Journal

Volume 4, Issue 2 (July 31, 2003)

4 articles

• Milsark’s Generalization and Categorical Judgments
  by S.-Y. Kuroda
  J. CS. 2003, 4(2), 121-147;
  Abstract In this paper, I shall restrict myself mostly to the discussion of bare NPs. I shall reformulate Milsark’s generalization with this restriction and in terms of the individual-level (IL) and stage-level (SL) distinction introduced by Carlson (1977). But I expect that the main claims to be made below ... [Read more].
  Abstract In this paper, I shall restrict myself mostly to the discussion of bare NPs. I shall reformulate Milsark’s generalization with this restriction and in terms of the individual-level (IL) and stage-level (SL) distinction introduced by Carlson (1977). But I expect that the main claims to be made below can be extended to indefinite NPs in general. [Collapse]
• On Focus and Contrastive Topic: Climbing Buring’s D-Tree, looking for Beans and B-Accents
  by Jorunn Hetland
  J. CS. 2003, 4(2), 149-176;
  Abstract This paper focuses on Daniel Buring’s article “On D-Trees, Beans, and BAccents,” published in Linguistics and Philosophy 2003. It is an attempt to compare the map of ‘contrastive topic’ and ‘focus’ outlined in Buring’s paper to the terrain his paper sets out to describe (i.e. the intonation patterns... [Read more].
  Abstract This paper focuses on Daniel Buring’s article “On D-Trees, Beans, and BAccents,” published in Linguistics and Philosophy 2003. It is an attempt to compare the map of ‘contrastive topic’ and ‘focus’ outlined in Buring’s paper to the terrain his paper sets out to describe (i.e. the intonation patterns of spoken English), tracing the lines from Buring’s own monograph On the Meaning of Topic and Focus: the 59th Street Bridge accent (1997) via Roberts (1996) to his (2003) model. [Collapse]
• Information Structure and Referential Givenness/Newness: How Much Belongs in the Grammar?
  by Jeanette K. Gundel
  J. CS. 2003, 4(2), 177-199;
  Abstract This paper is concerned with such concepts as ‘topic’, ‘focus’ and ‘cognitive status of discourse referents’, which have been included under the label ‘information structure’, as they relate in some sense to the distribution of given and new information. It addresses the question of which informatio... [Read more].
  Abstract This paper is concerned with such concepts as ‘topic’, ‘focus’ and ‘cognitive status of discourse referents’, which have been included under the label ‘information structure’, as they relate in some sense to the distribution of given and new information. It addresses the question of which information structural properties are best accounted for by grammatical constraints and which can be attributed to non-linguistic constraints on the way information is processed and communicated. Two logically independent senses of given-new information are distinguished, one referential and the other relational. I argue that some phenomena pertaining to each of these senses must be accounted for in the grammar, while others are pragmatic effects that do not have to be represented in the grammar, since they result from interaction of the language system with general pragmatic principles that constrain inferential processes involved in language production and understanding. [Collapse]
• Objective Hierarchy of Abstract Concepts - Organization of Abstract Nouns via Distribution of Adjectives -
  by Kyoko Kanzaki, Qing Ma, Eiko Yamamoto, Masaki Murata, & Hitoshi Isahara
  J. CS. 2003, 4(2), 201-225;
  Abstract Our purpose in this research is to find an objective way to organize word meanings by using large corpora. At first we are treating adjectives which have complicated meanings. We focus on the semantic relations between abstract nouns and adjectives. And then we construct a Semantic Map of abstract n... [Read more].
  Abstract Our purpose in this research is to find an objective way to organize word meanings by using large corpora. At first we are treating adjectives which have complicated meanings. We focus on the semantic relations between abstract nouns and adjectives. And then we construct a Semantic Map of abstract nouns based on the classification of adjectives by using a Self Organizing Semantic Map (SOM). We use the CSM(Complementary Similarity Measure) as their input data of SOM. We can see the SOM from two viewpoints. One is a position of an abstract noun of all abstract nouns and another is a superordinate/ subordinate relation. Finally we explain the aspect of the superordinate abstract concepts that all adjectives have commonly. [Collapse]