5

Metaphor and metonymy are both ways of connecting two concepts (or making one concept stand for another). The fundamental distinction between metaphor and metonymy is that metaphor connects two concepts based on similarity and metonymy based on part/whole relationship (meronymy). Typical examples of metaphor are 'Our relationship is on rocky ground' or 'We ...


4

A term I know from psycholinguistics is "phonologically based lexical selection error". That means, when looking up the words you need in your mental lexicon, you already have the almost appropriate phonetic form in mind, but then accidently choose a word instead that is phonetically very similar (i.e. differing in one sound, as in your example), but ...


4

The difference between polysemy and homonymy is often one of degree or the direction you approach them. They are difficult semantic relationships to fix with certainty even when it comes to lexical items let alone constructions with more abstract meanings (like tense or affixes). But the examples you give are examples of polysemy NOT homonymy. You have one ...


3

These are more or less like the word-sense disambiguation, anaphora resolution or co-reference resolution examples in the Winograd Schema Challenge and generally in natural language understanding. How far ahead do we look when parsing and understanding text? As you essentially show in your examples where the necessary information is not in the sentence, ...


2

I disagree with the accepted answer. If there is a difference in inflection between mouse "device" and mouse "animal", the natural way to model this is with two different lexemes. Anything else seems like a poor model to me. Historical categories don't remain the same. Just because the etymology of "mouse" is still transparent, it doesn't mean it's still ...


2

In short: no, you need a diachronic definition. If mouse "device" had the plural mouses, and mouse "animal" had mice, would you say it was still polysemic? I think the answer has to be yes: the paradigm/inflexion is in the end not crucial. Mouse and mouse are still "the same word". So we cannot use that as a criterion to distinguish between true homonymy ...


1

Since you seem to be interested in reading, you may find the following overview of "The science of word recognition" (written in 2017, by Kevin Larson) to be an interesting read. Larson says that the best supported model of how words are read is parallel recognition of multiple letters. Larson also talks about the phenomenon of eye "saccades", which ...


1

You have two input choices: 1. analyze dictionaries (wordnet, worknik or wiktionary), 2. use word embeddings (word2vec, glove, elmo). Use this data with a WSD (word sense disambiguation) solution. Search github for WSD. Also, this is worth looking at: https://blog.openai.com/discovering-types-for-entity-disambiguation/


1

"Freudian slip" e.g Jimmy Kimmels 'clip slip' Or one which can be reproduced here 'For seven and a half years I've worked alongside President Reagan. We've had triumphs. Made some mistakes. We've had some sex... uh... setbacks." -A Freudian slip by President George H.W. Bush Also called parapraxis and includes both slip of tongue and of the pen. The ...


1

I would call it 'momentary aphasia'. The brain has different modules for input, memory, awareness and output; and all are highly parallel. The awareness may miss that the output was distracted by a similarity and went on a tangent.


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible