The handbook of pragmatics , The handbook of pragmatics , کتابخانه دیجیتال جندی شاپور اهواز

Handbook of Pragmatics

This paper describes our approach to the development of a Proposition Bank, which involves the addition of semantic information to the Penn English Treebank. Our primary goal is the labeling of syntactic nodes with specific argument labels that preserve the similarity of roles such as the window in John broke the window and the window broke. After motivating the need for explicit predicate argument structure labels, we briefly discuss the theoretical considerations of predicate argument structure and the need to maintain consistency across syntactic alternations. The issues of consistency of argument structure across both polysemous and synonymous verbs are also discussed and we present our actual guidelines for these types of phenomena, along with numerous examples of tagged sentences and verb frames. Metaframes are introduced as a technique for handling similar frames among near− synonymous verbs. We conclude with a summary of the current status of annotation process.

/pdf/from-treebank-to-propbank-3v7y64dt8d.pdf

From treebank to propbank

With growing interest in Chinese Language Processing, numerous NLP tools (e.g., word segmenters, part-of-speech taggers, and parsers) for Chinese have been developed all over the world. However, since no large-scale bracketed corpora are available to the public, these tools are trained on corpora with different segmentation criteria, part-of-speech tagsets and bracketing guidelines, and therefore, comparisons are difficult. As a first step towards addressing this issue, we have been preparing a large bracketed corpus since late 1998. The first two installments of the corpus, 250 thousand words of data, fully segmented, POS-tagged and syntactically bracketed, have been released to the public via LDC (www.ldc.upenn.edu). In this paper, we discuss several Chinese linguistic issues and their implications for our treebanking efforts and how we address these issues when developing our annotation guidelines. We also describe our engineering strategies to improve speed while ensuring annotation quality.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/26220D5C308A1A65B1D0636AE9A9FC72/S135132490400364Xa.pdf/div-class-title-the-penn-chinese-treebank-phrase-structure-annotation-of-a-large-corpus-div.pdf

The Penn Chinese TreeBank: Phrase structure annotation of a large corpus

The structure of the Japanese language

Thank you very much for downloading knowledge of language its nature origin and use. Maybe you have knowledge that, people have search numerous times for their favorite books like this knowledge of language its nature origin and use, but end up in harmful downloads. Rather than reading a good book with a cup of tea in the afternoon, instead they juggled with some infectious virus inside their desktop computer.

Knowledge Of Language Its Nature Origin And Use

Preposed negation yes/no (yn)-questions like Doesn't Johndrink? necessarily carry the implicature that the speaker thinks Johndrinks, whereas non-preposed negation yn-questions like DoesJohn not drink? do not necessarily trigger this implicature. Furthermore,preposed negation yn-questions have a reading “double-checking” pand a reading “double-checking” ≠ p, as in Isn't Jane comingtoo? and in Isn't Jane coming either? respectively. We present otheryn-questions that raise parallel implicatures and argue that, in allthe cases, the presence of an epistemic conversational operator VERUMderives the existence and content of the implicature as well as thep/≠ p-ambiguity.

/pdf/on-negative-yes-no-questions-59o3yqjlr2.pdf

On Negative Yes/No Questions

Preface 1. Introduction Issues and Sketch of the Proposal Theoretical Background Outline of the Book Notes 2. Cross-linguistic Variation in the Compatibility between Imperatives and Negation Introduction Data and Issues Previous Studies A Puzzle Posed by the Clitic-like Nature of Negation The Locus of Imperative Operator: C sub 0 Proposal Apparent Counterexamples Suppletion and Negative Commands Conclusion Notes 3. The Syntactic Evolution of the English Imperative Introduction Data and Issues Infinitivals in Middle English The Development of Do-support in Imperatives Sequential Loss of Verb Movement No Do-support in Infinitivals and Subjunctives Conclusion Appendix Notes. 4. Feature Content of the Imperative Operator Introduction Feature Content of Imperative Operator Subjunctives and Infinitivals with Directive Function The Subjects of Imperatives Conclusion Notes 5. Interpreting Imperatives: The Contribution of Mood and Force Introduction Logical Form of Imperatives Consequences Imperatives in Discourse Conclusion Notes

/pdf/the-structure-and-interpretation-of-imperatives-mood-and-1vr2t47yar.pdf

The Structure and Interpretation of Imperatives: Mood and Force in Universal Grammar

https://www.sfu.ca/~chunghye/papers/lingua112-3-2.pdf

Interpreting interrogatives as rhetorical questions

Evidentiality in language and cognition

In a head-final language, V-raising is hard to detect since there is no evidence from the string to support a raising analysis. If the language has a cliticlike negation that associates with the verb in syntax, then scope facts concerning negation and a quantified object NP could provide evidence regarding the height of the verb. Even so, such facts are rare, especially in the input to children, and so we might expect that not all speakers exposed to a head-final language acquire the same grammar as far as V-raising is concerned. Here, we present evidence supporting this expectation. Using experimental data concerning the scope of quantified NPs and negation in Korean, elicited from both adults and 4-year-old children, we show that there are two populations of Korean speakers: one with V-raising and one without.

/pdf/v-raising-and-grammar-competition-in-korean-evidence-from-2i72gqxnyz.pdf

Chung-hye Han

Papers

On Negative Yes/No Questions

The Structure and Interpretation of Imperatives: Mood and Force in Universal Grammar

Interpreting interrogatives as rhetorical questions

Evidentiality in language and cognition

V-Raising and Grammar Competition in Korean: Evidence from Negation and Quantifier Scope