Showing papers on "Semantic similarity published in 1970"
••
TL;DR: The coding system used in short-term paired-associate learning was investigated by studying the effects of acoustic and semantic similarity, and it was suggested that the primary and secondary memory components of the task were equally affected by acoustic similarity.
Abstract: The coding system used in short-term paired-associate learning was investigated by studying the effects of acoustic and semantic similarity. Performance was affected by acoustic similarity (Expts. IV, V and VI), while semantic similarity had no reliable effect (Expts. II and III). Serial position curves suggested that the primary and secondary memory components of the task were equally affected by acoustic similarity. The implications of this for the relationship between acoustic similarity and short-term memory are discussed.
22 citations
••
TL;DR: A set of English words each of which has the ability to convey its various semantic meanings by the use of certain common syntactic units such as prepositions is discussed, opening up the possibility of teaching the computer to make semantic distinctions.
21 citations
••
TL;DR: An account of the competence underlying Ss′ ability to interpret sentences with respect to semantic categories is proposed, based on such notions as semantic features, a hierarchy of semantic dimensions, rules of semantic interaction, and rules of sentence interpretation.
14 citations
••
6 citations
••
4 citations
••
TL;DR: In this paper, the effects of semantic and acoustic similarity in short-term memory were examined in an experiment employing an RI paradigm, and the results suggested that memory traces for similar and dissimilar OL items were equal in strength but that noise (due to RI) was stronger for the similar conditions.
Abstract: The effects of semantic and acoustic similarity in short-term memory were examined in an experiment employing an RI paradigm. In assessing similarity effects, signal-detection measures, Type II operating characteristics, were utilized in addition to percent recalled; the former suggested that both semantic and acoustic similarity between OL and IL were important in affecting recall, while the latter revealed no effects of similarity. The results suggested that memory traces for similar and dissimilar OL items were equal in strength but that noise (due to RI) was stronger for the similar conditions.
1 citations
••
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors propose that linguistics should concentrate on the notion of relations, rather than on categories and features, which are often over-emphasized at the expense of the other notions which are either partially or totally neglected.
Abstract: It has been repeatedly said that the study of language as of a system of signs could serve as a model for an understanding of other semiotic systems. I have been asking myself what contribution a linguist could make to a conference of semiotics. Is present-day linguistics advanced enough to really stand up to the claim of being a model for semiotic sciences? I assume that any semiotic system — linguistic and non-linguistic — includes the following three basic notions: (1) Categories (or: units, elements, constituents) (2) Relations (3) Properties (or: features) Relations may hold between categories or between categories and properties or between properties. Properties may be found in categories, or — and this problem will interest us most — in relations. In linguistics of recent times we have learned a lot about categories and about properties or features. Far less advanced is the description of relations. The situation seems typical: in the history of linguistics we note that one or another of these above mentioned basic notions is being over-emphasized at the expense of the other notions which are often partially or totally neglected. We think that all three should be given equal attention. I thus propose that we concentrate on the notion of relations, more
1 citations