Danish equivalents to English ing clauses

The present article is about English adverbial present participle clauses (‑ing clauses) and their relation to Danish. The purpose of the investigation is to describe how the information expressed in ‑ing clauses is expressed in Danish, in which this grammatical construction normally does not occur. The data consists of English ‑ing clauses and translational equivalents found in the parallel corpus European Parliament Proceedings Parallel Corpus. It is discovered that equivalent English and Danish expressions typically have the same semantic role despite being structured differently, but that the semantic role is usually more explicit in Danish. This is because the frequent absence of explicit subordinator in ‑ing clauses makes their semantic role understandable only through context whereas the different structures of the Danish equivalents often include an explicit indicator of the semantic role.The present article is about English adverbial present participle clauses (‑ing clauses) and their relation to Danish. The purpose of the investigation is to describe how the information expressed in ‑ing clauses is expressed in Danish, in which this grammatical construction normally does not occur. The data consists of English ‑ing clauses and translational equivalents found in the parallel corpus European Parliament Proceedings Parallel Corpus. It is discovered that equivalent English and Danish expressions typically have the same semantic role despite being structured differently, but that the semantic role is usually more explicit in Danish. This is because the frequent absence of explicit subordinator in ‑ing clauses makes their semantic role understandable only through context whereas the different structures of the Danish equivalents often include an explicit indicator of the semantic role

Integrating knowledge graph embeddings to improve mention representation for bridging anaphora resolution

International audienceLexical semantics and world knowledge are crucial for interpreting bridging anaphora. Yet, existing computational methods for acquiring and injecting this type of information into bridging resolution systems suffer important limitations. Based on explicit querying of external knowledge bases, earlier approaches are computationally expensive (hence, hardly scalable) and they map the data to be processed into high-dimensional spaces (careful handling of the curse of dimensionality and overfitting has to be in order). In this work, we take a different and principled approach which naturally addresses these issues. Specifically, we convert the external knowledge source (in this case, WordNet) into a graph, and learn embeddings of the graph nodes of low dimension to capture the crucial features of the graph topology and, at the same time, rich semantic information. Once properly identified from the mention text spans, these low dimensional graph node embeddings are combined with distributional text-based embeddings to provide enhanced mention representations. We illustrate the effectiveness of our approach by evaluating it on commonly used datasets, namely ISNotes (Markert et al., 2012) and BASHI (Rösiger, 2018). Our enhanced mention representations yield significant accuracy improvements on both datasets when compared to different standalone text-based mention representations

Demonstratives in discourse

This volume explores the use of demonstratives in the structuring and management of discourse, and their role as engagement expressions, from a crosslinguistic perspective. It seeks to establish which types of discourse-related functions are commonly encoded by demonstratives, beyond the well-established reference-tracking and deictic uses, and also investigates which members of demonstrative paradigms typically take on certain functions. Moreover, it looks at the roles of non-deictic demonstratives, that is, members of the paradigm which are dedicated e.g. to contrastive, recognitional, or anaphoric functions and do not express deictic distinctions. Several of the studies also focus on manner demonstratives, which have been little studied from a crosslinguistic perspective. The volume thus broadens the scope of investigation of demonstratives to look at how their core functions interact with a wider range of discourse functions in a number of different languages. The volume covers languages from a range of geographical locations and language families, including Cushitic and Mande languages in Africa, Oceanic and Papuan languages in the Pacific region, Algonquian and Guaykuruan in the Americas, and Germanic, Slavic and Finno-Ugric languages in the Eurasian region. It also includes two papers taking a broader typological approach to specific discourse functions of demonstratives

Demonstratives in discourse

This volume explores the use of demonstratives in the structuring and management of discourse, and their role as engagement expressions, from a crosslinguistic perspective. It seeks to establish which types of discourse-related functions are commonly encoded by demonstratives, beyond the well-established reference-tracking and deictic uses, and also investigates which members of demonstrative paradigms typically take on certain functions. Moreover, it looks at the roles of non-deictic demonstratives, that is, members of the paradigm which are dedicated e.g. to contrastive, recognitional, or anaphoric functions and do not express deictic distinctions. Several of the studies also focus on manner demonstratives, which have been little studied from a crosslinguistic perspective. The volume thus broadens the scope of investigation of demonstratives to look at how their core functions interact with a wider range of discourse functions in a number of different languages. The volume covers languages from a range of geographical locations and language families, including Cushitic and Mande languages in Africa, Oceanic and Papuan languages in the Pacific region, Algonquian and Guaykuruan in the Americas, and Germanic, Slavic and Finno-Ugric languages in the Eurasian region. It also includes two papers taking a broader typological approach to specific discourse functions of demonstratives