INDONESIAN AMBIGUOUS NOUN PHRASES AND THEIR TRANSLATION INTO ENGLISH

In the use of language, ambiguity occurs because the language is used in various functions and situations. In the process of translation, the ambiguous meaning in the source language should be the same as the meaning contained in the target language. Differences of the environment, the way of thinking, culture, and the form of language results in not all meanings in a language (Indonesian) are possessed by other languages. This study is categorized as a qualitative analysis. After the data in the form of an ambiguous noun phrases in the Indonesian language are found with its various aspects, then it is translated into English by using “google translate”. The translation is done as a starting point to know its usage in English. The translation results are then evaluated on the reliability of “google translate” in the translation process. Furthermore, evaluation is conducted to formulate the appropriate formula in the process of translating the noun phrases which have double meaning.In the use of noun phrases in Indonesian sentences, there are found ambiguity due to phrase structure, that is the noun combining in other words in the group of words. There are five types of noun phrases found in Indonesian language that have double meanings with noun as the core of the phrase

Typological parameters of genericity

Different languages employ different morphosyntactic devices for expressing genericity. And, of course, they also make use of different morphosyntactic and semantic or pragmatic cues which may contribute to the interpretation of a sentence as generic rather than episodic. [...] We will advance the strong hypo thesis that it is a fundamental property of lexical elements in natural language that they are neutral with respect to different modes of reference or non-reference. That is, we reject the idea that a certain use of a lexical element, e.g. a use which allows reference to particular spatio-temporally bounded objects in the world, should be linguistically prior to all other possible uses, e.g. to generic and non-specific uses. From this it follows that we do not consider generic uses as derived from non-generic uses as it is occasionally assumed in the literature. Rather, we regard these two possibilities of use as equivalent alternative uses of lexical elements. The typological differences to be noted therefore concern the formal and semantic relationship of generic and non-generic uses to each other; they do not pertain to the question of whether lexical elements are predetermined for one of these two uses. Even supposing we found a language where generic uses are always zero-marked and identical to lexical sterns, we would still not assume that lexical elements in this language primarily have a generic use from which the non-generic uses are derived. (Incidentally, none of the languages examined, not even Vietnamese, meets this criterion.

A MT System from Turkmen to Turkish employing finite state and statistical methods

In this work, we present a MT system from Turkmen to Turkish. Our system exploits the similarity of the languages by using a modified version of direct translation method. However, the complex inflectional and derivational morphology of the Turkic languages necessitate special treatment for word-by-word translation model. We also employ morphology-aware multi-word processing and statistical disambiguation processes in our system. We believe that this approach is valid for most of the Turkic languages and the architecture implemented using FSTs can be easily extended to those languages

Notions and subnotions in information structure

Three dimensions can be distinguished in a cross-linguistic account of information structure. First, there is the definition of the focus constituent, the part of the linguistic expression which is subject to some focus meaning. Second and third, there are the focus meanings and the array of structural devices that encode them. In a given language, the expression of focus is facilitated as well as constrained by the grammar within which the focus devices operate. The prevalence of focus ambiguity, the structural inability to make focus distinctions, will thus vary across languages, and within a language, across focus meanings

Morphological focus marking in Gùrùntùm (West Chadic)

The paper presents an in-depth study of focus marking in Gùrùntùm, a West Ch adic language spoken in Bauchi Province of Northern Nigeria. Focus in Gùrùntùm is marked morphologically by means of a focus marker a, which typically precedes the focus constituent. Even though the morphological focus-marking system of Gùrùntùm allows for a lot of fine-grained distinctions in information structure (IS) in principle, the language is not entirely free of focus ambiguities that arise as the result of conflicting IS- and syntactic requirements that govern the placement of focus markers. We show that morphological focus marking with a applies across different types of focus, such as newinformation, contrastive, selective and corrective focus, and that a does not have a second function as a perfectivity marker, as is assumed in the literature. In contrast, we show at the end of the paper that a can also function as a foregrounding device at the level of discourse structure