Referential choice in spoken and written stories: A comparative study based on the corpus “Funny life stories”

Мұқаба

Дәйексөз келтіру

Толық мәтін

Ашық рұқсат Ашық рұқсат
Рұқсат жабық Рұқсат берілді
Рұқсат жабық Тек жазылушылар үшін

Аннотация

The study is concerned with referential choice in spoken and written discourse in the Russian language. I consider referential choice to consist in a threefold opposition between full noun phrases, pronouns, and zero noun phrases. The study is based on discourses each of which was presented by its narrator twice, namely in the spoken and written forms. In each story, all the noun phrases were identified and described according to 29 parameters. I trained logistic regression models and decision trees on the collected samples and analyzed factor importance diagrams built on the basis of the decision trees. The interpretation of the models and diagrams shows that some factors have different impact on referential choice in spoken and written discourses, for instance, grammatical role, semantic hyperrole and sloppy identity between the anaphor and the antecedent. Besides, the models also demonstrate that the sets of significant factors for the two samples are not identical: in particular, the referent’s animacy and the anaphor’s semantic hyperrole are present solely in the decision tree for written discourse.

Негізгі сөздер

Толық мәтін

Рұқсат жабық

Авторлар туралы

Marina Shumilina

Lomonosov Moscow State University; Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences

Хат алмасуға жауапты Автор.
Email: mari.an.shum@iling-ran.ru
Ресей, Moscow; Moscow

Әдебиет тізімі

  1. Буденная 2018 — Буденная Е. В. Эволюция субъектной референции в языках балтийского ареала. Дис. … канд. филол. наук. М.: ИЯз РАН, 2018. [Budennaya E. V. Evolyutsiya sub’’ektnoi referentsii v yazykakh baltiiskogo areala [Evolution of subject reference in languages of Baltic sprachbund]. Candidate diss. Moscow: Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2018.]
  2. Ефимова 2006 — Ефимова З. В. Референциальная структура нарратива в японском языке (в сопоставлении с русским). Дис. … канд. филол. наук. М.: РГГУ, 2006. [Efimova Z. V. Referentsial’naya struktura narrativa v yaponskom yazyke (v sopostavlenii s russkim) [Referential structure of Japanese narrative (in comparison with Russian)]. Candidate diss. Moscow: Russian State Univ. for the Humanities, 2006.]
  3. Залманов, А. А. Кибрик 2023 — Залманов Д. А., Кибрик А. А. Уровень активации и специальные ограничения при математическом моделировании референциального выбора. Язык и искусственный интеллект: Сб. ст. по итогам конф. «Лингвистический форум 2020: Язык и искусственный интеллект», Москва, 12–14 ноября 2020 г. Вдовиченко А. В. (ред.). М.: Языки славянских культур, 2023, 142–166. [Zalmanov D. A., Kibrik A. A. Activation level and special constraints in referential choice computational modeling. Yazyk i iskusstvennyi intellect. Coll. of papers from the conf. “Lingvisticheskii forum 2020: Yazyk i iskusstvennyi intellekt”, Moscow, November 12–14, 2020. Vdovichenko A. V. (ed.). Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskikh kul’tur, 2023, 142–166.]
  4. А. А. Кибрик 1997 — Кибрик А. А. Моделирование многофакторного процесса: выбор референциального средства в русском дискурсе. Вестник Московского университета. Сер. 9: Филология, 1997, 4: 94–105. [Kibrik A. A. Multifactorial process modeling: Choosing referential devices in Russian discourse. Lomonosov Philology Journal, 1997, 4: 94–105.]
  5. А. А. Кибрик и др. 2009а — Кибрик А. А., Подлесская В. И., Коротаев Н. А. Структура устного дискурса: основные элементы и канонические явления. Рассказы о сновидениях: корпусное исследование устного русского дискурса. Кибрик А. А., Подлесская В. И. (ред.). М.: Языки славянских культур, 2009, 55–101. [Kibrik A. A., Podlesskaya V. I., Korotaev N. A. Spoken discourse structure: Main elements and canonical phenomena. Rasskazy o snovideniyakh: korpusnoe issledovanie ustnogo russkogo diskursa. Kibrik A. A., Podlesskaya V. I. (eds.). Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskikh kul’tur, 2009, 55–101.]
  6. А. А. Кибрик и др. 2009б — Кибрик А. А., Подлесская В. И., Коротаев Н. А. Неканонические явления. Рассказы о сновидениях: корпусное исследование устного русского дискурса. Кибрик А. А., Подлесская В. И. (ред.). М.: Языки славянских культур, 2009, 102–176. [Kibrik A. A., Podlesskaya V. I., Korotaev N. A. Non-canonical phenomena. Rasskazy o snovideniyakh: korpusnoe issledovanie ustnogo russkogo diskursa. Kibrik A. A., Podlesskaya V. I. (eds.). Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskikh kul’tur, 2009, 102–176.]
  7. Литвиненко и др. 2009 — Литвиненко А. О., Подлесская В. И., Кибрик А. А. Анализ рассказов о сновидениях с точки зрения иерархической структуры дискурса. Рассказы о сновидениях: корпусное исследование устного русского дискурса. Кибрик А. А., Подлесская В. И. (ред.). М.: Языки славянских культур, 2009, 431–463. [Litvinenko A. O., Podlesskaya V. I., Kibrik A. A. Dream stories analysis from the point of hierarchical discourse structure. Rasskazy o snovideniyakh: korpusnoe issledovanie ustnogo russkogo diskursa. Kibrik A. A., Podlesskaya V. I. (eds.). Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskikh kul’tur, 2009, 431–463.]
  8. Чейф 1982 — Чейф У. Данное, контрастивность, определенность, подлежащее, топики и точка зрения. Новое в зарубежной лингвистике. Кибрик А. Е. (ред.). М.: Прогресс, 1982, 277–316. [Chafe W. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. Novoe v zarubezhnoi lingvistike. Kibrik A. E. (ed.). Moscow: Progress, 1982, 277–316.]
  9. Ariel 1990 — Ariel M. Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge, 1990.
  10. Arnold 2008 — Arnold J. E. Reference production: Production-internal and addressee-oriented processes. Language and Cognitive Processes, 2008, 23: 495–527.
  11. Carlson et al. 2003 — Carlson L., Marcu D., Okurowski M. E. Building a discourse-tagged corpus in the framework of rhetorical structure theory. Current and new directions in discourse and dialogue. van Kuppevelt J., Smith R. (eds.). Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2003, 85–112.
  12. Chafe 1994 — Chafe W. Discourse, consciousness, and time. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1994.
  13. Dahl 1973 — Dahl Ö. On so-called “sloppy identity”. Synthese, 1973, 26: 81–112.
  14. Fahnestock 2003 — Fahnestock J. Verbal and visual parallelism. Written Communication, 2003, 20(2): 123–152.
  15. Fillmore 1968 — Fillmore C. The case for case. Universals of linguistic theory. Bach E., Harms R. T. (eds.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1968, 1–88.
  16. Fox 1995 — Fox B. Discourse structure and anaphora: Written and conversational English. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1995.
  17. Grosz et al. 1986 — Grosz B., Weinstein S., Joshi A. Centering: A framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 1986, 12(3): 175–204.
  18. Gundel et al. 1993 — Gundel J. K., Hedberg N., Zacharski R. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 1993, 69: 274–307.
  19. A. Kibrik 1996 — Kibrik A. A. Anaphora in Russian narrative prose: A cognitive calculative account. Studies in anaphora. Fox B. (ed.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1996, 255–303.
  20. E. Kibrik 1997 — Kibrik A. E. Beyond subject and object: Toward a comprehensive relational typology. Linguistic Typology, 1997, 1(3): 279–346.
  21. A. Kibrik 2011 — Kibrik A. A. Reference in discourse. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2011.
  22. A. Kibrik, Krasavina 2005 — Kibrik A. A., Krasavina O. N. A corpus study of referential choice: The role of rhetorical structure. Computational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies: Papers from the Annual International Conference “Dialogue”, 2005, 4: 561–569.
  23. Loukachevitch et al. 2011 — Loukachevitch N. V., Dobrov G. B., Kibrik A. A., Khudyakova M. V., Linnik A. S. Factors of referential choice: computational modeling. Computational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies: Papers from the Annual International Conf. “Dialogue”, 2011, 10: 518–528.
  24. Mann, Thompson 1987 — Mann W. C., Thompson S. A. Rhetorical structure theory: A theory of text organization. Los Angeles: Univ. of Southern California, 1987.
  25. Molnar 2022 — Molnar C. Interpretable machine learning. A guide for making black box models explainable. 2022. https://christophm.github.io/interpretable-ml-book/.
  26. Podlesskaya 2010 — Podlesskaya V. I. Parameters for typological variation of placeholders. Fillers, pauses and placeholders. Amiridze N., Davis B., Maclagan M. (eds.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2010, 11–32.
  27. Rosa, Arnold 2017 — Rosa E. C., Arnold J. E. Predictability affects production: Thematic roles can affect reference form selection. Journal of Memory and Language, 2017, 94: 43–60.
  28. Same, van Deemter 2020 — Same F., van Deemter K. A linguistic perspective on reference: Choosing a feature set for generating referring expressions in context. Proc. of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Scott D., Bel N., Zong C. Barcelona: International Committee on Computational Linguistics, 2020, 4575–4586.
  29. Strube, Wolters 2002 — Strube M., Wolters M. A Probabilistic genre-independent model of pronominalization. Proc. of the 1st North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics Conference. Stroudsburg: Association for Computational Linguistics, 2002, 18–25.
  30. van Vliet 2012 — van Vliet S. Proper nouns and pronouns: The production of referential expressions in narrative discourse. Utrecht: LOT, 2012.
  31. Zalmanov, Kibrik 2021 — Zalmanov D. A., Kibrik A. A. Short definite descriptions and referent activation. Advances in cognitive research, artificial intelligence and neuroinformatics. Velichkovsky B. M., Balaban P. M., Ushakov V. L. (eds.). Cham: Springer, 2021, 284–292.

Қосымша файлдар

Қосымша файлдар
Әрекет
1. JATS XML
Жүктеу
2. Fig. 1. Classification of nominal groups

Жүктеу (119KB)
Метадеректер
3. Fig. 2. An example of a rhetorical structure (part of the story No. 7sp)

Жүктеу (66KB)
Метадеректер
4. Fig. 3. The use of the rhetorical relation "Insert" (designated as "INSERT", connects EDS 9, 10 and 11) in the fragment of the story No. 7wr

Жүктеу (50KB)
Метадеректер
5. Fig. 4. Fragment of story No. 2sp using the "Search" relationship (connects EDE 97, 98 and group 99-101)

Жүктеу (39KB)
Метадеректер
6. Fig. 5. The classical tree of the rhetorical structure

Жүктеу (87KB)
Метадеректер
7. Fig. 6. Decision tree for the written mode

Жүктеу (115KB)
Метадеректер
8. Fig. 7. Decision tree for the oral mode

Жүктеу (125KB)
Метадеректер
9. Fig. 8. VIP for the written mode

Жүктеу (118KB)
Метадеректер
10. Fig. 9. VIP for the oral mode

Жүктеу (122KB)
Метадеректер

© Russian Academy of Sciences, 2024