Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Pragmatic Level of OntoLingAnnot’s Ontologies and Their Use in Pragmatic Annotation for Language Teaching

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Languages for Specific Purposes in the Digital Era

Part of the book series: Educational Linguistics ((EDUL,volume 19))

  • 1865 Accesses

Abstract

Recently, linguists have shown great interest in the study of Pragmatics and its associated phenomena, in an attempt to capture the information that is being communicated in a discourse and/or exchanged in a dialogue, especially when this information is not being explicitly stated. With this aim, a pragmatic annotation level has been included in the OntoLingAnnot annotation framework, and the corresponding pragmatic knowledge has been formalized into the linguistic ontologies of this framework. This chapter presents the different units, values, attributes and relations that constitute the pragmatic level of these ontologies, which have been devised for the annotation of dialogues and texts in different contexts (e.g., the development of corpora or language teaching).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Declarative was originally referred to as Declarative in Searle (1975) and lately determined by Yule (1996) for coherence reasons.

  2. 2.

    Anthimeria is defined in SIL (2013) as the use of a member of one word class (‘hair’ in the example above, which is a noun) as if it were a member of another, thus altering its meaning.

  3. 3.

    Meiosis can be defined as the minimization of the importance of a referent by the use of an expression that is disproportionate to it (SIL 2013).

  4. 4.

    This attributes and the sub-hierarchy hanging below it can simply be ignored if the material being annotated relates to oral discourse. The Markedness of oral discourse can be better handled by means of Common Markedness attributes and also, to some extent, by means of ERUs.

  5. 5.

    As opposed to (1) BALD_ON_RECORD speech acts, which are usually realised by means of an imperative form; and to (2) OFF_RECORD speech acts, which address the interlocutor indirectly.

  6. 6.

    Referred to as Interpersonal Coherence Relation in Hovy and Maier (1995) and as Participation Framework Relation in Schiffrin (1987) and in Romera (2004).

  7. 7.

    Extracted from the taxonomy included in Hovy and Maier (1995).

  8. 8.

    http://www.isocat.org

  9. 9.

    http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/~ajay/html/cresearch.html

  10. 10.

    Developed by the ATLAS research group (http://portal.uned.es/portal/page?_pageid=93,8842771&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&idContenido=3).

References

  • Asher, Nicholas, and Alex Lascarides. 2003. Logics of conversation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borst, Willem N. 1997. Construction of engineering ontologies. Ph.D. thesis, University of Twente, Enschede.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buitelaar, Paul, Philipp Cimiano, Peter Haase, and Michael Sintek. 2009. Towards linguistically grounded ontologies. In The semantic web: Research and applications (Lecture notes in computer science, Vol. 5554/2009). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buyko, Ekaterina, Christian Chiarcos, and Antonio Pareja-Lora. 2008. Ontology-based interface specifications for an NLP pipeline architecture. In Proceedings of LREC 2008, Marrakech, May 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiarcos, Christian. 2008. An ontology of linguistic annotations. LDV Forum (GLDV-Journal for Computational Linguistics and Language Technology) 23(1): 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crystal, David. 1992. A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics, 3rd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrar, Scott. 2007. Using ‘Ontolinguistics’ for language description. In Ontolinguistics: How ontolinguistic status shapes the linguistic coding of concepts, ed. Andrea C. Schalley and Dietmar Zaefferer. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrar, Scott, and John A. Bateman. 2005. OntoSpace project reports – Deliverable D3 – Linguistic ontology baseline. University of Bremen, Germany. http://www.ontospace.uni-bremen.de/pub/FarrarBateman05-i1-d3.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2013.

  • GOLD. 2013. http://linguistics-ontology.org/. Accessed 15 June 2013.

  • Grice, Herbert P. 1975 (1989). Logic and conversation. Ibid. Reprinted in studies in the way of words, ed. H.P. Grice, 22–40. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruber, Thomas R. 1993. A translation approach to portable ontologies. Journal on Knowledge Acquisition 5(2): 199–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hovy, Eduard, and Elisabeth Maier. 1995. Parsimonious or profligate: How many and which discourse structure relations? http://www.isi.edu/natural-language/people/hovy/papers/93discproc.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2013.

  • International Organization for Standardization. 2008. ISO/DIS 24611. Language resource management – Morpho-syntactic annotation framework (MAF).

    Google Scholar 

  • International Organization for Standardization. 2009a. ISO/DIS 24612. Language resource management – Linguistic annotation framework (LAF).

    Google Scholar 

  • International Organization for Standardization. 2009b. ISO/DIS 24617-1. Language resource management – Semantic annotation framework (SemAF) – Part 1: Time & events.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Organization for Standardization. 2010a. ISO/DIS 24617-2. Language resource management – Semantic annotation framework (SemAF) – Part 2: Dialogue acts.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Organization for Standardization. 2010b. ISO/PWI 24617-5. Language resource management – Semantic annotation framework (SemAF) – Discourse structures.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Organization for Standardization. 2010c. ISO/PWI 24617-6. Language resource management – Semantic annotation framework (SemAF) – Static spatial information.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Organization for Standardization. 2010d. ISO/FDIS 24615. Language resource management – Syntactic annotation framework (SynAF).

    Google Scholar 

  • Java, Akshay, Sergei Nirenburg, Marjorie McShane, Tim Finin, Jesse English, and Anupam Joshi. 2007. Using a natural language understanding system to generate semantic web content. International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems 3(4): 50–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemps-Snijders, M., M. Windhouwer, P. Wittenburg, and S.E. Wright. 2009. ISOCat: Remodelling metadata for language resources. International Journal of Metadata, Semantics and Ontologies 4(4): 261–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahesh, Kavi, and Sergei Nirenburg. 1995. A situated ontology for practical NLP. In Proceedings of the workshop on basic ontological issues in knowledge sharing, International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-95), Montreal, August 1995.

  • Mairal Usón, Ricardo, and Pamela Faber. 1999. Constructing a Lexicon of English verbs. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mairal Usón, Ricardo, and Periñán Pascual José Carlos. 2009. The anatomy of the lexicon within the framework of an NLP knowledge base. RESLA: Revista española de lingüística aplicada 22: 217–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martín Arista, Javier, Elisa González Torres, Laura Caballero González, and Beatriz Martínez Fernández. 2002. Markedness and the hierarchy of subject prototypicality. Revista Electrónica de Lingüística Aplicada (RAEL) 15: 93–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montalvo-Martínez, Martín. 2009. OntoLing Annotizer: Una herramienta de ayuda a la anotación. M.Sc. thesis, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid.

    Google Scholar 

  • OALD. 2006. Oxford advanced Learners’ dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • OntoNotes. 2013. http://www.bbn.com/ontonotes/. Accessed 15 June 2013.

  • Pareja-Lora, Antonio, Guadalupe Aguado de Cea. 2010. Modelling discourse-Related terminology in OntoLingAnnot’s ontologies. In Proceedings of the TKE 2010 workshop “Establishing and using ontologies as a basis for terminological and knowledge engineering resources”, Dublin, Aug 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prévot, Laurent. 2004. Structures sémantiques et pragmatiques pour la modélisation de la cohérence dans des dialogues finalisés. Thèse de doctorat de l'université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roget, Peter M. 1852 (1962, 1982). Roget's thesaurus. In Burnt mill, ed. Susan M. Lloyd. Harlow: Longman Group Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romera, Magdalena. 2004. Discourse functional units: The expression of coherence relations in spoken Spanish. Munich: LINCOM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schalley, Andrea C., and Dietmar Zaefferer. 2007. Ontolinguistics – An outline. In Ontolinguistics: How ontolinguistic status shapes the linguistic coding of concepts, ed. Andrea C. Schalley and Dietmar Zaefferer. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Searle, John. 1975. Indirect speech acts. In Syntax and semantics, 3: Speech acts, ed. P. Cole and J.L. Morgan, 59–82. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • SIL. 2013. Glossary of linguistic terms, eds. Eugene E. Loos, Susan Anderson, Dwight H. Day (Jr.), Paul C. Jordan, and J. Douglas Wingate. http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/. Accessed 15 June 2013.

  • van Dijk, Teun. A. (ed.). 1997. Discourse studies, 2 vols. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yule, George. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departamento de Sistemas Informáticos y Computación/ATLAS, Universidad Complutense de Madrid/UNED, Madrid, Spain

    Antonio Pareja-Lora

Authors
  1. Antonio Pareja-Lora
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antonio Pareja-Lora .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Departamento de Filologías Extranjeras y sus Lingüísticas, Univesidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, Madrid, Spain

    Elena Bárcena

  2. Departamento de Lenguajes y Sistemas Informáticos, Univesidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, Madrid, Spain

    Timothy Read

  3. Departamento de Filología Inglesa I, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Jorge Arús

Appendix: List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

Appendix: List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

CALL:

Computer-Assisted Language Learning

ERU:

Emphasis-Related Unit

ICALL:

Intelligent Computer-Assisted Language Learning

IO:

Integration Ontology

LAO:

Linguistic Attribute Ontology

LLO:

Linguistic Level Ontology

LRO:

Linguistic Relationship Ontology

LUO:

Linguistic Unit Ontology

LVO:

Linguistic Value Ontology

MAP:

Macroproposition Aggregation Pragmateme

PCU:

Pragmatic Co-Referential Unit

PFU:

Pragmatic Functional Unit

PTU:

Pragmatic Transposition Unit

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Pareja-Lora, A. (2014). The Pragmatic Level of OntoLingAnnot’s Ontologies and Their Use in Pragmatic Annotation for Language Teaching. In: Bárcena, E., Read, T., Arús, J. (eds) Languages for Specific Purposes in the Digital Era. Educational Linguistics, vol 19. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02222-2_15

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation