<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C86-1042">
  <Title>LINKING PROPOSrFIONS</Title>
  <Section position="1" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="abstr">
    <SectionTitle>
ABSTRACT
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> The function words of a language provide explicit information about how propositions are to be related. We have examined a subset of these function words, namely the subordinating conjunctions which link propositions within a sentence, using sentences taken from corpora stored on magnetic tape. On the hasis of this analysis, a computer program for Dutch language generation and comprehensien has been extended to deal with the subordinating,; conjunctions. We present an overview of the underlying dimensions that were used in describing the semantics and pragmatics of the Dutch subordinating conjunctions. We propose a Universal set of Linking Dimensions, sufficient to speeify the subordinating conjunction.,; in any language. This ULD is a first proposal for the representation required for a computer program to understand or translate the subordinating conjunctions of any natural language.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> I. Introduction Languages provide speakers with the means to express propositions and to link these propositions. Propositions are expressed in language by means of clauses. These can form sentences in themselves, or they may be linked together within one sentence, either at tim same level or embedded one within the other. It is this last category of linking, by means of subordinate conjunctions, in which we are interested. Tile questions that we ask are: Do languages provide a systematic way of expressing the possible subordinating links between propositions? If they do, which dimensions cat\] be used to capture the means that are provided in all languages for these links? What is this Universal set of Linking Dimensions {ULD)? We have atl:empted to provide a systematic description of the subordinating conjunctions (SCs) in Dutch. It is this description that we will use to propose a UI.D. At the top level we have divided the SCs into just four types: inferential, temporal, causal and manner SCs. This is fewer than the dozen or so types found in the traditional and modern grammars, which give a 'flat' taxonomic tree, making all tile obvious distinctions at the first level. At each branch in the taxonomic tree, we have tried to mal(e as few divisions as possible, in order to make tile motivation for each split clear.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> These four categories were chosen because they enable quite different kinds of relationship to be set up between a main and a subordinate proposition. They each indicate a different function that the subordinate event/state has in relation to the main predication. The most abstract relationship is that of inference, in which the speaker uses the sub proposition to give the grounds for his belief concerning the truth status of the main proposition. The other three types indicate more than simply a relationship between beliefs {propositions); they convey the speakerVs beliefs about relationships that exist qn reality ~. Two of these are quite specific: time and cause. Tile fourth category of SC, manner, also serves to indicate that there is a relationship 'in reality' between the sub and main events/states; however, this relationship is one that depends highly on the schema that the observer uses to codify what he sees.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> We will now describe the sub trees for each of these four types of linkage. The meanings of the Dutch SCs, taken from Van Wijk and Kempen {1980), have been determined using: sentences taken from a Dutch corpus (Uit den Boogaard, 1975; shown as e.g. 1.2345); the authoritative Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst -</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>