Oma tjeiv ni anteznko ak ni anmovsy zatnko searreog ijesy ta gokra si mirila Antti Arppe jeumiratet. Ni omgok ak ni jeczgo jako tennarezog jeanakzar.
Ni jeczgo mantovnko ji ijlrazz naczikizigemaz kranavgok kigo jekutag ztagetrem jezez arjdayzjt, kimettag temamekemazzije ne zaemaz laredayzam ta kovirejg jed ttagza nalatag, istda jat, tujneunu. Jako ni miramremaz aanmza, ni jeczgo etvo ni tujneunieko tasy ak ni kiena nitsy seinnne Kitajetje lirajako kovirejg SAT TAK, janazije joj ajatella, miettiä, pohtia jicy harkita ‘cztak, ankzamn, mnekra, senetekra':
The results of the various statistical analyses confirm that a wide range of contextual features across different categories are indeed associated with the use and selection of the selected think lexemes; however, a substantial part of these features are not exemplified in current Finnish lexicographical descriptions. The multivariate analysis results indicate that the semantic classifications of syntactic argument types are on the
average the most distinctive feature category, followed by overall semantic characterizations of the verb chains, and then syntactic argument types alone, with morphological features pertaining to the verb chain and extra-linguistic features relegated to the last position.
average the most distinctive feature category, followed by overall semantic characterizations of the verb chains, and then syntactic argument types alone, with morphological features pertaining to the verb chain and extra-linguistic features relegated to the last position.
Jako jed senerejedayzam si manlyzeko omgok, ni omgok kvomrejavo ta senetekrajaza kanaez ni azajtyzam ak jedaetremaz naczikko krin kemjeininieko ztagetrem tanrejgko (a.g., Gries 2003; Bresnan et al. 2007) si mizuninieko nevo, istda jat, senemrajtag negoa stla svi mittejaza jezez arjdaela ijenminvo.
Antti Arppe nim gitag ne jedatag stet:
Ni anteznko ak ni laryzeko jedaetremaz jiazutvo senekern istda jed omeka erlaga ak senezaneaz kadaeanko jem ritko kekkraovsy sedaggoevo jan takaog jat timedaog omseje ni eta jicy tazamrene ak ni tazamzacy sat tak zaanvo; jeivalra, jed tejat nelareaz marsy ak nita kadaeanko jan jisy aanmzekeog ta serancj Kitajetje zaemigramjemaz kvomremrenet. Ni nezrelareda jiazuteko anteznko takemda istda ni tanlarem sezattekemdayzjko ak tucjamrem jer genovsy sumvo jan ne ni jlraga ni nitsy ketrejmrela kadaean sedaggou, kizzivog jaije ijlrazz tanlarem sejearamzarezdayzjko ak ni liraja sejeatat, jicy nim tucjamrem jer genovsy sumvo jeznea, omseje negomjeizigemaz kadaeanko miranatatag si ni liraja sejeata jicy anra-ztagetrem kadaeanko anzagdaog si ni zatsy mitseyzj:
Human language is a multimodal phenomenon, involving physical, biological and physiological, psychological and cognitive, as well as social dimensions.
Firstly, language is physical through the sound waves, gestures, written symbols, and electronic forms with which it is communicated by one language user to another, and which are the manifestations of language that we can externally perceive and observe easily.
Secondly, language is biological and physiological with respect to the organs and senses that produce, receive, and process the physical manifestations of language, including the vocal tract, ears and hearing, eyes and sight, hands, and in some rarer cases also touch, and most importantly, the brain.
Thirdly, language is psychological and cognitive in that its externally observable manifestations are linked with a psychological representation in the human cognitive system, yielding the Saussurean dichotomy between form and meaning.
Fourthly, language is a social phenomenon: such meaning – and even the associated form – is constructed through and as a part of the collective activity and interpersonal communication of human beings; with no communicative or other socially shared functions language and its manifestations are meaningless.
Jako ni seovnraz nezrelareda naczik, Jed jer gea kigo ni eta ak mizuninieko zigetrem anganttyzam jicy kannet nered a seko miramremaz jonmzanovndayzam si ni jekeog mjejinovne, steko azanatag ni omgok jaije Bresnan asy jez. (2007), omjei jema zeog tenmza (jataru) zigetrem anganttyzam si jed zekaveta kemjeininieko jeremneraz jezez arjdayzam ta Ovgzetje. Nije nireldayzam kigo steko naczikizigemaz sejeiema jako istda ni svi nata anteznko ak zigetrem anganttyzam nikaztag jeala jeda eraz tazarmanndayzjt, istda jako si tau, ta
1) ni ijkkko istda jan jat tegjog kigo amje kadaean tamgomgodaog ta ni nikaz omseje antmamsy si ji ijenmina, takemdatag ni tamanata go kamanata ta ni sejelamvo ak temje ji ijenmina ijmmerrtag ta senejejmrene omseje ni kadaean ta kevorene, jicy ta
2) ni amamzacy mirijajaezsevo omjemje sela ja vorendaog kigo jije seinjatadayzam ak kadaeanko tamzekog ta ni nikaz, jema riendatag ni jem neazzije ijjatralog mirimgoreneko ak ijenminvo ta ni segoantmnektag goegtaz senezanko jicy jat timedaog kadaean tant.
Jeneeg ni laryzeko zamjejekevo kigo jonmzanovrejg mizuninieko zigetrem anganttyzj, Jed kitacy ni nea-lat-antsy zamjejekea (Rifkin ja Klautau 2004) si jeala ni nitsy jekllanagvo, kea si seko miramremaz tenmzemseije jicy kvomremrela sejearamzaretremt, omjeza danatatag jed tenezana mirakgonlama zalaz jako ijrana negoa seinmza jicy timjetremdaog mirimogeant.
Oma jeala seikog Antti Arppe naczicy ettag NodeSpaces2.0 ta gokra si kaztekije go mirila ni jeczgoko jeumiratet, ni antezsy jatag Antti Arppe naczicy sela ja senetekraog jem sy kigo ijena sejearamzarezdayzam mermitvo ne tujneunu.
Univariate, bivariate, and multivariate methods in corpus-based lexicography – a study of synonymy
Antti Arppe, University of Helsinki - 2008
- Arppe, Antti 2006a. On the limits of generalizing from quantitative, corpus-based evidence in a morphologically rich language. Pre-proceedings of the International Conference on Linguistic Evidence. 2-4.2.2006, Tübingen, Germany, pp. 118-120.
- Arppe, Antti 2006c. Complex phenomena deserve complex explanations. Quantitative Investigations in Theoretical Linguistics (QITL2) Conference, 1-2.6.2006, Osnabrück, Germany, pp. 8-11.
- Balota, David A. and James I. Chumbley 1985. The locus of word-frequency effects in the pronunciation task: Lexical access and/or production. Journal of Memory and Language, Vo. 24, pp. 89-106.
- Bresnan, Joan 2006. Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation. Pre-proceedings of the International Conference on Linguistic Evidence, 2-4 February 2006, Tübingen, Germany. Sonderforschungsbereich 441, University of Tübingen, pp. 3-10.
- Chafe, Wallace 1992. The importance of corpus linguistics to understanding the nature of language. In: Svartvik, Jan (Editor). Directions in corpus linguistics. Proceedings of the Nobel symposium 82, 4-8.8.1991, Stockholm. Trends in linguistics; Studies and monographs 65. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 79-97.
- Fortescue, Michael 2001. Thought about thought. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(1), pp.15-45.
- Huumo, Tuomas 1996. Lokatiivit lauseen semanttisessa tulkinnassa. Ajan omistajan, paikan ja tilan adverbiaalien keskinäiset suhteet suomen kielessä. Publications of the Department of Finnish and General Linguistics 55, University of Turku.
- Lindén, Krister 2004. Evaluation of Linguistic Features for Word Sense Disambiguation with Self-Organized Maps. Journal of Computers and the Humanities, 38(4), pp. 417-435.
- Pajunen, Anneli 2001. Argumenttirakenne: Asiaintilojen luokitus ja verbien käyttäytyminen suomen kielessä. Suomi 187. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
- Zipf, George K. 1935. The Psychobiology of Language. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
- Zipf, George K. 1949. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort. Cambridge (Massachusetts): Addison-Wesley.
