The Experts below are selected from a list of 3096 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Jacqueline Leybaert - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
children with autism understand indirect speech acts evidence from a semi structured act out task
2015Co-Authors: Mikhail Kissine, Julie Canochervel, Philippe De Brabanter, Lesley Ducenne, Marie Charlotte Pairon, Nicolas Deconinck, Veronique Delvenne, Sophie Carlier, Jacqueline LeybaertAbstract:Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder are often said to present a global pragmatic impairment. However, there is some observational evidence that context-based comprehension of indirect requests may be preserved in autism. In order to provide experimental confirmation to this hypothesis, indirect speech act comprehension was tested in a group of 15 children with autism between 7 and 12 years and a group of 20 typically developing children between 2:7 and 3:6 years. The aim of the study was to determine whether children with autism can display genuinely contextual understanding of indirect requests. The experiment consisted of a three-pronged semi-structured task involving Mr Potato Head. In the first phase a Declarative Sentence was uttered by one adult as an instruction to put a garment on a Mr Potato Head toy; in the second the same Sentence was uttered as a comment on a picture by another speaker; in the third phase the same Sentence was uttered as a comment on a picture by the first speaker. Children with autism complied with the indirect request in the first phase and demonstrated the capacity to inhibit the directive interpretation in phases 2 and 3. TD children had some difficulty in understanding the indirect instruction in phase 1. These results call for a more nuanced view of pragmatic dysfunction in autism.
Heldner Christina - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Le rôle de la sémantique dans l’interprétation de aucun
2012Co-Authors: Heldner ChristinaAbstract:Les syntagmes nominaux déterminés par l'indéfini AUCUN – que l'on peut envisager comme un quantificateur existentiel intégré dans le champ de la négation – reçoivent deux interprétations distinctes, surtout en position de sujet, suivant qu'ils apparaissent dans un énoncé déclaratif ou existentiel.Une lecture non référentielle s'impose en proposition existentielle, où ces SN contribuent à asserter la non existence ou l'absence d'objets (ou de substances ou d'ensembles d'objets) de la catégorie désignées par le nom tête. L'énoncé Dans cette région, il n'y a aucune classe maternelle de plus de quatorze enfants en constitue un exemple caractéristique.Dans des énoncés déclaratifs, comme Aucune maison n'a été épargnée, ce quantificateur négatif opère sur un sous-ensemble fini et spécifique d'objets de la catégorie dénotée par la tête nominale (c'est-à-dire maisons). L'existence de ce sous-ensemble étant présupposée, cette lecture est qualifiée de référentielle.Le problème traité dans cet article est celui d'identifier les facteurs responsables de la sélection de l'une ou de l'autre lecture. En fait, il n'existe pas de critère formel simple permettant de décider si un énoncé donné doit s'analyser comme déclaratif ou existentiel, sauf quand celui-ci fait intervenir une construction impersonnelle comme il y a. L'approche adoptée ici consiste à explorer les possibilités d'une analyse purement sémantique cantonnée dans la phrase. Une éventuelle analyse pragmatique interviendra à un stade ultérieur pour rendre compte des cas demeurés ambigus au niveau phrastique. Un examen des données fournies par un corpus informatisé a donné les résultats suivants :Un SN déterminé par AUCUN et sujet d'un verbe passif accepte seulement la lecture non référentielle, lorsqu'il a un nom tête syncatégorématique marqué [abstrait] et qu'il s'accompagne d'un verbe support. Quant aux SN en AUCUN sujets d'un verbe existentiel, ils manifestent une forte tendance à recevoir une interprétation non référentielle. En revanche, la lecture référentielle s'impose dès que le nom tête du SN sujet est catégorématique et marqué [animé] ou [concret] et que la structure sémantique du verbe est suffisamment riche pour lui assurer une certaine autonomie. En combinant un verbe qui impose peu de contraintes sémantiques à son sujet – ou aucune – à un SN sujet dénotant un référent concret ou animé, on obtiendra souvent une phase ambiguë, dont l'ambiguïté ne sera levée que par une prise en compte de facteurs discursifs ou pragmatiques.This study is concerned with the interpretation of French noun phrases containing an instance of the indefinite determiner AUCUN, which may be seen as existential quantifier in the scope of negation. Such noun phrases give rise to two distinct readings according as they appear in existential or Declarative Sentences, particularly in the subject position.In existential propositions an NP of the structure AUCUN N is used to asset the non existence of entities, substances, or sets of the category denoted by N relative to a specific location in time and space, as in Dans cette région, il n'y a aucune classe maternelle de plus de quatorze enfants. This reading of AUCUN N is being refused to as non referential.In a Declarative Sentence like Aucune maison n'a été épargnée, the negative quantifier operates on a finite, specific subset of entities of the category N (i. e. maisons), the existence of which is presupposed. It is asserted that the action, process, or state denoted by the verb does not hold for any of the members of this subset. This reading is claimed to be referential.The question addressed here is that of identifying the factors which determine the interpretation of an actual utterance. In fact, ther exist no simple formal criteria for deciding whether a given utterance containing a noun phrase of this structure should be analysed as Declarative rather than existential, except where an explicit use of an impersonal construction such as il y a is involved. This problem must clearly be solved in order for a parser to work out valid inferences from this type of Sentences. My approach is exclusively semantic, but an analysis along pragmatic lines may prove necessary in the end to account for certain cases. An analysis of the data obtained from a computer readable corpus yields the following results.A non referential reading is alone available for a subject NP of the type AUCUN N inpassivized Sentences, if its head noun features the properties abstract and syncategorematic, and if it takes a verb which typically collocates with this noun (a « support » verb). Furthermore, there is a strong tendency for any subject NP containing AUCUN to be interpreted non referentially when combined with an intransitive existential verb, although a referential reading is shown not to be entirely excluded. On the other hand, the referential reading obtains whenever the nominal head of the subject NP is categorematic and subcategorized animate or concrete and combines with a verb whose semantic structure is sufficiently rich to gurarantee its autonomy. The combination of a verb, which imposes few semantic constraints on its subject – or none – and a subject NP denoting a concrete or animate referent, tends to produce an ambiguous Sentence, which may only be disambiguated by taking pragmatic factors into account
-
Le rôle de la sémantique dans l'interprétation de aucun
1994Co-Authors: Heldner ChristinaAbstract:This study is concerned with the interpretation of French noun phrases containing an instance of the indefinite determiner AUCUN, which may be seen as existential quantifier in the scope of negation. Such noun phrases give rise to two distinct readings according as they appear in existential or Declarative Sentences, particularly in the subject position. In existential propositions an NP of the structure AUCUN N is used to asset the non existence of entities, substances, or sets of the category denoted by N relative to a specific location in time and space, as in Dans cette région, il n'y a aucune classe maternelle de plus de quatorze enfants. This reading of AUCUN N is being refused to as non referential. In a Declarative Sentence like Aucune maison n'a été épargnée, the negative quantifier operates on a finite, specific subset of entities of the category N (i. e. maisons), the existence of which is presupposed. It is asserted that the action, process, or state denoted by the verb does not hold for any of the members of this subset. This reading is claimed to be referential. The question addressed here is that of identifying the factors which determine the interpretation of an actual utterance. In fact, ther exist no simple formal criteria for deciding whether a given utterance containing a noun phrase of this structure should be analysed as Declarative rather than existential, except where an explicit use of an impersonal construction such as il y a is involved. This problem must dearly be solved in order for a parser to work out valid inferences from this type of Sentences. My approach is exclusively semantic, but an analysis along pragmatic lines may prove necessary in the end to account for certain cases. An analysis of the data obtained from a computer readable corpus yields the following results. A non referential reading is alone available for a subject NP of the type AUCUN N inpassivized Sentences, if its head noun features the properties abstract and syncategorematic, and if it takes a verb which typically collocates with this noun (a "support" verb). Furthermore, there is a strong tendency for any subject NP containing AUCUN to be interpreted non referentially when combined with an intransitive existential verb, although a referential reading is shown not to be entirely excluded. On the other hand, the referential reading obtains whenever the nominal head of the subject NP is categorematic and subcategorized animate or concrete and combines with a verb whose semantic structure is sufficiently rich to gurarantee its autonomy. The combination of a verb, which imposes few semantic constraints on its subject - or none - and a subject NP denoting a concrete or animate referent, tends to produce an ambiguous Sentence, which may only be disambiguated by taking pragmatic factors into account.Les syntagmes nominaux déterminés par l'indéfini AUCUN - que l'on peut envisager comme un quantificateur existentiel intégré dans le champ de la négation - reçoivent deux interprétations distinctes, surtout en position de sujet, suivant qu'ils apparaissent dans un énoncé déclaratif ou existentiel. Une lecture non référentielle s'impose en proposition existentielle, où ces SN contribuent à asserter la non existence ou l'absence d'objets (ou de substances ou d'ensembles d'objets) de la catégorie désignées par le nom tête. L'énoncé Dans cette région, il n'y a aucune classe maternelle de plus de quatorze enfants en constitue un exemple caractéristique. Dans des énoncés déclaratifs, comme Aucune maison n'a été épargnée, ce quantificateur négatif opère sur un sous-ensemble fini et spécifique d'objets de la catégorie dénotée par la tête nominale (c'est-à- dire maisons). L'existence de ce sous-ensemble étant présupposée, cette lecture est qualifiée de référentielle. Le problème traité dans cet article est celui d'identifier les facteurs responsables de la sélection de l'une ou de l'autre lecture. En fait, il n'existe pas de critère formel simple permettant de décider si un énoncé donné doit s'analyser comme déclaratif ou existentiel, sauf quand celui- ci fait intervenir une construction impersonnelle comme il y a. L'approche adoptée ici consiste à explorer les possibilités d'une analyse purement sémantique cantonnée dans la phrase. Une éventuelle analyse pragmatique interviendra à un stade ultérieur pour rendre compte des cas demeurés ambigus au niveau phrastique. Un examen des données fournies par un corpus informatisé a donné les résultats suivants : Un SN déterminé par AUCUN et sujet d'un verbe passif accepte seulement la lecture non référentielle, lorsqu'il a un nom tête syncatégorématique marqué [abstrait] et qu'il s'accompagne d'un verbe support. Quant aux SN en AUCUN sujets d'un verbe existentiel, ils manifestent une forte tendance à recevoir une interprétation non référentielle. En revanche, la lecture référentielle s'impose dès que le nom tête du SN sujet est catégorématique et marqué [animé] ou [concret] et que la structure sémantique du verbe est suffisamment riche pour lui assurer une certaine autonomie. En combinant un verbe qui impose peu de contraintes sémantiques à son sujet - ou aucune - à un SN sujet dénotant un réfèrent concret ou animé, on obtiendra souvent une phase ambiguë, dont l'ambiguïté ne sera levée que par une prise en compte de facteurs discursifs ou pragmatiques.Heldner Christina. Le rôle de la sémantique dans l'interprétation de aucun. In: Linx, hors-série n°5, 1994. La négation. Actes du colloque de Paris X – Nanterre 12-13-14 Novembre 1992. pp. 255-278
Mikhail Kissine - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
children with autism understand indirect speech acts evidence from a semi structured act out task
2015Co-Authors: Mikhail Kissine, Julie Canochervel, Philippe De Brabanter, Lesley Ducenne, Marie Charlotte Pairon, Nicolas Deconinck, Veronique Delvenne, Sophie Carlier, Jacqueline LeybaertAbstract:Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder are often said to present a global pragmatic impairment. However, there is some observational evidence that context-based comprehension of indirect requests may be preserved in autism. In order to provide experimental confirmation to this hypothesis, indirect speech act comprehension was tested in a group of 15 children with autism between 7 and 12 years and a group of 20 typically developing children between 2:7 and 3:6 years. The aim of the study was to determine whether children with autism can display genuinely contextual understanding of indirect requests. The experiment consisted of a three-pronged semi-structured task involving Mr Potato Head. In the first phase a Declarative Sentence was uttered by one adult as an instruction to put a garment on a Mr Potato Head toy; in the second the same Sentence was uttered as a comment on a picture by another speaker; in the third phase the same Sentence was uttered as a comment on a picture by the first speaker. Children with autism complied with the indirect request in the first phase and demonstrated the capacity to inhibit the directive interpretation in phases 2 and 3. TD children had some difficulty in understanding the indirect instruction in phase 1. These results call for a more nuanced view of pragmatic dysfunction in autism.
Kamhoi Cheng - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
recognizing the effects caused by an action in a Declarative Sentence
2009Co-Authors: Eunjeong Ahn, Waleed Faris, Kamhoi ChengAbstract:An important requirement for any artificial intelligence program is its capability to understand what has been communicated to it. How does the program recognize all the potential effects when it is given a Declarative Sentence involving an action? There are three major bodies of knowledge that need to be learned. The first body of knowledge is the English grammar. The second body of knowledge involves each individual action. The last body of knowledge acts as a bridge between the English grammar and actions. This knowledge teaches the program how to use the learned grammar to express a thought about an action. In this paper, our program uses this knowledge to understand the intention of a given Declarative Sentence that uses an action verb. We will discuss what is involved in the learning for each of these bodies of knowledge and illustrate how to use them to understand a given Sentence. Specifically, we discuss in detail on how the effects caused by an action referenced in a Declarative Sentence are recognized. Understanding the intention of a Sentence, especially a Sentence involving cause and effects, is an important first step for a program to perform logical reasoning. Object-Oriented paradigm is used to analyze the problem and design the solution attacking the problem.
-
Understanding and executing a Declarative Sentence involving a forms-of-be verb
2009Co-Authors: Waleed Faris, Kamhoi ChengAbstract:An important criterion for any artificial intelligence program is its capability to communicate with the external world. One common form of communication is by the use of a natural language, specifically English. When provided a Sentence, it is important for the program to understand the intention of the given Sentence, which is a significant first step for a program to perform logical reasoning. In this paper, we discuss two components of the grammar that affects the understanding of a Sentence: role and control. These two components represent the knowledge that teaches how to use the language to express a thought. We describe in detail what needs to be learned for each of these components for three major grammar terms: noun phrase, Declarative Sentence, and forms-of-be verb. We then show how to use them to create a Declarative thought corresponding to a given Declarative Sentence that uses a forms-of-be verb. Finally, we show what needs to be learned by the program so that the Declarative thought can be understood precisely based on the exact subject and predicate in the given Sentence. Object-Oriented paradigm is used to analyze the problem and design the solution to attack the problem.
Wiranegara, Dian Arsitades - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The intended meaning of humor acts in “The Born Loser”
2019Co-Authors: Wiranegara, Dian ArsitadesAbstract:This study investigated the intended meaning of humour act produced by the characters in “The Born Loser”. It deals with the production of the utterances as well as the semantic process of how the humour considered funny based of the text and picture appeared in the comic strips. There are four problems discussed in this study, namely: (1) What are the kinds of humour acts produced by the characters in “the Born Loser” (2) How are the semantic mechanisms of humour acts produced by the characters in “the Born Loser” (3) What kinds of visual images appeared in “the Born Loser” and (4) Why are the humour acts used by the characters in “The Born Loser”. After analysing the data, the researcher finds out that the comic strips use the linguistic forms. In the linguistic form, there is speech act analysis that focused on locution, illocution, and perlocution. In performing locution, the characters use three types of Sentences. They are, Declarative, interrogative, and imperative. They aim to make a certain effect of the utterances. In addition, he also finds out that the meanings of the utterance do not depend on the form of the Sentences. It can be inferred that in uttering a Declarative Sentence is not always in the form of statement, an interrogative is not always a question, and an imperative is not always a command. While for verdictive and declaration did not appear in the comic strip because the story is about people’s pleasure in laughing at someone else’s mistake. For this reason, both verdictive and declaration are not performed since the characters have not got the authority to change the condition through their utterances
-
The intended meaning of humor act in "The Born Loser"
2019Co-Authors: Wiranegara, Dian ArsitadesAbstract:This study investigated the intended meaning of humour act produced by the characters in “The Born Loser”. It deals with the production of the utterances as well as the semantic process of how the humour considered funny based of the text and picture appeared in the comic strips. There are four problems discussed in this study, namely: (1) What are the kinds of humour acts produced by the characters in “the Born Loser” (2) How are the semantic mechanisms of humour acts produced by the characters in “the Born Loser” (3) What kinds of visual images appeared in “the Born Loser” and (4) Why are the humour acts used by the characters in “The Born Loser”. After analysing the data, the researcher finds out that the comic strips use the linguistic forms. In the linguistic form, there is speech act analysis that focused on locution, illocution, and perlocution. In performing locution, the characters use three types of Sentences. They are, Declarative, interrogative, and imperative. They aim to make a certain effect of the utterances. In addition, he also finds out that the meanings of the utterance do not depend on the form of the Sentences. It can be inferred that in uttering a Declarative Sentence is not always in the form of statement, an interrogative is not always a question, and an imperative is not always a command. While for verdictive and declaration did not appear in the comic strip because the story is about people’s pleasure in laughing at someone else’s mistake. For this reason, both verdictive and declaration are not performed since the characters have not got the authority to change the condition through their utterances
