دانلود پایان نامه دکترای زبان انگلیسی The Semantics and Pragmatics of Demonstratives in English and Arabic

اختصاصی از یارا فایل دانلود پایان نامه دکترای زبان انگلیسی The Semantics and Pragmatics of Demonstratives in English and Arabic دانلود با لینک مستقیم و پرسرعت .

دانلود پایان نامه دکترای زبان انگلیسی با موضوع The Semantics and Pragmatics of Demonstratives in English and Arabic که شامل 272 صفحه و بشرح زیر میباشد:

نوع فایل : PDF قابل ویرایش

Abstract

This research investigates the semantics and pragmatics of demonstratives in two
languages, English and Arabic, within the framework of relevance theory. The study applies
the fundamental distinction between ‘conceptual’ and ‘procedural’ semantics in an attempt to
account for the various instantiations of such referring expressions in the two languages. I
argue that demonstratives play a crucial role in aligning the discourse models of the speaker
and hearer by encoding procedural semantics instructing the hearer to maintain or create a
joint level of attention to the intended referent as opposed to other referential candidates.
Following Diessel (2006), I take it that this notion of joint attention subsumes all the
cognitive and functional roles played by demonstratives in discourse. I also argue that
demonstratives encode a (pro)concept of distance which falls under the scope of the
attention-directing procedure, thus creating the internal contrast between the intended referent
and other candidate referents. Within this proposal, I discuss how demonstratives can
contribute to both the explicit and the implicit levels of meaning by virtue of the interaction
between their encoded semantics and the context in a relevance-driven framework. Compared
to other referring expressions or no referring expression at all, the role of a demonstrative
achieves relevance on the implicit level. It can either highlight a certain aspect of the referent,
or encourage the creation of weak implicatures, or signal a certain cognitive/emotional
attitude towards the referent. The study is supported by an analysis of corpus data from both
languages in order to supplement theoretical proposals with attested evidence.
I further extend my analysis to include two areas. First, I discuss cases of self-repair in
spoken English discourse which involves the definite article and demonstratives. By linking
the notion of self-repair to that of optimal relevance, I shed some light on the semantic and
pragmatic differences between these two referring expressions. Second, I extend my analysis
to include other forms of demonstratives in Arabic and explore their semantic and pragmatic
behaviour in discourse. I propose a procedural account for the three forms attentional haa,
kadhaalik and haakadhaa, arguing that their contribution goes well beyond that of mere
demonstrative reference to that of being discourse markers encoding procedural constraints
on interpretation. I also investigate some alternative syntactic structures where
demonstratives occur, arguing that the stylistic effect of emphasis which they give rise to can
be explained in terms of relevant cognitive effects.Contents

Contents

Abstract ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables and Figures vii
Arabic Transcription Notations viii
List of Abbreviations ix
Chapter 1: Introduction 10
1.1 Aims of the research 10
1.2 Theoretical 14
1.3 Data 15
1.3.1 The English Corpus (ICE-GB) 16
1.3.2 The Arabic Corpus (NEMLAR) 19
1.4 Structure of the thesis 23
Chapter 2: Previous studies 26
2.1 Reference 26
2.2 Demonstratives in English 29
2.3 Demonstratives in Arabic 33
2.4 Cognitive approaches 39
2.4.1 The Givenness Hierarchy 40
2.4.2 Demonstratives and interaction 45
2.3.3 Demonstratives and joint attention 48
2.5 Summary 52
Chapter 3: Relevance theory 54
3.1 Relevance theory 54
3.1.1 Relevance theory and communication 54
3.1.2 Inference and understanding 57
3.1.3 Explicating and implicating 61
3.1.4 Relevance and reference 65
3.2 Concepts and procedures 70
3.2.1 The conceptual-procedural distinction and the explicit-implicit distinction .......... 72
3.2.2 The conceptual-procedural distinction and truth 76
3.2.3 Types of concepts 78
3.3 Summary 81
Chapter 4. The semantics and pragmatics of demonstratives 83
4.1 The semantics of demonstratives 83
4.1.1 What do demonstratives encode? 84
4.1.2 Demonstratives and 86
4.1.3 Demonstratives and attention 92
4.1.4 Distance, attention and relevance 101
4.2 The interpretation of demonstratives 107
4.2.1 Demonstratives and explicit content 107
4.2.2 Demonstratives and implicit content 125
4.2.3 First-mention demonstratives 136
4.3 Summary 142
Chapter 5. Extending the analysis: Demonstratives and Self-Repair in English 143
5.1 Demonstratives and self-repair 143
5.1.1 The definite article and demonstratives 144
5.1.2 Self-repair and relevance 151
5.1.3 The this/that 154
5.1.4 This/that the 157
5.1.5 Distal or proximal? 161
5.2 Summary 164
Chapter 6. Extending the analysis: Other forms of demonstratives in Modern Standard Arabic165
6.1 The morphology and semantics of demonstratives in MSA 165
6.1.1 Demonstrative forms in MSA and varieties of Arabic 167
6.1.2 Arabic and procedural meaning 171
6.2 Case studies 177
6.2.1 Attentional haa: procedure and attention 177
6.2.1.1 Approaches to attentional haa 179
6.2.1.2 The relevance of attentional haa 183
6.2.2 kadhaalik: demonstrative or discourse 191
6.2.2.1 A distinction 192
6.2.2.2 kadhaalik as a demonstrative 195
6.2.2.3 kadhaalik as a discourse marker 205
6.2.3 haakadhaa: deictic, anaphoric and discourse functions 219
6.2.3.1 A distinction 221
6.2.3.3 haakadhaa in discourse marker uses 227
6.3 A note on demonstratives and the interpretation of emphasis 235
6.3.1 Noun + demonstrative 236
6.3.2 Proper noun + demonstrative 242
6.3.3 Demonstrative + 3rd person pronoun + noun 249
6.4 Summary 254
Chapter 7. Conclusion 255
7.1 Summary 255
7.2 Future research 259
References 262
List of Tables and Figures
Table 1: The English corpus chosen for this study from the ICE-GB 19
Table 2: The Arabic corpus chosen for this study from NEMLAR 23
Table 3: Demonstrative forms in MSA 34
Table 4: The lexical semantics of the pronoun she (from Nicolle 1997: 49) 104
Table 5: Demonstratives in MSA according to Holes (2004) 169
Table 6: Proximal demonstrative forms in Arabic dialects 169
Table 7: Distal demonstrative forms in Arabic dialects 170
Table 8: Number of instances of kadhaalik in the corpus 206
Table 9: Number of instances of haakadhaa in the corpus 221
Figure 1: Proposed semantic analysis for English/Arabic demonstratives 12
Figure 2: Screen shot of that concordance in the ICE-GB using the ICECUP 18
Figure 3: Screen shot of haadhihi concordance in NEMLAR using LOLO 22
Figure 4: The Givenness Hierarchy according to Gundel et al. (1993) 41
Figure 5: Four types of meaning according to Wilson & Sperber 74
Figure 6: The morphology of haadhaa 177
Figure 7: The morphology of kadhaalik 191
Figure 8: The morphology of 220

دانلود پایان نامه دکترا به زبان انگلیسی Lexical semantics and knowledge representation in multilingual sentence generation

اختصاصی از یارا فایل دانلود پایان نامه دکترا به زبان انگلیسی Lexical semantics and knowledge representation in multilingual sentence generation دانلود با لینک مستقیم و پرسرعت .

دانلود پایان نامه دکترا به زبان انگلیسی Lexical semantics and knowledge representation in multilingual sentence generation که شامل 170 صفحه و بشرح زیر میباشد:

نوع فایل : PDF قابل ویرایش

Abstract
Lexical semantics and knowledge representation in multilingual sentence generation
Manfred Stede
Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Department of Computer Science University of Toronto 1996
This thesis develops a new approach to automatic language generation that focuses on the need
to produce a range of dierent paraphrases from the same input representation. One novelty of
the system is its solidly grounding representations of word meaning in a background knowledge
base, which enables the production of paraphrases stemming from certain inferences, rather
than from purely lexical relationships alone.
The system is designed in such a way that the paraphrasing mechanism extends naturally to
a multilingual generator; specifically, we will be concerned with producing English and German
sentences. The focus of the system is on lexical paraphrases, and one of the contributions of the
thesis is in identifying, analyzing and extending relevant linguistic research so that it can be
used to handle the problems of lexical semantics in a language generation system. The lexical
entries are more complex than in previous generators, and they separate the various aspects
of word meaning, so that dierent ways of paraphrasing can be systematically related to the
dierent motivations for saying a sentence in a particular way. One result of accounting for
lexical semantics in this fashion is a formalization of a number of verb alternations, for which
a generative treatment is given.
While the actual choice of one paraphrase as the best-suited utterance in a given situation is
not a focal point of the thesis, two dimensions of preferring a variant of a sentence are discussed:
that of assigning salience to the dierent elements of the sentence, and that of connotational or
stylistic features of the utterance. These dimensions are integrated into the system, and it can
thus determine a preferred paraphrase from a set of alternatives.
To demonstrate the feasibility of the approach, the proposed generation architecture has
been implemented as a protoype, along with a domain model that serves as the background
knowledge base for specifying the input to the generator. A range of generated examples is
...presented to show the functionality of the system

Contents
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Natural language generation . 1
1.2 Background: the TECHDOC generator . 3
1.3 Goals of this research .. 4
1.4 Overview of the research and its results . 5
1.5 Organization of the thesis . : 10
2 Lexicalization in NLG 12
2.1 Introduction .. 12
2.2 The nature of lexical items in NLP. 13
2.3 Criteria for lexical choice . : 14
2.3.1 Salience .. : 15
2.3.2 Pragmatics and style . 16
2.4 Linking concepts to lexical items. : 17
2.4.1 Discrimination nets . 17
2.4.2 Taxonomic knowledge bases and the lexicon.. 18
2.5 Placing lexicalization in the generation process . : 20
2.5.1 Lexical and other choices. : 20
2.5.2 PENMAN .. 21
2.6 Multilingual generation .. 23
2.7 Conclusions: making progress on lexicalization . : 23
3 Lexical semantics 27
3.1 Introduction .. 27
3.2 Relational theories of word meaning .. 28
3.3 Decomposition .. : 29
3.4 Denotation versus connotation.. 31
3.5 Two-level semantics .. 32
3.6 Aspect and Aktionsart .. 34
3.7 Valency and case frames .. 36
3.8 Verb alternations .. 37
3.9 Salience . . 39
3.10 Conclusions: word meaning in NLG .. 41
4 Classifying lexical variation 44
4.1 Intra-lingual paraphrases .. 44
4.2 Inter-lingual divergences .. 47
4.3 Divergences as paraphrases . 49
5 Modelling the domain 51
5.1 Building domain models for NLG. : 51
5.2 Background: knowledge representation in LOOM . 53
5.3 Ontological categories in our system .. 54
5.4 A domain model for containers and liquids . : 58
5.4.1 Objects .. : 60
5.4.2 Qualities .. 60
5.4.3 States ... 60
5.4.4 Activities .. 65
5.4.5 Events ... 65
6 Levels of representation: SitSpec and SemSpec 67
6.1 Finding appropriate levels of representation in NLG. : 67
6.1.1 Decision-making in sentence generation . : 68
6.1.2 A two-level approach . 70
6.2 Linguistic ontology: adapting the 'Upper Model' . 72
6.3 SitSpecs . . 75
6.4 SemSpecs .. : 78
7 Representing the meaning of words: a new synthesis 81
7.1 Denotation and covering .. 81
7.1.1 SitSpec templates . : 82
7.1.2 Covering .. : 85
7.1.3 Aktionsart .. : 86
7.2 Partial SemSpecs .. 87
7.2.1 Lexico-semantic combinations .. 87
7.2.2 Type shifting .. 89
7.2.3 Valency and the Upper Model .. 90
7.3 Alternations and extensions . 93
7.3.1 Alternations as meaning extensions . : 93
7.3.2 Lexical rules for alternations and extensions.. 95
7.3.3 Extension rules for circumstances . 101
7.3.4 Examples: lexical entries for verbs . : 102
7.3.5 Summary .. 104
7.4 Salience . . 105
7.5 Connotation .. 107
7.6 Summary: lexicalization with constraints and preferences .. 110
8 A new system architecture for multilingual generation 113
8.1 The computational problem . 113
8.2 Overview of the architecture . 115
8.2.1 Find lexical options . 115
8.2.2 Construct alternations and extensions .. 118
8.2.3 Establish preference ranking of options .. 119
8.2.4 Determine the complete and preferred SemSpec. 120
8.2.5 Generate sentence . : 122
8.3 Implementation of a prototype: MOOSE . 123
8.4 Embedding MOOSE in larger applications . : 125
9 Generating paraphrases 127
9.1 Verbalizing states .. 127
9.1.1 Binary states .. 127
9.1.2 Ternary states .. 128
9.2 Verbalizing activities .. 130
9.3 Verbalizing events .. : 132
9.4 Solutions to lexicalization problems. 138
10 Summary and conclusions 141
10.1 Summary of the work .. 141
10.2 Comparison to related work . 144
10.2.1 The role of the lexicon in NLG . : 144
10.2.2 Word{concept linking.. 144
10.2.3 Fine-grained lexical choices. 146
10.2.4 Paraphrasing .. 146
10.2.5 Event verbalization . : 148
10.2.6 Multilinguality and the lexicon . : 149
10.3 Contributions of the thesis . : 151
10.3.1 Lexical semantics for NLG. : 151
10.3.2 System architecture for NLG .. 152
10.3.3 Implementation .. 153
10.4 Directions for future research.. 153
Bibliography 156

List of Figures
1.1 Example of SitSpec: Jill filling a tank with water.. 6
1.2 Examples of SemSpecs and corresponding English sentences.. : 6
2.1 Lexicalization with 'zoom schemata' (from [Horacek 1990b]).. : 19
2.2 Small excerpt from Upper Model .. : : : 22
3.1 Taxonomy of eventualities from Bach [1986].. 35
5.1 Sample text from a Honda car manual .. 52
5.2 The top level of our ontology .. .. 55
5.3 Our classification of situation types .. : : 56
5.4 Event representation for Jill opening a wine bottle .. 57
5.5 LOOM definitions for basic ontological categories.. 59
5.6 Taxonomy of states .... : 61
5.7 LOOM definitions of binary-states .. : 62
5.8 LOOM definition of location-state .. 63
5.9 Subsumption of concepts and relations for ternary-states.. : 64
5.10 LOOM definition of path .... 65
5.11 Opening the wine bottle as transition.. : : 66
6.1 Representation levels in the generation system.. : 72
6.2 Syntax of SitSpecs .... 76
6.3 Example of situation specification as graph.. 77
6.4 Syntax of SemSpecs .... : 78
6.5 Semantic specifications and corresponding sentences .. 79
7.1 Syntax of a lexeme denotation .. .. 84
7.2 Syntax of partial SemSpecs .. .. 88
7.3 Example for type shifting .... 89
7.4 SitSpecs for sentences corresponding to configurations of to spray.. 98
7.5 Dependency of extension rules .. .. 100
7.6 Derivation of drain-configurations by extension rules .. 101
7.7 Sample lexical entries (abridged) for verbs.. : 103
8.1 Overall system architecture .. .. 116
8.2 Lexicon entries matching the SitSpec in fill{example, and their instantiations : : 118
8.3 Extension rules for fill{example, and resulting vos.. 119
8.4 The procedure for building SemSpecs (simplified).. 121
8.5 Screendump of Moose .... 124
9.1 SitSpec for water dripping from tank .. : 130
9.2 SitSpec for water rising in a tank .. : : : 132
9.3 SitSpec for Tom disconnecting the wire.. : : 134
9.4 SitSpec for Jill uncorking the bottle .. : 136
10.1 Lexicon entry for to require from ADVISOR II.. : 147
10.2 Sample CLCS and lexicon entries (abridged) from [Dorr 1993, pp. 224, 227] : : : 149