Anscombe (1964) presents influential arguments that 'before' and 'after' cannot denote converse relations, despite intuitions to the contrary. These arguments, I claim, rely on ambiguity of certain 'before'- and 'after'-sentences, ambiguity that arises from the interaction of tense and aspect with the temporal ordering relations denoted by 'before' and 'after'. To account for this ambiguity, I adopt a Discourse Representation Theory-based analysis of tense and aspect (Kamp & Reyle 2011) and apply it to a set of examples that exhibit the variety of readings available for 'before'- and 'after'-sentences. I argue that certain readings of stative 'after'-sentences support the existence of an inceptive coercion operator, equivalent in effect to the aspectual verb 'begin'. This operator has much in common with 'earliest', an operator proposed by Beaver & Condoravdi (2003), but it is motivated by independent aspectual considerations. I conclude with a discussion of areas for future research. / text

The present dissertation proposes integrating Discourse Representation Theory (DRT), information structure (IS) and Combinatory Categorial Grammar (CCG) into a single framework. It achieves this by making two new contributions to computational treatment of information structure. First, it presents an uncomplicated approach to incorporating information structure in DRT. Second, it shows how the new DRT representation can be integrated into a unification-based grammar framework in a straightforward manner. We foresee the main application of the new formalism to be in spoken language systems: the approach presented here has the potential to considerably facilitate spoken language systems benefiting from insights derived from information structure. The DRT representation with information structure which is proposed in this dissertation is simpler than the previous attempts to include information structure in DRT. We believe that the simplicity of the Information-Structure-marked Discourse Representation Structure (IS-DRS) is precisely what makes it attractive and easy to use for practical tasks like determining the intonation in spoken language applications. The IS component in ISDRS covers a range of aspects of information structural semantics. A further advantage of IS-DRS is that in its case a single semantic representation is suitable for both the generation of context-appropriate prosody and automatic reasoning. A semantic representation on its own is useful for describing and analysing a language. However, it is of even greater utility if it is accompanied by a mechanism that allows one to directly infer the semantic representation from a natural language expression. We incorporated the IS-DRS into the Categorial Grammar (CG) framework, developing a unification based realisation of Combinatory Categorial Grammar, which we call Unification-based Combinatory Categorial Grammar (UCCG). UCCG inherits elements from Combinatory Categorial Grammar and Unification Categorial Grammar. The UCCG framework is developed gradually throughout the dissertation. The information structural component is included as the final step. The IS-DRSs for linguistic expressions are built up compositionally from the IS-DRSs of their sub-expressions. Feature unification is the driving force in this process. The formalism is illustrated by numerous examples which are characterised by different levels of syntactic complexity and diverse information structure. We believe that the main assets of both the IS-DRSs as well as the Unification-based Combinatory Categorial Grammar framework are their simplicity, transparency, and inherent suitability for computational implementation. This makes them an appealing choice for use in practical applications like spoken language systems.

I present a simple Simultaneous Abstraction Calculus, where the familiar lambda-abstraction over single variables is replaced by abstraction over whole sets of them. Terms are applied to partial assignments of objects to variables. Variants of the system are investigated and compared, with respect to their semantic and proof theoretic properties. The system overcomes the strict ordering requirements of the standard lambda-calculus,and is shown to provide the kind of "non-selective" binding needed for Dynamic Montague Grammar and Discourse Representation Theory. It is closely related to a more complex system, due to Peter Aczel and Rachel Lunon, and can be used for Situation Theory in a similar way. I present versions of these theories within an axiomatic, property-theoretic framework, based on Aczels Frege Structures. The aim of this work is to provide the means for integrating various semantic theories within a formal framework,so that they can share what is common between them, and adopt from each other what is compatible with them.

Waterfronts in post-socialist cities have became under the influence of post-socialist transformations an areas of conflict, which are full of contradictory pressures based on the different actors and their views. This diploma thesis deals with plans and waterfront regeneration projects in Bratislava from the perspective of discursive practices and representations of investors, developers, city government and citizens. The work also examines the role of the actors involved in the formation of new identities of regenerated areas via different representations. It focuses on the process, which leads to the formation of new identities in the plans and projects of waterfront regeneration. The work uses an qualitative analysis of planning documents and discourse analysis of different web resources. It examines both the process of discursive construction of place through a variety of discursive practices and offers an insight into the backstage relationships of actors involved. Keywords: discourse, representation, identity, Bratislava, waterfront, regeneration

A proposta deste trabalho é implementar um conjunto de elementos do diálogo a decorrer entre dois agentes humanos. As anáforas pronominais e certos pronomes déiticos (eu, você, sua, seu, meu, minha), que eventualmente surgirem durante o diálogo, são resolvidas. Basicamente, este trabalho está dividido em quatro partes: 1. Estudo introdutório da Discourse Representation Theory (DRT) [KAM88, KAM90]. A DRT é um formalismo para a representação do discurso que utiliza modelos na avaliação semântica das estruturas representacionais. Neste estudo são considerados somente os aspectos representacionais, dando enfoque à representação de sentenças simples. 2. Um estudo baseado em [HIR81, CAR87] sobre: tipos de ambigüidades, o que são anáforas, tipos de anáforas etc, visa fornecer ao leitor um conhecimento mínimo sobre o aspecto lingüístico do tratamento das anáforas. Dentro do estudo realizado sobre anáforas destacam-se os seguintes tipos: coespecificação pessoal e colocação em coesão léxica, que são os tipos previstos na implementação. Estes dois tipos de anáforas são enquadrados nos seguintes grupos: coespecificação pessoal no grupo das anáforas pronominais e colocação em coesão léxica no grupo das anáforas nominais. 3. Considerando que a DRT somente representa o discurso, sem contudo resolver as anafóras que surgem no discurso, incorporou-se a Teoria do Foco [SID79, COR92] como ferramenta para a resolução das anáforas pronominais. A Teoria do Foco trabalha com as informações temáticas das sentenças, de maneira a reduzir o universo dos possíveis antecedentes para uma anáfora e prover um conjunto de regras que permita um caminhamento inteligente, dentro deste universo. O algoritmo de focalização aqui utilizado e o proposto por Sophie Cormack [COR92], que foi por sua vez baseado no algoritmo original de Candace Sidner [SID79]. 4. E por último a implementação, que foi realizada em C-Prolog [PER87], onde as principais funções são: (a) Um gerador de DRSs. (b) Algoritmo de focalização. (c) Integração do algoritmo de focalização e do gerador de DRSs. Descrevendo de maneira geral o funcionamento da implementação: as falas (conjunto de sentenças) de cada interlocutor são lidas através do teclado, as sentenças de cada fala são analisadas individualmente pelo analisador sintático, que gera uma árvore de derivação sintática. A árvore gerada é então repassada ao gerador de DRSs, que irá reduzi-la a referentes e condições. Eventualmente, se surgirem anáforas pronominais, é chamado o algoritmo de focalização. Caso surjam pronomes deíticos a resolução é realizada pelo gerador de DRSs. / The proposal of this work is to implement a set of dialog elements expressed by two human agents. The pronominal anaphora and some deixis pronoums (in portuguese: I, you, your, my) that eventually appear during the dialog are resolved. Basically, this work is divided in four parts: 1. An introdutory study of the Discourse Representation Theory (DRT) [KAM88, KAM90]. The DRT is a formalism for discourse representation that uses models for semantic evaluation of the representation structures. This study considers only the representational aspects, looking for single sentences. 2. A study based on [HIR81, CAR87] about: some kinds of ambiguity, what anaphora are, kinds of anaphora etc. This study intends to give the reader the minimal knowledge about the linguistic aspects of anaphora. In this study, we point out two types of anaphora: personal coespecification and lexical placement, this two were the ones that we used in the system. Those two types are in the following groups: personal coespecification in the pronominal anaphora and lexical placement in the nominal anaphora. 3. Considering that DRT only represent the discourse without resolving the anaphora, we used the Focus Theory [SID79, COR92] as a tool for pronominal anaphora resolution. The Focus Theory works on the thematic informations of the sentences. It reduces the universe of the possible antecedents and give some rules to walk throught this universe. We used the focalization algorithm presented by Sophie Cormack [COR92] which is based on the original version of Candace Sidner [SID79]. 4. Finally, the system was implemented in C-Prolog [PER87], and its main functions are: (a) a DRS generator, (b) a focalization algorithm, (c) the integration of the focalization algorithm and the DRS generator. Basically, what the system does is: the discourse of the agent is read in the keyboard, and each sentence of the discourse is analised by the sintatic analyser, generating a parsing tree. Then the DRS generator reduces this tree into referents and DRS-conditions. Eventually, the focalization algorithm will be called when the sentence contain some pronominal anaphora. The deixis resolution is made by the DRS-generator.

A proposta deste trabalho é implementar um conjunto de elementos do diálogo a decorrer entre dois agentes humanos. As anáforas pronominais e certos pronomes déiticos (eu, você, sua, seu, meu, minha), que eventualmente surgirem durante o diálogo, são resolvidas. Basicamente, este trabalho está dividido em quatro partes: 1. Estudo introdutório da Discourse Representation Theory (DRT) [KAM88, KAM90]. A DRT é um formalismo para a representação do discurso que utiliza modelos na avaliação semântica das estruturas representacionais. Neste estudo são considerados somente os aspectos representacionais, dando enfoque à representação de sentenças simples. 2. Um estudo baseado em [HIR81, CAR87] sobre: tipos de ambigüidades, o que são anáforas, tipos de anáforas etc, visa fornecer ao leitor um conhecimento mínimo sobre o aspecto lingüístico do tratamento das anáforas. Dentro do estudo realizado sobre anáforas destacam-se os seguintes tipos: coespecificação pessoal e colocação em coesão léxica, que são os tipos previstos na implementação. Estes dois tipos de anáforas são enquadrados nos seguintes grupos: coespecificação pessoal no grupo das anáforas pronominais e colocação em coesão léxica no grupo das anáforas nominais. 3. Considerando que a DRT somente representa o discurso, sem contudo resolver as anafóras que surgem no discurso, incorporou-se a Teoria do Foco [SID79, COR92] como ferramenta para a resolução das anáforas pronominais. A Teoria do Foco trabalha com as informações temáticas das sentenças, de maneira a reduzir o universo dos possíveis antecedentes para uma anáfora e prover um conjunto de regras que permita um caminhamento inteligente, dentro deste universo. O algoritmo de focalização aqui utilizado e o proposto por Sophie Cormack [COR92], que foi por sua vez baseado no algoritmo original de Candace Sidner [SID79]. 4. E por último a implementação, que foi realizada em C-Prolog [PER87], onde as principais funções são: (a) Um gerador de DRSs. (b) Algoritmo de focalização. (c) Integração do algoritmo de focalização e do gerador de DRSs. Descrevendo de maneira geral o funcionamento da implementação: as falas (conjunto de sentenças) de cada interlocutor são lidas através do teclado, as sentenças de cada fala são analisadas individualmente pelo analisador sintático, que gera uma árvore de derivação sintática. A árvore gerada é então repassada ao gerador de DRSs, que irá reduzi-la a referentes e condições. Eventualmente, se surgirem anáforas pronominais, é chamado o algoritmo de focalização. Caso surjam pronomes deíticos a resolução é realizada pelo gerador de DRSs. / The proposal of this work is to implement a set of dialog elements expressed by two human agents. The pronominal anaphora and some deixis pronoums (in portuguese: I, you, your, my) that eventually appear during the dialog are resolved. Basically, this work is divided in four parts: 1. An introdutory study of the Discourse Representation Theory (DRT) [KAM88, KAM90]. The DRT is a formalism for discourse representation that uses models for semantic evaluation of the representation structures. This study considers only the representational aspects, looking for single sentences. 2. A study based on [HIR81, CAR87] about: some kinds of ambiguity, what anaphora are, kinds of anaphora etc. This study intends to give the reader the minimal knowledge about the linguistic aspects of anaphora. In this study, we point out two types of anaphora: personal coespecification and lexical placement, this two were the ones that we used in the system. Those two types are in the following groups: personal coespecification in the pronominal anaphora and lexical placement in the nominal anaphora. 3. Considering that DRT only represent the discourse without resolving the anaphora, we used the Focus Theory [SID79, COR92] as a tool for pronominal anaphora resolution. The Focus Theory works on the thematic informations of the sentences. It reduces the universe of the possible antecedents and give some rules to walk throught this universe. We used the focalization algorithm presented by Sophie Cormack [COR92] which is based on the original version of Candace Sidner [SID79]. 4. Finally, the system was implemented in C-Prolog [PER87], and its main functions are: (a) a DRS generator, (b) a focalization algorithm, (c) the integration of the focalization algorithm and the DRS generator. Basically, what the system does is: the discourse of the agent is read in the keyboard, and each sentence of the discourse is analised by the sintatic analyser, generating a parsing tree. Then the DRS generator reduces this tree into referents and DRS-conditions. Eventually, the focalization algorithm will be called when the sentence contain some pronominal anaphora. The deixis resolution is made by the DRS-generator.

A proposta deste trabalho é implementar um conjunto de elementos do diálogo a decorrer entre dois agentes humanos. As anáforas pronominais e certos pronomes déiticos (eu, você, sua, seu, meu, minha), que eventualmente surgirem durante o diálogo, são resolvidas. Basicamente, este trabalho está dividido em quatro partes: 1. Estudo introdutório da Discourse Representation Theory (DRT) [KAM88, KAM90]. A DRT é um formalismo para a representação do discurso que utiliza modelos na avaliação semântica das estruturas representacionais. Neste estudo são considerados somente os aspectos representacionais, dando enfoque à representação de sentenças simples. 2. Um estudo baseado em [HIR81, CAR87] sobre: tipos de ambigüidades, o que são anáforas, tipos de anáforas etc, visa fornecer ao leitor um conhecimento mínimo sobre o aspecto lingüístico do tratamento das anáforas. Dentro do estudo realizado sobre anáforas destacam-se os seguintes tipos: coespecificação pessoal e colocação em coesão léxica, que são os tipos previstos na implementação. Estes dois tipos de anáforas são enquadrados nos seguintes grupos: coespecificação pessoal no grupo das anáforas pronominais e colocação em coesão léxica no grupo das anáforas nominais. 3. Considerando que a DRT somente representa o discurso, sem contudo resolver as anafóras que surgem no discurso, incorporou-se a Teoria do Foco [SID79, COR92] como ferramenta para a resolução das anáforas pronominais. A Teoria do Foco trabalha com as informações temáticas das sentenças, de maneira a reduzir o universo dos possíveis antecedentes para uma anáfora e prover um conjunto de regras que permita um caminhamento inteligente, dentro deste universo. O algoritmo de focalização aqui utilizado e o proposto por Sophie Cormack [COR92], que foi por sua vez baseado no algoritmo original de Candace Sidner [SID79]. 4. E por último a implementação, que foi realizada em C-Prolog [PER87], onde as principais funções são: (a) Um gerador de DRSs. (b) Algoritmo de focalização. (c) Integração do algoritmo de focalização e do gerador de DRSs. Descrevendo de maneira geral o funcionamento da implementação: as falas (conjunto de sentenças) de cada interlocutor são lidas através do teclado, as sentenças de cada fala são analisadas individualmente pelo analisador sintático, que gera uma árvore de derivação sintática. A árvore gerada é então repassada ao gerador de DRSs, que irá reduzi-la a referentes e condições. Eventualmente, se surgirem anáforas pronominais, é chamado o algoritmo de focalização. Caso surjam pronomes deíticos a resolução é realizada pelo gerador de DRSs. / The proposal of this work is to implement a set of dialog elements expressed by two human agents. The pronominal anaphora and some deixis pronoums (in portuguese: I, you, your, my) that eventually appear during the dialog are resolved. Basically, this work is divided in four parts: 1. An introdutory study of the Discourse Representation Theory (DRT) [KAM88, KAM90]. The DRT is a formalism for discourse representation that uses models for semantic evaluation of the representation structures. This study considers only the representational aspects, looking for single sentences. 2. A study based on [HIR81, CAR87] about: some kinds of ambiguity, what anaphora are, kinds of anaphora etc. This study intends to give the reader the minimal knowledge about the linguistic aspects of anaphora. In this study, we point out two types of anaphora: personal coespecification and lexical placement, this two were the ones that we used in the system. Those two types are in the following groups: personal coespecification in the pronominal anaphora and lexical placement in the nominal anaphora. 3. Considering that DRT only represent the discourse without resolving the anaphora, we used the Focus Theory [SID79, COR92] as a tool for pronominal anaphora resolution. The Focus Theory works on the thematic informations of the sentences. It reduces the universe of the possible antecedents and give some rules to walk throught this universe. We used the focalization algorithm presented by Sophie Cormack [COR92] which is based on the original version of Candace Sidner [SID79]. 4. Finally, the system was implemented in C-Prolog [PER87], and its main functions are: (a) a DRS generator, (b) a focalization algorithm, (c) the integration of the focalization algorithm and the DRS generator. Basically, what the system does is: the discourse of the agent is read in the keyboard, and each sentence of the discourse is analised by the sintatic analyser, generating a parsing tree. Then the DRS generator reduces this tree into referents and DRS-conditions. Eventually, the focalization algorithm will be called when the sentence contain some pronominal anaphora. The deixis resolution is made by the DRS-generator.

Submitted by Maike Costa (maiksebas@gmail.com) on 2016-01-12T12:35:09Z No. of bitstreams: 1 arquivototal.pdf: 4633803 bytes, checksum: 3ae08d3cdc185271cdffef03e0f8e32e (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-01-12T12:35:09Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 arquivototal.pdf: 4633803 bytes, checksum: 3ae08d3cdc185271cdffef03e0f8e32e (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015-03-27 / This work is inserted in a convergence area among Translation Studies, Critical Discourse Analysis and Representation of Social Actors, as the representation of social actors in journalistic texts written in Portuguese and in English are analyzed. Texts about the demonstrations that took place in Brazil in June 2013, originally written in Portuguese and in English are analyzed, setting up what Tagnin (2004) considers a bilingual comparable corpus. The theoretical foundation used for the analysis is the Theory of Representation of Social Actors, introduced by van Leeuwen (1997), which is derived from the Systemic Functional Linguistics. The Theory of Representation of Social Actors introduces a sociosemantic inventory to investigate the representation of participants of social practices. To perform the analysis, the social actors who, somehow, have actively participated or supported the social practice known as Manifestations in Brazil are called Manifestantes; and the social actors who, somehow, have helped to contain this movement are called Agentes Públicos. Using the Corpus Linguistics tools, corpus has been annotated in order to identify how these social actors were excluded or included in the analyzed texts. The results indicate that in addition to making use of distinct linguistic elements to refer to the social actors in both languages, the texts analyzed in Portuguese and English seem to emphasize different cuts of the same social practice. This dissimilarity in the way of re-contextualizing the same event or social practice brings up questions about the discursive aspects regarding journalistic texts in the language pair analyzed in this work. From this analysis, it is pointed out how much and in which ways the different manners to re-contextualize the same event can build different meanings in the two linguistic systems. / O presente trabalho se insere em uma área de convergência entre os Estudos da Tradução, a Análise Crítica do Discurso e a Representação de Atores Sociais, haja vista que analisamos o fenômeno da representação de atores sociais em textos jornalísticos em língua portuguesa e língua inglesa. São analisados textos originalmente escritos em português e em inglês sobre as manifestações ocorridas no Brasil em 2013, configurando, assim, o que Tagnin (2004) denomina como corpus comparável bilíngue. Como sustentáculo teórico da análise, utilizamos a Teoria de Representação de Atores Sociais proposta por van Leeuwen (1997), a qual deriva da Linguística Sistêmico- Funcional e propõe um inventário sociossemântico para se investigar a representação dos participantes das práticas sociais. Para realizar a análise, denominamos como Manifestantes os atores sociais que, de alguma forma, participaram ativamente ou deram suporte à prática social conhecida como Manifestações no Brasil, e, como Agentes Públicos, os atores sociais que, de alguma forma, contribuíram para conter o referido movimento. Utilizando-nos de ferramentas da Linguística de Corpus, foram feitas anotações no corpus para identificar de quê maneira esses atores sociais foram excluídos ou incluídos nas representações textuais analisadas neste trabalho. Os resultados indicam que, além de fazerem uso de elementos linguísticos distintos para fazer referência aos atores sociais nas duas línguas, os textos analisados em língua portuguesa e em inglesa parecem enfatizar diferentes recortes da mesma prática social. Essa diferenciação no modo de se recontextualizar o mesmo evento ou prática social levanta questionamentos acerca dos aspectos discursivos subjacentes aos textos jornalísticos no par linguístico analisado neste trabalho. A partir da presente análise, procuramos ressaltar quanto e de que forma as diferentes maneiras de se recontextualizar o mesmo evento podem construir diferentes significados nos dois sistemas linguísticos.

Waterfronts in post-socialist cities have became under the influence of post- socialist transformations an areas of conflict, which are full of contradictory pressures based on the different actors and their views. This diploma thesis deals with plans and waterfront regeneration projects in Bratislava from the perspective of discursive practices and representations of investors, developers, city government and citizens. The work also examines the role of the actors involved in the formation of new identities of regenerated areas via different representations. It focuses on the process, which leads to the formation of new identities in the plans and projects of waterfront regeneration. The work uses an interpretative analysis of text segments. It examines both the process of discursive construction of place through a variety of discursive practices and offers an insight into the backstage relationships of actors involved. Key words: discourse, representation, identity, Bratislava, waterfront, regeneration

Donkey pronouns seem to defy the conventional categories of referential and anaphoric pronouns and hence cannot be analyzed as variables. An orthodox treatment is that donkey pronouns are semantically equivalent to definite descriptions. I argue on the contrary that donkey pronouns can be analyzed as bound variables given a distinct notion of binding. I provide a systematic comparison between the static, description-theoretic approach and Discourse Representation Theory (DRT), a representative of dynamic semantics. By exposing the inadequacy of various descriptivist theories, I motivate and argue that DRT is the better alternative. DRT is superior for being a coherent and flexible analysis of donkey pronouns, a unified analysis of pronouns in general, and an intuitively appealing model of meaning. In addition, I uncover the similarities between the situational descriptivist account and DRT. I show that when fully elaborated, the former turns out to be a notational variant of the latter. I then trace their common problems to the Lewisian assumptions of quantification and conditionals; my proposed solutions suggest non-trivial modifications to and clarifications of the underlying Lewisian framework. / text