Journal

Volume 16, Issue 2 (June 30, 2015)

5 articles

• Pragmatic Strengthening is not Strong Enough: Meanings of Sequential Closed-Class Forms
  by Konrad Szcześniak
  J. CS. 2015, 16(2), 73-106;
  Abstract This study focuses on the semantics of word patterns and schematic constructions. Examples of constructions with purportedly rich meanings are shown to convey readings less complex than is claimed in the literature. Many previous studies stressed these constructions’ idiosyncratic properties which h... [Read more].
  Abstract This study focuses on the semantics of word patterns and schematic constructions. Examples of constructions with purportedly rich meanings are shown to convey readings less complex than is claimed in the literature. Many previous studies stressed these constructions’ idiosyncratic properties which have been held up as arguments in favor of their special construction status—pairings of (usually unique, conventionalized) form and (usually idiosyncratic) meaning. I wish to argue that although the constructions reviewed here do have clear meanings, their form and function are not as idiosyncratic, irregular, or unpredictable as they are portrayed in the literature. Indeed, the formal and functional properties of one construction analyzed here, the Incredulity Response Construction fit well within traditional characterizations of items located on the syntactic side of the lexicon-syntax continuum. I will attempt to demonstrate that the form of the construction is an iconic representation of its reading. Additionally, I question the reading itself, arguing that the incredulity that gave rise to the construction’s very name is not its semantic contribution. Instead, I propose a more general and abstract reading of incongruousness or “cognitive dissonance”. Finally, it is argued that there are no known mechanisms that could equip constructions with overly rich semantic content. One potential candidate, pragmatic strengthening, capable of endowing constructions with meanings does not go beyond fairly sparse readings already known to occur in grammatical forms. [Collapse]
• The Definition of Intelligence
  by Dario de Judicibus
  J. CS. 2015, 16(2), 107-132;
  Abstract Intelligence has been defined in many different ways, but an operational definition that would form the foundations of a measurement that is totally objective, applicable to any individual regardless of context, and not influenced by the method used to measure it, has not yet been developed. This ar... [Read more].
  Abstract Intelligence has been defined in many different ways, but an operational definition that would form the foundations of a measurement that is totally objective, applicable to any individual regardless of context, and not influenced by the method used to measure it, has not yet been developed. This article aims to provide such a definition. [Collapse]
• Psychological Research using Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) and Korean Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (KLIWC) Lang
  by Changhwan Lee, Kyungil Kim, Jeongsub Lim & Yoonhyoung Lee
  J. CS. 2015, 16(2), 133-150;
  Abstract Language analysis methodologies such as LIWC and KLIWC, its Korean version, have been used widely in psychology and other social sciences. Given this context, this review aims to overview previous psychological findings based on the language analysis methodologies and compare findings deriving from ... [Read more].
  Abstract Language analysis methodologies such as LIWC and KLIWC, its Korean version, have been used widely in psychology and other social sciences. Given this context, this review aims to overview previous psychological findings based on the language analysis methodologies and compare findings deriving from LWIC and KLIWC. More specifically, this review examines important results in clinical psychology, developmental psychology, personality psychology, cognitive psychology, and other social sciences. Further, this review evaluates major debates regarding the language analysis methodologies and provides a possible future direction for using the methodologies in the cognitive science field. [Collapse]
• Become Fluent in a Foreign Language by Using an Improved Technological Version of an Outdated Method
  by Michael Zock, Guy Lapalme, & Lih-Juang Fang
  J. CS. 2015, 16(2), 151-173;
  Abstract Speaking a language can be an overwhelming task. The message (what to say), its corresponding linguistic expression (how to say it) and sound form (say it, i.e. articulation) have to be determined practically on the fly. To allow for this, parts of the process, in general the mechanical aspects (sen... [Read more].
  Abstract Speaking a language can be an overwhelming task. The message (what to say), its corresponding linguistic expression (how to say it) and sound form (say it, i.e. articulation) have to be determined practically on the fly. To allow for this, parts of the process, in general the mechanical aspects (sentence structures) are automated, that is, they are carried out without requiring attention allowing the speaker to focus on other more important aspects, for example, the message (meaning). Speaking is a skill which has to be learned, and this can be supported in various ways. We propose an enhanced, computerized version of a well-known method: pattern drills.While being highly regarded in the sixties, pattern drills (PD) have become unpopular since then. Despite certain shortcomings we do believe in their virtues, at least with regard to the memorization of basic structures and the acquisition of fluency, the skill to produce language at a ‘normal’ rate. Of course, the method has to be improved, and we will show here how this can be achieved. Unlike tapes or books, computers are open media, allowing for dynamic changes, taking users’ performances and preferences into account. Our drill-tutor, a small web application still in its prototype phase, allows for this. It is a free, electronic version of pattern drills, i.e. an exercise generator, open and adaptable to the users’ ever changing needs. [Collapse]
• Learn to Describe Objects the way ‘Ordinary’ People Do by Using Language Technology
  by Michael Zock, Guy Lapalme, & Mehdi Yousfi-Monod
  J. CS. 2015, 16(2), 174-192;
  Abstract Speaking consists to a large extend in making statements about objects: ‘”The babyis asleep”, “The gameis over”, etc. Yet objects can be described in many ways: it, the library, the first building to the right, etc. The way how an object is described or referred to depends to a large extent on the c... [Read more].
  Abstract Speaking consists to a large extend in making statements about objects: ‘”The babyis asleep”, “The gameis over”, etc. Yet objects can be described in many ways: it, the library, the first building to the right, etc. The way how an object is described or referred to depends to a large extent on the context, i.e. the set of elements (physically or mentally present in the listeners mind) with which the target can be confused (think of different kind of round objects you can purchase in a sporting goods retail store). Hence, the question: how does a speakers decide on the information to convey (content) and on the linguistic resource to use (expression)? This implies among other things pragmatic knowledge, which is often learned on the basis of correlations. People realize that changes of the situation often reflect in language: different inputs (ideas, objects of a scene) yielding different outputs, i.e. linguistic forms. We present here a setting that allows for this kind of learning. It is a web-based application that generates a scene and various descriptions of its components. Users can change the scene and watch how these choices affect (or not) the linguistic form. The descriptions are produced in English and French, and they are rated in terms of communicative adequacy. This should allow students not only to learn to produce correct sentences, but also help them to realize which one of them is, communicatively speaking, the most adequate form. [Collapse]