Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.
-
Upload
margery-obrien -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.
![Page 1: Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70e37/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Towards Distributed GrammarTowards Distributed Grammarmotivations and issues of representationmotivations and issues of representation
Towards Distributed GrammarTowards Distributed Grammarmotivations and issues of representationmotivations and issues of representation
André WLODARCZYKAndré WLODARCZYK
![Page 2: Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70e37/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Preliminary remarksPreliminary remarksPreliminary remarksPreliminary remarks
![Page 3: Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70e37/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Characteristics of Human LanguagesCharacteristics of Human LanguagesCharacteristics of Human LanguagesCharacteristics of Human Languages
1. Ambiguity (prototype and open-endedness)2. Dynamics/Emergence (various changes)3. Partiality (expressions need grounding and refinement)4. Learnability (language must be learned)5. Composability (only partial composition)6. Recursivity (only constrained recursion)7. Distributivity (sequential and parallel processes)8. Complexity (hard tractability)9. Typicality (langue uses can be typed)etc…
![Page 4: Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70e37/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
The Meaning of a SentenceThe Meaning of a Sentencein a mono-dimensional development hypothesisin a mono-dimensional development hypothesis
The Meaning of a SentenceThe Meaning of a Sentencein a mono-dimensional development hypothesisin a mono-dimensional development hypothesis
Knowledge
Legend:The Surface Structure of a sentence s is transformed into the Deep Structure tree representation α.
α = M(s)
LogicalForm
In Generative Semanticsα stands for the meaning of a sentence s as transformed into a Logical Form. Deep Structure
Surface Structure
![Page 5: Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70e37/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
The Contents of DiscourseThe Contents of Discoursebi-dimensional development hypothesisbi-dimensional development hypothesis
Salience
Information
Salience
Information
Relevance
Knowledge
SemanticContents S(Φ)
PragmaticContents P(Φ)
DownwardDevelopment
UpwardDevelopment
Discourse level
Legend:S(Φ) stands for a set of information-related formulaeP(Φ) stands for a set of discourse-related formulae
![Page 6: Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70e37/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Main Dimensions of CognitionMain Dimensions of Cognition
Attention: Salience gives rise to the selective centering of information.
Intention: “Relevance relies on intentional attitudes which are guided by the attentional control of Salience” (I. Kecskes).
Emotion: Emergence and Deconstruction are determined as well by the attentional centering of information as by the intentionally guided Relevance of Knowledge.
Relevance
Knowledge Information
SalienceIntentionAttention
Deconstruction
EmergenceEmotion
![Page 7: Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70e37/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Main Degrees of DevelopmentMain Degrees of Development
Standard Standard meaningmeaning
Concise Concise (underdeveloped) (underdeveloped) meaningmeaning
Precise Precise (developed) (developed) meaningmeaning
![Page 8: Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70e37/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
AS & MIC AS & MIC AS & MIC AS & MIC CONTENTCONTENT
SemanticsSemantics PragmaticsPragmatics
Bi-axial ordering Bi-axial ordering of discourseof discourse
SignificationSignification
(Information)(Information)CommunicationCommunication
(Meta-Information)(Meta-Information)
SelectionSelection
(paradigmatic)(paradigmatic)
Property Property ComparisonComparison
(x X)∈(x X)∈
(Attribute Space)(Attribute Space)
CenteringCentering
(distinguish x)(distinguish x)
CombinationCombination
(syntagmatic)(syntagmatic)
Scenario CreationScenario Creation
r(x)r(x)
(Relation on x)(Relation on x)
PredicationPredication
(say p about x)(say p about x)
AS
AssociativeSemantics
MIC
Meta-InformativeCentering
![Page 9: Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70e37/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Information Flow LogicInformation Flow Logicforfor
DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMSDISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS
![Page 10: Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70e37/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
LINGUISTIC RESOURCES
Functional System
Distributed Grammar ArchitectureDistributed Grammar Architecture
Sounds,Phonemes
Grammaticaland Lexical Morphemes
DerivationsPhraseology (templates and idioms)
![Page 11: Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70e37/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
IF : RefinementIF : RefinementIF : RefinementIF : Refinement
A + B
“INFORMATION FLOW- the Logic of Distributed Systemsthe Logic of Distributed Systems” by Jon BARWISE & Jerry SELIGMAN Cambridge Univerity Press (1997), p. 44.
KK
f’f’ g’g’
CC
AA BB
ff gg
Refinement
![Page 12: Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70e37/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Refinement in Distributed GrammarRefinement in Distributed GrammarRefinement in Distributed GrammarRefinement in Distributed Grammar
refinement
Codes
A. Wlodarczyk (2008)
INFONS
NOEMAS
KNOWLEDGEKNOWLEDGE
INFORMATIONINFORMATION
LANGUAGELANGUAGE WORLDWORLD
carryingcarryingconveyingconveying
ThingsThings
![Page 13: Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70e37/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
IF : Distributed SystemIF : Distributed SystemIF : Distributed SystemIF : Distributed System
“INFORMATION FLOW- the Logic of Distributed Systemsthe Logic of Distributed Systems” by Jon BARWISE & Jerry SELIGMAN Cambridge Univerity Press (1997), p. 90.
f2f2
g1g1 g2g2
A1 carries information on A3 by A2A1 carries information on A3 by A2
f1f1 f3f3 f4f4
A2A2A1A1 A3A3
CC
B1B1 B2B2
![Page 14: Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70e37/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Distributed GrammarDistributed GrammarDistributed GrammarDistributed Grammar
f2f2
g1g1 g2g2
f1f1 f3f3 f4f4
syntaxsyntaxsemanticssemantics pragmaticspragmatics
sensesense
informationinformation meta-informationmeta-information
![Page 15: Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70e37/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Distributed Communication SettingDistributed Communication SettingDistributed Communication SettingDistributed Communication Setting
f2f2
g1g1 g2g2
f1f1 f3f3 f4f4
utteranceutterancespeakerspeaker hearerhearer
sensesense
speakingspeaking listeninglistening
![Page 16: Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70e37/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
ASSOCIATIVE SEMANTICSASSOCIATIVE SEMANTICS
![Page 17: Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70e37/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Information in AS TheoryInformation in AS TheoryInformation in AS TheoryInformation in AS Theory
In Associative Semantics (AS), the kernel information is In Associative Semantics (AS), the kernel information is determined by semantic situations.determined by semantic situations.
DefinitionDefinition. An individualised situation is represented by the . An individualised situation is represented by the three following components: three following components:
a set of a set of (static or dynamic) (static or dynamic) framesframesa set of roles a set of roles (enacted by agents and/or figures)(enacted by agents and/or figures)a set of anchors a set of anchors (indicators of spatio-temporal relations)(indicators of spatio-temporal relations). .
![Page 18: Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70e37/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Information in AS TheoryInformation in AS TheoryInformation in AS TheoryInformation in AS Theory
FRAME ROLE ANCHOR
INNER VIEW Analysis SelectionConcurrent
Synchronisation
OUTER VIEW Control ConfigurationDistributed
Synchronisation
Each situation component has two views:
(a) an inner view (view from inside)(b) an outer view (view from outside)
![Page 19: Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70e37/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Situation, their Participants and AnchorsSituation, their Participants and AnchorsSituation, their Participants and AnchorsSituation, their Participants and Anchors
1. Situations (Facts of the World)1. Frames
1. States2. Actions
1. Events2. Processes
2. Roles1. Active2. Median3. Passive
3. Anchors1. Spatial locators2. Temporal locators
2. Participants (Entities of the World)1. Agents (Animate Entities)
1. Human2. Non-Human (animal)
2. Figures (Non Animate Entities)1. Material2. Immaterial
3. Anchors (Space and Time Locators)1. Spatial Locators
1. Start2. Path3. Arrival
2. Temporal Locators1. Beiginning2. Course3. End
![Page 20: Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70e37/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Situation Example (1a)Situation Example (1a)Situation Example (1a)Situation Example (1a)
Brutus killed Caesar. kill(Brutus, Caesar)
{kill relprop=asymetric :
{Brutus participant=agent : } {Caesar participant=agent : }
{F prop=asym effect=death : }
{ActiveRole type=init : } {PassiveRole type=term : } {ActiveRole > F > PassiveRole : }
{Brutus > F > Caesar} }
![Page 21: Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70e37/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Situation Example (1b)Situation Example (1b)Situation Example (1b)Situation Example (1b)Brutus killed Caesar with a knife.
kill(Brutus, Caesar, knife)
[SIT0: ‘kill’
HEAD kill x y z
BODY
{kill relation property=asymetric effect=death: {brutus participant=agent: } {caesar participant=agent: } {knife participant=figure: } {Role1 x=killer generic=active type=initiator } {Role2 y=kilee generic=passive type=terminator } {Role3 y=weapon generic=median type=origin }
[SIT1: HEAD use x y {use prop=asym purpose=tool : {Role1 x=user generic=active type=initiator : } {Role2 y=arm generic=passive type=terminator :} {Role1 < use > Role2 }} FOOT {brutus < use > knife}]
[SIT2: HEAD causeDie x y {causeDie prop=asym effect=death : {Role1 generic=q-active type=origin object=weapon : } {Role2 generic=passive type=terminator } {knife < causeDie > caesar }} FOOT {knife < causeDie > caesar : }]
FOOT {Brutus < use > knife }
{knife < causeDie > Caesar}]
![Page 22: Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70e37/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Distributed Semantic AssociativityDistributed Semantic AssociativityDistributed Semantic AssociativityDistributed Semantic Associativity
f2f2
g1g1 g2g2
f1f1 f3f3 f4f4
knifeknifeBrutusBrutus CaesarCaesar
killkill
useuse cause deathcause death
Example: Brutus stabbed Caesar with a knife.
![Page 23: Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70e37/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
THE META-INFORMATIVETHE META-INFORMATIVECENTERING THEORYCENTERING THEORY
(MIC)(MIC)
![Page 24: Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70e37/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
What is Information in Grammar ?What is Information in Grammar ?What is Information in Grammar ?What is Information in Grammar ?
What linguists,What linguists, following the Prague School’s tradition, following the Prague School’s tradition, usually call usually call information,information, we named we named meta-informationmeta-information. .
In the age of unification of many social sciences under the label of cognitive sciences, it seems justied that the term information were used in the same way, at least, in linguistics and in information science.
Information is the semantic content of an utterance. Information is produced when properties an/or relations are established for entities.
![Page 25: Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70e37/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Motivations of Old/New StatusMotivations of Old/New StatusMotivations of Old/New StatusMotivations of Old/New Status
Three kinds of motivations of Old and New meta-informative status:Three kinds of motivations of Old and New meta-informative status:
(a) (a) TThe communicative he communicative motivation is explicit and speech bound. The motivation is explicit and speech bound. The situation spoken about is either connected to another one mentioned situation spoken about is either connected to another one mentioned before (before (anaphoricanaphoric) or to be mentioned () or to be mentioned (cataphoriccataphoric) or it is a modal ) or it is a modal situation (ex. either reported or to be reported). situation (ex. either reported or to be reported).
(b) The (b) The cognitive cognitive motivation is related to the acquisition of knowledge. motivation is related to the acquisition of knowledge. Situations appear as (or are only presented as if they were) already Situations appear as (or are only presented as if they were) already known known (registered) or (registered) or unknown unknown (unregistered).(unregistered).
(c) The (c) The epistemic (epistemic (ontological ) ontological ) motivation depends on the knowledge motivation depends on the knowledge stored in long term memory; the situation spoken about is treated either as stored in long term memory; the situation spoken about is treated either as a class (a class (generic, general, habitual generic, general, habitual or or potentialpotential) or an instance () or an instance (specific, specific, particular, occasional particular, occasional or or actualactual). ).
![Page 26: Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70e37/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Status MotivationStatus MotivationStatus MotivationStatus Motivation
![Page 27: Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70e37/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
ATTENTION PROPERTIESATTENTION PROPERTIES
Selection
Orientation
http://www.icevi.org/publications/ICEVI-WC2002/papers/07-topic/07-ingsholt1.htm
Control
![Page 28: Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70e37/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Centre of Attention in the MIC theoryCentre of Attention in the MIC theoryCentre of Attention in the MIC theoryCentre of Attention in the MIC theory
In linguistics, there was a need to define a general concept In linguistics, there was a need to define a general concept in order to capture what is common between the notions of in order to capture what is common between the notions of Subject, Object, Topic and Focus. In the MIC theory, this Subject, Object, Topic and Focus. In the MIC theory, this concept are called “Centre of Attention” (CA). It is considered concept are called “Centre of Attention” (CA). It is considered not only as a psychological phenomenon but also as not only as a psychological phenomenon but also as underlying segments of linguistic utterances.underlying segments of linguistic utterances.
No judgment may be stated without selecting at least one No judgment may be stated without selecting at least one Centre of Attention (CA).Centre of Attention (CA).
In the MIC theory, centering is defined as a structuring In the MIC theory, centering is defined as a structuring operation not only within a text (between utterances) but operation not only within a text (between utterances) but basically within the utterance limits.basically within the utterance limits.
![Page 29: Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70e37/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Informative and Meta-Informative Informative and Meta-Informative Assignment FunctionsAssignment Functions
Informative and Meta-Informative Informative and Meta-Informative Assignment FunctionsAssignment Functions
inf(inf(rr)) = = ee μ-inf(μ-inf(cc)) = = rr
μ-infμ-inf
Role/Role/AnchorAnchor
PragmaticsPragmatics
ccSubject/ObjectSubject/Object
Centres of Centres of AttentionAttention
OntologyOntology
eeAgent/(Figure)Agent/(Figure)
LocationLocation
Participant/Participant/LocationLocation
infinf SemanticsSemantics
rrActive/PassiveActive/Passive
![Page 30: Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70e37/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Semantic ContentSemantic Content
SIT frame: SIT frame: treattreat
(treating : (treating : “Mary”)) (treated :(treated : “Peter”))
SemanticSemanticLevelLevel
information
Utterance:Utterance: Mary treats Peter.
![Page 31: Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70e37/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Syntactic Constituency as Meta-InformationSyntactic Constituency as Meta-InformationSyntactic Constituency as Meta-InformationSyntactic Constituency as Meta-Information
SIT : SIT : treat
(treating :(treating : “Mary” ))(treated :(treated : “Peter”))
Semantic LevelSemantic LevelInformation
Pragmatic levelPragmatic levelMeta-information
SubjectSubject PredicatePredicate ObjectObject
![Page 32: Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70e37/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Predication and its ExtensionsPredication and its ExtensionsPredication and its ExtensionsPredication and its Extensions
SemanticsSemantics
information
meta-information PragmaticsPragmatics
SubjectGlobalPredicatePredicationPredication
Utterance : As for Mary, it is Peter whom she treats.
LocalPredicateLocalPredicate
ObjectObject
SIT : SIT : treat
(treating :(treating : “Mary” ))(treated :(treated : “Peter”))
TopicExtensionsExtensions
CommentBackground
Focus
meta-meta-information
![Page 33: Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70e37/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Semantic and pragmatic levelsSemantic and pragmatic levels
Subject : (Predicate (Object))
Semantic levelSemantic levelInformation
Pragmatic levelPragmatic level
Meta-information
(median role : means)
““Mary treats Peter with aspirin.”
Utterance: Mary treats Peter with aspirinUtterance: Mary treats Peter with aspirin
The semantic role of the instrument only is expressed explicitly (“with”).The semantic role of the instrument only is expressed explicitly (“with”).
(active role) treats (passive role)
![Page 34: Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70e37/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Structural SimilarityStructural Similaritybetween between BaseBase and Extended Utterences and Extended Utterences
Structural SimilarityStructural Similaritybetween between BaseBase and Extended Utterences and Extended Utterences
Subject
ObjectVerb
Predicate
Base utterance
Topic
Background Focus
Comment
Extended utterance
Global Aboutness
Local Aboutness
Global Aboutness
Local Aboutness
Global CA Global CA
Local CA Local CA
![Page 35: Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70e37/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Meta-informativeMeta-informative pivots of discoursepivots of discourseMeta-informativeMeta-informative pivots of discoursepivots of discourse
Pragmatic UnitsPragmatic UnitsCentres of AttentionCentres of Attention
GlobalGlobal LocalLocal
BaseBase Utterance (Predication) Utterance (Predication) SubjectSubject ObjectObject
Extended Utterance (Extension)Extended Utterance (Extension) TopicTopic FocusFocus
Dialogue/Text (Discourse)Dialogue/Text (Discourse) GeneralGeneral
ThemeTheme
ParticularParticular
ThemeTheme
![Page 36: Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70e37/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
BaseBase Utterances Utterances(orthogonal system)(orthogonal system)
SubjectSubject PredicatePredicate
SubjectSubject PredicatePredicate
“Old” Status
“New” Status
![Page 37: Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70e37/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Extended UtterancesExtended Utterances(orthogonal system)(orthogonal system)
FocusFocus CommentComment
TopicTopic BackgroundBackground
“Old” Status
“New” Status
![Page 38: Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70e37/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
BaseBase and Extended Utterances and Extended Utterances(orthogonal system)(orthogonal system)
SubjectSubject PredicatePredicate
SubjectSubject PredicatePredicateTopicTopic
Comment
Comment
Focus
Focus
Background
Background
“Old” Status
“New” Status
![Page 39: Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70e37/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Implicit Subjects Implicit Subjects and and Topics Topics
FOCUSFOCUS
SUBJECTSUBJECT TOPICTOPIC
Explicature
Implicature
OBJECTOBJECT
Expression
Refinement
![Page 40: Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70e37/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
CombinabilityCombinabilityof Centres of Attention with Semantic Rolesof Centres of Attention with Semantic Roles
CombinabilityCombinabilityof Centres of Attention with Semantic Rolesof Centres of Attention with Semantic Roles
TopicTopic Subject Subject Active Active rolerole
FocusFocus Object Object Passive Passive rolerole
![Page 41: Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70e37/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Meta-informative paraphrasesMeta-informative paraphrasesMeta-informative paraphrasesMeta-informative paraphrases1a. MaryMary treats Peter. (Active voice + [Subject || Active r.] + [Object || Passive r.])1b. Peter is treated by Mary.(Passive voice + [Subject || Passive r.] + [Object || Active r.] )2a. As for Mary, she treats Peter.(Active voice + [Topic || Subject || Active r.] + [Object || Passive r.])2b. As for Peter, he is treated by Mary.(Passive voice + [Topic || Subject || Passive r.] + [Object || Active r.] )3a. As for Mary ,it is Peter whom she treats . (Active voice + [Topic || Subject || Active r.] + [Focus || Object || Passive r.])3b. As for Peter, it is Mary who treats him.(Active voice + [Topic || Object || Passive r.] + [Focus || Subject || Active r.])4a. As for Peter, it is by Mary that he is treated . (Passive voice + [Topic || Subject || Passive r.] + [Focus || Object || Active r.])4b. ?? As for Mary, it is by her that Peter is treated . (Passive voice + [Topic || Object || Active r.] + [Focus || Subject || Passive r.])etc.
![Page 42: Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70e37/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Homogeneous and HeterogeneousHomogeneous and Heterogeneousmeta-informative statusmeta-informative status
Homogeneous and HeterogeneousHomogeneous and Heterogeneousmeta-informative statusmeta-informative status
BaseBase Utterance (Schemas) Utterance (Schemas) BaseBase Utterance (Examples) Utterance (Examples)
(New) Subject : (New) Predicate(New) Subject : (New) Predicate #1 A new satellite has been launched #1 A new satellite has been launched today.today.
(Old) Subject : (Old) Predicate(Old) Subject : (Old) Predicate #2 Satellites turn around the Earth.#2 Satellites turn around the Earth.
Extended Utterance (Schemas)Extended Utterance (Schemas) Extended Utterance (Examples)Extended Utterance (Examples)
(Old) Topic : (New) Comment(Old) Topic : (New) Comment #3 As for the satellite X03, it has been #3 As for the satellite X03, it has been destroyed by a meteorite.destroyed by a meteorite.
(New) Focus : (Old) Background(New) Focus : (Old) Background #4 It is #4 It is the the satellite X03 which was satellite X03 which was destroyed today. destroyed today.
![Page 43: Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70e37/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Japanese base utterances(with ‘wa’ and ‘ga’ particles)
Japanese base utterances(with ‘wa’ and ‘ga’ particles)
SUBJECT (Old status) + Predicate (Old status)SUBJECT (Old status) + Predicate (Old status)地球は太陽の周囲を回転する。地球は太陽の周囲を回転する。 The Earth goes around the Sun.The Earth goes around the Sun.Chikyuu wa taiyou no shui wo kaiten-suru.Chikyuu wa taiyou no shui wo kaiten-suru.Earth WA(Nom) Nom Sun NO(Gen) periphery WO(Acc) turn-aroundEarth WA(Nom) Nom Sun NO(Gen) periphery WO(Acc) turn-around
SUBJECT (New status) + Predicate (New status)SUBJECT (New status) + Predicate (New status)夜の底が白くなった。夜の底が白くなった。 (( 川端康成川端康成 ) The profound night became ) The profound night became white.white.Yoru no soko ga shiroku natta. (Kawabata Yasunari).Yoru no soko ga shiroku natta. (Kawabata Yasunari).Night NO(Gen) bottom GA(Nom) white became Past.Night NO(Gen) bottom GA(Nom) white became Past.
SUBJECT (Old status) + Predicate (Old status)SUBJECT (Old status) + Predicate (Old status)地球は太陽の周囲を回転する。地球は太陽の周囲を回転する。 The Earth goes around the Sun.The Earth goes around the Sun.Chikyuu wa taiyou no shui wo kaiten-suru.Chikyuu wa taiyou no shui wo kaiten-suru.Earth WA(Nom) Nom Sun NO(Gen) periphery WO(Acc) turn-aroundEarth WA(Nom) Nom Sun NO(Gen) periphery WO(Acc) turn-around
SUBJECT (New status) + Predicate (New status)SUBJECT (New status) + Predicate (New status)夜の底が白くなった。夜の底が白くなった。 (( 川端康成川端康成 ) The profound night became ) The profound night became white.white.Yoru no soko ga shiroku natta. (Kawabata Yasunari).Yoru no soko ga shiroku natta. (Kawabata Yasunari).Night NO(Gen) bottom GA(Nom) white became Past.Night NO(Gen) bottom GA(Nom) white became Past.
![Page 44: Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70e37/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Centering and ConstituencyCentering and ConstituencyCentering and ConstituencyCentering and Constituency
As Centering is governed by constituency, the Canonic As Centering is governed by constituency, the Canonic Word Order - like in Context Free Grammars - quite naturally Word Order - like in Context Free Grammars - quite naturally depends on it.depends on it.
It is especially crucial as regards the meta-informative It is especially crucial as regards the meta-informative level because the word order of extended utterances (higher level because the word order of extended utterances (higher levels) follows additional rules which depend on the levels) follows additional rules which depend on the hierarachical relationship of combined centers of attention hierarachical relationship of combined centers of attention (CA).(CA).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Note however, we de not pretend that the constituency Note however, we de not pretend that the constituency
principle underlies only the meta-informative level of principle underlies only the meta-informative level of language use.language use.
![Page 45: Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70e37/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Canonic Word Order and CompositionalityCanonic Word Order and CompositionalityCanonic Word Order and CompositionalityCanonic Word Order and Compositionality
John loves Mary.John loves Mary. Isabelle Tellier showed that syntactic structures can be considered
as a direct consequence of a need to functionnally combine meanings.Let us define: love2’ as a binary (arity 2) predicate, John’ and
Mary’ as two logical individual constants.Let us also define two oriented functional applications h1 and h2:• for any couple of semantic expressions a and b, h1(a, b) = a(b) = a/b• for any couple of semantic expressions a and b, h2(a, b) = b(a) = b\a
Thus, the logical relationship loves2’(Mary’) (John’)loves2’(Mary’) (John’) may be mapped onto each of the following constituency (phrase) structures:
Isabelle Tellier, « Semantic-Driven Emergence of Syntax : The Principle of Compositionality upside-down »http://www.univ-orleans.fr/lifo/Members/Isabelle.Tellier/recherche.html
h1(h2(Mary', love2'), John')) : OVSh1(h2(Mary', love2'), John')) : OVSh1(h1(love2', Mary'), John') : VOSh1(h1(love2', Mary'), John') : VOS
h2(John', h1(love2', Mary')) : SVOh2(John', h1(love2', Mary')) : SVOh2(John', h2(Mary', love2')) : SOVh2(John', h2(Mary', love2')) : SOV
![Page 46: Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70e37/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Canonic Word Order and CompositionalityCanonic Word Order and Compositionality(two special cases)(two special cases)
Canonic Word Order and CompositionalityCanonic Word Order and Compositionality(two special cases)(two special cases)
John loves Mary. John loves Mary. loves(Mary) (John).loves(Mary) (John).
The OSV and VSO type sentences need special treatment explicitly The OSV and VSO type sentences need special treatment explicitly stating word orders :stating word orders :
•love2'(Mary')(John')= h2(Mary', h2(John', λxλy.love2'(y)(x)): OSVlove2'(Mary')(John')= h2(Mary', h2(John', λxλy.love2'(y)(x)): OSV•love2'(Mary')(John')= h1(h1(λxλy.love2'(y)(x,)John'), Mary') : VSOlove2'(Mary')(John')= h1(h1(λxλy.love2'(y)(x,)John'), Mary') : VSO
Isabelle Tellier, « Semantic-Driven Emergence of Syntax : The Principle of Compositionality upside-down »http://www.univ-orleans.fr/lifo/Members/Isabelle.Tellier/recherche.html
![Page 47: Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70e37/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Centering and Canonic Word OrderCentering and Canonic Word OrderCentering and Canonic Word OrderCentering and Canonic Word Order
The following two orders OSV and VSO contradict the The following two orders OSV and VSO contradict the Principle of Constituency. This is due to the fact that the Principle of Constituency. This is due to the fact that the constituents which correspond to the Global Centres of constituents which correspond to the Global Centres of Attention cannot sit in the middle place in the Canonic Word Attention cannot sit in the middle place in the Canonic Word OrderOrder. .
**OSVOSV
OO SS VV VV
**VSOVSO
SS OO
Thus, the Meta-Informative Centering theory (MIC), now Thus, the Meta-Informative Centering theory (MIC), now part of the Distributed Grammar, has a predictive potential.part of the Distributed Grammar, has a predictive potential.
![Page 48: Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70e37/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Centering and Word OrderCentering and Word Order(sample 1)(sample 1)
Centering and Word OrderCentering and Word Order(sample 1)(sample 1)
Word Order Frequencies according to “CHILDES” “CHILDES” DatabaseDatabase
HOFFMAN Beryl (1996) "Word Order, Information Structure and Centering in Turkish", in 'Centering in Discourse', eds. Ellen Prince, Aravind Joshi and Marilyn Walker, Oxford
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.52.8937
SOV 48 %OSV 8 %SVO 25 %OVS 13 %VSO 6 %VOS < 1 %
![Page 49: Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70e37/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Centering and Word OrderCentering and Word Order(sample 2)(sample 2)
Centering and Word OrderCentering and Word Order(sample 2)(sample 2)
Subject-object-verb (SOV) – 497 (40,47 %) Subject-object-verb (SOV) – 497 (40,47 %) Subject-verb-object (SVO) – 436 (35,50 %)Subject-verb-object (SVO) – 436 (35,50 %)Verb-subject-object (VSO) – 85 (6,92 %)Verb-subject-object (VSO) – 85 (6,92 %)Verb-object-subject (VOS) – 26 (2,12 %)Verb-object-subject (VOS) – 26 (2,12 %)Object-verb-subject (OVS) – 9 (0,73 %)Object-verb-subject (OVS) – 9 (0,73 %)Object-subject-verb (OSV) – 4 (0,36 %)Object-subject-verb (OSV) – 4 (0,36 %)Lacking dominant word order – 171 (13,93 %)Lacking dominant word order – 171 (13,93 %) total: 1228total: 1228 languages languages
http://wals.info/feature/description/81
Word Order Frequenciesaccording to “The World Atlas of Language Structures
Online”
![Page 50: Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70e37/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
CONCLUSIONCONCLUSIONIn order to communicate the human brain processes (produces/understands) linguistic units (utterances). Although there is a number of different linear forms of utterances (which depend, among others, on the valency schemata), I claim that it is necessary to model the utterance meaning (definable jointly in the light of semantics, pragmatics and praxematics) as an open-ended aggregate of conceptual representations.
These representations are the result of activations of various informational devices within the multi-dimensional space of memorised knowledge. The relative complicatedness of the Distributed Grammar model reflects the complexity of the environment in which the man needs to interact in an intelligent way with other men in order to survive.
![Page 51: Towards Distributed Grammar motivations and issues of representation André WLODARCZYK.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70e37/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
© André WLODARCZYK
http://www.celta.paris-sorbonne.fr