下载文档原格式
Semantic Feature Extractionusing Mpeg Macro-block ClassificationFabrice Souvannavong,Bernard Merialdo and Benoˆıt HuetD´e partement Communications Multim´e diasInstitut Eur´e com2229,route des crˆe tes06904Sophia-Antipolis-France(Fabrice.Souvannavong,Bernard.Merialdo,Benoit.Huet)@eurecom.frAbstractIn this paper,we present somefirst results in the extractionof semantic features from video sequences.Our approachis based on the classification of Mpeg DCT macro-blocks.Although it is clear that using macro-blocks imposes se-vere restrictions on the analysis accuracy of the image,ithas the advantage of avoiding the complete decoding ofthe Mpeg stream.Our objective is to evaluate the qualityof the Semantic Feature Extraction that can be obtainedwith this direct approach,to serve as a comparative base-line with more elaborate approaches.Keywords:Semantic classification,Discrete CosineTransform,Gaussian Mixture Models,Compressed Do-main.1IntroductionThe large amount of visual information,carried by videodocuments as well as still images,requires efficient andeffective indexing and search tools[2,6].The U.S.In-stitute of Standards and Technology sponsors the serie ofTREC12002conferences to promote progress in content-based retrieval from digital video.Our work takes placein this context where we focus on the feature extraction2Macro-block ClassificationIn the context of supervised classification,three steps are involved:feature extraction and representation,class modelisation and parameter estimation,finally classifica-tion with respect to decision rules.In our approach,features are directly provided by the video stream after parsing since we work only on I-frames,which are encoded somehow like jpeg pictures. These frames are composed of macro-blocks that contain 6DCT blocks,4for Y color component,1for U and1 for V i.e.4:2:0video format.We can represent a DCT macro-block by a vector of size64corresponding to the zigzag scan of the DCT block coefficients and then make the concatenation of the6vectors to obtain the feature vector of the whole region.Since thefirst DCT coeffi-cients are the most important i.e:to eye sensitivity and noise,the feature space dimension is simply reduced to 60by truncation.Moreover coefficients are scaled with respect to their importance in order to increase the sen-sitivity of the classifier to important components and at the same time to slightly improve the initialisation of the training algorithm,which is usually obtained via k-means algorithm as explained in the next subsection.We assume a mixture model to describe the distribu-tion of macro-blocks for each class,and specifically a multi-dimensional Gaussian distribution.Gaussian mod-els can capture the characteristics of a macro-block,while modeling the variation due to motion or lighting condi-tions.Moreover in[5],m and J.W.Goodman have proven that the distribution of macro-block DCT coeffi-cients can be well approximated by a Gaussian when the variance is constant;in the classification situation,the lat-ter hypothesis is more or less true and mixtures should compensate it.So the probability density function can be written as follows:For X C i P XΦi∑jαj p j X whereαiℜΦiµjσj and p j X NµjσjThe GMM parametersαjµj andσj are estimated using the traditional Expectation-Maximization algorithm[1] which is initialized with a classical k-means algorithm. In our current experiments,we also make the hypothesis that feature vector components are independent,thusσi is a diagonal matrix,or that only color components of the same frequency are correlated,thusσi is a matrix diago-nal by block.Finally the choice of the number of mixtures is simply achieved by looking at the test set loglikelihood evolution of the EM algorithm for various mixture num-bers.It should not increase to much in order to avoid data overfitting.Given an unlabeled macro-block X,the maximum a posteriori rule:ˆC arg maxiPΦi Xgives an estimation of the class it belongs to.The poste-rior probabilities can be expanded by Baye’s rule:PΦi XP XΦi PΦidata set proportionl o g −l i k e l i h o o dFigure 1:Threshold selectionHigher-level semanticson the upper part of the graph that are difficult to extract directly,but can be in-duced by a combination of lower-level features.Trec concepts,enclosed in boxes,that are spread in either of the previously stated categories.1.sian Mixtures,pute a detection score for each feature.The detection score of the feature i whose elementary childrens are J is simply defined by:Ds i∑jPj where jJP jNumber of macro-blocks with label jSelected sequences461814384226211710464714642133274562003549152218791401 Features total 1472409771584636183925505586398572971437text skin clothes sky tree building grass tarmac hair water ground Diagonal by block3826234922123417105840 recallprecision7553428364366777438078 Table2:Precision and recall during the development of the low level features.surprisingly good ranking in text ovelay detection.5ConclusionWe have presented a method based on DCT information of macro-blocks to detect Trec visual features from video shots in a single framework.Since macro-blocks carry only local information,a heuristic hierarchy was intro-duced to build thefinal decision rule at the frame-level and region-level.In gereral this evaluation is encouraging knowing the small extract of the development set used.In future works we plan to investigate methods to automati-cally elaborate the hierarchy.This will set up a complete probabilistic framework to detect features from low level observations and a more realistic manual annotation at the shot level will be required to train models. References[1]J.A.Bilmes.A gentle tutorial of the em algorithmand its application to parameter estimation for gaus-sian mixture and hidden markov models.ICSI-TR, 1997.[2]S.-F.Chang,W.Chen,H.Meng,H.Sundaram,andD.Zhong.A fully automated content-based videosearch engine supporting spatiotemporal queries.In IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology,volume8,pages602–615,1998.[3]S.-F.Chang and H.Sundaram.Structural and se-mantic analysis of video.In ICME,2000.[4]A.Girgensohn and J.Foote.Video classificationusing transform coefficients.In Proceedings of the International Conference on Acoustics,Speech, and Signal Processing,volume6,pages3045–3048, 1999.[5]m and J.W.Goodman.A mathematical anal-ysis of the dct coefficient distribution for images.In IEEE Transactions on Image Processing,volume9, pages1661–1666,October2000.[6]A.Pentland,R.Picard,and S.Sclaroff.Photobook:Content-based manipulation of image databases.In SPIE Storage and Retrieval for Image and Video Databases,february1994.[7]M.Saeed,W.Karl,T.Nguyen,and H.Rabiee.A new multiresolution algorithm for image seg-mentation.In IEEE International Conference on Acoustics,Speech,and Signal Processing,volume5, pages2753–2756,1998.0.20.40.60.8100.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.8P r e c i s i o nRecallPrecision-Recall(a)Outdoors00.20.40.60.810.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.8P r e c i s i o nRecallPrecision-Recall(b)CityscapeFigure 3:Classification Evaluation[8]F.Souvannavong,B.Merialdo,and B.Huet.Clas-sification semantique des macro-blocs mpeg dans le domaine compresse.In Compression et Repre-sentation des Signaux Audiovisuels ,pages 235–238,2003.[9]J.Verbeek,N.Vlassis,and B.Kr.Greedy gaussianmixture learning for texture segmentation.In Work-shop on Kernel and Subspace Methods for Com-puter Vision ,2001.[10]H.Wang and S.-F.Chang.A highly efficient systemfor automatic face region detection in mpeg video.In IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology ,volume 7,pages 615–628,Au-gust 1997.0.20.40.60.810.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.8P r e c i s i o nRecallPrecision-Recall(a)Text0.20.40.60.8100.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.8P r e c i s i o nRecallPrecision-Recall(b)FaceFigure 4:Classification Evaluation。
Chapter 1 Introduction1.Explain the following definition of linguistics: Linguistics is the scientific study oflanguage. 请解释以下语言学的定义:语言学是对语言的科学研究。
Linguistics investigates not any particular languagebut languages in general.Linguistic study is scientific because it is baxxxxsed on the systematic investigation of authentic language data.No serious linguistic conclusion is reached until after the linguist has done the following three things: observing the way language is actually usedformulating some hypothesesand testing these hypotheses against linguistic facts to prove their validity.语言学研究的不是任何特定的语言，而是一般的语言。
语言研究是科学的，因为它是建立在对真实语言数据的系统研究的基础上的。
只有在语言学家做了以下三件事之后，才能得出严肃的语言学结论:观察语言的实际使用方式，提出一些假设，并用语言事实检验这些假设的正确性。
1.What are the major branches of linguistics? What does each of them study?语言学的主要分支是什么?他们每个人都研究什么?Phonetics-How speech sounds are produced and classified语音学——语音是如何产生和分类的Phonology-How sounds form systems and function to convey meaning音系学——声音如何形成系统和功能来传达意义Morphology-How morphemes are combined to form words形态学——词素如何组合成单词Sytax-How morphemes and words are combined to form sentences句法学-词素和单词如何组合成句子Semantics-The study of meaning ( in abstraction)语义学——意义的研究(抽象)Pragmatics-The study of meaning in context of use语用学——在使用语境中对意义的研究Sociolinguistics-The study of language with reference to society社会语言学——研究与社会有关的语言Psycholinguistics-The study of language with reference to the workings of the mind心理语言学:研究与大脑活动有关的语言Applied Linguistics-The application of linguistic principles and theories to language teaching and learning应用语言学——语言学原理和理论在语言教学中的应用1.What makes modern linguistics different from traditional grammar?现代语言学与传统语法有何不同?Modern linguistics is descxxxxriptive;its investigations are baxxxxsed on authenticand mainly spoken language data.现代语言学是描述性的，它的研究是基于真实的，主要是口语数据。
International Journal Information theory & applications, Volume 9, Number 2, (51-60)Formal Languages for Image Primitives DescriptionPeter L. Stanchev, David Green Jr.Kettering University, Flint, MI 48504, {pstanche, dgreen}@How do people recognize things in the images? We do not know theanswer of this question. But in this paper we try to present some of the methodsused by the artificial intelligence to recognize primitives into an image. We willanalyze methods where images could be presented, as primitive’s strings. Suchimages are CAD/CAM engineering drawings, handwrite and typed characters,chromosome images, bubble chamber images, computer graphics images, etc.Syntactic description is most easily applied to images that have the followingproperties: (1) they can be decomposed into a set of primitives and (2) theprimitives are recognizable by an automatic procedure.Keywords:Formal Languages, Pattern Recognition1.F o r m a l D e f i n i t i o n sA n alphabet V, is any finite set of symbols. A string over analphabet V is any string of finite length composed of symbols from thealphabet. A string with length 0 is called the empty string, which is usuallydenoted by λ. V* - the free monoid over the set V is the set of all stringscomposed of symbols from V, including the empty string. The symbol V+denotes the set of strings V* - λ. A language is any set of strings over analphabet. A string grammar is a four-tuple G = (V N, V T, P, S), where V N is afinite set of nonterminals (variables), V T is a finite set of terminals(constants), (V T∩ V N = ∅), P is a finite set of productions and S is the start(root) symbol (S ∈V N). A language generated by G, denoted by L(G), is aset of strings that satisfy two conditions:a)each string is composed only of terminals;b)each string can be derived from S by suitable applications ofproductions from the set P.A grammar, in which the productions have the general form α→β, is called a phase structure grammar. According to the type ofrestrictions placed on the production rules the grammars may becategorized into four types:a) a grammar in which the form of production rules α→β, where α∈(V N∪ V T)+, β∈ (V N∪ V T)* is allowed, is called unrestricted grammar;b) a grammar in which the form of production rules is α1 A α2→α1βα2,where α1, α2∈ (V N∪ V T)* , β∈ (V N∪ V T)*, A ∈ V N, is called context-sensitive grammar;c) a grammar in which the form of production rules is A →β, where A∈V N, β∈ (V N∪ V T)+, is called context-free grammar;d) a grammar in which the form of production rules is A → a B or A →α,where A, B∈ V N, a ∈ V T, is called regular grammar.It is easy to see that all regular grammars are context-free, all context-free grammars are context-sensitive, and all context-sensitive grammars are unrestricted. The most often used grammars for image element description, are context-free and regular grammars. We will describe some of the most popular grammars concerned with some particular applications.2.A G r a m m a r f o r C h r o m o s o m e D e s c r i p t i o nThis grammar is proposed by Ledley at al. ([Ledl65]) and it is used to characterize submedian and telocentric chromosomes. The grammar isFigure 1. Set of chromosome primitivesG is given by G = (V N, V T, P, S) where V N =grammarThe{<submedian chromosome>, <arm pair>, <left part>, <right part>, <arm>, <side>}, V T = {a, b, c, d, e}, S={<submedian chromosome>}, and P:<submedian chromosome> →<arm pair> <arm pair><arm pair> →<side> <arm pair><arm pair> →<arm pair> <side><arm pair> →<arm> <right part><arm pair> →<left part> <arm><left part> →<arm> c<right part> → c <arm><side> → b <side><side> →<side> b<side> → b<side> → d<arm> → b <arm>b<arm> → <arm><arm> → aAn example of submedian chromosome is given in Figure 2. Their string representation is "babcbabdbabcbabd".3.T h e P i c t u r e D e s c r i p t i o n L a n g u a g e(P D L)Another interesting example for image element description is the picture description language (PDL), proposed by Shaw ([Shaw69]). In PDL each terminal symbol is labeled at two distinguished points, a tail and a head. Four binary and a unary operations between primitives are defined. The corresponding operation descriptions and interpretations are given in the Figure 3.Figure 3. PDL descriptionLet consider the following example concerning a house drawing description. The set of the primitives is given in the Figure 4.a b c dFigure 4. Set of a house drawing primitivesG =(V N, V T, P, S) is given by: V N = {house, roof,grammarThewall}, V T = { a, b, c, d, +, x , - , *, ~ , “,” },P: <roof> →((b + c)*a)<wall> →(((~d )+a)+d)<house> →(roof * wall)The PDL structural description ( ( ( b + c ) + a ) * ( ( ( ~ d ) + a ) + d ) ) corresponds to the house drawing in Figure 5.Figure 5. A house drawingPDL is often used to express characters, for the purpose of their recognition.4.G r a m m a r s f o r T w o o r T h r e e D i m e n s i o n a l P a t t e r nD e s c r i p t i o nIn our considerations up till now the only relation between primitives was the concatenation. A natural generalization is to use some other useful relations. This is a more effective in describing two or three-dimensional pattern.For example in the grammar proposed by [Ledl62] for house description, the following relations are included as terminal symbols:→ (X, Y) means that X is to the right of Y;Ο (X, Y) means that X is inside of Y;Θ (X, Y) means that X is inside on the bottom of Y;↑ (X, Y) means that X rests on tops of Y;→ (X, Y) means that X rests to the right of Y.The grammar is defined as G = (V N, V T, P, S). An example of V T is given in Figure 6, where V N= {<door>, <windows>, <chimney>, <wall>, <gable>, <roof>, <front view>, <side view>, <house> } , S={<house>}→ΟΘ↑ ( ) Figure 6. Definition of V T in example for house descriptionThe production set P can be defined as:<door> →<windows> →<windows><chimney><chimney><wall> →<wall> →Θ<wall> →Ο<gable> →<gable> →↑ (<chimney>, )<roof> →<roof> →↑ ( <chimney>, )<front view> →↑ ( <gable>, <wall> )<side view> →↑ ( <roof>, <wall> )<house> → <front view><house> → (<house>, <side view>)The following string corresponds to the house drawing shown in→(↑( ↑Figure 7. Drawing of a house5.T r e e G r a m m a rAregular tree grammar is a five-tuple G = (V N, V T, r, P, S), where V N is a finite set of nonterminals, V T is a finite set of terminals (V T∪V N = ∅), S is the start symbol (S ∈ V N), P is a finite set of productions of the form Ω→Ψ , where Ω and Ψ are trees, r is a ranking function, which denotes the number of direct descendants of a node whose label is a terminal in the grammar ([Moay76]). A tree grammar is an expansive tree grammar iff each production in P is of the formA → aA1A2....A N o r A→a,w h e r e a∈V T,A,A1,A2,...,A N∈V N.A house drawing and the corresponding tree representation is given in the Figure 8.Housea b c dSet of primitives$c db a baFigure 8. Tree representation of a house drawing6.F u z z y G r a m m a rLet X be a classical set of objects, called the universe, whose generic elements are denoted as x. Membership in a classical subset A of X is often viewed as a characteristic function from X to {0, 1}, such as µA(x) = 0 iff x ∉ A; and µA(x) = 1 iff x ∈ A. {0, 1} is called a valuation set . If the valuation set is measured on the real interval [0, 1], A is called a fuzzy set [Zade65]. µA(x) is the grade of membership of x in A.Informally, a fuzzy grammar may be viewed as a set of rules for generating the elements of a fuzzy set [Lee69]. More precisely, a fuzzy grammar is a quadruple G=(V N,V T ,P, S), where V T is a set of terminals, V N is a set of non-terminals (V T∩V N =∅), P is a finite set of productions, S ∈V N is the initial symbol. The elements of P define fuzzy sets in (V N∪ V T)* (referred as f uzzy productions) and for the case of context-free fuzzy grammars are expressions of the form: A ρ→β, A ∈ V N, β∈ (V N∪ V T)*, where 0 ≤ρ≤ 1 is the grade of membership of β given A. In case of general grammars, let α1, α2, ..., αm be strings in (V N∪ V T)* andα1ρ2→α2, α2ρ3→α3, ..., αm-1ρm→αm, where 0 ≤ρi≤1 be productions. The expressionα1ρ2→α2, α2ρ3→α3, ..., αm-1ρm→αm, will be referred to as a derivation chain from α1to αm. A string x of V T* is said to be in the fuzzylanguage L(G) iff x is derivable from S. The grade of membership µG(x) of x in L(G) is given by:µG(x) = sup min (µ ( S ρ1→α1), µ (α1ρ2→α2), ..., µ (αmρm+1→ x)), where µ (αIρi+1→αi+1) is the non-null ρi+1 such as (αIρi+1→αi+1) ∈ P, for i = 0, 1, ... , m, if α0 = S and αm+1 = x. The supremum is taken over all derivation chains from S to x. In any derivation chain, the minimum ρi is taken.A fuzzy grammar for a house drawing used in [Rabi87] isFigure 9. Set of primitivesThe fuzzy grammar G is given by G = (V N, V T, P, S), where V N = {<house>, <facade>, <front>, <sideview>, <wall>, <window>, <door>, <chimney>, <roof>}; V T = {in, inW, inN, inS, inE, inNW, inSW, inNE, inSE, outN, outS, outE, outNE, outSE, intersect, “,” , square, triangle, rhomboid, trapezoid}.The position symbols are presented in Figure 10, where I, W, N, S, denote the four cardinal points and "in" and "out" denote that an object is inside or outside another object. Other position terminal symbols are "intersect" for intersection, "(...)" for enclosure, etc.Figure 10. Relation symbolsS = <house> and P:<house> (1.0)→ <sideview> outE <house> ;<house> (1.0)→ <facade> ;<door> (1.0)→ <square> ;<window> (0.8)→ <square> ;<window> (1.0)→ square outE square ;<chimney> (0.8)→ trapezoid ;<wall> (1.0)→ square ;<wall> (1.0)→ ( <window> in square ) ;<wall> (0.8)→ ( <window> <door> in square ) ;<front> (1.0)→ triangle ;<front> (1.0)→ <chimney> outS triangle ;<roof> (1.0)→ rhomboid ;<roof> (1.0)→ <chimney> outS rhomboid ;<facade> (0.95)→ <front> outS <wall> ;<sideview> (1.0)→ <roof> outS <wall> ;<chimney> (0.9)→ square ;<wall>(0.95)→ (<door> inS square).For the house drawing in Figure 11 the following string corresponds: "(square outS rhomboid outS (square in square)) outE (triangle outS (square inS square ))". After processing by the given grammar the object "house" is recognized with grade of membership 0.8.Figure 11. A house drawing7.A t t r i b u t e R e l a t i o n a l G r a p hThe Attributed Relational Graph (ARG) is proposed in [Eshe84]. It is a relational structure, which consists of a set of nodes and a set of branches representing the relations between the nodes. Both nodes and branches may have some attributes assigned to them.Formally an ARG is defined as G = (N, B, A, E, G N, G B), where N (N = {n1, n2, ..., n|N|) - a finite set of nodes; |N| is the number of nodes in N;B (B = { b1, b2,...,b|N|}) - a set of ordered node pairs (or directed branches), i.e., b=(n i, n j) for some 1 ≤ i, j ≤ |N| denotes the branch emanating from node n i to node n j and |B| is the number of branches in B; A - an alphabet of node attributes; E - an alphabet of branch attributes; G N - a function (or a set of functions) for generating the node attributes; G B - a function (or a set of functions) for generating the branch attributes.Nodes are used to represent the basic elements in the image, while their properties are assigned as attributes to the respective nodes. Attributed branches between the corresponding nodes represent the relations between two basic elements. As an example we choose the area of House-furnishing design [Rabi89]. We limited the example to the basic elements shown in Figure 12, with the associated attributes, and the relations shown in Figure 13.Figure12. Basic elementsFigure 13. RelationsFigure 14. House furnishing design planThe corresponding ARG representation of the house furnishing plan from Figure 14 is: N (set of nodes)n1 → line ([0.0, 0.0], [0.7, 0.0])n2→ line ([0.0, 0.0], [0.0, 1.2])n3→ line ([2.3, 0.0], [4.8, 0.0])n4→ line ([6.1, 0.0], [6.6, 0.0])n5→ line ([0.0, 2.7], [0.0, 4.0])n6→ line ([6.6, 0.0], [6.6, 4.0])n7→ line ([0.0, 4.0], [6.6, 4.0])n8→ rectangle([0.7,-0.25],[2.3,-0.25], [0.7,0.25],[2.3, 0.25])n9→ rectangle([-0.25,1.2],[0.25, 1.2],[-0.25,2.7],[0.25, 2.7])n10→ rectangle([3.5, 2.5], [5.8, 2.5], [3.5, 4.0], [5.8, 4.0])n11→ door (1, [4.8, 0.0], [6.1, 0.0])n12→ bed (1, [0.75, 3.25])n13→ bed (1, [1.25, 3.25])n14→ wardrobe (1, [3.7, 0.7], 2, wood)n15→ chair (1, [2.5, 2.5])Some of the G B elements are:b1→ parallel (n12, n13),b2→ parallel (n12, n3),b3 → parallel (n13, n3).8.C o n c l u s i o n sThis paper presents some methods on understanding and interpretation of primitives in automated image analysis and processing. A new strategy using extended linear combination and fast two pass parallel pattern matching techniques is proposed in [Wang98]. This new method is able to distinguish objects with very similar patterns which is a limitation in the described methods.R e f e r e n c e s[Eshe84] Eshera M., Fu K., "A Graph Distance Measure for Image Analysis" , IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cyber., Vol. SMC.-14, No.3, pp.398-408 (May/June 1984)[Ledl62] Ledley R., "Programming and Utilising Digital Computers", DigitalComputers, McGraw-Hill, N.Y. (1962)[Ledl65] Ledley R., Rotolo L., Golab T., Jacobsen J., Ginsberg M., Wilson J., "FIDAC: Film Input to Digital Automatic Computer and Associated Syntax-Directed Pattern-Recognition Programming System" , in "Optical and Electro-Optical Information Processing" , Tippet J. et al., (edts.), MIT Press, pp.591-614 (1965)[Lee69] Lee E., Zadeh L., "Note on fuzzy languages", Information Sciences, Vol.1, pp.421-434 (1969).[Moay76] Moayer B., Fu K., "A Tree System Approach for Fingerprint Pattern Recognition" , IEEE Trans. Comput., C-25, pp.262-274 (Mar. 1976)[Rabi87] Rabitti F., Stanchev P., "An Approach to Image Retrieval from Large Image Databases", Proc. ACM-SIGIR Conf., New Orleans, pp.284-295 (1987)[Rabi89] Rabitti F., Stanchev P., "GRIM_DBMS - a GRaphical IMage DataBase System", in "Visual Database Systems", T. Kunii (edt.) North-Holland 1989 (415-430).[Shaw69] Shaw A., "A Formal Picture Description Scheme as a Basis for Picture Processing Systems" , Inf. Control, No. 14, pp.9-52 (1969)[Wang98] Wang P., Analysis, Learning, and Recognition of Articulated Line Drawing Images, Int. J. CSIM, Special Issue on Image Recognition, Vol 1-2, (1998).[Zade65] Zadeh L., "Fuzzy Sets", Inf. Control, No. 8, pp.338-353 (1965)。
英国论文Paper各部分如何写作英国留学要想写出高质量的paper，就必须写好paper的每个部分。
下面英国智酷小编就为大家介绍一下paper各部分如何写作吧！一篇Paper基本是由下面这九个部分组成的：Preparation, Structure, Title, Abstracts, Introduction, Conclusion, Body of Paper, Recursion, Acknowledgment.让我们先来看看paper写作都有哪些需要特别注意：Preparation（前期的准备工作）准备工作就是收集写作资料，找出灵感和写作方向，这步骤基本都会泡在图书馆里完成，当然也可可以适当结合网络资源库。
Structure（结构框架是重点）一篇paper的写作结构应该是两个triangle组成的：上面一个倒三角，下面一个正三角，可能Freshman就不懂了，没事往下看，这两三角形其实就是：选题可以宽一点(wide)，然后研究方向要窄，最后的conclusion又要扩散思维。
在paper的body前后都必须有declarative statement，用最少的字句表达出自己的观点，以吸引你的教授。
Title（标题要清晰简短）表达出自己唯一的topic以提升读者的兴趣(promote the interest of reader)，然而title中切记不能出现abbreviation和自己的result。
Abstract（摘要其实就是整篇Paper的浓缩版）简明扼要，一般情况下不要超过两百字，单独成段，，Abstract的写作顺序可以这样写：介绍主要研究对象(subject)、实验设计(design)、实验步骤(procedures)以及最后结果(results)Introduction（前言一样要求精简）顺序是一般背景介绍、别人工作成果、自己的研究目的及工作简介，其中介绍别人工作时只需介绍和自己最相关的方面(very relevant)，而对自己的工作介绍不用说明细节，因为这个要放到body中去。
英国留学生毕业论文写作技巧英国留学生毕业论文写作技巧写作的目的，一方面是要求考生对本专业的根底知识和专业知识学习的总结，另一方面也是考核自考生对所学理论进行科研能力的训练，下面是搜集的英国留学生毕业技巧，欢送阅读查看。
平时的小作业有essay 和 report 两种格式essay --- 结构分为introduction, main body, 和 conclusion. 不用太复杂的结构Report ----- 要有 executive summary, 结构要求很高，文章分为几个局部，每个局部都要有大标题，下面还要有副标题，等等。
(可以参考一起附上的report例文的结构)文章一定要有references (), 就是引用别人文章中的观点，但是这个引用不能整断整段的直接用书上，网上的文章，或者杂志上的文章的内容。
如果一段话中有超过三个词是引用的，就要说明references. (如果完全是用自己的语言将别人的观点说出来了，引用的词是两个或更少，就可以不用标出references)。
*如果整段要直接引用原话，要用引号标出，而且这样的引用的比率不能超过全文字数的5%。
*全文注明references的文字,就是引用的文字不能超过全文字数的30%.*References ()可以是书，也可以是学术杂志上发表的文章，或者网上的文章，但是引用的文章最好大多数是近十年的文章，而且References一定要按照正确方法标注。
References 在文中是在文中用自己的话说出别人书中或文章中的内容后，用括号标出作者和年代，而在文后的references列表中一定要用Harvard references system的格式来标出。
的数量也是有要求的，一般是每1000 字要有5个references.字数也是要按照要求写的，否那么会扣分文后的references列表和附录 (appendix)是不算字的。
比方，文章要求如果是4000字，那正文的字数就是4000 +/- 10% 字。
《学术论文写作（英）》课程教学大纲一、课程基本信息课程代码：17002204课程名称：学术论文写作（英）英文名称：Academic English Writing课程类别：通识课学时：64学分：4适用对象: 国际商学院财务管理中外联合培养项目班级；考核方式：考试先修课程：商务英语阅读II，商务英语写作II二、课程简介《学术论文写作（英）》专门针对广东财经大学中外人才培养实验班二年级学生开设的大学英语系列改革课程之一。
该课程是一门桥梁课程，旨在提高中国学生的学术研究与论文写作能力，帮助他们适应接下来的留学学习；课程以学术研究与论文写作各环节和分项技能的训练为纲，帮助学生培养良好的学术研究和写作习惯，并且注重技能的巩固和整合，强调学以致用。
同时，课程注重中西结合，在学术阅读和写作中加强爱国主义教育，增加学生文化自信，培养学生批判性思维，使之既要继承中华优秀传统文化又要弘扬时代精神，既要立足本国又要面向世界，即把中华传统文化以及现代文化的创新成果继承下来，传播出去，发扬光大，最终促使他们成为向世界介绍中国、传播中华文化且具有国际视野的高端双语复合型人才。
该课程教学采取以学生为中心, 教师讲授为引导，学生写作训练、主题讨论以及雅思写作模拟练习为辅助的模式；将面授与机助学习，课内讲授和课后自主学习紧密结合起来。
课堂教学采用外语教学与研究出版社引自的Garnet Education的经典学术英语教材《学术研究与论文写作》和《学术英语阅读》。
本课程的教学评估包括形成性评估和终结性评估。
三、课程性质与教学目的学术论文写作（英）是一门通识必修课，其主要目的是为我校必须参加雅思考试的中外人才培养实验班同学提供系统学习学术英语语言、培养学术论文写作能力和增强雅思写作考试技巧，同时通过大量阅读输入提高学生的学术英语素养、学术英语交流和跨文化交际能力，提升他们的批判性思维能力和跨文化交际意识。
学生学完该门课程后，应能达到以下要求：1）掌握基本学术论文写作技能，包括撰写abstract, introduction, definition, conclusion 的方法和paraphrasing 和referencing 的技巧、规范；2）掌握学术研究的基本方法，包括选题、收集和分类资料、运用论据论证观点、对论据的分析和解释等；3）学生的语篇分析和概括能力，特别是改述(paraphrase)和综述(summarise)的能力显著提升，语言表达丰富多样化；4）学生的批判性思维、西方逻辑思维和东西方文化差异意识通过写作、教师引导、和讨论得以相当的提升；提升学生在学术交流中的辩证性思考能力，能够坚定文化自信，向世界“讲好中国故事，传播好中国声音，阐释好中国特色”，进一步帮助学生树立正确价值观和加强爱国主义教育。
scientific paper 的含义特点-概述说明以及解释1.引言1.1 概述概述在科学研究领域，科学论文是学术交流的基础和重要手段之一。
科学论文是科学家们将自己的研究成果进行记录、总结和传播的方式，旨在向同行学者、研究机构和学术界提供全面而详实的研究结果。
通过科学论文的发表，研究者们可以分享他们的研究思路、实验方法、数据结果和结论，从而推动科学知识的进一步发展和学科的进步。
科学论文具有多种形式和格式，包括原始研究论文、综述论文、评论论文、案例报告等。
不同类型的科学论文有着不同的写作要求和结构，但它们都需要遵循科学研究的基本规范和准则。
科学论文具有一些共同的特点。
首先，科学论文应该是基于科学方法和实证研究得出的结论，而不是主观意见或个人观点的陈述。
其次，科学论文应该有明确的目的和研究问题，并通过严谨的实验设计和可靠的数据来解决这些问题。
此外，科学论文还应该具备可重复性，即其他研究者能够根据提供的方法和数据重新进行实验，以验证研究结果的可靠性和可信度。
科学论文的发表对科研人员来说具有重要意义。
首先，科学论文的发表能够扩大研究人员的影响力和声誉，提高个人的学术地位和职业发展。
其次，科学论文的发表可以促进学术交流和合作，有助于不同领域的研究者相互学习和借鉴。
另外，科学论文的发表还可以为学术界提供一个评价研究质量的标准，推动科学研究朝着更高的水平发展。
综上所述，科学论文作为科学研究和学术交流的重要手段，具有明确的定义和特点。
它们通过记录和传播研究成果，推动科学知识的发展和学科的进步。
科学论文的发表对于研究人员的个人发展和学术界的进步都起到了重要的推动作用。
1.2文章结构文章结构部分的内容可以如下编写：1.2 文章结构在科学论文撰写过程中，良好的文章结构是确保逻辑清晰性和读者易于阅读的重要因素。
一个典型的科学论文通常由以下部分组成：1.2.1 标题科学论文的标题应该简明扼要地概括研究的主题和目的。
一个好的标题可以吸引读者的注意力，并在最初阅读材料之前提供信息。
Chapter Five SemanticsTeaching Focus▪1. What is semantics?▪2. Meanings of “meaning”▪3. Sense and reference▪4. Sense relations▪5. Componential analysis --- a way to analyze lexical meaning▪6. Predication analysis --- a way to analyze sentence meaning1. What is semantics?▪Semantics is the study of meaning in language.▪Or specifically, it is the study of the meaning of linguistic units, words and sentences in particular.✦Different focus of the study in semantics:▪Logical semantics/philosophical semantics: Logicians and philosophers have tended to concentrate on a restricted range of sentences (typically, statements, or …propositions‟) within a single language.▪Linguistic semantics: The linguistic approach is broader in scope, aiming to study the properties of meaning in a systematic and objective way, with reference to as wide a range of utterances and languages as possible.2. Meanings of “Meaning”▪The word “meaning” has different meanings.▪It has been studied for thousands of years by philosophers, logicians and linguists.✦The naming theory: Plato & Aristotle✦Words are just names or labels for things.✦Can you show the limitations of this theory?▪The semantic triangle: C. K. Ogden & I. A. Richards (1923) → The Meaning of Meaning.▪There is no direct link between a linguistic form and what it refers to. In the interpretation of meaning they are linked through the mediation of concepts in the mind. ▪thought/reference (concept)symbolizes refers tosymbol/form referent(word, phrase) stands for(object)▪Geoffrey Leech (1974, 1981). Semantics: The Study of Meaning. Seven types of meaning:✦Conceptual meaning✦Connotative meaning✦Social meaning✦Affective meaning associative meaning✦Reflected and meaning✦Collocative meaning✦Thematic meaning(1) Conceptual meaning▪It makes the central part of meaning.✦Refers to logical, cognitive or denotative content.✦Concerned with the relationship between a word and the thing it denotes, or refers to.(2) Connotative meaning▪The communicative value an expression has by virtue of what it refers to, over and above its purely conceptual content.✦A multitude of additional, non-criterial properties, including not only physical characteristics but also psychological and social properties, as well as typical features. ▪Involving the …real world‟ experience one associates with an expression when one uses or hears it.✦Unstable: they vary considerably according to culture, historical period, and the experience of the individual.▪Any characteristic of the referent, identified subjectively or objectively, may contribute to the connotative meaning of the expression which denotes it.(3) Social meaning▪What a piece of language conveys about the social circumstances of its use.✦Dialect: the language of a geographical region or of a social class.✦Time: the language of the 18th c., etc.✦Province: language of law, of science, of advertising, etc.✦Status: polite, colloquial, slang, etc.✦Modality: language of memoranda, lectures, jokes, etc.✦Singularity: the style of Dickens, etc.▪domicile: very formal, official steed: poetic▪residence: formal horse: general▪abode: poetic nag: slang▪home: general gee-gee: baby language (4) Affective meaning▪Reflecting the personal feelings of the speaker, including his attitude to the listener, or his attitude to something he is talking about.✦You‟re a vicious tyrant and a villainous reprobate, and I hate you for it!✦I‟m terribly sorry to interrupt, but I wonder if you would be so kind as to lower your voices a little. or✦Will you belt up.(5) Reflected meaning▪Arises in cases of multiple conceptual meaning, when one sense of a word forms part of our response to another sense.✦When you hear …click the mouse twice‟, you think of Gerry being hit twice by Tom so you feel excited.▪Many taboo terms are result of this.(6) Collocative meaning▪The associations a word acquires on account of the meanings of words which tend to occur in its environment.✦pretty: girl, boy, woman, flower, garden, colour, village, etc.✦handsome: boy, man, car, vessel, overcoat, airliner, typewriter, etc.(7) Thematic meaning▪What is communicated by the way in which a speaker or writer organizes the message, in terms of ordering, focus, and emphasis.✦Mrs Bessie Smith donated the first prize.✦The first prize was donated by Mrs Bessie Smith.✦They stopped at the end of the corridor.✦At the end of the corridor, they stopped.3. Sense and reference▪Sense and reference are two terms often encountered in the study of word meaning. They are two related but different aspects of meaning.✦Sense is concerned with the inherent meaning of the linguistic form. It is the collection of all the features of the linguistic form; it is abstract and de-contextualized. It is the aspect of meaning dictionary compilers are interested in.✦Reference means what a linguistic form refers to in the real, physical world; it deals with the relationship between the linguistic element and the non-linguistic world of experience.▪Every word has a sense, but not every word has a reference.✦Grammatical words like but, if ,and do not refer to anything. And words like God, ghost and dragon refer to imaginary things.▪Therefore it is suggested that we should study meaning in terms of sense rather than reference.4. Sense relations▪Synonymygradable▪Antonymy complementaryconverse▪Hyponymy▪Polysemy4.1 Synonymy▪Synonymy refers to the sameness or close similarity of meaning. Words that are close in meaning are called synonyms.▪Complete synonyms are rare. According to the way they differ, synonyms can be divided into the following groups:▪i. Dialectal synonyms --- used in different regional dialects✦British English American English✦autumn fall✦lift elevator✦flat apartment✦tube underground▪ii. Stylistic synonyms --- differing in style✦kid, child, offspring✦kick the bucket, pop off, die, pass away, decease▪iii. Synonyms that differ in their emotive or evaluative meaning✦collaborator, accomplice▪iv. Collocational synonyms✦accuse, charge▪v. Semantically different synonyms✦surprise, amaze, astound4.2 Antonymy▪The term antonymy is used for oppositeness of meaning. Words that are opposite in meaning are antonyms.▪There are three types of antonyms.▪i. Gradable: Can be modified by adverbs of degree like very; Can have comparative forms; Can be asked with how.✦good, bad✦young, old✦hot, cold▪ii. Complementary: the denial of one member of the pair implies the assertion of the other.✦alive, dead✦male, female✦present, absent▪iii. Converse or relational: exhibit the reversal of a relationship between the pair; one presupposes the other.✦husband, wife✦buy, sell✦before, after4.3 Hyponymy▪Hyponymy refers to the sense relation between a more general word and a more specific word. It is a kind of inclusiveness.▪Superordinate: the more general word▪Hyponyms: the more specific words▪Co-hyponyms: hyponyms of the same superordinate✦flower, rose, lily✦animal, cat, dog✦furniture, bed, desk4.4 Polysemy▪Polysemy refers to the sense relation that the same one word has more than one meaning. Such a word is called a polysemic word.✦table: a piece of furniture; orderly arrangement of facts, figures5. Componential analysis---a way to analyze lexical meaning▪Componential analysis is a way proposed by the structural semanticists to analyze word meaning.▪The approach is based upon the belief that the meaning of a word can be dissected into meaning components, called semantic features.▪HUMAN✦man (ADULT, MALE)✦woman (ADULT, FEMALE)✦boy (NON-ADULT, MALE)✦girl (NON-ADULT, FEMALE)▪father: PARENT (x, y) & MALE (x)✦x is a parent of y, and x is male.▪take: CAUSE (x, (HA VE (x, y)))✦x causes x to have y.▪give: CAUSE (x, (~HA VE (x, y)))✦x causes x not to have y.▪Componential analysis provides an insight into the meaning of words and a way to study the relationships between words that are related in meaning.6. Predication analysis --- a way to analyze sentence meaning▪The meaning of a sentence is obviously related to the meanings of the words used in it, but it is also obvious that sentence meaning is not simply the sum total of the words.▪Predication analysis: proposed by the British linguist G. Leech▪The basic unit in this method is called prediction. It is the abstraction of the meaning of a sentence.▪A predication consists of argument(s) and predicate.✦An argument is logical participant in a predication, largely identical with the nominal element(s) in a sentence.✦A predicate is something said about an argument or it states the logical relation linking the arguments in a sentence.▪Tom smokes.▪Tom is smoking.▪Tom has been smoking. TOM (SMOKE)▪Does Tom smoking?▪Tom does not smoke. argument predicate▪Kids like apples. → KID, APPLE (LIKE)▪It is hot. → (BE HOT)Assignments▪How can words opposite in meaning be classified? To which category does each of the following pairs of antonyms belong?▪north/south vacant/occupied▪literate/illiterate above/below▪doctor/patient wide/narrow▪poor/rich father/daughter▪honest/dishonest normal/abnormalExercises▪I. Multiple choice.▪1. The naming theory seems applicable to ___ only.▪A. verbs B. adjectives C. adverbs D. nouns▪2. Hyponyms of the superordinate “flower” do not include “___”.▪A. wardrobe B. tulip C. lily D. rose▪3. Predication analysis is a way to analyze ___ meaning.▪A. phoneme B. word C. phrase D. sentence▪II. Make judgments (true or false)▪1. In the diagram of the classic semantic triangle, the word “symbol” refers to the object in the world of experience.▪2. When the same one word has more than one meaning we call it a polysemic word. ▪3. Complete synonyms, i.e. synonyms that are mutually substitutable under all circumstances, are rare in English.。
C E N T E R F O R R E S E A R C H I N L A N G U A G E January 1988Vol. 2, No. 3 The monthly newsletter of the Center for Research in Language, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla CA 92093.(619) 534-2536;electronic mail:crl@CONTENTSPaper:Formal Semantics, Pragmatics, and Situated Meaningby Aaron V.Cicourel,Department of Sociology,UCSDEDITOR’S NOTEThis newsletter is produced and distributed by the C ENTER FOR R ESEARCH IN L ANGUAGE,a research center at the University of California, San Diego, which unites the efforts of researchers in such disciplines as Linguistics, Psychology,Computer Science, Artificial Intelligence, Commu-nication, Sociology,and Philosophy, all of whom share an interest in language.We regularly fea-ture papers related to language and cognition (1 - 10 pages, sent via email) and welcome response from friends and colleagues at UCSD as well as other institutions.Please forward correspondence toTeenie Matlock, EditorCenter for Research in Language, C-008University of California, San Diego 92093Telephone: (619) 534-2536Email:crl@SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATIONIf you are currently receiving a hardcopy of the newsletter only and have an email address to which the newsletter can be sent, please forward that information to CRL.Can we send you the email version only to save printing and mailing costs?If you require a hardcopy in addition, please request it and we will be happy to send you one.If you require the unformatted nroff version of the newsletter,please request it from CRL after you have received the current regular formatted version.If you know of others who would be interested in receiving the newsletter,please forward the email or postal mailing address to CRL.Thank you.BACK ISSUESBack issues of this newsletter are available from CRL in hard copy as well as soft copy form. Papers featured in previous issues include the following:The Cognitive PerspectiveRonald ngackerDepartment of Linguistics, UCSDvol. 1, no. 3, February 1987Toward Connectionist SemanticsGarrison W.CottrellInstitute for Cognitive Science, UCSDvol. 1, no. 4, May 1987Dimensions of AmbiguityPeter NorvigComputer Science, UC Berkeleyvol. 1, no. 6, July 1987Where is Chomsky’s Bottleneck?S.-Y.KurodaDepartment of Linguistics, UCSDvol. 1, no. 7, September 1987(2nd printing of paper in no. 5, vol. 1)Tr a nsitivity and the LexiconSally RiceDepartment of Linguistics, UCSDvol. 2, no. 2, December 1987__________________________________________RECENT DISSERTATIONSSally RiceDepartment of Linguistics, UCSDTitle:Towards a Cognitive Model of Transitivity Recent Colloquia:William Marslen-Wilson (APU-MRC/Cambridge) presented a talkon 1/7 entitled Sequential processes in the recognition of spoken words.Formal Semantics, Pragmatics, and Situated Meaning*Aaron V.CicourelDepartment of Sociology,U.C.S.D.Draft - November,1987; Not for publication nor quotationIntroductionRecent work in linguistics seeks to link concepts derived from an autonomous theory of meaning (compositional semantics) to notions like intuition, psychological realities or mental models, and the speaker-listener’s everyday experiences. Compositional semantics can be viewed as the product of a collective memory that represents normatively abstracted experi-ences with imagined and actual language.A major focus of the paper is to contrast ethnographically situated on-line dis-course in sociolinguistics with the notion of an autonomous-like compositional semantics as an idealized yet simultaneously functional knowledge resource.The idealized aspects of formal semantics derive from a self-conscious decomposition of lex-ical, sentential/clausal meaning that permits formal scrutiny of the compositional properties of utterances.An ethnographi-cally oriented sociolinguistic basis for compositional semantics relies on the intuitive reconstruction and practical use of this idealized knowledge resource in locally instantiated and managed daily life situations as guided and constrained by resource-limited conditions of information processing.Notions like background or procedural knowledge must be viewed as empiri-cally contingent resources by speakers, listeners, and research analysts when compositional properties of utterances or dis-course are used and/or assigned meaning.In this paper,I seek to clarify the linguist’s necessary use of intuitive sociocultural folk models while engaged in formal semantic analysis.The folk models instantiate the linguist’s tacit ethnographic knowl-edge as part of the analysis of individual utterances.Three linguistic problems motivate the present paper.First, how do we assess the relevance of a theory of speech acts that examines only half of what takes place in discourse by using single utterances?Second, under what theoretical and methodological conditions do linguists justify decisions about evidence that force them to embrace an "archeological linguis-tic" perspective which formally excludes data that are contingent on the circumstances of language use and the constraints of limited capacity processing?It would be difficult to imagine archeologists confining themselves to a cave filled with artifacts if they also have access to natives talking about and producing the same artifacts outside of the cave.Finally,as consumers of formalisms, or at least of a formal notation system, sociolinguists need to know something about the consequences of adopt-ing some version of available formal linguistic theories.Formal studies of semantics in western speech areas are invariably produced by native speaking linguists or linguists familiar with the language.Linguists using French, German, Polish, or Russian examples do not record native informants in their local habitats in the sense of cross-linguistic acquisition or anthropological linguistic research with exotic languages. Nor are these formal studies likely to survey representative samples of native informants in everyday settings in order to explore the social distribution of lexical knowledge in highly stratified societies.Formal semantics presupposes standardized meanings that are assumed to be accessible intuitively or directly,but whose clarification need not go beyond normative descriptions of hypothetical environments. There is, however, a necessary reliance on the linguist’s and informant’s normative and intuitive knowledge and experiences of sociocultural conditions and language structure and use.The linguist’s expertise with language structure and use, therefore, depends heavily on a mixture of dictionary definitions and tacit native (or native informant) understanding of hypothetical examples of language use.The pragmatics of language use in mundane settings and the way new lexical items or frozen expressions emerge and are negoti-ated in emergent, locally managed interaction are not treated as problems in traditional theories of compositional semantics.A few lexical items often used in formal semantics will be the point of departure for exploring sociocultural conditions that can alter the normative meanings that students of compositional semantics address with logical categories and rules of inference. The idea is to review aspects of the standardized normative meanings that enable linguists to assume that their study of lexical items, phrases, and sentence-like utterances contain elements of meaning that possess a kind of autonomous status in the structure of a given language.*Delivered at the 1987 International Pragmatics Conference held at Antwerp, Belgium, 17-22 August 1987.I am grateful toGilles Fauconnier,Edwin Hutchins, Yuki Kuroda, and George Lakoff for their helpful critical remarks and suggestions on earlierdrafts of this paper.Tacit or explicit awareness of an idealized compositional semantics is analogous to speaker-listeners’ normative knowl-edge of abstract notions of civil rights, status and role expectations that are associated with institutional, organizational, and interpersonal relations in daily life.In the pages that follow, I discuss progressively less formal approaches to semantics by reference to notions like hyponymy,mental spaces or schemata, and psychological realities.The use of these notions calls attention to culturally constituted discourse strategies that are always presupposed in work on formal semantics and recent attempts to link semantics to cognitive processing issues.Some aspects of hyponymyIn unpublished lecture notes on hyponymy and semantic opposition written in 1982 and revised in 1985, S-Y.Kuroda makes several brief but useful remarks on the role of intuition and psychological realities when linguists attempt to create appropriate definitions in formal semantics.I will use some of Kuroda’s suggestions as a point of departure to explore semantic issues associated with intuition and psychological realities by reexamining the normative and practiced aspects of culture presupposed in the notion of hyponymy.Borrowing from Kuroda, the notion of hyponymy can be defined as the relation that holds between a specific or subor-dinate and general or superordinate concept.For example:Def. 1 - If a concept c contains another,C,c can be said to be a hyponym of C.If "boy" contains the concept expressed by "male," then "boy" is a hyponym of "male.""Girl" is not a hyponym of "male," but is a hyponym of "female."If " " denotes words and the brackets [ ] denotes concepts, then "boy" is a "symbol" that denotes the "concept" expressed by it.If ["boy"] denotes this concept, we could eliminate the " " and simply write [boy].In more general terms, [ ] can be used to represent concepts not easily expressible by an English word. Here are three examples.Ex. 1. [male] is not a hyponym of [human], nor is [female] because nonhuman animals can be male or female.Both [cat] and [dog] contain [animal] and are both hyponyms of [animal].If an "animal" is viewed as a four-footed "beast", then [human] is not a hyponym of [animal]; but if [animal] is any member of the animal kingdom as contrasted with "plant," then [human] is a hyponym of [animal].Ex. 2. [father] and [mother] are hyponyms of [parent], and [brother] and [sister] are hyponyms of [sibling].Ex. 3.Kuroda uses the terms "boy" and "man" and "girl" and "woman" to suggest a common aspect of meaning between "boy" and "girl" that is lacking in "man" and "woman," yet this common aspect of meaning is not captured entirely by "child," "young," "immature," etc.The term [JUVENILE] seems more adequate.Hence, [boy] and [girl] are hyponyms of [JUVENILE], while [man] and [woman] are not.All of the terms used thus far to illustrate the notion of hyponymy presume unstated aspects of a common culture and an unequivocal meaning for each term.The terms chosen to illustrate formal semantic relationships are seldom if ever prob-lematic to writer and reader.If we are to link formal semantics to the pragmatics of language use, normative understandings of lexical items often do not suffice. Pragmatic aspects of semantic relationships presume perceptual and interaction condi-tions associated with prior experiences or the activation of such conditions as part of the sociocultural knowledge base that is constitutive of the conceptual organization of semantic memory.When students of language engage in field research in western cultures, they use informants to make judgments on how language use in local settings influences and is influenced by the types of participants present, their relationship to each other, their perception and assessment of each other’s activities, and the kind of social competence each attributes to the other(s). The standardized normative meanings assumed to be available may prove to be inaccessible to some participants and/or per-ceived as inappropriate for locally defined social interaction.The perception of local and complex status and role relation-ships can consciously and implicitly affect how the speech event unfolds, its content, and any consequences that may follow.The concept [JUVENILE] is not easy to define because the notions of "child," "young," "immature," etc., are not read-ily specifiable vis-a-vis everyday much less academic use in a compositional semantics sense.A few minor complications can emerge if we try to specify a "child’s" age.For example, should we begin at age 2?How far should we continue above and below the age of two for the concept "child" to cover what we hope will be its normative features? What should we say about the upper end?Should we stop at age 10, 11, or 12?Should we reserve the age of 13 for something we cannormatively call "adolescence?"A[JUVENILE] can be someone who is 13-18 years of age for legal purposes, but as empirical research has shown, things can become ambigous if a person is 15 years of age and is charged with a serious felony such as murder.A person aged 13 or older who is accused of committing a serious felony poses difficulties for legal authorities because the judgments that have to be made require semantic constructions and interpretations of such folk notions as "community reaction," past offenses, school history,the person’s physical appearance, their "demeanor," how serious the adult authorities deem the infraction to be, how"remorseful" the accused appears to adult authorities, the family’s community influence, the kind of legal representation the family can afford, and the way the case is presented in court.All of these latter conditions can con-ceivably apply to "older children," ages 8 or 9 through 12.The definitions of hyponymy employed by Kuroda rely on a formal use of common sense terms that help us understand intuitive aspects of compositional semantics.The linguist creates formal knowledge structures by an abstraction process in which her or his intuitive knowledge and sociocultural experiences in formal and local situations become implicit resources for perceiving lexical items as possessing standard meanings that can be decomposed using a consistent notation system.Another example can help to illustrate some of the contingencies of meaning construction and use.Kuroda notes that the concept of leg may be linked to the concept of "walking" or that walking contains the concept of "leg" because of the locomotion involved when we refer to the use of leg. But this view is rejected because "walking" is said to contain the con-cept of "moving," but not the concept of "leg."Ex. 4. [walk] contains the concept of moving; it is a hyponym of [move].In Ex. 4, the formal term "hyponym" is now associated with what appears to be a more self-evident expression, "con-tain." The term "contain" can help us to understand the idea of "walk." The general point is that, with the help of examples, we assume that we understand what is meant by "contain" in this context. We must rely on our intuitive understanding of ordinary words like"contain" in order to construct a semantic theory based on intuition and psychological realities.A paral-lel problem exists when the linguist uses intuitive sociocultural knowledge to parse or segment textual and discourse materi-als by reference to rules and linguistic structures.These activities do not include a self-conscious attempt on the part of the analyst to address the interaction of intuitive and compositional knowledge employed in constructing a formal analysis.In the present context, we seek to clarify the intuition of the linguist about the sociocultural folk models that motivate the analy-sis produced.The folk models instantiate the linguist’s ethnographic knowledge as part of the analysis of individual utter-ances.It seems normatively acceptable to associate walking with moving, and not with leg(one can walk on their hands).An earlier compositional view such as generative semantics could allow for the idea that the term "walk" can imply a substruc-ture such as moving by the use of one’s legs and feet.What is of importance cognitively is the extent to which a reference to "walking" activates mental images pertaining to the movement of legs and feet.The notion of spreading schema activation (McClelland and Rumelhart, 1981) suggests that lexical items trigger conceptual and empirical elements not explicitly specified but presumably implied by the linguist’s refer-ence to intuition.If linguists explicitly acknowledge the necessity of integrating intuitive understanding about psychological reality and the formal conceptual clarification of terms like"walking," "moving," and "leg," then sociocultural notions are presupposed and should be clarified in order to understand the research analyst’s reasoning strategies and tacit and explicit use of cultural knowledge. A formal strategy of analysis enables the analyst to build normative,objective structures by using her or his intuitive knowledge. The reader is unable, however, to examine the claim that objective structures exist and link them to the analyst’s taken for granted native intuition. An abstract compositional strategy can also obscure the empirical study of the processes by which humans construct and attribute meaning to language structures and use.The union of two concepts can be clarified by recalling that a first concept is a hyponym of a second concept if the first is a more specific and the second is a more general concept and if they are of the same semantic type.Providing for the gen-eral condition of only comparing two things of the same type, however, is not always clear.For example, the three concepts of [yellow butterfly], [yellow], and [butterfly], notes Kuroda, could be viewed as being of the same semantic type, where "yel-low butterfly" and "butterfly" are nouns, yet "yellow" is an adjective and can be used as a color name or noun, though not as a noun in reference to an individual entity.On the other hand, the term "male" can also be an adjective ("male banker") and a noun, as in "a male."Parts of speech can guide the way decisions are made about what concepts are of the same semantic type, but are not always helpful in creating significant semantic generalizations, notes Kuroda. The key to semantic types seems to be theconcepts expressed by typical common nouns and adjectives said to be attributes which can be predicated of individual enti-ties. So the idea of being able to say of "butterfly" that it can truthfully or falsely be predicated of an entity,that is, attributing a certain property to it, is the heart of the semantic type notion.Hyponymy,therefore, is usually associated with a relation that is said to hold among particular attributive predicates.The view of hyponymy presented above frames the notions of "contain" and "concept" as primitive terms in a formal sense that can be part of an axiomatic system.A more informal linguistic point of view sees hyponymy as a psychological theory about the psychological reality of a particular semantic relation that needs to be explained. The terms "concept" and "contain" are now used by reference to their assumed standard meaning.The psychological view can be seen as a "model" or "standard" interpretation of the formal theory of hyponymy.Further,within a formal perspective,statements that are based on the theory of hyponymy could be or are taken to act like axioms that often become empirical claims about the psychologi-cal reality of hyponymy.In the preceding pages, I have outlined common ground and theoretical differences within linguistics by using the notion of hyponymy as a convenient topic for hinting at the need for a broader conceptual framework for the study of seman-tics. My goal has been to clarify a number of related theoretical and methodological issues without endorsing existing formal approaches to semantics.To be psychologically relevant, hyponymy presumes knowledge about the researcher’s and/or the native speaker-listener’s psychological reality.When the researcher also views herself as a native speaker-listener,the empiri-cal aspects of inquiry become filtered because of the interaction between the linguist’s expertise and use of context-free knowledge, and the linguist’s native intuition and ability to generate and assess a variety of lexical items and utterances, including their intended use in hypothetical contexts. When the "native"speaker-hearer is a lay member of a group, or there are several members and several groups, as well as different settings, the empirical status of "common understanding" or the "standard meaning" of terms can become problematic.The concern with meaning in formal linguistic semantics favors a consistent notation system, and assumes a correspon-dence with an intuitive (native speaker-listener’s) understanding of the limited notion of natural language usage as found in the single utterances used for explicating semantic theory.The utterances used as data are always produced as part of hypo-thetical circumstances.If the native speaker-listener’s understanding of utterances that are produced in these hypothetical cir-cumstances are different from the understandings that arise when utterances are embedded in the larger organizational condi-tions of everyday language use, then the judgments that the linguist is looking at are not what he is taking them to be.The utterances become the product of unusual and unexamined hypothetical circumstances.In the above examples, a standardized, normative sense of each term is assumed to be available to the reader.The emphasis is on the logical relations among terms presumed to be well-defined.The intuitive and psychological realities of the lexical items are dependent on the researcher’s hypothetically defined world, a world where there are few surprises and virtu-ally free of empirical contingencies.The reader is assumed to be able to recognize the lexical items used as self-evident rather than an interaction between everyday cognition or reasoning and prior and local cultural experiences. Intuitive knowl-edge is employed as an unexamined resource for constructing a compositional, declarative knowledge base, but the processes of construction are ignored.As long as the concepts employed by the linguist appear to have face validity vis-a-vis a normative view of composi-tional semantics, it is clearly possible to assume uniform, standard meanings exist and to employ a logical format that is in correspondence with the structural properties of target utterances.Logical forms help us clarify many aspects of human intu-ition and psychological realities but they lack a grounding in contingencies that invariably surround information processing and environmental constraints in the construction of meaning and language use in daily life settings.I want to link these intu-itive understandings and hypothetical circumstances to speech events that are empirically emergent, locally managed and larger organizational conditions of everyday,situated language use.Categories and cognitive modelsGilles Fauconnier’s(l985) notion of mental spaces is a useful modification of semantic theory because of its close affin-ity with cognitive issues associated with respresentational and comprehension issues often ignored by traditional semantic views. The idea of mental spaces or mental structures in Fauconnier’s work proposes that mental spaces are not part of lan-guage or its grammars, and hence do not refer to hidden levels of linguistic representation.Mental spaces help to support meaning but do not constitute nor represent meaning.Such spaces would presumably develop even when we cannot identify a known language as might arise for a deaf child in a hearing home who has not been exposed to sign language.Mental spaces are knowledge structures in memory,but such spaces are built up by nguage not only con-tributes to the building of relations between mental spaces and between elements within such spaces, but language also cre-ates its own constructions as well as being a source of interpretations about worlds, models, contexts, situations, and the like.If particular forms and contents of language are linked to specific occasions of use, with particular participants and eco-logical conditions, then language and the conditions in which its use is embedded become intimately attached to our ability to activate, link, and access distributed elements of knowledge (Rumelhart, Smolensky, McClelland, and Hinton, V ol 2, Chap. 14, 1986).In his recent book on what categories reveal about the mind, George Lakoff(l987) discusses folk models of categoriza-tion and the way ordinary speakers of English employ conflicting theories or cognitive models to use words to refer to things in the world. Paul Kay (1979; 1982) and Lakoff discuss a folk version of Frege’s theory of reference.For Kay,words can fit the world either "loosely" or "strictly" according to Frege’s view that the way that words can refer to objects in the world is due to the way words have intentions that can be tied to actual properties of world objects.An example that illustrates the notions of "loosely" and "strictly" speaking by Kay (1982: 3) can be found in the following hypo-thetical dialogue between an Anthropologist A and Layperson L.(1) L: Where did the first human beings live?A: Loosely speaking, the first human beings lived inKenya.Kay makes the general point that the hedge is probably used to apologize for the lack of "quality" in the Gricean sense of telling the truth, expecting a speaker to say no more than necessary (Quantity), and being brief (Manner).He is concerned with pragmatic hedges that enter folk theories of language like"loosely speaking" and inherent meanings that can fit the world strictly or loosely.Kay views different hedges as simultaneously incorporating world knowledge about language and as part of a speaker’s linguistic competence or knowledge of language.Kay provides the reader with several reasons for the use of the hedge "loosely speaking."This hedge, notes Kay,can reveal incoherent description while doing reference, the use of a coherent but faulty description in an act of reference, saying something the speaker views as containing a false presupposition that allows an unintended interpretation to occur,and pro-ducing a sentence that lacks truth or Gricean Quality.A different folk theory of how words refer to the world is associated with the term ’technically’. Hilary Putnam (and to some extent Saul Kripke) are identified as the proponents of an expert version of a folk theory in which certain people in a society,notes Kay,can be called "experts" because they hav e the authority to specify what words should designate in some expert domain.The following example is given:(2) Technically,that’s a rodent (order "Rodentia").Professional biologists are presumed to be the experts here.In the case of (2), there can be truth conditions that permit a convergence beween "technically" and "strictly speaking" but for different reasons.The term "Rodentia" can be traced to scientific biology and a domain of expertise associated with the term "technically." Consider the sentence (Kay,1982: 8) in (3).(3) Technically,street lights are health hazards.Here the reference to street lights as health hazards can lead to questions about the authority behind the utterance.Recent work by Fillmore and Kay (Fillmore, 1982) helps to clarify the linguist’s use of aspects of natural settings to understand and make predictions about a person’s capacity to comprehend written materials and to use this comprehension to solve problems that are assumed to indicate future academic progress as well as general intelligence and level of achievement.Fillmore and Kay studied children’s ability to understand a Grade Three level test of achievement in two California ele-mentary schools.One goal of the study by Fillmore and Kay was the identification of the background knowledge and the。
