English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

1 Introduction The words gawp, gaze, ~md stare all <lenote a, ldnd of prolonge(I look: they a.re nc¢u'-syno'nyms, or plcsionyms [Cruse 1986]. [h)wever, a.s we learn from their indivi(lu;tl enl.ries in the Oxford advanced learner's dictionary (OALD; fourth edi-rio:n, 198f))~ to ga.ze is to look long a.nd steadily; to st;axe is to (Io this with the eyes wide open; a.nd gawping has the additiom~l requirement tha.t the ~ct I)e impolite or stupid. In recent work [l)i-Marco, llirst, m~d Stede 1()93; I)iM~u'co and IIirst 1993], we ddress 1;1l(; problen~ of representing the lexica.l ['ea, tures theft distinguish groups of ne++r-synonynts. Our lexical tim.tures for (lil/erei~Lia.tion are not intended to be any kind of l)rimit;ives for (le(:om-l)ositiomfl semantics: they iir~'(~ ]lOt being used to rel>resent whole meanings, t)ut r+~ther l;o rep]'esent d{[.'fi'~vnec.~ between ]ne,~nings. These dift'erences between plesionyms (a ,, I)e sh,~des of (tenota, Lion or (:onnota,tion, or emt)ha.ses on dift'e]'ent (:Oral)O-nen t s o [" t he meani n g. Our eveutuM goM is ~ represent;a.tio], for a lexicon in which sem~mti(" and stylistic distiuctions ca,Jl I)e l/lade bel;ween syn(tttylns a,n(l plesionyms, I)oth within a.nd ~(;ross la.ngua.ges, ['or the purpose of lexica.1 choit:e in natural l,~ngua,ge gener,~tion a, nd machine tra.nslation. The na,ture o[ these distinctions suggests tha.t timy can be viewed a.s rc-lations I)etween nea,r-synot~yms. In this l)a.per, we undertake ~ study of the ch~u'~cteristics of ne~> synonymic rel;~tions as a. stel) towa:r<ls a. knowl edge rel)resent,~tiou for lexi(:M discrimination. As a first st;eli , whi(;h we des(:ribed in [l)iMar(:o, llirst, ~u,d Ste<le 1993], we carried out a. stu<ly o1' dictiona,ry usage notes in order to compile a. list. of the kinds of dime, nsions flint axe used frequently ~s (lenotat;iw; or connot~tive dil[erentiae. We i)r(,-duced zt l>relimina, ry list; of 26 (lenota.tional dimensions and 12 eonnota,tive dimensions (including a few l;h~t we aAded from the discussion on lexi(:a,l a.sl)e(:ts t)y Viua.y m~d l)a.rl)eltmt [1958]). (This set is not, yet; complete 1)1' definitive, of course, bul; we h;we mamtge(t to in(:lu(le ~ fairly (:ompre Imnsive selection of the most common diffexences between ne~r-synonyms.) Some of the dimensions ~re sin@e l)in~u'y choices; others are continuous. We show ;~ representative sa, ml)le in Table 1. l)3a(:h line of the ta£le shows ~ dimension of differentia-lion followed by ex~unple sentences in which two i)lesionyms vary a.long th,~t dimension. 3 Chafl]u and Herrmalan 3.1. Basic theory (]ha,[fin ++nd llerrma.n n [1988] lt~+ve provMed ++ …

The nature of near-synonymic relations