en los estudios de psicolingüística experimental donde intentan separar los efectos de las diferentes fuentes de información semántica en las diferentes tareas, como, por ejemplo, en el priming o facilitación semántica (Lucas, 2000; Hutchison, 2003) o la falsa memoria (Hutchison & Balota, 2005), en especial, intentando explicar si son más destacados los efectos producidos por la superposición de rasgos semánticos o la información asociativa.

9
paper corpusSignostxt181 - : Lexical-semantic similarity in scientific research articles in Spanish: An approach to Latent Semantic Analysis

10
paper corpusSignostxt395 - : El Corpus MEL-2011 está compuesto por 238 AICs escritos en español provenientes de tres disciplinas (Lingüística, Economía y Medicina), representativas de las tres ramas de la ciencia (Fløttum et al., 2006): las humanidades, las ciencias sociales y las ciencias naturales, respectivamente. Por conveniencia, se empleó una muestra incidental (Polgar & Thomas, 2000). Todos los artículos recabados cumplen con los siguientes criterios externos (Biber, 2004) de tal forma de garantizar tertium comparationis (Connor, 2004: 292), esto es, “a common platform of comparison or shared similarity between texts”:

11
paper corpusSignostxt176 - : conocimiento. Estos resultados permiten concluir que "These LSA similarity indices predicted the students' reasoning slightly better than did hand-coded processing indices of the same think aloud data" (Wolfe & Goldman, 2003: 29 ). La predicción, por supuesto, radica en la interpretación que los investigadores hacen de los valores arrojados por el LSA.

12
paper corpusSignostxt479 - : Verb similarity: Comparative analysis between theoretical linguistics and corpus data

13
paper corpusSignostxt454 - : accommodate to politeness markers. ^[42]Thomson and Murachver (2001) examined the role of CAT in men’s and women’s email communication styles. They concluded that men and women were equally likely to ask questions, offer compliments, apologies, and opinions, as well as insult their interlocutors. Similarly, ^[43]Fox, Bukatko, Hallahan and Crawford (2007) found that men and women used more references to emotion when the Instant Message was directed to women. In their study of Instant Messaging, ^[44]Scissors et al. (2009) investigated how different forms of ‘linguistic similarity' grounded in CAT relate to the establishment of personal trust. In their view, linguistic similarity can occur at three levels: the content level or emotion and task-related content ; the structural level, which can be measured, for example, in terms of verb tense use; and the stylistic level, for example, the use of the same jargon as a communicative partner to express affinity. The work of ^[45]Riordan, Markman,

14
paper corpusSignostxt454 - : Linguistic similarity at the structural level was measured in terms of a similar use of verb tense (^[84]Scissors et al., 2009) or, as ^[85]Bunz and Campbell (2004) suggest, measured by converging to structural elements such as salutation and closing remarks. In this study, full similarity was considered to occur when the message followed the following pattern: initial greetings and age, symptoms, effect of treatment, current situation plus uncertainty about health situation, request for advice, and some sort of farewell . As the common structure in all the groups studied, Example 1, a post from Mumsnet, could broadly exemplify this model:

15
paper corpusSignostxt454 - : In Spanish, most posts written by both males and females have a politeness indicator of the type ‘thank you’ or ‘thanks a lot’ as a closing remark. Examples 12 and 13 show this similarity at the structural level and are also representative examples of the general linguistic style of messages in the four Spanish fora:

Evaluando al candidato similarity:


3) lexical: 5 (*)
6) linguistic: 4 (*)
7) ringbom: 4
8) structural: 4
10) cross-linguistic: 4 (*)
12) perceived: 4
13) cards: 3
15) measured: 3
16) semántica: 3 (*)
18) sort: 3
19) verb: 3 (*)

similarity
Lengua: eng
Frec: 170
Docs: 88
Nombre propio: 2 / 170 = 1%
Coocurrencias con glosario: 5
Puntaje: 5.755 = (5 + (1+5.35755200461808) / (1+7.4178525148859)));
Candidato aceptado

Referencias bibliográficas encontradas sobre cada término

(Que existan referencias dedicadas a un término es también indicio de terminologicidad.)
similarity
: 10. Martin, R. (1982). The psedohomophone effect: the role of visual similarity in nonword decision. Quaterly Journal of Experinmental Psychology, 34, 395-409.
: 23. Ringbom, H. (2006). The importance of different types of similarity in transfer studies. In J. Arabski (eds.), Cross-linguistic Influences in the Second Language Lexicon (pp. 36-45). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
: Akamatsu, N. (2002). A similarity in word-recognition procedures among second language readers with different first language backgrounds. Applied Psycholinguistics, 23, 117-133.
: Attardo, S. y V. Raskin. (1991). Script Theory Revis(it)ed: Joke similarity and joke representation model. International Journal of Humor Research, 4 (3/4), 347-411.
: Batson, C, Lishner, D.A., Cook, J. y Sawyer, S. (2005). Similarity and Nurturance: Two possible sources of empathy for strangers. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 27(1), 15-25.
: 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.
: 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.
: Gentner, D. (1989). The mechanisms of analogical learning. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and Analogical Reasoning (pp. 199-241). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
: Glucksberg, S. & B. Keysar (1990). Understanding Metaphorical Comparisons: Beyond Similarity. Psychological Review, 97, 3-18.
: Goldstone, R. L. & Son, J. Y. (2005). Similarity. En K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 13-36). Nueva York, US: Cambridge University Press.
: Hays, P. (1997). Collocational similarity: A Firthian approach to corpus analysis. En Proceedings of PACLING '97, September 2-5 (pp. 140-146). Meisei University, Ohme, Tokyo, Japan.
: Hermes, Dik J. (1998a). Auditory and visual similarity of pitch contours. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 41, 63-72.
: Jevning, R. (1988). "Integrated metabolic regulation during states of decreased metabolism, similarity to fasting: A biochemical hypothesis". Physiology and Behavior, 43, 735-737.
: 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.
: Lemaire, B. & Denhiére, G. (2006). Effects of high-order co-occurrences on word semantic similarity. Current Psychology Letters, 1 (18), 628-637.
: Levitt, A.G. & A.F. Healy. 1985. "The roles of phoneme frequency, similarity, and availability in the experimental elicitation of speech errors". Journal of Memory and Language 24: 717-733.
: Lin, D. (1998). An information-theoretic definition of similarity. Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 296-304). Madison: Morgan Kaufmann.
: Liviatan, I., Trope, Y. & Liberman, N. (2008). The effect of similarity on mental construal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1256-1269.
: Major, R. (1987). Phonological similarity, markedness, and rate of L2 acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 63-82.
: Mathey, Stéphanie y Zagar, Daniel. (2002). Lexical similarity in visual word recognition: The effect of syllabic neighbourhood in French. Current Psychology Letters, 8, 107-121.
: Quan, X., Liu, G., Lu, Z., Ni, X. & Wenyin, L. (2009). Short text similarity based on probabilistic topics. Knowledge and Information Systems, 25(3), 473-491.
: 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.
: Richards, A., y Hample, D. (2017). Facial similarity mitigates the persuasive effects of source bias: An evolutionary explanation for kinship and susceptibility to influence. Communication Monographs, 83(1), 1-24. [159]https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2015.1014822
: Ringbom, H. (2006) The Importance of Different Types of Similarity in Transfer Studies. In Arabski, J. (ed) Cross-linguistic influences in the Second Language Lexicon. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
: 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.
: Sidorov, G., Gelbukh, A., Gómez-Adorno, H. & Pinto, D. (2014). Soft similarity and soft cosine measure: Similarity of features in vector space model. Computación y Sistemas ,18(3), 491-504.
: 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.
: Vitevitch, M. S. & Sommers, M. S. 2003. "The facilitative influence of phonological similarity and neighbordhood frecuency in speech production in younger and older adults". En Memory & Cognition, 31, pp. 491-504.
: Walchi, B., & Cysouw, M. (2012). Lexical typology through similarity semantics: Toward a semantic map of motion verbs. Linguistics 50-3, 671-710.
: Wang, T. & Hirst, G. (2014). Applying a Naive Bayes Similarity Measure to Word Sense Disambiguation. Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Short Papers) (pp. 531-537). Association for Computational Linguistics.
: 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)
: While the typological similarity of the L2 and the L3 has been emphasised as a reason for transfer by different researchers, only De Angelis & Selinker (2001) mention the possibility of transferring from an L2 that is typologically distant from the L3.
: Winter, B. & Matlock, T. (2013). Reasoning about similarity and proximity. Metaphor & Symbol 28, 1-14.
: Yu, M.-C. ( 2004). Interlinguistic variation and similarity in second language speech act behavior. The Modern Language Journal, 88(1), 102-119.