Advertisement

Implication as an alternative to set-inclusion as the semantic primitive

  • Arnold Lewis Glass
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 22)

Abstract

Traditional componential analysis has been applied to a wide range of semantic problems. In this paper logical implication has been proposed as an alternative to set-inclusion as the primitive out of which meaning is built. It has been shown to apply to an equally wide range of problems as theories utilizing set-inclusion, but with the possibility of even greater success. The theory is potentially applicable to the study of logic and syntax, of language acquisition, and the investigation of the organization of memory through reaction time.

Keywords

Noun Phrase Perceptual Feature Logical Relationship Concept Tree Human Tooth 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bollinger, D. (1965), "The Atomization of Meaning", Language, 41, 555–573.Google Scholar
  2. Collins, A.M. and M.R. Quillian (1969), "Retrieval Time from Semantic Memory", Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,, 24–248.Google Scholar
  3. Heider, E.R. (in press), "On the Internal Structure of Perceptual and Semantic Categories", in T. M. Moore (ed.) Cognitive Development and Acquisition of Language, New York, Academic Press.Google Scholar
  4. Katz, J.J. and J. Fodor (1963), "The Structure of a Semantic Theory", Language, 39, 170–210.Google Scholar
  5. Kintsch, W., E. Crothers and L. Berman (1970), "The Effects of Some Semantic and Syntactic Properties of Simple Sentences upon the Latency of Judgements of Semantic Acceptability", in Studies in Mathematical Learning Theory and Psycholinguistics, The University of Colorado.Google Scholar
  6. Landauer, T.K. and J.L. Freedman (1968), "Information Retrieval from Long-Term Memory: Category Size and Recognition Time", Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 7, 291–295.Google Scholar
  7. Lyons, J. (1969), Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics, London, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Meyer, D.E. (1970), "On the Representation and Retrieval of Stored Semantic Information", Cognitive Psychology, 1, 242–300.Google Scholar
  9. Rips, L.J., E.J. Shoben and E.E. Smith (1972), "Semantic Distance and the Verification of Semantic Relations", unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  10. Schaeffer, B. and R. Wallace (1970), "The Comparison of Word Meanings", Journal of Experimental Psychology, 6, 144–152.Google Scholar
  11. Schank, R.C. (1971), "Intention, Memory, and Computer Understanding", Stanford Artificial Project Memo AIM-140.Google Scholar
  12. Wilkins, A.T. (1971), "Conjoint Frequency, Categroy Size, and Categorization Time", Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10, 382–385.Google Scholar
  13. Winograd, T. (1972), "Understanding Natural Language", Cognitive Psychology, 3, 1–191.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1975

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arnold Lewis Glass
    • 1
  1. 1.Stanford UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations