Names and Naming Verbs

Whenever we hear (or see) a word or string of words of the language that we speak, our minds perform a special kind of computation on the expression, assigning it a syntactic structure that corresponds to a particular meaning. Consider the deceptively simple example of the orthographic form fish . We can use this orthographic form by itself to represent a sentence, defined at this preliminary point as a linguistic expression that begins with a capital letter and ends with a terminal punctuation mark (period, question mark, or exclamation point): (1) Fish! (1) can be assigned more than one interpretation because fish can designate either a verb or a noun. Under both interpretations the expression has the same pronunciation (whose representation is called Phonetic Form (PF)). Syntactically, however, there are two distinct linguistic representations for (1), one as a verb and the other as a noun. These representations correlate with the different interpretations of (1). In this way, the syntax provides a structural basis for the representation of meaning. This aspect of meaning is called Logical Form (LF). Ambiguity arises when a single PF corresponds to more than one LF. In this case, (1) is structurally ambiguous because its ambiguity derives from a difference in syntactic structure – i.e. whether the PF of (1) is construed as a verb (labeled V) or a noun (labeled N).

Copular sentences (sentences of the form A is B) have been prominent on the research agenda for linguists and philosophers of language since classical antiquity, and continue to be shrouded in considerable controversy. Central questions in the linguistic literature on copulas and copular sentences are (a) whether predicational, specificational, identificational, and equative copular sentences have a common underlying source; and, if so, (b) how the various surface types of copular sentences are derived from that underlier; (c) whether there is a typology of copulas; and (d) whether copulas are meaningful or meaningless. The debate surrounding the postulation of multiple copular sentence types relies on criteria related to both meaning and form. Analyses based on meaning tend to focus on the question of whether or not one of the terms is a predicate of the other, whether or not the copula contributes meaning, and the information-structural properties of the construction. Analyses based on form focus on the flexibility of the linear ordering of the two terms of the construction, the surface distribution of the copular element, the restrictions imposed on the extraction of the two terms, the case and agreement properties of the construction, the omissibility of the copula or one of the two terms, and the connectivity effects exhibited by the construction. Morphosyntactic variation in the domain of copular elements is an area of research with fruitful intersections between typological and generative approaches. A variety of criteria are presented in the literature to justify the postulation of multiple copulas or underlying representations for copular sentences. Another prolific body of research concerns the semantics of copular sentences. In the assessment of scholarship on copulas and copular sentences, the article critiques the ‘multiple copulas’ approach and examines ways in which the surface variety of copular sentence types can be accounted for in a ‘single copula’ analysis. The analysis of copular constructions continues to have far-reaching consequences in the context of linguistic theory construction, particularly the question of how a predicate combines with its subject in syntactic structure.

Identifying copulative constructions in Bantu can be classified into three broad categories, viz. nominal copulative structures, copulative structures in which invariable copulative prefixes appear as copulas and copulative structures in which copulative verbs function as copulas. In this article the diachronic relation between these three types of identifying copulatives is investigated. It is indicated that nominal copulative structures represent the prototypical copulative structure in Bantu and that it forms the pragmatic starting point from which other copulative constructions developed. It is further indicated that the development of copulative structures forms part of a process of grammaticalisation, according to which discourse structures are reinterpreted as syntactic structures, with accompanying rise of morphological marking strategies.

Adverbs play a crucial role in language by providing additional information about various elements of a sentence such as verbs, adjectives, other adverbs, prepositional phrases, subordinate clauses, and even complete sentences. Very little attention has been given to usage-based approach to parts of speech, particularly the use of adverbs in different dialects, this study investigates the use of adverbs in Ngor-okpala dialect of Igbo. Adverbs in Igbo language is known as Nkwuwa or Enyemaka Ngwaa, Adverbs in the dialect are used to answer questions such as "Olee ?- where, Olee nke- which, Olee otu- how, Olee onye-who, Olee mgbe-when, Olee ihe-what, etc. It aims to understand their role, their varied usage, the implications they hold for linguistic expression and impact in the dialect. The study adopts a descriptive approach, identifying and analyzing adverbs and their usage in the Ngor-Okpala dialect, to reveal patterns of usage, syntactic structures, and semantic implications. This work adopts the Universal grammar theory. The study reveals that the use of various adverbs in the Ngor-okpala dialect help to convey details about how, when, where, how often, or to what extent an action occurs or a quality is expressed in the dialect, intensifying the meaning of the words they modify, making them a significant component of linguistic expression in Ngor-okpala dialect. The study concludes that adverb is an essential component of the dialect’s linguistic expression, providing various details about actions, qualities, and relationships within sentences. An understanding of this is crucial for effective communication in the dialect where precision and clarity are paramount.

We propose a method for watermarking texts of arbitrary length using natural-language semantic structures. For the key of our approach we use the linguistic semantic phenomenon of presuppositions. Presupposition is the implicit information considered as well-known or which readers of the text are supposed to treat as well-known; this information is a semantic component of certain linguistic expressions (lexical items and syntactical constructions called presupposition triggers). The same sentence can be used with or without presupposition, or with a different presupposition trigger, provided that all the relations between subjects, objects and other discourse referents are preserved - such transformations will not change the meaning of the sentence. We define the distinct rules for presupposition identification for each trigger and regular transformation rules for using/non-using the presupposition in a given sentence (one bit per sentence in this case). Isolated sentences can carry the proposed watermarks. However, the longer is the text, the more efficient is the watermark. The proposed approach is resilient to main types of random transformations, like passivization, topicalization, extraposition, preposing, etc. The web of resolved presupposed information in the text will hold the watermark of the text (e.g. integrity watermark, or prove of ownership), introducing secret ordering into the text structure to make it resilient to data loss attacks and data altering attacks.

We propose a method of text watermarking and hashing based on natural-language semantic structures. In particular, we are interested in the linguistic semantic phenomenon of presupposition. Presupposition is implicit information that is taken for granted by the reader and establishes common ground between the author's and reader's situational knowledge; it is a semantic component of certain linguistic expressions (lexical items and syntactic constructions called presupposition triggers). The same sentence can be used with or without presupposition, provided that all the relations between discourse referents are preserved. The number of presuppositions in randomly grouped sentences and the web of resolved presupposed information in the text holds the watermark (e.g. integrity watermark, or prove of ownership), introducing secret ordering into the text structure to make it resilient to a certain amount of data altering attacks. This intrinsic structure of the text can be also used as a robust hash of the text.

The paper describes an approach to natural language watermarking and hashing based on semantic structures. In our method we are interested in the linguistic semantic phenomenon of presupposition. Presupposition is implicit information that is taken for granted by the reader and establishes common ground between the author's and reader's situational knowledge; it is a semantic component of certain linguistic expressions (lexical items and syntactic constructions called presupposition triggers, 100 in total). The same sentence can be used with or without presupposition, provided that all the relations between discourse referents are preserved. 3 types of transformations are employed: triggers removal, triggers synonymic replacements and introducing triggers where there were none. The key is formed as a hash table containing information about the original text, the number of transformed sentences and the triggers on which the transformations were based. This method is resilient against data loss and data altering attacks.

This chapter reviews aspects of the way we use linguistic expressions (primarily noun phrases, NPs) to talk about things. After reviewing various types of NPs with respect to their possible use in referring (e.g. proper names, demonstratives, pronouns, definite descriptions, indefinite descriptions, generics), we turn to what it is that speakers are referring to, distinguishing real world from hypothetical and discourse referents. Figures of speech such as metonymy are briefly considered. Another important issue concerns choice of NP; for any given referent there are typically many possible expressions that could be used, and much research has concerned how the choices among them are made. Finally we consider the perspective of the addressee, and what factors (such as new and old information) play a role in interpreting intended referents.

<span style="font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-font-family: PMingLiU; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: DE; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA;">Natural linguistic data show that a close relationship exists among demonstratives and time in Spanish. Such connection appears to be of a pragmatic nature whereby linguistic expressions that encode or denote time license the use of demonstratives under certain conditions.The aforementioned connection time-demonstration occurs when speakers employ demonstratives to refer to objects within the textual world (i.e. discourse referents). In this paper I explore the temporal constraints that impose restrictions in the use of demonstratives in Spanish and argue in favor of characterizing the relationship time-demonstration as a discourse deixis phenomenon in close connection with time deixis. The co-referential link that gets established between the distal demonstrative and the temporal expression is formalized and a presuppositional characterization provided for the three demonstratives in their discourse-deictic use.</span>

The syntactical and semantical investigations in contemporary formal logic refer always to the languages with specified syntactic structure, as with respect to such languages one can formulate exactly and, subsequently examine with mathematical tools (1) the rules of transformation (axioms, rules of inference) and the systems based on these rules (formalized theories), (2) the relations of semantical reference which occur between linguistic expressions and elements of objective sphere. Our considerations belong to that part of logical syntax and semantics which is independent of any assumptions concerning the rules of transformation. The syntactic structure of some language ? is determined Io by the vocabulary of ? i.e. by the list of simple (undecomposable) expressions in ?, and 2? by the rules of construction of ? which state how the expressions of ??, especially the sentences in ? are built of simple expressions. In the first part of this paper we consider the general principles of the syntactic structure of languages. Namely, we shall formulate a scheme of the syntactic structure of language. This scheme will be called the standard formalisation1 and the languages which fall under this scheme will be called the standard forma? lized languages1. The scheme of standard formalization is based on a purely syntactical classificat? ion of expressions into so called semantical categories. The standard formalization is an abstract from the concrete material of artificial symbolic languages which are considered in formal logic. It is general in the following sense: every symbolic language known in formal logic ? after carrying some modifications in its calligraphy ? falls directly under the scheme of standard formalization.

In this paper, we propose that there is a speech-act structure in the nominal spine, just as there is in the clausal spine. Its function is to encode what we do when we utter a nominal: that is, we name, describe, or track individuals. Thus, speech-act structure establishes a link between the discourse referent and the speech-act situation. The evidence we discuss comes from nominals that lack this speech-act structure, namely impersonal pronouns. We argue that impersonal pronouns have in common that they lack nominal speech-act structure but are not otherwise a natural class: they vary in syntactic structure. Thus, we propose a novel formal typology of impersonal pronouns.

This Chapter looks at the structure of copular sentences in English. There are two basic issues which concern us. The first, which follows directly on from the discussion of Hebrew copular constructions in the previous Chapter, is the fact that in English too, small uninflected clauses are possible, but not if the small clause is an expression of identity. In the previous Chapter we saw that in Hebrew a semantically null Inflectional element is necessary in identity Statements to create a syntactic predication structure, but not in small clauses, where the predication structure is created by the relation between the inherently predicative XP and the subject. In English, the same phenomenon occurs, but there are two major differences. First, we don’t get the contrast in matrix sentences, since English doesn’t allow uninflected matrix clauses, except in the ‘echoic’ questions and exclamations discussed in Akmajian (1984), and noted in Chapter 2. Second, English requires Inflection to take a VP complement, and thus the contrast is not between small clauses and inflected small clauses, but between small clauses and IPs with infinitivally marked VPs, as illustrated in(l):

The main idea that led me to write such research paper within the framework of Germanic linguistics is that I have not found any topic dealing with the term correlate in the German language, except in several articles in linguistic journals as well as one topic in a book describing the use of such a linguistic phenomenon in the language system. The research initially deals with the definition of the correlate at the level of the German language system. Correlate is unity describes specific relation of two sentences and identifies denoted constructs. Correlate is called a placeholder at the syntactic level because it does not occupy its original topological fields in the syntactic structure. The correlate (es) or the prepositional adverbs or adverbs can occur in the matrix clause, it is the second feature. The third categorical feature of the correlate is morphological, in that the correlate is inflexible and the last feature shows that the correlate does not confer case features on its syntactic environment, where the correlate possesses the matrix clause. The correlate can appear as the first part of the complex connector in the subordinate clause or the infinitive construction. The last feature refers to the fact that the correlate construction can be attributive in the complex sentence, whereby the sentence structure, which is the constituent of attributively formed correlate specifiers, is embedded. The research presents the conceptual content of the linguistic expression described by the correlate, functioning as a pro-element in the major premise and considered as a dentate. It is a matter of denotation of the correlate and deictic expressions. Furthermore, the present research sheds light on the obligatory and optional use of the correlate constructions in the German sentence. In German there are correlates when using certain verbs. In addition, certain linguistic constructions or expressions require correlates of both particles and prepositional adverbs. The reasons for this are contextual and communicative aspects. In relation to the contextual-communicative aspects such as verbs affect the connection with the correlate. She signals the connection through the grade particles. Compared to other verbs, the use of the correlate (es) is reduced. The reason for this is the appearance of degree particles as well, even, at most, only, only. This can be the case if the grading of the text passage does not focus on the extreme predicate, but rather on the infinitive construction or the subordinate clause. This was studied at work. Then it was examined how the correlate constructions occur with certain subjunctives by dividing them into two forms, namely attributive correlate constructions and left displacement constructions. If the correlate occurs before the subjunctive phrase, it is called an attributive correlate construction. This form is also called a correlate specifier. The subjunctive phrase has the function of being an attribute for the correlate. They can be directly followed by the correlate, whereby it is possible that the correlate alone carries the main clause after deducting the so-called phrase.

In the Name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate. With His help, we seek assistance, and in Him, we put our trust. He is the Most Merciful of all. May peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad, sent as a mercy to all worlds, and upon his family, companions, and spouse, with abundant salutations until the Day of Judgment. Every matter has a guiding principle, and similarly, every language has sources it relies upon and draws from. Undoubtedly, the most important sources of the Arabic language are the Quran, the Prophetic Hadiths, and the poetry and sayings of the Arabs. The use of the Quran as evidence holds significant importance, serving as a source from which all branches of Arabic studies have drawn, whether it be linguistic dictionaries, books of interpretation (Tafsir), grammar, rhetoric, literature, or other areas within the various sciences of Arabic. This is because the Quran is considered the primary source in all these fields. Linguists have used the Quran from two perspectives: As a source to validate the accuracy of a linguistic term, grammatical structure, or a specific dialect of the Arabic language. It is a crucial reference for determining the correctness of meanings related to the sciences of Arabic. Its benefit is vast, whether at the level of individual Quranic words or syntactic structures, even down to phonological aspects, where Quranic words act as guiding lights for the interpretation and clarification of many language terms. It helps in determining the meanings of numerous Arabic terms, as the Quran is rich in linguistic expressions. In the interpretation of the Quran itself, the primary approach to understanding the meaning of Quranic terms is through the interpretation of the Quran by the Quran.This study includes several key topics, such as the meaning and significance of using evidence, its sources, the importance of citing the Quran, Quranic readings, and how linguists have benefited from citing the Quran and its readings. It also discusses the difference between Quranic readings and the Quran as a whole, especially in terms of their use as evidence in the sciences of Arabic. With this, we ask for Allah's guidance. Our Lord, accept this from us Indeed, you are the Hearing, the Knowing. (Surah Al-Baqarah, 2:127).

Content-based image retrieval (CBIR) has been researched for many years, but there are quite a few problems affecting the development of the CBIR. Most of the disappointments with early CBIR systems come from the lack of recognizing the existence of the semantic gap and its consequences for system set-up. The semantic gap is the lack of coincidence between the information that one can extract from the visual data and the semantics that the same data have for a user in a given situation. Systematically describing and automatically obtaining the image semantic features are open issues [1]. We are not based on the digital feature vectors, but on the concepts describing the target images in natural language when we search images in the database or internet. But natural language is imbued with imprecision, vagueness and other forms of uncertainty in its syntactic structure and semantic content. It becomes a difficult task for computers to describe images with natural or natural-like language. How to utilize languages to describe the semantic features of an image becomes a significant but difficult problem. In this chapter, we propose a linguistic expression-based image description (LEBID) framework to provide images with semantic expression based on linguistic variable in fuzzy theory [2]. LEBID systematically demonstrates how to depict the image semantic features with natural language based on linguistic variable and how to extract the image semantic features with semantic rule. Furthermore, it also shows how to manipulate the linguistic values and linguistic expression with the syntax rule. At the end of LEBID processing, each image is associated with a semantic-vector, and each semantic component in