Improving the Students’ Ability in Speaking through Using Sensations and Feelings at the Second Year of SMAN 1 of Sungguminasa Gowa

Oleh Nurmayanti (20401106196)
The students have been taught about English especially speaking, listening, writing and reading. Special for learning about listening, writing and reading, they should not be worry because there are many medias, facilities and the teacher has many great methods to teach them. The most difficult in learning English is speaking. This is one reason why many of us were shocked and disappointed when we used our second or foreign language for the first time in real interaction: we had not been prepared for spontaneous communication and could not cope with all of its simultaneous demands. That is, speaking is an “activity requiring the integration of many subsystems…. All these factors combine to make speaking a second or foreign language a formidable task for language learners….yet for many people, speaking is seen as the central skill” (Bailey and savage 199empat, p. vi-vii). (Anne Lazaraton, 2001 in Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, 2001:103).

Speaking is the skill by which learners are most frequently judged and through which they make and lose friends. It is the vehicle par excellence of social solidarity, social ranking, of professional advancement and of business. It is also the medium through which much language is learnt. (bygate, 1987) .

Speaking is the productive skill in oral mode. There are many facilities, methods, medias in learning it, but how to produce the word is difficult. We need the high capability to express our opinion such as how to express our experience. There are many students feel difficult to retell their experience, but in fact, it is so easy because we have undergone, it means that we just need a few minutes to recall it in our mind.

Sensations and feelings will be helpful the students to express their sensation and feeling. Learners are asked to remember situations where they experienced certain physical sensations or emotions. It is more easily to speak.

B. Problem Statements

Based on the previous background above, the researcher formulated research question as a follows: how is to improve speaking through sensations and feelings to the students of SMAN 1 Sungguminasa Gowa?

C. Objective of the Research

The aim of the researcher is finding out the effectiveness of using sensations and feelings to improve the student’s Speaking Ability at the Second Year of SMAN 1 Sungguminasa Gowa.

D. The Significance of the Research

The result of the research is expected to be useful information for English teacher especially in speaking ability about the usage of sensations and feelings to increase their knowledge. It is hoped that it gives a meaningful contribution to the students to improve their speaking ability.

E. The Scope of the Research

This research is limited to the teaching English at the second year student of SMAN 1 Sungguminasa Gowa. The researcher focused on the effectiveness of using sensations and feelings especially in speaking class.

E. Definition of Terms

In this section, the writer would like to give the operational definition of the topics:

1. Speaking

Speaking is the skill by which learners are most frequently judged and through which they make and lose friends. It is the vehicle par excellence of social solidarity, social ranking, of professional advancement and of business. It is also the medium through which much language is learnt. (bygate, 1987).

Based on the definition above, the writer can conclude that speaking is a skill to do interaction by expressing our mind, idea, opinion for all of cases and matters in our surrounding through our sound system in our society solidarity to show our mutual understanding with each other.

2. Ability

Hornby (2000) defined ability is the mental or physical capacity, power or skill required to do something.

By seeing Hornby’s definition, the writer can conclude that ability is a mental capacity to express our mind in doing something.

3. Sensations and Feelings

Sensation is feeling, uproar. (id/146024/masaji/dictionary/m5r9-74930ca26). Sensation is sense, impression, perception, suspicion, presentiment, (id/197667/fxosyn/dictionary/m5r9-72ec806f4).

The definition of feeling are:

a. [C] something felt through the mind or the senses

b. [sing] belief; vague idea: a-thatsomething awful is going to happen

c. [U, C] attitude or an opinion

d. (feelings) [pl] sb’s emotions rather than thoughts

e. [U] ability to feel physically[IDM] bad/ill feeling anger between people, esp after an argument.

The relation of sensations and feelings in this matter is, the students are asked to get together with their couple and they ask each other like;

Student A: Can you remember a time when you felt really afraid?

Student B: Yes, I can.

Student A: When was it?

Student B: when I was in Bantimurung. I jumped when there was a frog nearby me. I was really afraid.

Student A: ….

Student B: ….

The sensation on the example above is expressed by the student B, “jumped”. And feeling expression is “afraid”.

Sensations and feelings focus on the learners experiences. It can be easy to be expressed by the learners because they just need to recall what they have undergone and they have felt

G. Method of the research

This research, the researcher presents the design of the research, population and sample, instrument of the research, procedures of collecting data and techniques of data analysis.

1. Research Design

The design is experimental design with pre test and post test design. The comparison between pre test and post test score depend on the success of the treatments. The design :

Pre-test


ttrTreatment


Post-test

O1


X


O2



Notes: O1= the result of the students pre test

X = the treatment by using sensations and feelings

O2= the result of the students post test

(Gay, 1980:177)

2. Population and Sample

a. Population

The population of the research will be the second year students of SMAN 1 Sungguminasa Gowa in the academic year of 2009-2010. This consists of nine classes, namely XI IPA-1 class consists of 35 students, XI IPA-2 class consists of 35 students, XIIPA-3 class consists of 35 studentS, XI IPA-4 class consists of 35 students, XI IPA-5 class consists of 35 students, and XI -6 class consists of 35 students, XI IPS-1 class consists of 35 students, XI IPS-2 class consist of 35 students, XI IPS-3 class consists of 35 students, so that the total number of population is 315 students.

b. Sample

Sample most of representatives of population in who are researched (Suharsimi Arikunto 2006). In this research the method of taking sample that is used random sampling and there are 6o students will become the sample of the researcher.



3. Instrument of the Research

The researcher uses tests to asses and examines the students’ Speaking ability. The tests are pre test and post test. The pre test is given to asses and to examine the students’ speaking ability without applying sensations and feelings in the previous treatment while post-test is given after treatment of applying sensations and feelings to asses and examine the students’ speaking ability. Both pre test and post test are used to find out the improvement of the students’ speaking ability after the treatment by sensations and feelings.

4. Procedure of Collecting Data

a. Pre test

Before applying sensations and feelings or before doing the treatment, the students will be given pre test to know their achievement in speaking. The researcher will ask the students in a couple to express their sensation and feeling when they felt really afraid, hot, angry and sick.

b. Treatment

After giving the pretest, the students will be treated by using sensations and feelings. The treatment is administrated after the pretest and it takes place during8 meetings and spends 90 minutes in each meeting

Some steps of treatment are:

1) The researcher introduces the material and gives a short explanation about what the students are going to do in speaking class.

2) The researcher writes some vocabularies that related to the material that will be presented.

3) The researcher asks the students to take a note and write down what they hear that it has relation with the material.

4) The researcher repeats the material once again and asks the students to mention what they write.

5) After that, the researcher divides them in a couple.

6) The researcher repeats the material three times to give chance for the students to ask each other by applying the researcher’s method.

c. Post-test

After applying the treatment, the researcher gives post-test to students to obtain data, whether there is any progress or improvement of the student’s speaking ability after having treatment namely through sensations and feelings or not. The tests are same with the test is given in pre-test.

5. Technique of Data Analysis

The data is collected through the test, and they are analyzed quantitatively as follows:

a. Scoring the students’ answer of pre test and post test by using this formula:

Students’ correct answer

Score = x 100%

Total number of items

(Hasan Iqbal 1997)

b. Classifying the students’ score into five levels, which fall into five classifications:

No.


Classification


Score

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.


Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor

Very poor


80- 100

69 – 79

56 – 68

45 – 55

0-45

(UIN’s standards)

c. Calculating the mean score of students by using the formula:

Read More...... Read more...

HOMONIMY, POLYSEMY, AND HYPONYMY

Oleh Mutiah Tri Putri (20401107148)
The branch of semantics that deals with the word meaning is called lexical semantics. It is the study of systematic, meaning related structures of words. Lexical semantics examines relationships among word meanings. It is the study of how the lexicon is organized and how the lexical meanings of lexical items are interrelated, and it’s principal goal is to build a model for the structure of the lexicon by categorizing the types of relationships between words.

MUTIAH TRI PUTRI

PBI 08

20401107148



HOMONIMY, POLYSEMY, AND HYPONYMY

The branch of semantics that deals with the word meaning is called lexical semantics. It is the study of systematic, meaning related structures of words. Lexical semantics examines relationships among word meanings. It is the study of how the lexicon is organized and how the lexical meanings of lexical items are interrelated, and it’s principal goal is to build a model for the structure of the lexicon by categorizing the types of relationships between words.
Hyponymy , homonymy, polysemy, synonymy, antonymy and metonymy are different types of lexical relations.



A. Definition of Homonymy



The word Homonym has been derived from Greek term 'Homoios' which means identical and 'onoma' means name. So, Homonymy is a relation that holds between two lexemes that have the same form but unrelated meanings. Homonyms are the words that have same phonetic form (homophones) or orthographic form (homographs) but different unrelated meanings. The ambiguous word whose different senses are far apart from each other and are not obviously related to each other in any way is called as Homonymy. Words like tale and tail are homonyms. There is no conceptual connection between its two meanings.
For example the word ‘bear’, as a verb means ‘to carry’ and as a noun it means ‘large animal’.


An example of homonym which is both homophone and homograph is the word ‘fluke’. Fluke is a fish as well as a flatworm. Other examples are bank, an anchor, and so on.


Homophony - Homophony is the case where two words are pronounced identically but they have different written forms. They sound alike but are written differently and often have different meanings. For example: no-know, led-lead, would-wood.



Homograph - Homograph is a word which is spelled the same as another word and might be pronounced the same or differently but which has a different. For example, Bear-bear ; Read-read.

When homonyms are spelled the same they are homographs but not all homonyms are homographs.





B. Definition of Hyponymy



Hyponymy is a sense relation in semantics that serves to relate word concepts in a hierarchical fashion. Hyponymy is a relation between two words in which the meaning of one of the words includes the meaning of the other word. The lexical relation corresponding to the inclusion of one class in another is hyponymy. Examples are : apple- fruit ; car- vehicles ; tool- furntiture ; cow - animal.

The more specific concept is known as the hyponym, and the more general concept is known as the hypernym or superordinate. Apple is the hyponym and fruit is the superordinate / hypernymy. Hyponymy is not restricted to objects, abstract concepts, or nouns. It can be identified in many other areas of the lexicon.

E.g : a. the verb cook has many hyponyms.

Word: Cook

Hyponyms: Roast, boil, fry, grill, bake.

b. the verb colour has many hyponyms

Word: colour

Hyponyms: blue, red, yellow, green, black and purple

Hyponymy involves the logical relationship of entailment. Example : ‘There is a horse’ entails that ‘There is an animal”. Hyponymy often functions In discourse as a means of lexical cohesion by establishing referential equivalence to avoid repetition.



C. Definition of Polysemy



A polyseme the phenomenon of having or being open to several or many meanings.When a word has several very closely related senses or meanings.Polysemous word is a word having two or more meanings. For example, foot in : - He hurt his foot ; - She stood at the foot of the stairs.

A well-known problem in semantics is how to decide whether we are dealing with a single polysemous word or with two or more homonyms.
F.R.Palmer concluded saying that finally multiplicity of meaning is a very general characteristic of language.Polysemy is used in semantics and lexical analysis to describe the word with multiple meanings.Crystal and Dick Hebdige (1979) also defined polysemy.Lexical ambiguity depends upon homonymy and polysemy.



The difference between homonyms and polysemes is subtle. Lexicographers define polysemes within a single dictionary lemma, numbering different meanings, while homonyms are treated in separate lemmata. Semantic shift can separate a polysemous word into separate homonyms. For example, check as in "bank check" (or Cheque) , check in chess, and check meaning "verification" are considered homonyms, while they originated as a single word derived from chess in the 14th century.







Source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homonymy

http://everything2.com/title/hyponymy

http://www.yourdictionary.com/polysemy

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/lexical-relations-hyponymy-and-homonymy.html

http://winsomeanuja.blogspot.com/2009/10/lexical-relations-hyponymy- homonymy.html

Read More...... Read more...

RELATIONAL OPPOSITE

Oleh Jusnaedi (204 011 060 34)
Relational opposites A quite different kind of 'opposite' is found with pairs of words which exhibit the reversal. In lexical semantics, opposites are words that lie in an inherently incompatible binary relationship as in the opposite pairs male : female, long : short, up : down, and precede : follow. The notion of incompatibility here refers to fact that one word in an opposite pair entails that it is not the other pair member. For example, something that is long entails that it is not short. It is referred to as a 'binary' relationship because there are two members in a set of opposites. The relationship between opposites is known as opposition. A member of a pair of opposites can generally be determined by the question What is the opposite of X ?

The term antonym (and the related antonym) has also been commonly used as a term that is synonymous with opposite; however, the term also has other more restricted meanings. One usage has antonym referring to both gradable opposites, such as long : short, and (non-gradable) complementary opposites, such as male : female, while opposites of the types up : down and precede : follow are excluded from the definition. A third usage (particularly that of the influential Lyons 1968, 1977) defines the term antonym as referring to only gradable opposites (the long : short type) while the other types are referred to with different terms. Therefore, as Crystal (2003) warns, the terms antonym and antonym should be regarded with care. In this article, the usage of Lyons (1963, 1977) and Cruse (1986, 2004) will be followed where antonym is restricted to gradable opposites and opposite is used as the general term referring to any of the subtypes discussed below.



Opposites are, interestingly, simultaneously different and similar in meaning. Typically, they differ in only one dimension of meaning, but are similar in most other respects, including similarity in grammar and positions of semantic abnormality. Additionally, not all words have an opposite. Some words are non-opposable. For example, animal or plant species have no binary opposites (other than possible gender opposites such as lion/lioness, etc.); the word platypus therefore has no word that stands in opposition to it (hence the unanswerability of What is the opposite of platypus?). Other words are opposable but have an accidental gap in a given language's lexicon. For example, the word devout lacks a lexical opposite, but it is fairly easy to conceptualize a parameter of devoutness where devout lies at the positive pole with a missing member at the negative pole. Opposites of such words can nevertheless sometimes be formed with the prefixes un- or non-, with varying degrees of naturalness. For example, the word undevout appears in Webster's dictionary of 1828, while the pattern of non-person could conceivably be extended to non-platypus.


Opposites may be viewed as a special type of incompatibility.

1.

Words that are incompatible create the following type of entailment (where X is a given word and Y is a different word incompatible with word X)
2.

Sentence A is X entails sentence A is not Y
3.

An example of an incompatible pair of words is cat .

dog: It's a cat entails It's not a dog

4.

This incompatibility is also found in the opposite pairs fast : slow and stationary : moving, as can be seen below:

It's fast entails It's not slow

5.

It's stationary entails It's not moving

Cruse (2004) identifies some basic characteristics of opposites:


* banality

* inheritress

* patency


Complementary


Complementary opposites are pairs that express absolute opposites, like mortal and immortal.

* interactives

* satisfactives

* counteractives


Antonyms (Gradable Opposites)


For the purposes of this article (see introduction), antonyms, from the Greek anti ("opposite") and onoma ("name") are gradable opposites. Gradable opposites lie at opposite ends of a continuous spectrum of meanings; examples are hot and cold, slow and fast, and fat and skinny. Words may have several different antonyms, depending on the meaning: both long and tall can be antonyms of short.


Though the word antonym was only coined by philologists in the 19th century, such relationships are a fundamental part of a language, in contrast to synonyms, which are a result of history and drawing of fine distinctions, or homonyms, which are mostly etymological accidents or coincidences.


Languages often have ways of creating antonyms as an easy extension of lexicon. For example, English has the prefixes in- and un-, so unreal is the antonym of real and indocile is of docile.

Some planned languages abundantly use such devices to reduce vocabulary multiplication. Esperanto has mal- (compare bona = "good" and malbona = "bad"), Damin has kuri- (tjitjuu "small", kuritjitjuu "large") and Newspeak has un- (as in ungood, "bad").


Directional Opposites


* antipodals

* reversives

* converses (or relational opposites)

* pseudo-opposites


Auto- Antonyms


An auto-antonym is a word that can have opposite meanings in different contexts or under separate definitions:


* enjoin (to prohibit, issue injunction; to order, command)

* fast (moving quickly; fixed firmly in place)

* cleave (to split; to adhere)

* sanction (punishment, prohibition ; permission)

* stay (remain in a specific place, postpone; guide direction, movement)






Relational opposites A quite different kind of 'opposite' is found with pairs of words which exhibit the reversal of a relationship between…….:


1.

Semantic Relationships Between Words


Modern studies of semantics are interested in meaning primarily in terms of word and sentence relationships. Let's examine some semantic relationships between words:


Synonyms are words with similar meanings. They are listed in a special type of dictionary called a thesaurus.. A regular dictionary lists words according to form, usually in alphabetical order; a thesaurus lists words according to meaning. Synonyms usually differ in at least one semantic feature. Sometimes the feature is objective (denotative), referring to some actual, real world difference in the referents: walk, lumber, stroll, meander, lurch, stagger, stride, mince. Sometimes the feature is subjective (connotative), referring to how the speaker feels about the referent rather than any real difference in the referent itself: die, pass away, give up the ghost, kick the bucket, croak. There tend to be very few absolute synonyms in a language. Example: sofa and couch are nearly complete synonyms, yet they differ in their collocability in at least one way: one may say couch potato, but not *sofa potato.


One special type of partial synonym is called a paronym. Paronyms are words with associated meanings which also have great similarities in form: proscribe/ prescribe, industrial/ industrious, except/accept, affect/effect. Many errors in speech and writing are due to mixups involving paronyms.



Antonyms are words that have the opposite meaning. Oppositeness is a logical category. There are three types:


Complementary pairs are antonyms in which the presence of one quality or state signifies the absence of the other and vice versa. single/ married, not pregnant/ pregnant There are no intermediate states. (Joking aside, you can't really be "a little pregnant" or "kinda married.")


Gradable pairs are antonyms which allow for a natural, gradual transition between two poles: good/bad, hot/ cold . It is possible to be a little cold or very cold, etc.


Relational opposites are antonyms which share the same semantic features, only the focus, or direction, is reversed: tie/untie, buy/sell, give/receive, teacher/pupil, father/son.


Some concepts lack logical opposites that can be described in terms of any special word; colors are a good example: the logical opposite of red is not red. Such concepts may form relational antonyms, however, through symbolic systems of thinking. For instance, in Cold War thinking, the relational opposite of American is Russian; in current US politics, the relational opposite of Democrat is Republican. These are cultural relational opposites.


Homonyms are words that have the same form but different meanings. There are two major types of homonyms, based upon whether the meanings of the word are historically connected or result from coincidence.



Coincidental homonyms are the result of such historical accidents as phonetic convergence of two originally different forms or the borrowing of a new word which happens to be identical to an old word. There is usually no natural link between the two meanings: the bill of a bird vs the bill one has to pay; or the bark of a dog vs the bark of a tree.


The second type of homonym, the polysemous [pAli∆si‡∆m´s] homonym, results when multiple meanings develop historically from the same word. The process by which a word acquires new meanings is called polysemy [pAli∆si‡∆mi∆]. Unlike coincidental homonyms, polysemous homonyms usually preserve some perceptible semantic link marking the development of one meaning out of the other, as in the leg of chair and the leg of person; or the face of a person vs. the face of a clock.


Sometimes it is impossible to tell whether two words of identical form are true homonyms (historically unrelated) or polysemous homonyms (historically related), such as ice scate vs. skate the fish: skate--fish (from Old English skata') ice skate (from Dutch schaat'); deer/dear are historically related (cf. darling, German Tier, animal.)


Since polysemy is so difficult to separate from true homonymy, dictionaries usually order entries according to 1) the first recorded appearance of word or 2) frequency of meaning use. This is a problem for lexicographers, the people who study words and write dictionaries.


There are universal tendencies in the directionality of polysemy. studies of polysemy in a wide variety of languages generally find the following directions in meaning shift:

1) body part to part of object. (hands, face, lip, elbow, belly, vein of gold or of a leaf) But: appendix.


2) animal to human for personality traits (shrew, bear, wolf, fox, quiet as a fish) But: my cat is a real Einstein.


3) space to time (long, short, plural)


4) spatial to sound (melt, rush,)


5) sound to color (loud, clashing, mellow)


6) Physical, visible attribute to emotional or mental, invisible quality (crushed, big head, green with envy, yellow coward, sharp/dull, spark)


Directionality in polysemy seems to be logically motivated: concrete meanings give rise to abstract ones (sharp knife --> sharp mind); mundane gives rise to the technical (chip of wood --> computer chip).


2.

Relational Opposite Of Lexical


An opposite lexical relation is an association between two lexical units which have the opposite core meanings in some contexts.

Examples (English)

Directional converses


Opposites marking the two directions along an axis.

{(east, west), (up, down), (convex, concave)}

Relational converses


Opposites which specify the relative positions of two entities on opposite sides or poles of a spatial or relational axis.


Antonyms


When measuring or judging in a certain way, something can be either X or Y, or it can be neither.

When measuring temperature, something can be either hot or cold, or it can be neither.


Directional converses


If something goes (or faces) X and it turns around, it goes (or faces) Y.


If something goes up and it turns around, it goes down.

If something is X, oriented the other way it is Y.

If something is convex, oriented the other way it is concave.











BIBLIOGRAPHY


Crystal, David. (2003). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics (5th ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Read More...... Read more...

SYNONYMY AND ANTONYM

Oleh Musyawir (20401107146)
Synonyms are different words (or sometimes phrases) with identical or very similar meanings. Words that are synonyms are said to be synonymous, and the state of being a synonym is called synonymy. The word comes from Ancient Greek syn (σύν) ("with") and onoma (ὄνομα) ("name"). The words car and automobile are synonyms. Similarly, if we talk about a long time or an extended time, long and extended become synonyms. In the figurative sense, two words are often said to be synonymous if they have the same connotation:

"a widespread impression that … Hollywood was synonymous with immorality" (Doris Kearns Goodwin)

Synonyms can be any part of speech (e.g. nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs or prepositions), as long as both members of the pair are the same part of speech. More examples of English synonyms are:

· student and pupil (noun)

· petty crime and misdemeanor (noun)

· buy and purchase (verb)

· sick and ill (adjective)

· quickly and speedily (adverb)

· on and upon (preposition)





Note that synonyms are defined with respect to certain senses of words; for instance, pupil as the "aperture in the iris of the eye" is not synonymous with student. Similarly, he expired means the same as he died, yet my passport has expired cannot be replaced by my passport has died.

In English, many synonyms evolved from the parallel use, in the early medieval period, of Norman French (from Latin) and Old English (Anglo-Saxon) words, often with some words being used principally by the Saxon peasantry ("folk", "freedom", "bowman") and their synonyms by the Norman nobility ("people", "liberty", "archer").

Some lexicographers claim that no synonyms have exactly the same meaning (in all contexts or social levels of language) because etymology, orthography, phonic qualities, ambiguous meanings, usage, etc. make them unique. Different words that are similar in meaning usually differ for a reason: feline is more formal than cat; long and extended are only synonyms in one usage and not in others (for example, a long arm is not the same as an extended arm).. Synonyms are also a source of euphemisms.

The purpose of a thesaurus is to offer the user a listing of similar or related words; these are often, but not always, synonymy.



ANTONYM

In lexical semantics, opposites are words that lie in an inherently incompatible binary relationship as in the opposite pairs male : female, long : short, up : down, and precede : follow. The notion of incompatibility here refers to fact that one word in an opposite pair entails that it is not the other pair member. For example, something that is long entails that it is not short. It is referred to as a 'binary' relationship because there are two members in a set of opposites. The relationship between opposites is known as







opposition. A member of a pair of opposites can generally be determined by the question What is the opposite of X ?

The term antonym (and the related antonymy) has also been commonly used as a term that is synonymous with opposite; however, the term also has other more restricted meanings. One usage has antonym referring to both gradable opposites, such as long : short, and (non-gradable) complementary opposites, such as male : female, while opposites of the types up : down and precede : follow are excluded from the definition. A third usage (particularly that of the influential Lyons 1968, 1977) defines the term antonym as referring to only gradable opposites (the long : short type) while the other types are referred to with different terms. Therefore, as Crystal (2003) warns, the terms antonymy and antonym should be regarded with care. In this article, the usage of Lyons (1963, 1977) and Cruse (1986, 2004) will be followed where antonym is restricted to gradable.
Antonyms (gradable opposites)

For the purposes of this article (see introduction), antonyms, from the Greek anti ("opposite") and onoma ("name") are gradable opposites. Gradable opposites lie at opposite ends of a continuous spectrum of meanings; examples are hot and cold, slow and fast, and fat and skinny. Words may have several different antonyms, depending on the meaning: both long and tall can be antonyms of short.

Though the word antonym was only coined by philologists in the 19th century, such relationships are a fundamental part of a language, in contrast to synonyms, which are a result of history and drawing of fine distinctions, or homonyms, which are mostly etymological accidents or coincidences.

Languages often have ways of creating antonyms as an easy extension of lexicon. For example, English has the prefixes in- and un-, so unreal is the antonym of real and indocile is of docile.

Some planned languages abundantly use such devices to reduce vocabulary multiplication. Esperanto has mal- (compare bona = "good" and malbona = "bad"), Damin has kuri- (tjitjuu "small", kuritjitjuu "large") and Newspeak has un- (as in ungood, "bad").

Read More...... Read more...

GRAMMATICAL RELATION

Oleh Irmayani(20401107093)
Traditional grammars mark great use of the notions of subject and object (and also of the distinction between direct and indirect object). This largely based upon the formal distinctions of noun phrases within a sentence such as John gave Bill a book, where John is subject, Bill indirect object and a book direct object,and these are defined by the position of the noun phrases relative to the verb and to one another. In Latin these grammatical relation, as they have been called, are a marked by inflection – by the case ( in the traditional sense ) of the nouns, they subject being in the nominative, the direct object in the accusative and the indirect object.

These grammatical relation are also important when we consider the category of voice ( active and

passive) in many languages. For, if we compare John played the piano and The was played by John, it is

apparent that, which is active. It is the subject in the second. The passive.. While John is the subject in the

first, but appears after by in the second. Intuitively, and informally, what we want to say is that the object of

the active sentence becomes the subject of the passive, while the subject moves to the position after by or

becomes the ‘agent’.There are, however, some complications. In English we find that the inderect object

may become the subject of the passive, as in Bill was given a book by john, as may the inderect object- A

book was given to Bill by John (though this might perhaps be seen as the passive of John gave a book to

Bill not John gave Bill a book).

As long as the terms ‘deep subject’ and ‘deep object’ are used to deal solely with formal relations of

this kind no real problems arise. But we may well be tempted to see the deep subject as the ‘doer’ and the

deep object as the ‘sufferer’; some linguistic have used the terms ACTOR AND GOAL to make this

distinction. There are, however , difficulties if we attempt to define them in semantic terms. For it is by no

mans true that the subject of a transitive verb can always be seen as one who ‘does’ something. Verb of

this kind should deter us from attempting to define actor in semantic terms. But even with action verbs, it is

not clear that we can clearly establish what meant by actor.

In spite of the absence of any clear semantic definitions for these grammatical relation some scholars, those

who have advocated RELATION GRAMMAR, have argued that they are talked about deep ‘subject ‘

and ‘object’, this was only an informal description and restricted solely to English – and Chomsky actually

saw no reason to use these terms. It is only terms of subject and object that we can make any general,

universal statements about active and passive. For, whatever the apparent differences in the various

languages, in all cases the object of the active becomes the subject of the passive and the subject of the

active is removed elsewhere.

Most of the arguments in favor of relation grammar are of a technical and syntactic nature, ranging over

numerous languages, and cannot be followed up here. But, in general, it seems to be the case that such

notions as subject and object are useful in many languages. However, there are some languages which

appear to have a different system of grammatical relation. One of the most obvious fact about subject and

object in languages like English is that some verbs, those that are transitive, typically have both subjects and

objects, while others, the intransitive verbs, have subject only. In talking about the noun phrase with the

intransitive verbs as ‘subject’ we are, of course, identifying, in relation terms, with the subject of the

transitive verbs, and the justification is found in formal features of the language.

This is of interest to us here because the distinction involved sometimes corresponds to that of intransitive

and transitive in English. Thus the contracts between intransitive and transitive in English bounce in English is

found in the basic (non-causative) and causative forms of the verb meaning ‘jump’. French and many other

languages in a similar way use a verb meaning ‘do’ or ‘make’: English intransitive and transitive cook are

translated into french by curie and fare curie.

Some linguistic have suggested that the transitivity distinction can be dealt with in terms of causative, the

transitive being seen as the causative, the transitive being seen as the causative of a basic non-causative

form. Thus John rang the bell is interpreted as ‘John’ caused the bell to ring and, by and extension of this

idea, John killed Bill as ‘John caused Bill to die’. Bu there are objections to this. First, there is a difference

between this purely semantic analysis of English and the formal features of Tigris and French (though this

might not disturb the advocates of generative semantics. Secondly, languages have causative of transitive as

well as (basically) intransitive verbs. Moreover, there seems to be no obvious motivation for the choice of

the transitive as the basic non- causative form. Tigris does not, as we might have expected from the

arguments about English, treat the intransitive ‘break’ as basic and the transitive as causative; the intransitive

is, in fact, indicated by a form with the passive prefix – taster.

Furthermore. There are degrees of plausibility in the causative analysis of English verbs. A causative

analysis of march in The sergeant marched the recruits is more reasonable than a similar analysis of

(transitive) ring or kill. It is clear that the recruits actively performed the action of marching and that the

sergeant caused them to do so, but bells that are rung and people who are killed do not actively performed

the actions of ringing and dying under causation. Natural language comprehension efforts may use

techniques based on simple string recognition, or on deeper analysis of grammatical relation. The lexical

scanner will use the former method. Efforts to develop grammatical scanner have generally proved

unsatisfactory due to underlying complexity of human language. Because the domain of palliative care is

relatively well-defined, simple phrase recognition methods can give immediate improvements in search

results without the complexity of grammatical method. This approach is also consistent with experience

based on expert system construction, which has shown that it is more useful to encode domain – specific in

a limited, artificial computer form than to attempt to have the computer master a poorly- bounded domain.

The aim of work reported in this paper is to evaluate the extent to which proposed system ofgrammatical

relations reflect the kinds of deep linguistic knowledge required for semantic, representation, in particular

for deriving semantic.grammatical relation either produced by or ex-tracked from the output of wide-

converge syntactic parses are currently used as input to shallow semantic parsers, which identify semantic

relation that exist between predictors (typically verbs) and their dependents. Predicate- argument structure

identified in this way can then be used in tasks link information extraction and question answering.

However, wide- converge stochastic parsers are only rarely used in dialogue systems. Traditionally,

interpretation modules of dialogue systems utilize specialized parses and semantic interpreters. Unlike in

information retrieval and question answering tasks, the system often needs to be connected to a knowledge

base which represents the state of the world and must be able to convert user utterances into knowledge

base queries. In addition to identifying negation , quantification, tense and modality.

We formulated four principles for deep grammatical relation representation. Firstly, grammatical relations

should, whenever possible, reflect relations between the predictors correspond to the same role assignment..

For example, the deep grammatical relation in passive constructions should be the same as those in the

active equivalents. And the analysis of a control verb construction like John persuaded Mary to dance

should make it clear that there is a ‘subject’ grammatical relations from dance to Mary similar to that in the

implied sentence Mary danced. Secondly, a grammatical relation should, whenever possible, appear only if

there is a an explicit selection restriction link between the words. For example, in a raising verb construction

like John expect Mary to dance, there should be no grammatical relation from the raising verb expected to

its object Mary. Also, where a preposition functions strictly as a syntactic role marker, as in the

construction John relies on Mary, it should have no place in the grammatical relation analysis. Now the two

analyzes are formally distinct:

a. the first is rooted at predicate in a closed path and the second at lit;

b. the definite external argument the bulb takes scope over the modifier lit in the first but over in a closed

path in the second.

The shared task data set contains numerous passive participles, most of which can be classified into the

following four groups depending on how the participle is used: (a) complement of passive auxiliary, (b)

complement of raising verb, (c) nominal post modifier, (d) nominal Pre-modifier. In all these case, our

system for deep grammatical relation annotation requires: that there is a relation from the passive participle

to the deep object and that this relation be the same as in the corresponding active declarative construction,

so that predicate-argument structure can be straightforwardly derived.

The conclusion of these, we have proposed a set of principles for developing a grammatical relation

annotation system for use with both shallow and deep semantic interpretation systems, in particular a tutorial

dialogue system.

Read More...... Read more...

PREDICATESAND ARGUMENTS

Oleh Lartini (2040107114)
In a sentence the verb is often best seen as a relational feature and, indeed, that active and passive sentences could be handled as if they were relational opposites. Analysis in relational terms seems to offer a far more satisfactory solution to the problem of a sentence meaning than componential analysis. In an essence such analysis will have much in common with predicates calculus.

The predicate appears to structure multiple levels of meaning. The predicate with its arguments is a proposition and the proposition may become an argument of a superior predicate. This kind of recursion in the semantic structure makes it important to characterize each predicate by reference to its signature — the number and respective types of its arguments. It should later become clear that syntactically each level of meaning must be represented by a differently ordered structure. The first four examples are sentences where the predicate seems to have the simplest semantic structure.









Proposition



(1)


They waited.


WAIT(a)


"waited"

(2)


They waited long.


LONG(WAIT(a))


"waited long"

(3)


They waited in the next room.


IN(WAIT(a),b)


"waited in next room"

(4)


They were in the next room.


IN(a,b)


"were in next room"



Since we are not concerned here with entailment or any other logical relation between sentences, we do not need formulae that express prepositions, but can use what logicians call ‘open sentences’. Thus we can characterize walk, love and give in terms of one-two and three-place predicates. It will be often be convenient to spell out the predicate in full whit the relevant English word; when this is done it will be placed in square brackets [walk], [love], [give]. A major advantage of this approach is that it can ‘handle’ ‘atomics’ components as well as relational ones. For we may regard such as components as a relation involving just one argument.

Predicate calculus provides a simple method of dealing with what is known in grammar as subordination by allowing preposition to function as an argument. Thus we may to analyze Bayu thinks that Rafy loves Luna. By saying that the predicate [think] has two arguments, Bayu and the preposition Rafy loves Luna. We need to is one of the argument indicate that the whole preposition Rafy loves Luna is one of the arguments of [think]. This illustrate that sentence can be given as [think], [love], where the round brackets show that [love] is a single element. This illustrate that preposition with is own predicate and argument can also be an argument of another ‘higher’ preposition.

In this example semantic interpretation has not been very different from that suggested by the syntax of the sentence. But it is possible to break prepositions down into far more basic elements than those indicated by the actual words of the sentence. For instances, we might think of treating Surya gave Toni a book in terms of s three-places of predicate [give]-[give]. But we could instead, interpret the sentence as ‘Surya caused Tony to have a book’. The formula then becomes [cause],[have], where the arguments of [cause] are (Surya) and [have],(‘Toni have the book’). Similarly, we might treat kill as ‘cause to die’ or ‘cause to become not alive’. The latter is more favored, but it also involves the use of the logical operator ~ ‘not’. The formula ‘John killed Mary would then be [cause](x), [become](y), [alive]. i.e. ‘John cause Mary become Mary not alive’; notice that both [cause] and [become] have a preposition as their second argument.

This kind of analysis is often written out in ‘tree diagrams’ which are used for syntax. The generative semantics argued that a representation of this kind did not merely relate to the semantics of kill, but was rather its deep structure. The argument was largely based upon the triple ambiguity of I almost killed him, where it is argued, almost may qualify cause, become, or not alive (ef. Morgan 1969). The first sense applies if I shoot at him but missed ( I almost caused the subsequence events, bur did not). The second applies if I shoot at him and he recovered after narrowly avoiding death ( he become almost dead). The third applies if I shoot him in he was in a state of near death (he become almost dead). On the basis of this it is argued that kill must be interpreted in terms of three sentences in deep structure , for this will make it possible to place almost in each of these three sentences and thus show whether it qualities cause, become, or not other.



BIBLIOGRAPHY



Lionz j, Semantic 2, press indicated of the university of Cambridge, 1977.

Palmer F.R.,Semantic, edition, Cambridge unity press London, new York, 2001.

Pateda, mansoer, semantic leksikal, rineka cipta, Jakarta, 2001.

Read More...... Read more...

GRAMMAR AND LEXICON

Oleh Lartini (2040107114)
Grammar, however, is not restricted to the study of form of function words. It is concerned, more widely, with categories such a tense, gender, number and with syntactic functions such as subject and object. Some of them may be marked in a language by form words, but they may equally be marked by morphemes or even by form words. While there is a problem of establishing what are the relevant grammatical categories in any language, it is irrelevant for semantic whether a grammatical category is indicated by a form word, a morpheme or the order of the words.

For example, we find that English marks past tense with the past tense morpheme (usually indicated as –ed ). But there is no similar morpheme to indicated the future, this is marked by the verbs shall and will or by be going to (it may also be indicated by other verbal forms with the appropriate adverbs as in I’m flying to Cairo tomorrow and I fly to Cairo tomorrow). Other languages may use inflection where English and most familiar language use form words. Thus the English conjunctions after, when, while, if are translated Bihn (a Cushitic language of Ethiophia) by endings of verb. Nearer home, Finnish has many complex ‘case’ systems, containing not only ‘nominative’, ‘accusative’, ‘ablative’ etc, all of Which are familiar from Latin, but also ‘elative’, ‘illative’,’ adhesive’ and others. These last ones would translate characterize it English out of, into, on, as.

In modern linguistics the problem of the distinction between the grammar and the lexicon is often posed in terms of the distinction between sentences that are unacceptable or deviant for grammatical reasons, and those that are excluded on lexical grounds. There is no apparent difficulty about recognizing grammatically deviant sentences. An example would be *the boy is in the garden. This breaks only one grammatical rules, but we can easily invent sentences that seem to conform to no rules at all as *been a when I tomato. In contrast we shall rule out on different grounds *the water is fragile, *the flower walked away. With these the issue is on be of collocation. Which determines the possible co occurrence of water with fragile and flower with walk.

There have, however, been opposing views on the question whether these two kinds of restriction, one grammatical, the other lexical, are, in principle, different. One argument to sustain the difference is that a sentence can be grammatically correct, yet at the same time totally defiant in lexical terms. If a sentence can thus conform to grammar, but be completely deviant lexically, it would seem that grammar and lexicon are distinct. Earlier, incidentally, Carnap had made the same point by inventing a sentence that does not contain any English word at all yet seems to be quite grammatical in terms of English – Pirots karulize clatically(1937: 2).

Some linguists believe that just as a grammar could be wholly formal, and that we need not concern ourselves with the meaning of any of our grammatical categories, so, too, a total statement of all collocation possibilities of a word would be sufficient to characterize it linguistically. Indeed, some went so far as to believe that the set of collocation possibilities of a word was essentially the meaning of that word for the linguist.

What is relevant to semantics is that he was concerned with restrictions on the co occurrence of items within a sentence, so that we shall no permit *the idea cut the tree,* I drank the bread,*he frightened that he was coming,* he elapsed the man. in all these examples it is clear that we have chosen item that, in some way, do not fit the verbs. The last examples are clearly a matter of grammar in that frighten does no take a that-clause, while elapse is an intransitive verb that does not take any object at all. With the other two examples it is a matter, however, of the incompatibility of lexical items, of certain nouns (as subjects or objects) with certain verbs. While nothing the difference between these two types, Chomsky proposed to deal with them in similar ways. In both cases he stated, as part of the specification of the verb, the environment in which it may occur. Thus elapse was shown as not occurring with an object noun phrase, and frighten not occurring with the following that-clause ( or rather it was not shown that they can so occur , since the specification would state what is possible, not what is possible). Similarly cut would be shown to need a concrete subject, and drink a liquid object. This was achieved in terms of components (concrete) and (liquid). These are selection restriction. Any sentence which did not comply to them was ruled out and the grammar would not generate it.

The lexical restrictions, it has been suggested (Haas 1973:147-8), are not a matter of rules but of tendencies, not of Yes/No, but More/Less, when judge in terms of deviance, unfortunately this leads us to the problem ‘When is a rule a rule?’, for there is no clear line between grammatical or lexical deviance. Some sentences are clearly ungrammatical and are simply to be ruled out or corrected, while others are odd only in a lexical way and can, with some imagination, be contextualized. But there are others that are half-way, and we are not really sure whether their deviance is lexical or grammatical.

Consider, for example, *the dog scattered. This is not simply a matter of the collocation of dog with scatter, for the verb scatter is normally used only with plural nouns (the dogs scattered), or with collective nouns (the herd scattered). It would seem, therefore, that a grammatical rule is being broken and that we should amend to the dogs scattered (or the dog was scattered). But cannot we imagine a dog with magical powers whose way of avoiding its enemies was to break into many peaces and ‘scatter’ over a wide area? Indeed we can, and so we have found a possible, if far fetched, contextualization for the dog scattered. The deviance would seem, there for to be lexical rather than grammatical. But I am not really sure. Can we say, the dog scattered even ………….. Context? Or would the dog scattered itself be more appropriate. My indication here shows that we are on the borderline of grammar and lexicon.

Read More...... Read more...