A Corpus Based Study on the Chinese Near- Synonymous Verbs of by ewghwehws

VIEWS: 2 PAGES: 11

									INTRODUCTION: RESEARCH AREA


 1. Chinese Semantics
 2. Semantic difference related to syntax
 3. Module Attribute Representation of
  Verbal Semantics (MARVS)
AIM/JUSTIFICATION
 Chinese is full of near-synonymous verbs which are
  difficult for foreign learners to learn and they are a
  potential problem for computer translation.

 MARVS is a representational framework to distinguish
  meaning of Chinese verbs in their syntax structures.

 Try to do a little help to Chinese learners and a little bit
  contribution to computer translation by using MARVS to
  find out the distinction between “Guan” and “Kan”(
  both means looking in Chinese).
REFERENCES
    (1) Huang, Chu-Ren, Kathleen Athens, Li-Li Chang, Keh-Jiann Chen, Mei-Chun Liu, and
    Mei-Chih Tsai. 2000. The Module-Attribute Representation of Verbal Semantics: From
    Semantics to Argument Structure. International Journal of Computational Linguistics and
    Chinese Language Processing.

   (2) Liu, Mei-Chun. 2002. Corpus-based Lexical Semantic Study of Verbs of Doubt: Huayi
    and Cai in Mandarin. Concentric. 28.2.

   (3)Liu, Mei-Chun. 2003. From Collocation to Event Information: the Case of Mandarin
    Verbs of Discussion1. Language and Linguistics 4 (3): 563-586, 2003.

   (4) Chiang, Ting-Yi, Chou, Ming-Hui, Liu, Mei-Chun. 2005. A Frame-based Approach to
    Polysemous Near-synonymy: the Case with Mandarin Verbs of Expression. Journal of
    Chinese Language and Computing, 15 (3): (137-148)

   (5) Chung, Siaw-Fong and Kathleen Ahrens. Forthcoming. MARVS Revisited:
    Operationalizing Sense Frequency and MI Values. Language and Linguistics: Lexicon,
    Grammar and Natural Language Processing.

   (6) Mei-chun Liu and Ting-yi Chiang. 2008. The Construction of Mandarin VerbNet: A
    Frame-based Study of Statement Verbs. LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS 9.2:239-270, 2008

   (7)Wang Juan. 2009. A Corpus Based Study on the Chinese Near- Synonymous Verbs of
    Running
RESEARCH QUESTIONS

  Can the two near-synonymous verbs of
   looking in Chinese be used alternatively in
   all the contexts?
  If not, what are their distribution
   differences?
  How to explain the differences by using
   the model of MARVS? (Two more steps will
   be introduced here)
MATERIALS/INSTRUMENTS
 Module Attribute Representation of Verbal Semantics
  (MARVS)

 Verb---Sense---Eventive Information



           Event Module
                               Role Module



           Event-Internal
             Attribute        Role-Internal
                                Attribute


 Share Sense and Mutual Information Value
METHODOLOGY ---SOURCE


The corpus that I would like to use is developed by
the Center for Chinese Linguistics of Beijing
University. Both modern and classical Chinese data
are included in this corpus. For the modern Chinese
data, there are both spoken and written data, and
the latter just takes a small percentage (0.04%).
Now I am also trying to find a Chinese corpus
dominated by spoken data.
 Firstly, all instances of each of the two verbs will be
  searched for in the corpus.

 Secondly, these entries of each verb will be classified
  into different type of syntactic pattern.

 Thirdly, the aspectual type that is associated with each
  verb will be examined.

 Last but not least, I will use the modified MARVS model
  to explain the differences between the verbs.
             TYPE OF DATA AND ANALYSIS


 Data collection: written ones and spoken ones.

 Beginning period: quantitative approach to
  analyze data themselves and try to find out their
  common features.

 Later period: qualitative approach to explain the
  differences under the guidance of modified MARVS.
A Corpus Based Study on the
  Chinese Near- Synonymous
   Verbs of Looking By Using
             Modified MARVS


                       Sun He
ANTICIPATED PROBLEMS/LIMITATIONS
OF THE STUDY


The data I can collect is probably prone to
written ones since the spoken ones are hard
to access to. Therefore the result will not
very comprehensive.
WHAT DO YOU EXPECT TO FIND?

 Kan probably has the event focus of
  both the starting and the endpoint of
  the event while Guan does not.
 Guan tends to work more with artistic
  words while Kan can work with more
  variety kinds of nouns.

								
To top