Aural English Materials

1. Download the materials from unit 22 up to 25,
2. Open the Student book of Aural English,
3. Do the tasks of the units based on the appropriate materials.

Unit 22

Unit 23

Unit 24

Unit 25

TUGAS E-LEARNING FOR INTEGRATED LISTENING A & B

1. Download the file on Sister Kid,
2. Answer these questions:

• What is the story about? (Write in 10 sentences)
• Which figure (character) do you identify yourself? 
• What will you do if you become the 'sitter' of your friend's kid?

E-Learning for Aural English December 2014

1. Listen to Unit 16, 17, 18, 19, 21
2. Do the Tasks from your Student Book,
3. Submit the assignments on a piece of paper.

Unit 16

Unit 17

Unit 18

Unit 19

Unit 21

Tugas Writing

1. Write an introduction based on a TS,
2. TS: 1. Some students are lazy to open a dictionary
            2. Students avoid visiting libraries.
            3. Some students only focus on academic assignments.
3. Choose one of the above TSs and develop an essay based on it.

Radjaban.

Tugas Statistik 18 Nov 2014

1. Read the instruction,
2.  Check your Mid-Test Answers based on the Answer Key below.

1. Data  :	9	8	5	6	7	5	8	4	7		Σx/n =	Means
											6,5555556
											TDK LULUS	4
2. Data  :	32	65	95	87	74	72	67	74	85		LULUS	5
	67	76	86	86	68	62	78	58	88
	49	68	74	65	74	67	85	69	67
	90	66	58	76	62	68	88	62	64
	85	79	69	68	69	79	67	69	70
	88	76	58	66	59	89	64	59	76
	67	67	88	79	84	76	70	84	68
	64	78	95	76	86	67	79	86	66
	70	59	97	67	65	78	88	65	79
	79	73	72	78	76	73	86	70	76
3. Find the Means of the above data and describe the data based on its frequency distribution.

1.	Range = Χmax - Χmin
		97-32
	R         =	65
2.	K         =	1 + 3,333 * log (n)
		1 + 3,333 * log (90)
		1 + 3,333 * 1,95424
		1 + (3,333 * 1,95424)
		1 + 6,51348
	K         =	7,51348
	K         =	8
	P         =	R/K
		65/7,51348
	P         =	8,65112
	P         =	9

KELAS			fKum	f	M	f*M	GM
H	32	40	1	1	36	36	73,2
G	41	49	2	1	45	45
F	50	58	5	3	54	162
E	59	67	30	25	63	1575
D	68	76	59	29	72	2088
C	77	85	74	15	81	1215
B	86	94	87	13	90	1170
A	95	100	90	3	98	292,5
Jumlah				90		6584
H	1
G	1
F	3
E	25
D	29
C	15
B	13
A	3

 

Semantic Assignment tgl. 18 Nov 2014

1. Download the file,
2. Make 20 sentences of your opinions about the article,
3. Write them on a piece of paper,
4. Submit it at the time of signing the attendant list.

QUANTIFICATIONAL REPRESENTATION OF MEANING

By: R. Yohanes Radjaban

The quantificational approach to meaning has been applied to broad sections of the English vocabulary. This approach resembles the componential approach in several ways. It is concerned with word sense. It assumes that word sense consists of components called ‘factors’ or ‘dimensions’. It assumes that the more components two words have in common, the more similar they are in meaning. The major difference between the two approaches is in the role of the investigator’s own semantic judgments. In the componential approach, it is typically the investigator who judges which analogies are well formed and which are not. In the quantificational approach, other people make the judgements and the investigator merely extracts the component latent in their judgments. The quantificational methods were developed for three reasons. First, it was felt that these methods would be more ‘objective’ and less open to the investigator’s own biases. Second, it was possible to investigate semantic field about which the investigator had no clear intuitions. And third, these methods were able to handle components of meaning that were continuous, like age, where the componential approach could handle only components that were discrete, like adult versus non-adult. 

Semantic Factors

In an early quantificational approach to meaning, Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaun (1957) tried to measure ‘affective’ meaning by a test they called the semantic differential. (See Clark & Clark, pp. 433)  People were asked to rate certain words based on twenty bi-polar adjective scales. The word mother, for example, might be rated impressionistically as quite happy, very soft, and neither fast nor slow. These ratings were than analyzed by a method called factor analysis. A word was given similar ratings on each scale within a group, but different ratings on scales not in the same group. Each group of bi-polar scales seemed to reflect a different ‘factor’ or aspect of affective meaning. The three factors were :

Evaluation (reflected in good/bad, happy/sad, and beautiful/ugly)

Potency (reflected in strong/weak, brave/coward, and hard/soft)

Activity (reflected in fast/slow, tense/relaxed, and active/passive)

As a complete representation of word senses, the semantic differential has limitation. The most serious is that it measures the affective reactions a word elicits, but not the concept it denotes. Although the semantic differential has been useful in studying attitudes and emotional reactions, it has had little success in explaining how word sense is involved in comprehension, production, and acquisition. 

Semantic Space

In more recent quantificational methods, word meanings are often represented by means of a semantic space. The meaning of a word is taken to be a location in physical space in which each dimension represents one of the word’s semantic components. (See Clark & Clark, pp. 434) The closer two words in semantic space are, the more similar they are in meaning. 

 Multidimensional Scaling

Multidimensional scaling developed by Shepard (1962) and Kruskal (1964) work backward from people’s judgements of similarity to the semantic space. In applying this method, one typically shows people all possible pairings of words within a semantic domain. For each pair they rate how similar the two words are on a scale of 1 to 10. The average ratings for the twenty-eight pairs are then submitted to a special computer program. It is designed to find a semantic space in which the more similar two words are rated on the average, the closer they are in the space. (See Clark & Clark, pp. 436).

 Semantic Clusters

Word domains that do not fit into neat semantic spaces may instead divide into two word clusters. For these S. Johnson (1967) has devised a method called hierarchical cluster analysis. People are asked to rate all word pairs within a domain for their similarity in meaning, but what is produced is a hierarchical arrangement of clusters. The words within a cluster are all closely related, and the clusters themselves are related to each other in a hierarchy. For illustration consider the clusters of English pronouns in Table 11-5 on page 437 as analyzed by Fillenbaum and Repoport (1971).

Cluster analysis, however, can miss certain relationships and be misleading on others. Note that English pronouns are nominative (I, we, he, she, they), accusative (me, us, him, her, them), or possessive (my, our, his, her, their, your). Cluster analysis cannot represent this fact because it does not extract cross-classifications from clusters. Cluster analysis is limited to discovering only certain types of relationships. 

Limitations of the Quantificational Approach

Quantificational methods were taken up because they were felt to be more ‘objective’. They used simply judgments from naïve people and relied on mechanical procedures for extracting the semantic spaces and clusters latent in the judgments. But this objectivity was bought at the cost of certain limitations. Some were in the methods themselves, and others were in the notions of semantic space and semantic clusters. 

Are the Methods Adequate?

Ironically, the objectivity in the methods constitutes one of their chief weaknesses. When people distill their knowledge of two words into a 1-to-10 rating of how similar the words are, they gloss over the subtleties of word meaning. And averaging over many such ratings only obscures any subtleties that may be there. Even more troubling is the unavoidable tendency for people to change their criterion for ‘semantic similarity’ as they go from one word pair to the next.

For many investigators, another drawback is that these methods tacitly take the encyclopedic view of meaning. When people make a 1-to-10 judgment of word similarity, they are not asked to distinguish what they know about dogs from what they know about the word dogs. They do not distinguish their mental encyclopedia from their mental lexicon.

Is a Semantic Space Enough?

Even in the ideal, the notion of semantic space has inherent limitations. One problem is that its dimensions have incomplete interpretations. In the kinship terms, for example, one dimension space would be ‘parent-child’, a dimension that distinguishes parent from child, father from son, and mother from daughter. What the semantic space does not tell us is that parent and child are rational, specifying the relation between two people x and y as in x is the parent of y. Nor does it tell us that parent and child are converses, that if x is the parent of y, then y is the child of x.

A related problem is that while this approach may reveal the meaning of single words or simple phrases, it cannot deal with sentences. It cannot in principle tell how word meanings fit together to form sentence meanings. For many investigators, this is the central goal in studying meaning—to explain how man is just a compressed version of male adult human and how man, bite, and dog go together to form man bites dog.

The word dog accomplishes what it does via the concept dog. Recall that in the nominal view of meaning, dog is merely the name for the category dog, which is defined by one’s concept of dog.

Within the functional approach, concepts are defined by rules, but the rules correspond to mental operations by which people actually decide whether or not an object belongs to a category. This assumption has been made concrete in the approach called procedural semantics. 

Procedural Semantics

The basic idea behind the procedural semantics is that the sense of a word is a procedure—a set of mental operation—for deciding when a word applies to a thing. (See Table 11-6, pp. 440)

Components as Procedures

No one will have missed the obvious resemblance of the procedure for man to the semantic components of man, namely Male(x) & Human(x). The procedure is just the three components of man strung out in a serial order.

Each procedure itself relies on other procedures in its operation. In the procedure for Man(x), Step 1 is really another procedure called Human(x) in turn makes use of other more elementary procedures, and so on. The procedure Male(x) itself may be used as part of other procedures, like that for King(x) and Bachelor(x). The advantage of this system is that the sense of a word like man calls on the same mental operations that are required for the senses of many other words. Elementary procedures can be combined in various ways to form the procedures for complex words.

Procedures as Mental Operations

In the functional approach, semantic components have a natural explanation. They are those basic mental operations in the human cognitive system that are used for classifying encyclopedic knowledge—for categorizing immediate perceptions and past recollections.

Limitations of Procedural Semantics

Because procedural semantics is in its infancy, its strengths and weaknesses are not easy to judge. Most procedures proposed so far have been taken directly from componential analysis, and where that is successful, so is procedural semantics. Yet procedural semantics has made some progress beyond componential analysis.  

Are Procedures Flexible Enough?

Because the procedures designed so far are fairly inflexible, they run into difficulties where flexibility is called for—as in contextual variation, received knowledge, conversational adjustments, and fuzzy boundaries.

Semantic procedures must also be flexible enough to deal with received knowledge. Another problem is how to adjust procedures to speakers and listener. An adult speaking to a child may refer to a wolf as a doggie to accommodate to the child’s conception of wolves. And a scientist talking to a layman might use science to include astrology and numerology to accommodate to the layman’s understanding of science, Semantic procedures do not yet allow for such conversational adjustments.

The categories, words name typically, have fuzzy boundaries, putting an even greater strain on semantic procedures. Because tomatoes lie on the boundary between fruit and vegetables, they may sometimes be called fruit and other times vegetable.

The limitations of inflexibility procedures are not necessarily limitations of semantic procedures in general, nor are they limitations on the broader functional approach to meaning. It could be argued that one strength of the functional approach is that it draws out these issues and tries to address them.

 COMPLICATIONS IN THE REPRESENTATION OF MEANING

So far, each word has been treated as if it had one and only one sense. This is incorrect for three reasons. First, almost all words are polysemous—they have more than one sense. Second, there are expressions called idioms, like kick the bucket meaning ‘die’, which do not get their meaning directly from the words they contain. And third, some words can be used for conveying senses never before associated with them. This phenomenon will be called lexical creativity. 

Polysemy

Although words almost always have more than one sense, these multiple senses are of two kinds: homonymy and polysemy. Consider these three senses for the phonological sequence ear:

Sense 1: the visible organ of hearing, as in floppy ears.

Sense 2: the sense of hearing, as in good ear for jazz.

Sense 3: the spike that bears corn, as in three ears of corn.

The American Heritage Dictionary classify the first two senses together under a dictionary entry labeled ear¹, and the third sense under another labeled ear². In this way, it claims that ear¹ and ear² are two different words. By historical accident they happen to be pronounced (and spelled) alike, but are otherwise as different as nose and stalk. Ear¹ and Ear² are therefore called homonyms. Sense 1 and 2 are claimed to be different senses of the same word. Hey are historically related, with sense 2 thought to be an ‘extension’ of sense 1. Ear¹ is therefore said to be polysemous, to show the property of polysemy. 

Are Some Senses Built on the Spot?

In a study of line, Camarazza and Grober (1976) demonstrated that people at least see some senses as more central than others. Line has five relatively distinct senses:

Sense 1: A physical mark, as in Two parallel lines never meet.

Sense 2: A demarcation, as in His bags checked at the state line.

Sense 3: A Continuous arrangement, as in Line up the blocks.

Sense 4: A Continuous sequence of words, as in Actors learn lines.

Sense 5: A sequence of constructs, as in What is your line of work?

Through a variety of quantificational techniques, it was shown that people view sense 1 as most central, sense 2 as next most central, and so on. Caramazza and Grober argued that line had a core meaning, approximately ‘an extension’, and the five senses were all realizations of this core meaning. Sense 1 was the most concrete, and sense 5 the most abstract, and this led to people’s judgments of centrality. However, they do not say whether all five senses are built on the spot from a core meaning or come from ready-made for use when they are needed. 

Idioms

Idioms are phrases with special meanings. Most idioms are the petrified remains of dead metaphors. New metaphors are created every day. At any moment some metaphors have just been born, some are old and familiar, some are dying, and some are dead and petrified. 

Lexical Creativity

People are not content to leave language alone. When it leaves them too little room to maneuver efficiently, they invent new uses for old words and sometimes invent new words altogether. Some innovations are so natural that they go unnoticed: The mountain is jeepable. Others hit us as innovations: This music is very Beethoveny. The mental lexicon does not contain them ready-made in this form. They must be created on the spot as a normal part of speaking and listening.

The functional approach suggests a natural way of handling innovations, for it allows semantic procedures to be built on the spot. Take Margaret 747’d to San Fransisco. On hearing 747’d, listeners realize they must come up with a procedure for an action. The action the speaker must be suggesting with 747 is the one associated with the normal function of 747’s, namely flying with a 747 as an instrument. They would then build a procedure for ‘fly by means of a 747’ just as the speaker intended. What makes the functional approach especially suitable is that it views word senses as dynamic, not static.

Tugas Integrated Listening I (18 & 19 Nov 2014)

1. Listen to the listening material,
2. Make a summary of it on a piece of paper,
3. Submit it when you sign the attendant list.

Listening Materials for Aural English

1. Listen to the materials,
2. Do the exercises from Unit 11, 12, 13, 14 & 15
3. Submit on a piece of paper (not to my email).

Unit 11

Unit 12

Unit 13

Unit 14

Unit 15