Preface
Legal knowledge based systems
JURIX 92
Information Technology and Law
The Foundation for Legal Knowledge Systems
Editors:
C.A.F.M. Grütters
J.A.P.J. Breuker
H.J. Van den Herik
A.H.J. Schmidt
C.N.J. De Vey Mestdagh
C.A.M. Wildemast and R.V. de Mulder, Some Designs Considerations for a Conceptual Legal Information Retrieval System, in: C.A.F.M. Grütters, J.A.P.J. Breuker, H.J. Van den Herik, A.H.J. Schmidt, C.N.J. De Vey Mestdagh (eds.),Legal knowledge based systems JURIX 92: Information Technology and Law , The Foundation for Legal Knowledge Systems, Lelystad: Koninklijke Vermande, pp. 81-92, 1994 ISBN 90 5458 031 3.
More information about the JURIX foundation and its activities can be obtained by contacting the JURIX secretariat:
Mr. C.N.J. de Vey Mestdagh
University of Groningen, Faculty of Law
Oude Kijk in 't Jatstraat 26
P.O. Box 716
9700 AS Groningen
Tel: +31 50 3635790/5433
Fax: +31 50 3635603
Email: sesam@rechten.rug.nl
1992 JURIX The Foundation for Legal Knowledge Systems http://jurix.bsk.utwente.nl/
1
SOME DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR A CONCEPTUAL LEGAL
INFORMATION RETRIEVAL SYSTEM
C.A.M. WILDEMAST and R.V. DE MULDER
Centre for Computers and Law, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands Summary
Concept formation in law is not based on empirirical observation nor on explicit and unequivocal conventions. Therefore, concepts in law are not objective data, but rather interpretations determined by social circumstances. Consequently, attempts to design conceptual legal information retrieval systems in which predetermined legal concepts are fixed into the system will always be unsuccesful. In this article, a brief review of these attempts is given and an outline is presented of a "learning concept processor" which enables the user to define his own concepts and enter these into the system.
1.Introduction
There is now a large consensus of opinion that conceptual retrieval methods are preferable to word-based search procedures. In this article, attention will be paid to design considerations for conceptual legal information retrieval systems. These design considerations must take into account, not only general information retrieval theories, but also the specific demands placed upon such systems by lawyers.
A brief examination is made of the present theories of retrieval, concentrating on three aspects: the interface, representation techniques and search methods. An outline will be given of the problems particularly associated with developing legal information retrieval systems. Various solutions have been advanced to deal with the specific problems in this area.
The solutions are directed towards modifying the interface and the means of representing legal documents. Design considerations regarding the interface are aimed at allowing the user to describe his questions more satisfactorily which in term will make the search procedure more efficient. Proposals include a thesaurus, hypertext and the development of intelligent interfaces. This article will show that the main obstacle remains the limitation placed on the user of having to work within a preordained set of opinions. Various techniques for document representation have been proposed in recent literature. These approaches may be characterized as manual or automatic, employing either a reducing technique or an interpreting technique. It is argued here that manual techniques are expensive; reducing techniques may involve the loss of potential information while the danger of interpreting techniques is that the user may not be able to modify the concepts presented so that they correspond more closely to his own interpretation of legal notions.
Finally, we will outline the "learning concept processor" which has been developed by the Centre for Computers and Law of the Erasmus University. This is a conceptual legal information retrieval system which incorporates a number of considerations detailed in this article.
81
Wildemast, C.A.M. and R.V. de Mulder
2.The significance of "conceptual retrieval methods"
Information of importance to lawyers is increasingly being stored in, and accessed by, computers [Franken et al., 1992]. What has been stored must also be capable of being located again. Search procedures are usually based on comparing words in the search question with words in the stored documents or representations of those documents. This comparison of words is usually referred to as "string matching". If a question pertains to more words, word combinations can be formulated with the help of logical (boolean) operations. A search can then be carried out on the basis of these word combinations. Recent research has [Blair & Maron, 1985] shown, however, that this search method remains unsatisfactory. Not all relevant documents are found and of those documents which are found, not all are relevant. These shortcomings are connected to the fact that, on the one hand, (a logical combination of) words is still not suitable to describe sufficiently the user's information question while, on the other hand, not enough is known of the relationship between the words used in the documents and the subjects which can be read in the texts.
Extensive research has been, and still is being, carried out to find more effective search methods. Within the legal sphere, there is a fairly high level of consensus concerning a rejection of word-based searches, preference being given to search procedures based on the (legal) interpretation of the search question and of the documents required. Search methods in which this concept is applied are referred to by the term "conceptual retrieval methods".
Although there is agreement that conceptual search methods will be more effective, there are differing views as to the way in which this can best be realized. Several proposals have been presented in the literature on the subject. A summary of these will be given below.
3.The retrieval process
The search for relevant documents with the help of a computer can be presented schematically as shown below:
question
command
command interpretation
search
operation
representation store
presentation
of
documents
Figure 1 82
Some Design Considerations for a Conceptual Legal Information Retrieval System The user has a question. This question has to be converted by the user into a command for the system. The interpretation of the command within the system provides for the translation of the command into an actual search instruction for the system. This results in a comparison between words, numbers and other symbols in the search instruction and those in the representations of the original documents.
When texts are stored in a databank, a list is usually (automatically) drawn up of all the words which appear in the texts (apart from extremely frequent words such as "the", "and" etc.). For each word a reference is made of the document(s) in which it appears. This list is often called an "inverted file". This is a means of representing the original texts.
If the search instruction corresponds to one or more elements of the representation, the texts (documents) pertaining to it will be presented to the user. The search result can be printed out or used to reformulate the search question or command. The latter is sometimes referred to as "relevance feedback".
The methods proposed in the literature for conceptual retrieval are aimed at three elements in the diagram:
*The interface with the users
*The representation of documents
*The search operation.
4. A summary of conceptual retrieval methods
The following summary presents the approaches to the three elements specified above. First of all, the interface. Methods which try to realize conceptual retrieval by helping the user in the formulation of the question will be discussed. Under the title of representation, the next section discusses those methods based on the assumption that conceptual retrieval can be realized if the representations of the original texts are based on the legal importance or the legal meaning of a text. Decisions with respect to the design of the interface and the method of representation are related to each other. For example, if the interface provides the user with alternative search terms, these have to be part of the representation of the documents in order to be at all useful.
In this article, relatively little attention will be paid to the third element of the retrieval process, the search procedure. Given the representation methods and the possibilities of the interface, all sorts of search methods could be applied. These could vary from simple (boolean) string matching via statistical techniques to neural networks. Furthermore, as far as design considerations are concerned this aspect is not crucial, as supplements and/or alterations to a search method will, in general, not alter the design of a retrieval method. It is also usually possible to incorporate a number of search procedures within a retrieval system without changing the design.
4.1.The interface
It is the interface which makes communication between the user and the computer possible. It assists in the translation of the user's question into an actual search instruction for the computer. When the search instruction has been carried out, the interface is responsible for the reproduction of the results. On the basis of these results it is then possible to assess the relevance of the documents which have been found and to reformulate the question (or the actual command) if necessary. An interface can also assist the user in the formulation of the question [Vries et al., 1991].
83
Wildemast, C.A.M. and R.V. de Mulder
Figure 2
4.1.1.Thesaurus
As it is often difficult for the user to find the right words for the description of the question, use can be made of a thesaurus. A thesaurus is a list of synonyms. The advantage of this is that the system is able to offer the user alternatives to the words being looked for. It has been pointed out [Bing, 1987, p.44] that while a thesaurus can be useful, it is not able to solve all retrieval problems. In particular, it is not able to solve the problem that the meaning of a term is dependent on its context. This means that the interface should also contain information on the context.
4.1.2.Intelligent interfaces
Interfaces which give information on the relationships between legal concepts in a particular field have been described in [Bing, 1987] and [Guidotti et al., 1990]. Bing based the hierarchical structures which he proposed on the applicable legal regulations. The texts of the legal regulations were converted by hand into IF-THEN lines. All the legal regulations which have been rewritten in this way together determine the hierarchical structure. This is shown to the users graphically by means of arrow diagrams. The whole field can be reviewed with the help of these diagrams. Words from the diagrams which are relevant to the question can then be selected. When a choice has been made, synonyms are also shown in order that a search can be made with these. It is for the user to decide. The system itself then generates a (boolean) question to the databank.
In [Guidotti et al., 1990], a semantic network is proposed to reflect such a hierarchical conceptual structure. The concepts are connected to each other on the basis of selected (legal) semantic relationships. The user is shown a graphic representation of the network. The user can choose terms which refer to the concepts in order to describe his question. The selected terms are connected to others in the network (for example, because they are synonymous). These terms are also incorporated in the search question which the system automatically generates.
84
Some Design Considerations for a Conceptual Legal Information Retrieval System 4.1.3.Hypertext
Hypertext is a way of linking pieces of information that are stored in separate locations. This makes it possible to connect related information stored in different documents [Wiley, 1989, p. 223]. Greenleaf states that legal materials are particularly suited to hypertext presentation because of the fact that legal texts are densely cross-related [Greenleaf et al., 1991, p. 216]. A possible use of hypertext in the field of text retrieval is a hypertext presentation of the retrieved documents [Greenleaf et al., 1991][Merkl et al., 1990]. The documents are not presented as separate, individual items, but as a network in which interconnections between the documents are visible through linking terms. This enables the user to browse through the documents following his own line of interest.
4.1.4.Conclusion on interfaces
One of the characteristics of intelligent interfaces is that the user must work with the concepts which have been programmed into the interface. As Leith [1990] and others have convincingly argued, these concepts are not objective data but rather interpretations determined by social circumstances. De Mulder emphasises the fact that, unlike the physical sciences, the concepts used are not derived from empirical observation nor, as in mathematics, are they based on explicit and univocal conventions [Mulder, 1984] [Mulder et al., 1989]. Concepts therefore could change from user to user, from time to time and even within one search question.1 The interfaces described above, however, provide only one set of opinions. The user should be able to change the legal knowledge that is incorporated in the interface. This means that the interface should be flexible and be able to "learn" from, possibly a number of, users. Each individual user should be able to access the information through his own concepts.
4.2.Representation
The representation methods which have been proposed fall into two categories: those which use (only) manual methods and those which use automatic methods. Each of these categories can be further subdivided between "mainly reducing" and "mainly interpreting" approaches. The reducing approach means that the original texts are not represented by all the words which appear in them and the order in which they appear, but only by those words or groups of words which reflect most adequately the (legal) contents of the text. The interpreting approach uses various methods which represent documents with the help of (legal) knowledge.
representation
reducing
interpreting
indexing
document profile
clustering
manual methods
automatic methods
indexing
knowledge
representation
Figure 3
85
Wildemast, C.A.M. and R.V. de Mulder
4.2.1.Manual, reducing
Intellectual indexing
To search directly in untreated texts is not expedient for practising lawyers given the present state of computer technology and that which can be expected in the near future. The data files from which lawyers must select their texts are simply too extensive. Documents must, therefore, still be adapted before search instructions can be carried out. Texts may be, for example, represented by lists of words. One of the methods for producing such lists of words is to let an "expert" allot words to a text. An advantage of this method is that a word can be allotted to a text regardless of whether that word actually appears in the text. This approach also often leads to a considerable reduction in the files which would be consulted by the search program. This reduction, however, may entail a loss of potential information. Possibly the most significant disadvantage of this kind of representation is that every text has to be worked through by hand which is labour intensive and, therefore, expensive.
4.2.2.Manual, interpreting
Knowledge representation
This approach is based on the assumption that conceptual retrieval can only be realized if the search is carried out on the basis of legal "knowledge". This means that legal "knowledge" has to be described in a way which can be represented by a computer. In order to do this, various knowledge representation techniques have been developed. It is beyond the scope of this article to examine these in any depth [Oskamp, 1990].
The choice of representation technique does not answer the question, however, of what knowledge should be represented. Hafner has proposed that designs for computerized search mechanisms should reflect the way in which a (human) legal expert remembers and classifies judgements [Hafner, 1978][Hafner, 1987]. In order to do this, a model of the legal field required is necessary.
Dick proposes a somewhat different approach [Dick, 1987][Dick, 1991]. She proposes that lawyers search for information in the form of arguments which will support a solution to a concrete legal problem. The original texts must, therefore, be represented in terms of the arguments which appear in them.
Manual adaptation of the original texts is, in both cases, necessary in order to obtain the information required for the representation. A consequence of this is that the application is restricted to a relatively small legal field. Once again, these approaches are labour intensive and hence rather expensive.
4.2.3.Automatic, reducing
Indexing
Texts can be represented by all the words which appear in them (except for semantically irrelevant words such as the indefinite article). The disadvantage of this is, however, that if a word search is carried out many irrelevant texts are presented because that word appears in many texts [Davis, 1986][Mulder & Oskamp, 1979]. This problem is even more blatant in the case of legal texts. Research has shown that in these texts fewer different words are used than in "ordinary" texts. One solution would be to represent texts by words which are capable of distinguishing (several) texts from the rest of the collection. Words which would be capable of being used as distinguishers are those which appear with a certain frequency in only a few texts.
Davis has carried out research concerning obtaining these words automatically [Davis, 1986]. This tested the following hypothesis: words which have a poor distinguishing
86
Some Design Considerations for a Conceptual Legal Information Retrieval System capacity show a poisson distribution, words which have a good distinguishing capacity show a distribution other than poisson. Words from statute law and case law were examined to ascertain whether there was a poisson distribution. Those words which did not show a poisson distribution were compared to words allotted to the text by hand.
As regards case law, too few words were found this way which meant it was pointless to carry out a comparison with words allotted by hand. Statute law, on the other hand, produced a satisfactory number of words which meant that the comparison could be carried out with the aim of determining which words were the same in both methods. It was discovered that only a small section of the words were common to both methods. Although the number of corresponding words was small, the researchers expect that those words will semantically represent the text the best. It will be necessary to test this assumption further. A weakness that is inherent in this method is that the interpretation of the terms which have or have not been incorporated in the extraction will vary from user to user and during time.
4.2.4.Automatic, interpreting
Document profiles
In [Gelbart & Smith, 1990] and [Gelbart & Smith, 1991] it is proposed that documents should be represented by document profiles. A profile can be derived from each document. This profile consists of four parts: concepts, cases, legislation and facts. Each part is described by so-called profile key words. Concepts are described by statements of applicable law and resolutions to the issues when the law has been applied to the facts. Cases are described by citations of related issues, legislation by citations of applicable legislation and facts by description of the factual situation.
These profile key words are automatically generated from the original text by means of a method which combines legal knowledge with linguistic methods. This makes it possible to recognize legal word combinations as well as words. Each profile key word has a weight ascribed to it. The key words are then ordered according to weight.
The user's question is also described in the form of a profile. The user provides a profile sketch of the documents he requires by describing which concepts, cases, legislation and facts are considered to be important. Relevant documents are found on the basis of comparing the question profile with the documents' profiles. Documents with profiles which correspond most closely to the question profile are ordered according to the level of similarity and are presented to the user. It is also possible, however, to describe only one component, for example the facts. In this way cases are found in which there is a similarity in the factual situation.
This method may be considered to be a compromise between an approach which advocates the desirability of a concept structure and one which advocates the desirability of variable interpretation depending on the user and the course of time. The concept structure used here (the fourfold distinction) is kept extremely general. It cannot in itself, however, be changed by the user.
Document classification
The underlying principle of this method is that documents which deal with "the same" matters should be grouped together. This is also referred to as the clustering of documents [Salton, 1989, p. 326-345]. The process of clustering is based on the similarity between documents. As concerns the legal application of this method, the following has been proposed.
Merkl calculates the similarity between pairs of documents at four levels [Merkl et al., 1990]:
87
Wildemast, C.A.M. and R.V. de Mulder
1co-occurrent terms,
2co-occurrent law citations,
3co-occurrent terms and law citations which appear together and
4co-occurrent law citations which refer to a subject domain.
Level 1 contributes the least and level 4 the most to the similarity. The idea behind this is that documents which deal with the same legal subject will be more similar than documents which deal with differing legal subjects. Levels 1, 2 and 3 are calculated on the basis of statistical information which is acquired in the indexing phase such as term frequencies, document frequencies and the weight of terms. Level 4 is determined according to information from knowledge files. A certain legal field is then divided into subject fields. The knowledge file is a hierarchical reproduction of legal subjects which can be distinguished in a particular legal domain plus the corresponding legal regulations.
A document is considered to belong to a certain subject domain if the corresponding legislative article appears [Merkl et al., 1992].2
After all the pairs of documents have been compared, a hierarchical structure of clusters is automatically generated. Documents concerned with the same legal subject appear in each cluster. Certain clusters are chosen from the hierarchy to serve as so-called super documents. A super document is represented by terms and law citations which appear in the documents belonging to the super document. A user's question is compared with the representations of the super documents. Documents belonging to the super document which corresponds most closely to the question are presented to the user. The advantage of this method is that it is possible to search more directly for a set of documents, in which set the documents have an equal information value.
4.2.
5.Conclusion on representation
All the reducing methods have the disadvantage of the potential loss of information. Their main advantage is the lower cost of computer storage and a decrease in the time that a search operation takes. On the basis of technical developments, which have made a marked decrease in the cost of processing and storage possible, the expectation is that these advantages will not compensate for the disadvantage. Reducing methods of representation, however, are useful in a full text system in order to achieve a quick response time when such is desired.
Given the fast growth of the amount of documents that are available in the legal field, it seems that methods which are based on manual representation will increasingly become too expensive to be feasible. Furthermore, in addition to the problem in the legal field that there is no established empirical or conventional scientific basis for indexing, achieving an appropriate level of objectivity will be costly, if not impossible.
Knowledge representation could be useful in certain specific domains, but has, apart from its apparent cost, the disadvantage of representing only the opinion of one expert, or group of experts, at a certain time. Different users may hold different opinions, and they may wish to change the knowledge brought into the representation. If they would be enabled to do so, this could easily lead to errors and inconsistencies given the complexity of a domain of minimal sophistication. Automatic interpretative methods would also have to be based on opinions of one expert or group of experts and would also be hard to modify by the user. The representation could possibly be partly based upon linguistic techniques. This in itself would not compensate for the empirically unfounded legal notions. It would seem that providing end-users with the option of making non-trivial changes to a vast and complex set of automatically or manually interpreted data cannot be expected in the next decade.
88
Some Design Considerations for a Conceptual Legal Information Retrieval System The conclusion is, that legal documents will have to be electronically stored in the foreseeable future by a full text representation, with additional automatically generated non-interpretative indexes.
4.3.Search operations
By search operation is understood the function which ensures that the concrete search instruction (whether or not already reworked in the interface) is carried out on the documents represented in the system. Even in more complicated techniques than the pure boolean search, the search operation will in principle consist of the comparison of words, numbers and/or other symbols or combinations of these in the search instruction with those in the representations. These terms will typically only be searched for in terms of occurrence, rather then, for example, their frequency in the documents. The result of the boolean search operation is the answering of a yes/no question for each document as to whether the document satisfies the search instruction. In other search operations, what is looked for is a measurement which indicates the extent to which the document satisfies the search instruction. This may possibly be expressed in the form of an estimation of probability. In the case of such techniques, it is usually possible to order the documents found according to their expected relevancy [Salton, 1989][Bookstein & Klein, 1990]. This allows the user to devote his attention firstly to those documents at the top of the list. If he finds a large number of these to be relevant he can then work his way through the list until he has exhausted those of use to him. Ordinary statistical methods are applied in such search techniques.
A similar result is achieved by search techniques which make use of "neural networks". Neural networks
Conceptual retrieval with the help of neural networks was proposed in [Belew, 1987] and [Rose & Belew, 1989]. These networks make a certain level of associative searching possible. A simple example will illustrate how this is realized.
Neural networks consist of nodes and links between the nodes. Imagine that there are two layers: term nodes and document nodes. Each term node is connected to the document node in which the term appears. The retrieval mechanism works as follows. If there is a search for a term, there is activity in the network. This activity can best be imagined as a current which flows from the term to all the documents in which the term appears. The documents are activated and pass on the activity to all the connected terms. The activity is then passed on to the documents again via the terms and so on. In the course of time, the spreading of the activity can be stopped. It now appears that certain documents and terms are more activated than others. Those documents which are the most activated are presumed to be relevant to the question.
The terms which have been most activated can be presented to the user. These terms are probably ones which correspond to the term in the question. With the help of these terms, the question can be adapted for a new search operation.
4.3.1.Conclusion on search operations
An advantage of the neural network technique is that no legally fixed, and therefore limited, representation of the incorporated texts is chosen. The user can keep trying to improve his command description so that it corresponds as well as possible to his search requirements. The techniques of neural networks are still in the developing stage. It would seem that this field could contribute substantially to improving conceptual legal information retrieval. Ordinary statistical techniques, however, should not be ruled out prematurely.
89
Wildemast, C.A.M. and R.V. de Mulder
As stated above, from the point of view of designing a retrieval system, unlike the decisions about the interface and the representation method, the choice of a search method is not critical. Given the adequacy of the interface and the representation technique, even a multitude of search techniques could be implemented. In many cases, newly developed techniques could be added to a retrieval system in a later stage.
5.Conclusion
The above analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the techniques presented in current literature leads to the conclusion that it would be desirable if both the method of text representation and the interface would allow the user to define his own concepts. These concepts can then be more precisely re-defined on the basis of the results of search operations or interpretations by the interface. The system should store the concepts of the user: it would have to be "learning".
The representation technique must, therefore, not only be objective but also be complete while ensuring that the search time does not become unpractically long. A full text storage supplemented with a combination of, on the one hand, a complete word list plus the corresponding word frequency in each document and, on the other hand, a document list including the frequency of each word of every document would seem to be a workable choice.
As regards the interface, it is especially important that the user can bring into the system and modify his own concepts. We would argue that the quality of the interface is therefore the constraint factor in conceptual legal information retrieval at present. Research efforts should be concentrated on this area. A lot more can be done. For example, in the available literature there is little mention of an obvious method of allowing the user to make his ideas explicit: that the user can tell the system examples of clearly relevant documents which are known to him [Bookstein, & Klein, 1990][Gelbart & Smith, 1991, p. 229].
The choice of search technique is not a crucial design decision as, given the design choices for interface and document representation, various search techniques can be used as alternatives or supplements to each other.
Concept processor
A prototype of a system, containing a very large collection of legal cases and formal legislation and operating with techniques in which the considerations formulated here have been realized, is now nearing its completion at the Centre for Computers and Law of the Erasmus University, Rotterdam. We like to refer to it as a learning concept processor. Via the interface the documents can be looked up and given a relevance score through statistical techniques and are indicated by the user to be relevant or not. Concepts are -roughly speaking - stored in terms of sets of relevant documents, with concept names, user name and date and time. Relationships between concepts can be traced and/or indicated by the users. In our opinion, such a concept processor is a necessary part of a legal conceptual retrieval system because in law, concepts do not have a fixed and objective content, but can vary from user to user, from problem to problem and from time to time.
6.Notes
1For Example, if the user is involved in litigation which concerns two competing legal theories.
The accusing party and teh defendant might wish to produce different documents on thier common issue.
2 A refinement of the knowledge file in the sense that an attempt is made to determine the
importance of a legislative regulation for a document.
90
Some Design Considerations for a Conceptual Legal Information Retrieval System 7.References
This article may only be cited as: Wildemast, C.A.M. and R.V. de Mulder, Some Design Considerations for a Conceptual Legal Information Retrieval System. In: Grütters, C.A.F.M., J.A.P.J. Breuker, H.J. van den Herik, A.H.J. Schmidt, C.N.J. de Vey Mestdagh (eds), Legal Knowledge Based Systems: Information Technology & Law, JURIX'92, Koninklijke Vermande, Lelystad, NL, 1992.
[Belew, 1987] Belew, R.K., a connectionist approach to conceptual information retrieval. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on AI and Law, Boston, 1987, pp. 116-126.
[Bing, 1987] Bing, J., Designing Text Retrieval Systems for Conceptual Searching. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on AI and Law, Boston, 1987, pp. 43-51.
[Blair & Maron, 1985] Blair, D.C. and M.E. Maron, An evaluation of Retrieval effectiveness for a full-text document-retrieval system. In: Communications of the ACM, vol. 28, 1985, no. 3, pp.
289-299.
[Bookstein & Klein, 1990] Bookstein, A. and S.T. Klein, Information Retrieval Tools for Literary Analysis. In: Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA'90), Vienna, Austria, 1990, pp. 1-7.
[Davis, 1986] Davis D., Semantic Analysis in Legal Text Information Retrieval. In: Automatic Analysis of Legal Text: Logic, Informatics and Law, Elsevier Science Publishers, North-Holland, 1986, pp. 473-481.
[Dick, 1987] Dick, J.P., Conceptual Retrieval and Case Law. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on AI and Law, Boston, 1987, pp. 106-114.
[Dick, 1991] Dick, J.P., Representation of Legal Text for conceptual Retrieval. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on AI and Law, Oxford, 1991, pp. 244-253.
[Franken et al., 1992] Franken H., H.W.K. Kaspersen and A.H. de Wild (eds), Recht en computer, Kluwer, Deventer, 1992.
[Gelbart & Smith, 1990] Gelbart, D. and J.C. Smith, Toward A Comprehensive Legal Information Retrieval System. In: Tjoa A.M. and R. Wagner (eds), Database and Expertsystems Applications (DEXA'90), Vienna, Austria, 1990, pp. 121-125.
[Gelbart & Smith, 1991] Gelbart, D.and J.C. Smith, FLEXICON, A Legal Text-Based Intelligent System. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on AI and Law, Oxford, 1991, pp. 225-233.
[Greenleaf et al., 1991] Greenleaf, G., A. Mowbray and A. Tyree, The DataLex Legal Workstation -Integrating Tools for Lawyers. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on AI and Law, Oxford, 1991, pp. 215-224.
[Guidotti et al., 1990] Guidotti, P., L. Lucchesi, P. Mariani, M. Ragona and D. Ticornia, A Simple Intelligent Interface to Data Bases on Environmental Law. In: Tjoa A.M. and R. Wagner (eds), Database and Expertsystems Applications (DEXA'90), Vienna, Austria, 1990, pp. 285-289. [Hafner, 1978] Hafner, C.D., An Information Retrieval System, Based on a Computer Model of Legal Knowledge. UMI research press, Michigan, 1978.
[Hafner, 1987] Hafner, C.D., Conceptual Organization of Case Law Knowledge Bases. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on AI and Law, Boston, 1987, pp. 35-42.
[Leith, 1990] Leith, Ph., Formalism in AI and Computer Science. Ellis Horwood, Simon and Schuster, 1990.
[Merkl et al., 1992] Merkl, D., A.M. Tjoa and S. Vieweg, BRAND - An Approach for Knowledge Based Document Classification in the Information Retrieval Domain. In: Tjoa A.M., and Ramos I.
(eds), Database and Expertsystem Applications (DEXA'92), Vienna, Austria, 1992, pp. 245-259.
[Merkl et al., 1990] Merkl, D., S. Vieweg and A. Karapetjan, KELP: A Hypertext oriented User-Interface for an Intelligent Legal Fulltext Information Retrieval System. In: Tjoa A.M. and R. Wagner Database and Expertsystem Applications (DEXA'90), Vienna, Austria, 1990, pp. 399-404. [Mulder, 1984] Mulder, R.V. de, Een model voor juridische informatica. Koninklijke Vermande, Lelystad, NL, 1984.
[Mulder & Oskamp, 1979] Mulder, R.V. de, and A. Oskamp, Het woordgebruik van het Wetboek van Strafrecht en het Wetboek van Strafvordering. Faculteit der Rechtsgeleerdheid, Erasmus Universiteit,. Rotterdam, 1979, p. 75.
[Mulder et al., 1989] Mulder, R.V. de, C. van Noordwijk and H.O. Kerkmeester, Knowledge Systems and Law-The JURICAS Project. In: Martino A.A. (ed.), Pre-Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Logica, Informatica, Diritto, vol. 1, Florence, 1989, pp. 205-216. [Oskamp, 1990] Oskamp, A., Het ontwikkelen van juridische expertsystemen . Kluwer, Deventer, 1990.
91
Wildemast, C.A.M. and R.V. de Mulder
[Rose & Belew, 1989] Rose D.E. and R.K. Belew, Legal information retrieval: a hybrid approach. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on AI and Law, Vancouver, 1989, pp. 138-146.
[Salton, 1989] Salton, G., Automatic Text Processing: The transformation, Analysis, and Retrieval of Information by Computer. Addison-Wesley, US, 1989.
[Vries et al., 1991] Vries, W.S. de, H.J. van den Herik and A.H.J. Schmidt, Seperate Modelling of User-System Cooperation. In: Breuker, J.A.P.J., R.V. de Mulder and J.C. Hage, Legal Knowledge Based Systems: Model-Based Legal Reasoning JURIX'91, Koninklijke Vermande, Lelystad, 1991, pp. 28-39.
[Wiley, 1989] Wiley, Intelligent Databases, Object Oriented, Deductive Hypermedia Technologies, 1989. 92
some和 any 的用法及练习题( 一) 一、用法： some意思为：一些。可用来修饰可数名词和不可数名词，常常用于肯定句 . any 意思为：任何一些。它可以修饰可数名词和不可数名词，当修饰可数名词 时要用复数形式。常用于否定句和疑问句。 注意： 1、在表示请求和邀请时，some也可以用在疑问句中。 2、表示“任何”或“任何一个”时，也可以用在肯定句中。 3、和后没有名词时，用作代词，也可用作副词。 二、练习题： 1.There are ()newspapers on the table. 2.Is there ( )bread on the plate. 3.Are there () boats on the river? 4.---Do you have () brothers ?---Yes ,I have two brothers. 5.---Is there () tea in the cup? --- Yes,there is () tea in it ,but there isn’t milk. 6.I want to ask you() questions. 7.My little boy wants ()water to drink. 8.There are () tables in the room ,but there aren’t ( )chairs. 9.Would you like () milk? 10.Will you give me () paper? 复合不定代词的用法及练习 一.定义: 由 some，any，no，every 加上 -body,-one,-thing,-where构成的不定代词，叫做复合不定代词 . 二. 分类： 1.指人：含 -body 或 -one 的复合不定代词指人 . 2.含-thing 的复合不定代词指物。 3.含-where 的复合不定代词指地点。 三：复合不定代词： somebody =someone某人 something 某物，某事，某东西 somewhere在某处，到某处 anybody= anyone 任何人，无论谁 anything任何事物，无论何事，任何东西 anywhere 在任何地方 nobody=no one 无一人 nothing 无一物，没有任何东西 everybody =everyone每人，大家，人人 everything每一个事物，一切 everywhere 到处 , 处处 , 每一处
小学英语必考40个重要知识点！ 2015-11-30 1.现在进行时 表示正在发生的事情或进行的动作，常与now,listen,look等词连用，结构是主语+be动词(am, is, are)+动词ing. 如：It is raining now. 外面正在下雨 It is six o’clock now. 现在6点了 My parents are reading newspapers in the sitting room. 我父母正在客厅看报纸 Look!The children are having a running race now. 看！孩子们正在赛跑 问句将be动词移前，否定句在be动词后+not. 2.一般现在时 表示经常反复发生的事情或动作，常与often, usually, sometimes, always,every day(week year…) on Sundays等词连用。 结构是主语+动词原形；当主语为第三人称单数即he,she, it, Tom, my mother, the boy等词时，动词后加s或es. 如：We have an English lesson every day. 我们每天都要上英语课 Do the boys run faster than the girls? Yes, they do. 男孩比女孩跑的快吗？是的 ，后面动词一定要还原。 问句借助于do, does否定句借助于don’t,doesn’ｔ 3.一般过去时 表示发生在过去的事情或存在的状态，常与just now; a moment ago; … ago;yesterday; last ( week; month; year; Monday; weekend); this morning等词连用。 结构是主语+be动词的过去式（was;were）或主语+动词的过去式。 注意：be动词与动词过去式不可同时使用。 如：My earphones were on the ground just now. 我的耳机刚刚还在呢。 Where were you last week? I was at a camp. 你上个星期去哪了？我去野营了 What did you do yesterday? I visited a farm
学术英语单词 第一单元 free enterprise自由企业制度 adversity不幸，逆境 capitalistic 资本主义的 compelling 令人信服的 array 大群，大量 stockholder 股东 work force 劳动力 prospective 可能的 underestimate 低估 dedication 奉献 perseverance 坚忍 mailable 可邮寄的 cooperative 合作完成的 on-demand 按要求的 billionaire 亿万富翁undercapitalization 资本不足convertible 敞篷汽车 sander 打磨机 vendor 卖家 stockbroker 股票经纪人 personality 名人 facet 一个方面 mutual fund 共同基金 oceanic evaporation 海洋蒸发 business plan 经营策划 customer service 顾客服务 fraud 欺骗 road map 指南 transaction 交易 price-targeting strategy 区别定价战略pricing 定价 hassle 困难，麻烦 self-targeting 使自己成为目标 prise 撬开 insensitive 不敏感的，反应迟钝的recipe 菜谱 make sth. of sb/sth. 利用（机遇）illuminating 使清楚易懂的 turn sth on its head使……与之前相反的premium 溢价 profitable 有利可图的 chili 小红辣椒 triple 使成三倍 markup 涨价 whopping 巨大的 crisp 薯片 snack 吃零食 admittedly 确实，无可否认的 irritated 生气的 outwit 以智取胜 close substitutes 功能接近的替代品 business landscape 商业格局，商业环境competitive dynamics 竞争的态势social web 社交网站 sicial networking site（SNS）社交网站Facebook Wall 脸谱的涂鸦墙 call center 呼叫中心 support staff 向客户提供支持的员工competitive advantage 竞争优势adoption of new technology 新技术的采用 log in 登陆 news feed 即使新闻，动态消息 target audience 目标受众 text message 手机短信 overestimate 高估 relevance 重要性 mainframe 主机 underway 在进行中 portal 门户网站 order of magnitude 数量级 traffic 受到访问 cohort 一批人 feat 事迹 technophobic 畏惧技术的 overly 太 unnavigable 无法导航的 anonymous 匿名的 blur 变模糊
some和any的用法： （1）两者修饰可数单数名词，表某一个；任何一个；修饰可数复数名词和不可数名词，表一些；有些。〔2）一般的用法：some用于肯定句；any用于疑问句，否定句或条件句。 I am looking for some matches. Do you have any matches? I do not have any matches. （3）特殊的用法： (A) 在期望对方肯定的回答时，问句也用some。 Will you lend me some money? (=Please lend me some money.) (B) any表任何或任何一个时，也可用于肯定句。 Come any day you like. （4）some和any后没有名词时，当做代名词，此外两者也可做副词。 Some of them are my students.〔代名词） Is your mother any better?（副词） 3. many和much的用法： （1）many修饰复数可数名词，表许多； much修饰不可数名词，表量或程度。 He has many friends, but few true ones. There hasn't been much good weather recently. （2）many a: many a和many同义，但语气比较强，并且要与单数名词及单数形动词连用。 Many a prisoner has been set free. (=Many prisoners have been set free.) （3）as many和so many均等于the same number of。前有as, like时, 只用so many。 These are not all the books I have. These are as many more upstairs.
a a n和t h e的用法球类运动前面不用冠词 在操场上是固定搭配ontheplayground （一）不定冠词：a∕an的用法： ⑴表示一个 例：Shehasacleverson.她有个聪明的儿子。 ⑵表示每个 例：wehave3Englishclassesaweek.我们每周上3次英语课。 ⑶表示某个 例：Thebookis∕waswrittenbyastudent.这本书是一个学生写的。 ⑷表示某类之一 例：Iamateacher,heisadoctor.我是一名老师，他是一名医生。 ⑸第一次提到的人或物用不定冠词表示，再次提到时用定冠词。 例：Ihaveabike,thebikeisgreen.我有一辆自行车，这辆自行车是绿色的。 ⑹用于可数名词单数形式前，表示类别。 例：Ateachermustlovehisstudent.老师应该爱学生。 ⑺用于表示价格，速度，比率，时间等意义的名词前 例：3timesaday.一天三次 10yuanameter.10元一米
⑻用于抽象名词前，表示一种… 例：anewculture一种新文化 ⑼用于句型：“a∕an+Mr.∕Mrs.∕Miss.+姓氏”中 例：aMr.Wang一位姓王的先生（不认识） Mr.Wang王先生（认识） ⑽用于某些短语中 例：alotof许多，大量 haveagoodtime玩的开心，过的愉快 （二）定冠词the的用法： ⑴表示特定的人或事物 例：Thebookonthedeskismine.桌子上的书是我的。 ⑵表示听话人，说话人彼此都很熟悉的人或事物 例：WhereisTom汤姆在哪儿？ Heisintheroom.他在屋里。 ⑶第一次提到的人或物用不定冠词表示，再次提到时用定冠词。 例：Ihaveabike,thebikeisgreen.我有一辆自行车，这辆自行车是绿色的。 ⑷表示世界上独一无二的东西（专有名词除外） 例：Thesun太阳
Unit 1 When faced with both economic problems and increasing competition not only from firms in the united states but also from international firms located in other parts of the world, employee and managers now began to ask the question：what do we do now? although this is a fair question, it is difficult to answer. Certainly, for a college student taking business courses or be beginning employee just staring a career, the question is even more difficult to answer. And yet there are still opportunities out there d=for people who are willing to work hard, continue to learn, and possess the ability to adapt to change. 当面对不仅来自美国的公司而且来自位于世界其他地方的国际公司的经济问题和日益激烈的竞争时，员工和经理现在开始要问一个问题：我们要做什么？虽然这是一个很清晰的问题，但是它是很难回答的。当然，对于一个正在谈论商务课程的大学生或者一个刚开始职业生涯的员工来说，这个问题更难回答。但目前仍然有许多机会给那些愿意努力工作，继续学习并且拥有适应变化的能力的人。 Whether you want to obtain part-time employment to pay college and living expense, begin your career as a full –time employee, or start a business, you must bring something to the table that makes you different from the next person . Employee and our capitalistic economic systems are more demanding than ever before. Ask yourself: What can I do that will make employee want to pay me a salary? What skills do I have that employers need? With these questions in mind, we begin with another basic question: Why study business?
s o m e与a n y的用法 区别
some与any的用法区别 一、一般说来，some用于肯定句，any用于否定句和疑问句。例如： She wants some chalk. She doesn’t want any chalk. Here are some beautiful flowers for you. Here aren’t any beautiful flowers. 二、any可与not以外其他有否定含义的词连用，表达否定概念。例如： He never had any regular schooling. In no case should any such idea be allowed to spread unchecked. The young accountant seldom (rarely, hardly, scarcely) makes any error in his books. I can answer your questions without any hesitation. 三、any可以用于表达疑问概念的条件句中。例如： If you are looking for any stamps, you can find them in my drawer. If there are any good apples in the shop, bring me two pounds of them. If you have any trouble, please let me know. 四、在下列场合，some也可用于疑问句。 1、说话人认为对方的答复将是肯定的。例如： Are you expecting some visitors this afternoon?（说话人认为下午有人要求，所以用some）
常见成语解析及成语故事 换骨夺胎 【注音】huàn gǔ duó tāi 【成语故事】换骨夺胎原是道家传说吃了金丹换去凡骨凡胎后成仙。古代文人借用以前古文的意思用自己的语言去表达，黄庭坚认为这是换骨法，深入研究古文的原意进一步加以刻划形容，这叫夺胎法。也有人说不蹈古人一言一句，用夺胎换骨法可以点铁成金。 【出处】然不易其意而造其语，谓之换骨法；窥入其意而形容之，谓之夺胎法。宋·释惠洪《冷斋夜话·换骨夺胎法》 【解释】比喻诗文活用古人之意，推陈出新。 【用法】作谓语、定语；用于诗文等 【相近词】脱胎换骨、夺胎换骨 【成语举例】他临摹古画有换骨夺胎之妙，当然能够乱真。 提名道姓 【拼音】tí míng dào xìng 【成语故事】王夫人、薛宝钗、林黛玉等在贾母房内聊天，有人汇报史湘云来了，众人迎接，大观园内又多了一位金钗。贾宝玉跑来看史湘云，一见十分快乐，亲热的叫她的名字。王夫人要他不要提名道姓，她们在一起又玩个昏天黑地。 【出处】这里老太太才说这一个，他又来提名道姓的了。清·曹雪芹《红楼梦》第31回
【释义】提、道：说。直呼别人姓名，对人不够尊敬。 【用法】作谓语、宾语；指直呼别人姓名 【相近词】指名道姓、习题名道姓 【反义词】含沙射影 【成语例句】 ◎你得喝醉哟，不然哪里敢！既醉，则挑鼻子弄眼，没必要提名道姓，而以散文诗冷嘲，继以热骂：头发烫得像鸡窝，能孵小鸡么？曲线美，直线美又几个钱一斤？老子的钱是容易挣得？哼！诸如此类，无须管层次清楚与否，但求气势畅利。 ◎设若要摆，也不应该提名道姓。 随遇而安 【注音】：suí yùér ān 【释义】：随：顺从；遇：遭遇。指能顺应环境，在任何境遇中都能满足。 【出处】：清·刘献廷《广阳杂记》一：“随寓而安，斯真隐矣。”清·文康《儿女英雄传》第24回：“吾生有涯，浩劫无涯，倒莫如随遇而安。” 【用法】：偏正式；作谓语、宾语、定语、状语；含褒义；指能顺应环境 【示例】：不过能够～——即有船坐船云云——则比起幻想太多的人们来，可以稍为安稳，能够敷衍下去而已。（鲁迅《两地书》六）【近义词】：与世无争、随俗浮沉
some和any的用法 1.some adj.一些；某些；某个pron. 某些；若干；某些人 a.adj. some可以修饰可数名词或不可数名词，意为“某些”。 Some people are playing football. (some+可数名词) I ate some bread. (some+不可数名词) b.adj. some后面可以修饰可数名词的单数，意为“某(个)”。 Some day you will know. (some+可数名词的单数) 有一天你会知道的。 Some student cheated in the exam.(some+可数名词的单数) 有个学生考试作弊。 对比：Some students cheated in the exam.有些学生考试作弊。 c.pron. some此时作代词，后面不需要再加名词就可以表示“有些(人)”的意思。 All students are in the classroom, and some are doing their homework. d.pron. some作代词，意为“若干(…)”。 There are 10 apples on the table. You can take some. 桌上10个苹果，你可以拿走一些。 2.any adj.任何的；所有的pron.任何一个；任何 a.adj. any可以修饰可数名词和不可数名词，意为“任何的，所有的任何一（…）”。 （用于否定意义的陈述句、疑问句、条件状语从句if中） Do you have any ideas?(any+可数名词复数)(疑问句) 你有什么想法吗？ I don’t have any bread.(any+不可数名词)(否定意义的陈述句) Please tell me if you have any problem.(if引导的条件状语从句) b.any后面可以加可数名词的单数，意为“任何一（…）”。 Any error would lead to failure.(any+可数名词单数) 任何（一个）错误都会导致失败。 c.pron. any此时作代词，与some里面c点的用法相似，只是表示这个意义的时候，any多用于否定句和疑问 句中。 比较：There are 10 apples on the table. You can take some. 桌子上有10个苹果，你可以拿走一些。 There are 10 apples on the table, but you can’t take any. 桌子上有10个苹果，但是你不能拿。 There are some apples on the table.桌上有些苹果。 There aren’t any apples on the table.桌上没有苹果。 由此，把陈述句变为否定句/一般疑问句的时候，要把some改成any。 思考：some只用于肯定句，any只用于否定句和疑问句中吗吗？ 不一定，要看句子本身想表达的意思。 1.some可以用于肯定句和疑问句中。在表示请求、邀请、提建议等带有委婉语气的疑问句中，用some表示说话 人希望得到肯定的回答。例如： Would you like some coffee?你想喝咖啡吗? 这里用some而不用any，是因为说话人期待得到对方肯定的回答。 （因此Would you like…?你想要…吗?这个句型中多用some而不用any） 比较： Do you have any books?这里用any而不用some，说明这只是因为这只是纯粹的疑问。
幼儿英语教案--认识五官 Teaching Aims 1、正确识别面部器官：眼、耳、鼻、嘴。 2、能够区分单复数的器官名称。 3、单词：eye(s)、ear(s)、nose、mouth 短语：touch my…… 句型：This is aan…… These are…… Teaching Aids：五官图片 Teaching Ste 一、 Warming Up Chant: Two Little Blackbirds 二、 Daily Talk 1、 A: Hi， Good morning。 B: Morning。 A: How are you? B: Fine， thank you。 (And you?) A: Thank you。 2、A: How do you do? B: How do you do? A: What day is it today? B: It’s Friday。 3、A: What’s your name? B: My name is A 。 A: I’m John。 Nice to see you， A 。 B: Nice to see you，too。 4、A: How many people are there in your family? B: There’re five。 A: Who are they? B: They are my father……
5、A: How old are you? B: Six。 A: Who’s your friend? B: Jim。 6、A: What’s your telephone number? B: 65896246。 7、A: What color is it? B: It’s red。 A: What color do you like? B: I like pink and blue。 三、To Review 1、T: Look! What’s this? It’s a face。 C: Face。 T: What is on the face? (Point to the parts of the face。) C: This is an eyeearnosemouth。 2、T: Look at the face! How many eyes are there on the face? Let’s count! T&;am C: One， two。 C: Two eyes。 T: Good。 But what’s this? This is an eyeear。 C: This is an eyeear。 T: What are these? These are eyesears。 C: These are eyesears。 3、Game1 T: What is mi ing? C: An eyeear。 A nosemouth。 T: What are mi ing? C: Eyesears。 T: An ear mi ing。 Right?(Cover two ears with a hand。) C: No。 Ears。
元音字母有：a，e，i，0，u 我的问题是当这些元音出现在单词的那个位置?才能在这个单词的前面用定冠词an 首先要记住：在名词前加an的，是指其后的单词是以发音的元音音素(即：元音音标)开始的，不是通常所说的上面几个元音字母，因为它们有时的读音不是元音音素。 正常加an的情况：an egg, an apple, an interesting book, an orange, an ugly woman，an 后面单词的读音都是元音音素。 特殊情况：an hour, an honesty boy，因为an后面的单词中的h没有发音，实际上还是读“o”的音，所以用an。 再如：a university student ，a used book之所以用a, 是因为这里u的读音不读元音音素，而是读辅音[j] 。又如：We were a unit on the question.在这个问题上，我们的意见是一致的。 掌握用an还是用a，其实很简单：如上所述，关键的是要知道紧跟在所要 选择的不定冠词(an/a)后的单词的第一个音节的读音：如果它的读音是元音 音素，就用an，否则，用a。一般情况下，五个元音字母开头的词读元音 音素，如：apple, egg, orange, umbrella, idea，它们前面就用an。 但也有以元音字母开始的单词不读元音音素的情况，经常是u，如：university, unit 或名词前有以u开始的形容词修饰时，用a。a united front 统一战线。 有时虽然是以辅音字母开始，但这个辅音字母不发音，而它的读音却是元 音音素开始，这时，也应该用an，如：hour, honest man, 前面用an，因 为这时的h没有发音，而是读o的音。 如果后面是辅音字母开始的单词，那就用a，这点并不难。如：a bed. a cup等。 一句话：用an还是用a，看紧跟其后的发音是元音音素，就用an，否则， 统统用a。
(1)some和any 的用法： some一般用于肯定句中,意思是“几个”、“一些”、“某个”作定语时可修饰可数名词或不可数名词。如：I have some work to do today. (今天我有些事情要做)/ They will go there some day.(他们有朝一日会去那儿) some 用于疑问句时,表示建议、请求或希望得到肯定回答。如：Would you like some coffee with sugar?(你要加糖的咖啡吗？) any 一般用于疑问句或否定句中,意思是“任何一些”、“任何一个”,作定语时可修饰可数或不可数名词。如：They didn’t have any friends here. (他们在这里没有朋友)/ Have you got any questions to ask?(你有问题要问吗？) any 用于肯定句时,意思是“任何的”。Come here with any friend.(随便带什么朋友来吧。) (2)no和none的用法： no是形容词,只能作定语表示,意思是“没有”,修饰可数名词(单数或复数)或不可数名词。如：There is no time left. Please hurry up.(没有时间了,请快点) / They had no reading books to lend.(他们没有阅读用书可以出借) none只能独立使用,在句子中可作主语、宾语和表语,意思是“没有一个人(或事物)”,表示复数或单数。如：None of them is/are in the
classroom.(他们当中没有一个在教室里) / I have many books, but none is interesting.(我有很多的书,但没有一本是有趣的) (3)all和both的用法： all指三者或三者以上的人或物,用来代替或修饰可数名词；也可用来代替或修饰不可数名词。 both指两个人或物,用来代替或修饰可数名词。all和both在句子中作主语、宾语、表语、定语等。如：I know all of the four British students in their school.(他们学校里四个英国学生我全认识) / --Would you like this one or that one? –Both.(你要这个还是那个？两个都要。) all和both既可以修饰名词(all/both+(the)+名词),也可以独立使用,采用“all/both + of the +名词(复数)”的形式,其中的of 可以省略。如：All (of) (the) boys are naughty.(是男孩都调皮) (4)every和each用法： every是形容词,只能作定语修饰单数名词,意思是“每一个”,表示整体概念； each是形容词、代词,可用作主语、宾语、定语等,意思是“每个”或者“各个”,表示单个概念；each可以放在名词前,可以后跟of 短语,与动词同时出现时要放在“be动词、助动词、情态动词”之后或者行为动词之前 every和each都用作单数理解,但是下文中既可以用单数的代词(如he/him/his)也可以用复数的代词(如they/them/their)替代。如：Every one of the students in his class studies very hard.(他班上每个学生学
英语课堂热身小游戏 Game31热身小韵文目的让学生在学习后放松全身心，同时复习四季的词方法老师先边说韵文边做动作示范。然后让学生慢慢跟着老师做，最后由他们自己做。可以分组比赛看谁做得好。韵文全文Winter, spring, summer, fall. I am short and I am tall. Faster, faster, up and down. Now sit down and touch the ground. 动作Winter蹲下发抖Spring高高地跳起Summer手扇风Fall再次蹲下Im short 蹲着，并把手放到头顶，表示自己很矮。And I am tall再次站起，尽可能踮高脚尖。Faster, faster, up and down.用较快的频率不停的跳。Now sit down and touch the ground.快速的再次蹲下，并用两只手触摸地面。 Game32眼明手快目的熟悉四季以及季节特征的英文。道具在黑板上用较大的字写出四季单词。方法让学生一起站在黑板前，老师在一旁用Its hot\cold\cool\warm. 发指令，学生立即将手按到相应的季节上，在发令的间隙，老师可以视情况任意抽同学说出正确搭配。为调节气氛，老师可以故意延长语调或突然加快语速，游戏也可用淘汰制进行。每次动作最慢的同学出局，最后选出反应最快的同学。 Game33传声筒目的练习字母的听和写道具字母卡两套方法将学生分为两组，面对黑板站成两列，队列的最后一张小桌子上，分别放着两套字母卡，每组最后一名同学从本组的字母中抽出三张并悄悄告诉前面一位同学，然后一个接一个，一直传给本组第一个同学。该同学讲三个字母迅速写到黑板上，写完后迅速跑到队伍最后，做下一个抽字母的人，并由第二位同学听写字母。重复上述步骤，最先做完的一组获胜。当然老师应在最后检查各组的拼写。 Game34热身小游戏目的I have got I go to by；复习各类单词道具要复习的名词单词卡若干，在黑板上画出几种学过的交通工具，并在每种交通工具旁写出乘坐它可以去的地方。方法在黑板远处设置一条起点线，老师在一旁随意出示单词卡，学生举手用句型I have got 抢答。抢答对，向前跨一大步，重复上面的步骤，学生到达黑板跟前以后，可以自由选择乘什么交通工具到什么地方，说出正确的搭配，然后把说过的交通工具和地点擦掉。当黑板上所有的东西擦掉后，游戏结束。 Game35抓纸团目的运用He、She has got并复习各类单词］道具把单词分别写在纸条上，然后纸条揉成团放在一起，可以将以前学过的词组合在一起，如在名词前加上数字、颜色、大小等不同的形容词。方法两人一组，在单位时间内配合游戏。善于动手的抓纸团，语言比较好的打开纸团，用规定的句型造句。玩法一只手抛起一个纸团，然后迅速抓起桌面
学术英语管理U n i t课 文翻译 HEN system office room 【HEN16H-HENS2AHENS8Q8-HENH1688】
《业务营销化》 1 问街上一般的人什么是营销时，他们会告诉你那大概就是“卖东西的”。这从根本上说是正确的，但营销不是简单的销售行为，而是怎样做成的销售。我们都被全天候不间断营销所围绕，而我们每一个人都已经以我们自己的方式成了一名营销人。 2 专家是怎么定义营销的呢？根据美国市场营销协会，市场营销是一种组织职能，是为组织自身及利益相关者（stakeholders n. 利益相关者；股东）而创造、传播、传递客户价值，管理客户关系的一系列过程。 3 根据世界市场营销协会对营销的定义，“核心的经营理念是指导通过交换来识别和满足个人和组织需要的过程，从而为各方创造出众的价值。” 4 最后，英国特许营销学会说，“营销是有利地识别，预测，和满足顾客需求的管理过程”。 5 如果我们只是看这三个定义的共性，我们可以看出，营销本质上（in essence）是：a)发现和给顾客他们所想要的和需要的东西， b)通过做这些来获利。 4Ps或5Ps营销策略 6 密歇根州立大学（Michigan State University）的杰罗姆·麦卡锡（Jerome McCarthy）教授在20世纪50年代写了一本书并且定义了4Ps营销策略，包括产品、渠道、价格和促销。这本书为这个星球上最古老的专业提供了一个清晰的结构，而这个结构成为市场营销的定义。 7 为了更好地理解营销，你应该有你自己对术语的定义。例如，我认为营销是对产品的价格、分配、促销以及人员进行控制，满足顾客以获得利益。控制是个充满感情的词语，尤其在我们谈及控制人的时候。无论怎样，控制是很重要的，因为作为
some和any的区别和用法 要表示"一些"的意思，可用some, any。 some 是肯定词，常用于肯定句；any是非肯定词，常用于否定句或疑问句。例如： There are some letters for me. There aren''t any letters for me. Are there any letters for me? I seldom get any sleep these days. any也常用于条件分句以及带有否定含义的句子中： If you have any trouble, please let me know. 如果你有任何麻烦，请让我知道。 I forgot to ask for any change. 我忘了要一些零钱。 当说话人期待肯定回答时，some也可用于疑问句, 比如当说话人期待来信时，他可以问道：Are there some letters for me? 当购物时向售货员提问或者主人向客人表示款待时，也可在疑问句中用some: Could I have some of these apples? some和any 既可以修饰可数名词又可以修饰不可数名词，some常用在肯定句中，而any则常用在否定和疑问句中。因此 some和any 的用法主要是考虑用在肯定句、疑问句还是否定句中，与名词的可数与否无关。 some意为“一些”，可作形容词和代词。它常修饰可数名词复数。如：some books一些书，some boys一些男孩，也可修饰不可数名词，如：some water一些水，some tea一些茶叶，some常用在肯定句中。any意为“任何一些”，它也可修饰可数名词复数或不可数名词，常用于疑问句和否定句。如： --I have some tea here. 我这儿有些茶叶。 --I can’t see any tea. 我没看见茶叶。 --Do you have any friends at school? 你在学校有些朋友吗? --I have some English books, they are my best friends. 我有英语书，它们是我最好的朋友。 但在表示建议，反问，请求的疑问句中，或期望得到肯定回答时，多用some而不用any。如：Would you like some coffee? 你要不要来点咖啡? What about some fruit juice? 来点水果汁如何? 当any表示“任何”的意义，起强调作用时，它可以用在肯定句中； Any student can answer this question.任何学生都可以回答这个问题。 选题角度： 辨析some和any的不同用法：some 常用在肯定句中，而any 则常用在否定和疑问句中。在表示建议，反问，请求的疑问句中，或期望得到肯定回答时，多用some而不用any。一般用于疑问句或否定句中，用于never, hardly, without等词之后，用于if / whether 之后。而some则用于肯定句中，用于建议或请求的疑问句中，用于预料会作肯定回答的疑问句中，用于表示反问的否定的疑句中。 如： 1. I’d been expecting ________ letters the whole morning, but there weren’t ________ for me. (全国卷)卷 A. some; any B. many; a few C. some; one D. a few; none
some与any的用法区别 一、一般说来，some用于肯定句，any用于否定句和疑问句。例如： She wants some chalk. She doesn’t want any chalk. Here are some beautiful flowers for you. Here aren’t any beautiful flowers. 二、any可与not以外其他有否定含义的词连用，表达否定概念。例如： He never had any regular schooling. In no case should any such idea be allowed to spread unchecked. The young accountant seldom (rarely, hardly, scarcely) makes any error in his books. I can answer your questions without any hesitation. 三、any可以用于表达疑问概念的条件句中。例如： If you are looking for any stamps, you can find them in my drawer. If there are any good apples in the shop, bring me two pounds of them. If you have any trouble, please let me know. 四、在下列场合，some也可用于疑问句。 1、说话人认为对方的答复将是肯定的。例如： Are you expecting some visitors this afternoon?（说话人认为下午有人要求，所以用some）Are you expecting any visitors this afternoon?(说话人不知道下午是否有人来，所以用any) Didn’t you give him some tickets?(说话人认为票已经给他了。问题的回答是：Sure I did) Did you give him any tickets?（说话人不知道是否给票了。回答可能是yes或no。） 2、款待用语或问句的实质等于提出一个要求并希望得到肯定的回答时。例如：
some 和any 的主要区别为：some和any都表示“一些” ，但是“some”用于肯 定句，any用于否定句和疑问句。例如： There are some apples in the basket. 篮子里有一些苹果。 变成否定句： There are not any apples in the basket. 篮子里没有苹果。 变成疑问句： Are there any apples in the basket? 篮子里有苹果吗？ 特殊1：some：希望得到肯定的答复。 Will you lend me some money? (=Please lend me some money.) any：表任何或任何一个 Come any day you like. 特殊2：some和any后没有名词时，当做代名词，此外两者也可做副词。 Some of them are my students.〔代名词〕 Is your mother any better?（副词） 1. some用于疑问句或否定中: 1)在否定疑问句中,表示问话人的肯定倾向和对否定的惊讶和怀疑。如: Don't you have some new books? You have some new books, don't you? 你难道连几本新书 都没有吗。(在问话人心目中,"you"是有新书的,如今听说没有,因而表示惊讶和怀疑) 2)一般疑问句中,表示问话人盼望得到肯定的答复。如: -Can I have some apples? -Certainly! 3)表示建议。如: What about some fruit juice。喝点儿果汁怎么样。 2. any用于肯定句中: 1)表示三个或三个以上的人或事物中的一个。 如: You may take any one of these books.你可以随便拿一本书。 He studies harder than any of his classmates. (=He studies harder than any other students in his class.)他比班上任何一个学生都努力。 2)作"任何,无论谁"解。如: Any of them will do.他们中间的谁都行。 Any of them can tell you.他们无论谁都能告诉你。 我们知道，some通常用于肯定句，any则用于否定句或疑问句。但随着学习的深入，我们发现，情况并不完全如此，上述说法只能算是对some和any用法的一个不太准确和完整的概括。由于some和any是英语中比较常用的词，我们有必要对其用法作出较完善的归纳。 一、some和any作为形容词或代词，可以用来说明或代替复数名词或不可数名词，表示不定量，意为“一些”，其区别是：对其所说明或代替的名词持肯定态度时，用some；持非肯定（否定或疑问）态度时，用any。 在以下句子中使用some： 1.肯定句（包括肯定的陈述句和祈使句以及反意疑问句中肯定的陈述部分）。如： There are some new books on the teacher's desk. We have a lot of sugar. Take some with you, please. He bought some bread, didn't he? 2.持肯定态度的一般疑问句。如： Are there some stamps in that drawer? Didn't she give you some money? 3.表示请求或建议的一般疑问句，通常都希望得到对方肯定的答复，所以也用some。如： May I ask you some questions? Would you like some tea? 4.特殊疑问句及选择疑问句。因为特殊疑问句和选择疑问句并不对some所说明或代替的名词表示疑问。如： Where can I get some buttons? Do you have some pens or pencils? 在以下句子中使用ANY： 1.否定句（包括否定的陈述句和祈使句以及反意疑问句中否定的陈述部分）。如： I can't give you any help now. Do not make any noise. 精品文档