1
From: "Human Potential & Development."
Split Justification: Development fundamentally involves both our inner landscape (**Internal World**) and our interaction with everything outside us (**External World**). (Ref: Subject-Object Distinction)..
2
From: "Internal World (The Self)"
Split Justification: The Internal World involves both mental processes (**Cognitive Sphere**) and physical experiences (**Somatic Sphere**). (Ref: Mind-Body Distinction)
3
From: "Cognitive Sphere"
Split Justification: Cognition operates via deliberate, logical steps (**Analytical Processing**) and faster, intuitive pattern-matching (**Intuitive/Associative Processing**). (Ref: Dual Process Theory)
4
From: "Analytical Processing"
Split Justification: Analytical thought engages distinct symbolic systems: abstract logic and mathematics (**Quantitative/Logical Reasoning**) versus structured language (**Linguistic/Verbal Reasoning**).
5
From: "Linguistic/Verbal Reasoning"
Split Justification: This dichotomy separates the receptive aspects of linguistic reasoning, involving the understanding and interpretation of spoken or written language, from the expressive aspects, which involve the formulation and production of spoken or written language. These are distinct, fundamental processes that together encompass all facets of verbal reasoning.
6
From: "Verbal Comprehension"
Split Justification: This split distinguishes between understanding the explicit, directly stated meaning of verbal information and understanding the unstated, implied, or deeper meaning that requires synthesis and deduction. These represent distinct levels of cognitive processing within overall verbal comprehension.
7
From: "Inferential Comprehension"
Split Justification: This split divides inference into understanding unstated social meaning and intent (Pragmatic & Discourse Inference) and evaluating the structural soundness of an argument (Logical Analysis).
8
From: "Pragmatic & Discourse Inference"
Split Justification: This split distinguishes between inferring meaning from social context and speaker intent (Social & Intentional Inference) and inferring meaning from the logical and structural connections within the text itself (Coherence & Structural Inference).
9
From: "Coherence & Structural Inference"
Split Justification: This dichotomy separates the inference of meaningful, logical connections between propositions and ideas (semantic coherence) from the inference of the overarching organizational patterns, genre, and rhetorical structures of the discourse (rhetorical and organizational structure). While interconnected, one focuses on the internal logical flow of content, and the other on the external formal arrangement of the discourse.
10
From: "Semantic Coherence Inference"
Split Justification: Semantic coherence can be inferred at different scales of analysis. Local inference establishes meaningful connections between proximate linguistic units (e.g., words, phrases, adjacent sentences or clauses), ensuring immediate semantic unity. Global inference establishes overarching meaningful connections across larger segments of discourse (e.g., paragraphs, entire texts), contributing to the main idea, theme, or overall discourse structure. This dichotomy reflects the scope of the semantic connections being inferred.
11
From: "Local Semantic Coherence Inference"
Split Justification: Local semantic coherence inference involves understanding how meaning connects between proximate linguistic units. This primarily occurs either through identifying shared reference across units (e.g., resolving pronouns to their antecedents, linking different noun phrases referring to the same entity), or by inferring the specific semantic relationship (e.g., cause, effect, temporal, elaboration) between adjacent clauses or sentences.
12
From: "Inferring Local Semantic Relations"
Split Justification: This dichotomy separates local semantic relations based on their fundamental nature. Static relations describe inherent attributes, classifications, parts, or equivalences between concepts (e.g., A IS B, A HAS B). Dynamic relations describe actions, events, sequences, causes, effects, or purposes between propositions or states (e.g., A CAUSES B, A PRECEDES B, A ENABLES B). This distinction is mutually exclusive and comprehensively covers the types of local semantic relations one might infer.
✓
Topic: "Inferring Static Semantic Relations" (W5287)