skip to main content
10.3115/991365.991418dlproceedingsArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescolingConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article
Free Access

Linking propositions

Published:25 August 1986Publication History

ABSTRACT

The function words of a language provide explicit information about how propositions are to be related. We have examined a subset of these function words, namely the subordinating conjunctions which link propositions within a sentence, using sentences taken from corpora stored on magnetic tape. On the basis of this analysis, a computer program for Dutch language generation and comprehension has been extended to deal with the subordinating conjunctions. We present an overview of the underlying dimensions that were used in describing the semantics and pragmatics of the Dutch subordinating conjunctions. We propose a Universal set of Linking Dimensions, sufficient to specify the subordinating conjunctions in any language. This ULD is a first proposal for the representation required for a computer program to understand or translate the subordinating conjunctions of any natural language.

References

  1. Brée, D. S. & R. A. Smit 1985. Non-standard uses of if. In The proceedings of the 2nd Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Geneva: 218--225. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Brée, D. S., R. A. Smit & H. P. Schotel 1984. Generation and comprehension of Dutch subordinating conjunctions by computer. In O'Shea, T., ed., Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence Elsevier, Amsterdam: 205--208.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Dik, S. C. 1981. Functional grammar. Foris, Dordrecht.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Donaldson, B. C. 1984. Dutch reference grammar. Nijhoff, Leiden.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Geerts, G., W. Haeseeryn, J. de Rooij, & M. C. van denToorn, eds, 1984. Algemene nederlandse spraakunst. Wolters-Noordhoff, Groningen, Holland.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Hoenkamp, E. C. M. 1983. Een computermodel van de sprekar: psychologische en linguistische aspecten. Ph.D. thesis. Katholieke Universiteit van Nijmegen.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Kamp, H. 1981. A Theory of truth and semantic representation. In Groenendijk, J. A. G., T. M. V. Janssen, & M. B. J. Stokhof, eds, Formal methods in the study of language, vol. 1. Mathematisch Centrum, Amsterdam: 277--322.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Nieuwint, P. J. G. M. 1984 Werkwoordstijden in nederlandse "counterfactuals". De Nieuwe Taalgids, 77(6): 542--555.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Simon, H. A. 1981 Sciences of the artificial 2nd ed. MIT press, Cambridge. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Uit den Boogart, P. C. 1975. Woordfrequenties van geschreven en gesproken Nederlands. Oosthoek, Scheltema en Holkema, Utrecht.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Wijk, C. van & G. Kempen 1980. Funktiewoorden: een inventarisatie voor het Netherlands. Review of Applied Linguistics, 47, 53--68.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  1. Linking propositions

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader