BOX with the Center in the verb.
Verbs connected with a group of nouns with case relations. For example, the sentence "Mary gave a book to Fred", Mary agent of giving, book an object of this process, and Fred recipient of the verb "give". In addition to case relations in a sentence in natural language also has the means to link the individual academic proposal format. Such relationships are needed for the following:
Unions. The easiest way to combine offers - is to put the union between them. Some unions, such as "and", or "if" denote a logical connection, and some, such as "after", "when", "long", "since as" and "because "express the temporal relations and the cause.
Verbs requiring a subordinate sentence. Declensional frames many verbs require a subordinate academic proposal format, which is usually a direct complement. To this type belong the verbs "talk," "believe," "believe," "know", "be convinced", "danger", "seek", etc.
Determinants related to the whole academic proposal format. Many adverbs and propozitsionnye phrases refer only to the verb, but some define the whole sentence. Such adverbs like "usually" or "might", in most cases placed at the beginning of the academic proposal format. And for example, the word "one" determines the whole story, the next after him.
Modal verbs and times. Such verbs as "may", "can", "must", "should", "would" and "could" have a modal value and relate to the entire academic proposal format, where they occur. Temporal relation can be expressed as the past tense of verbs, and the circumstances "now", "tomorrow" or "once" and others.
Linked discourse. In addition to the relationship expressed in one sentence, there are also higher-order relationships between the various academic proposal formats of the story or any other story. Many of them are not expressed explicitly: temporal relationships and the arguments may be, for example, implicitly expressed by the order of the academic proposal formats one after another in the text.
Precisely because the verb is given such an important role in the academic proposal format, many of the theory make it their central link. This approach takes its origin from the Indo-European language family, where the modality and temporal relations are expressed by a change in verbal form. Consider the following example: "While a dog was eating a bone, a cat passed by unnoticed". In this our proposal format, reported that when the sentence "While a dog was eating a bone" is true, the second sentence "A cat passed unnoticed" is also true. Figure 3 shows a graph with the center of the verb. Union "while" (WHL) connects node PASS-BY to the site EAT. Figure 3 shows that the dog is the agent nezamechaniya (not noticing).
Graphs with the center of the verb - a relational graphs, where the verb is central to any our proposal format. Markers of time and relationships are written right next to the concepts, which are verbs. Counts of conceptual dependency Roger Shenk also use this approach.
Despite the fact that the graphs with the center of the verb rather flexible in its structure, they have several limitations. One of them is that they do not distinguish between the determinants, which relate only to the verb, and the determinants related to the our proposal entirely. Consider the following examples:
The dog greedily ate the bone.
Greedily, the dog ate the bone.
These graphs are also poorly cope with the academic proposal formats located within the other our proposals.
When working with relational graphs having a problem with the whole variety of temporal relations and relations modality. Despite the fact that many scientists use these graphs to solve complex problems, so they are still not developed a general method for solving them. In the above example should mark PAST applies to the entire our proposal, which says that a dog eats a bone, not just to the verb EAT, it is clear that the bone was later eaten by a dog as a whole. It should also be pointed out that the process of passing a cat and a process has not comments her dog took place in one and the same time.
PROPOZITSIONNYE NETWORK.
In propozitsionnyh networks nodes represent entire sentences. These nodes are the points of contact for the relationship between the various our proposals related text. On the other hand they determine the time and modality for the entire context. The following examples illustrate the relationship, for which records are needed propozitsionnye sites:
Sue thinks that Bob believes that a dog is eating a bone.
If a dog is eating a bone, it is unwise to try to take it away from him.
In the first sentence for the verb "think" and "believe" the whole academic proposal format is an addition: Bob believes that "A dog is eating a bone", what he thinks Sue is a more complex sentence-"Bob believes that a dog is eating a bone ". Such proposals nesting within the other our proposals can be repeated arbitrarily many times. To portray such a proposal consultant, you must use propozitsionnye sites that contain nesting boxes. Figure 4 shows propozitsionnaya network for this proposal. Note that (EXP) - experiencer, ie one who feels, connects with Sue THINK and BELIEVE with Bob, but EAT DOG and interconnected elliptical ratio (AGNT). The reason for different types of relations is the fact that think and believe is a condition experienced by people, but eating is the action performed by the agent.
In the second example, presented two proposals are in respect of conditions. Antecedent is the sentence "A dog is eating a bone", and the consequent sentence "It is unwise to try to take it away from him". Infinitives "to try" and "to take" point to the other, nesting proposals. At nesting proposal also indicates turnover "it is unwise". This proposal must also contain correspondence between the "it", "him" and "bone" and "dog". Links match marked by a dotted line. For the formal record of this proposal also uses the universal quantifier and the existence and some elements of logic.
All relational graphs and graphs with the center of the verb have much in common. But among them there are also differences:
1. The inclusion of context, or merely its symbol with a reference to the scheme.
2. Strict breeding: the same concept may or may not occur in two different contexts, none of which do not nest in another.
3. Showing the relationship of conformity. In the context of intersecting, that is when they are one and the same concept is found in two different contexts, these bonds are not listed.
However, this is just stylistic differences, which do not significantly affect the logic of the construction.
Hierarchy.
The hierarchy of types and subtypes is a standard feature of semantic networks. The hierarchy may include essentially: TAXI DOG carnivorous Animals Living Being physical object ESSENCE. They may also include events: Sacrifice ANY ACT event or condition: Extasy HAPPINESS Emotional Condition STATUS. Hierarchy of Aristotle included 10 major categories: substance, quantity, quality, relation, place, time, status, activity and passivity. Some scholars have supplemented it with their classes.
The symbol between more general and more specific symbol is read as: "Do H-tip/podtip."
The term "hierarchy" usually refers to a partial order, where some types are more common than others. The ordering is partial, because many types simply can not be compared with each other. Compare HOUSE DOG and DOG HOUSE meaningless if they compare, but the word is a subtype DOGHOUSE HOUSE, but not DOG. Consider some types of graphs:
Acyclic graph. Any partial ordering can be represented as a graph without cycles. Such a graph has branches that diverge and come together again, which allows some sites have multiple nodes parents. Sometimes this type of graph called confusing.
Trees. The most common type of hierarchy is a graph with one vertex. In such graphs imposed restrictions on acyclic graphs: the top of the graph represents one common type, and every other type of X has only one parent U.
Lattice. Unlike tree nodes in the lattice can have multiple parent nodes. However, there are imposed other restrictions: any pair of type X and Y as a minimum should have a common gipertip Khieu and subtype HiliU. Because of this limitation grille looks like a tree, which has the main peak at each end. Instead of just one vertex array has a single peak, which is gipertipom all categories, and another peak, which is a subtype of all types.
Read also:
Knowledge based jobs
Graphs of quadratic equations
Semantic thesis
Grammer parsing
