Showing posts with label language and understanding. Show all posts
Showing posts with label language and understanding. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 8, 2016

Semantically speaking: Does meaning structure unite languages?

Humans' common cognitive abilities, language dependance may provide an underlying semantic order to the world's languages

We create words to label people, places, actions, thoughts, and more so we can express ourselves meaningfully to others. Do humans' shared cognitive abilities and dependence on languages naturally provide a universal means of organizing certain concepts? Or do environment and culture influence each language uniquely? Using a new methodology that measures how closely words' meanings are related within and between languages, an international team of researchers has revealed that for many universal concepts, the world's languages feature a common structure of semantic relatedness.

"Before this work, little was known about how to measure [a culture's sense of] the semantic nearness between concepts," says co-author and Santa Fe Institute Professor Tanmoy Bhattacharya. "For example, are the concepts of sun and moon close to each other, as they are both bright blobs in the sky? How about sand and sea, as they occur close by? Which of these pairs is the closer? How do we know?"

Translation, the mapping of relative word meanings across languages, would provide clues. But examining the problem with scientific rigor called for an empirical means to denote the degree of semantic relatedness between concepts.

To get reliable answers, Bhattacharya needed to fully quantify a comparative method that is commonly used to infer linguistic history qualitatively. (He and collaborators had previously developed this quantitative method to study changes in sounds of words as languages evolve.)

"Translation uncovers a disagreement between two languages on how concepts are grouped under a single word," says co-author and Santa Fe Institute and Oxford researcher Hyejin Youn. "Spanish, for example, groups 'fire' and 'passion' under 'incendio,' whereas Swahili groups 'fire' with 'anger' (but not 'passion')."

To quantify the problem, the researchers chose a few basic concepts that we see in nature (sun, moon, mountain, fire, and so on). Each concept was translated from English into 81 diverse languages, then back into English. Based on these translations, a weighted network was created. The structure of the network was used to compare languages' ways of partitioning concepts.

The team found that the translated concepts consistently formed three theme clusters in a network, densely connected within themselves and weakly to one another: water, solid natural materials, and earth and sky.

"For the first time, we now have a method to quantify how universal these relations are," says Bhattacharya. "What is universal -- and what is not -- about how we group clusters of meanings teaches us a lot about psycholinguistics, the conceptual structures that underlie language use."

The researchers hope to expand this study's domain, adding more concepts, then investigating how the universal structure they reveal underlies meaning shift. Their research was published today in PNAS.
_________________
Reference:

Science Daily. 2016. “Semantically speaking: Does meaning structure unite languages?”. Science Daily. Posted: February 1, 2016. Available online: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160201215635.htm

Monday, September 7, 2015

'Yes' And 'No' Are Common To Every Language, But They Mean Different Things

The words 'yes' and 'no' may seem like two of the easiest expressions to understand in any language, but their actual behavior and interpretation are surprisingly difficult to pin down. In a paper published earlier today in the journal Language, two linguists examine the workings of 'yes' and 'no' and show that understanding them leads to new insights concerning the understanding of questions and statements more generally.

Floris Roelofsen of the University of Amsterdam and Donka F. Farkas of the University of California Santa Cruz have written what they call a comprehensive account of 'polarity particles', as these words are called, across languages, and explain the intricate pattern of their distribution. For example, "Yes, it is" and "No, it isn't" are acceptable answers to the question "Is the door open or is it not open?", but not to "Is the door open or is it closed?". 

Furthermore, the intonation used when pronouncing a sentence can affect whether 'yes' or 'no' are appropriate responses to it.

The distribution of these particles, it turns out, is also affected by the polarity of the sentence they respond to. For example, both "No, he hasn't" and "Yes, he hasn't" are acceptable as agreeing responses to "Ben has not called today", but in an agreeing response to "Ben has called today", "Yes, he has' is acceptable but "No, he has" is not.

Roelofsen and Farkas build on previous insights from semantics and discourse models, as well as on quantitative surveys of how speakers judge various responses. The framework they create not only explains the distribution and interpretation of these particles in English, but also predicts what patterns one expects to find across languages. 

These predictions are then checked and verified against data from French, German, Romanian, and Hungarian.
_________________
Reference:

Science 2.0. 2015. “'Yes' And 'No' Are Common To Every Language, But They Mean Different Things”. Science 2.0. Posted: June 22, 2015. Available online: http://www.science20.com/news_articles/yes_and_no_are_common_to_every_language_but_they_mean_different_things-156184