This thesis proposes a critical analysis of thediscourse of home recording. It aims to question home recording's will to truth by investigating what makes its statements possible, or what is the system of rules that authorize certain things to be said within thediscourse. Driven by enunciations regarding home recording's "accessibility" and "democratization", this thesis analyzes the power/knowledge relations that have been produced and legitimized within thediscourse, as well as what they enable and constrain, allow and exclude. Music magazines and Internet discussion forums form the corpus of this thesis. The methods used in this research are inspired by Michel Foucault's theory and method of discourse and by the approach known as critical interpretation (Johnson et al., 2004). This thesis' analysis shows that the government in home recording seems to be exerted by two main subjects: recording professionals and home recording "pros", who are overall characterized as well-off men. Moreover, the rules of home recording seem to be a replication and an adaptation to the home environment of the organizing principles of professional studios. This thesis suggests that "democratization" as enunciated and produced within and by thediscourse of home recording articulates the discursive notion of a "contemporary accessibility" in terms of technology and knowledge to the exclusions – such as that of women and people of limited means – that make this discourse possible. These exclusions are legitimized through what is considered the "truth" within thediscourse, as well as the norms and regulations established within it, which in turn follow the logic of the professional studio.
The Hindi word to is both a conjunction (‘so’, ‘then’), and a discourse clitic particle, both of which have usually been considered as different (homonymous) units. Thediscourse particle itself, described as intensive, vaguely contrastive (McGegor 1972: 141), or emphatic (Kellogg  1938 : 490), covers such a collection of highly distinct meanings (‘sure, well, at least, finally, will you, but’, etc.) that it too has been assumed to represent homonymous words (Shapiro 1999; Lakshmi Bai 1977). This study aims to show that the diversity of the surface meanings and functions of the latter (clitic particle) may be accounted for by a common abstract operation, implemented according to the various specific contexts of occurrence, both syntactic and enunciative (discursive). After a brief presentation of the grammatical to, always clause initial, in section 1, I will attempt in the following sections to disentangle the various factors (position and scope, intonation) at play in the scope of thediscourse particle to, and show that the operation underlying all surface meanings, as a topic marker (section 2) and as the so-called contrastive marker (section 3), involves intersubjectivity. By connecting this abstract operation with the meaning of conjunctive to, we assume polysemy rather than homonymy as the more effective explanation of the various readings of to.
[edited] Some people may go to university to receive profes- sional game education, and later(Temporal) be appointed by the big game manufacturers as technical advisers.
The system fails to translate thediscourse con- nective “而后” (later), leading to a probable mis- interpretation between receiving education and be- ing appointed as technical advisors.
The aim of thediscourse structure annotation task is to test for a possible correlation be- tween discourse opening/closing and rises. At this level of discourse organization, however, two organizational principles are competing: game and topic structures. Game initiations and topic openings are often realized through the same move. These moves are utter- ances whose discourse functions are primar- ily “forward-looking” rather than “backward- looking” in the DAMSL terminology (Core and Allen, 1997). Despite this vicinity new games do not necessarily bring new topics into discussion (e.g., simple checks or veri- fication questions), nor do topic shifts always initiate a new game (e.g a long speech-turn in- troducing a complex discourse structure made of several discourse topics). One possible ex- planation for these discrepancies is the very purpose of the dialogue game account which is purely to describe dialogues. Topics, on the other hand, concern any kind of discourse and in particular monologue stretches which are not interesting for dialogue games. The clues for recognizing these structures are also very
Cinderella as a princess movie illustrated key issues with gender roles and stereotypes. The movie line depicted female character as weak, reliant and domestic. For instance, the character of Cinderella was depicted as a submissive persona throughout the whole movie. Cinderella however was not brave enough to take her own decisions. In addition she was reliant on a prince to come and save her from the villain stepmother and sisters. This demonstrate how societies in the past particularly the American society encouraged young girls to marriage by taking into consideration that a women’s true happiness can only exist through the love of a men. At that time, marriage was viewed as a sense of security and escape from one’s family. And this is clearly depicted in Cinderella’s women characters, from Cinderella to stepmother and sisters.
into his consciousness not only the act of belonging but also the act of freedom..
In conclusion, I think a teacher needs to tackle transgression in an appropriate manner when it is deeply related to cultural pheonema. It is diagonally opposed to the western challenge to religious and political power (Ayers 136). The Noble Quran does not suppress words to plainly express man’s religious duties and sexual relations when teaching muslims. Thus, it describes these sexual relations before fasting as in Al Baqara (2:187), or Al Baqara (2:223). In many other places, licit sexual relations or illicit ones (fahcha) are cited in the Noble Quran with different words bringing different stances of imagination. Essoyuti reveals in his Asbeb Ennouzoul (44 يطويسلا) for aya 223 what we do not seem to be able to teach. The Prophet of Islam (PBUH) was of an unusual openess to teach and the first muslims used to turn to him for everything even in sexual matters. It is perhaps an ideal education type if we know how to frame it with our cultural legacy.
4.3 Procedural and requirement text analysis and improvement
This is a large project (Lelie) whose aim is to help technical writers to improve the way they produce procedural texts, specifications or requirements (Barcellini et al. 2012), (Kang et al. 2013). We address here the detection of inappropriate discourse structures. Thediscourse structure of technical documents is analyzed (including titles and instructions). Then error diagnosis are produced (1) according to the fact that some text fragments do not follow authoring guidelines as specified by the company or (2) that sen- tences have very complex discourse structures which may entail ambiguities or intensive understanding efforts from operators.
! it segments a text into EDUs;
! it computes attachment points of EDUs in a discourse structure;
! it computes one or more discourse relations between an EDU and its attachment point(s).
EDUs are discourse units containing elementary predications involving some sort of eventuality (event or state). All clauses give rise to EDUs, but appositives, parentheticals, non-restrictive relative clauses, and adverbials that are detached to the left of the main syntactic structure of a clause also introduce EDUs. Coordinated verb phrases that use recognized discourse connectors like but in John went to the store but didn’t get any milk also give rise to two EDUs. The other element involved in the tasks above that is perhaps unfamiliar to linguists who work primarily on sentential semantics and syntax are discourse relations. In general all researchers working on discourse agree that there are relations that are causal, thematic (e.g., elaboration or background) and narrative. The philosophical background for this work goes back to Hume’s taxonomy of ideas and to Kant’s categories of relation. Within these general categories, researchers and different theories of discourse structure differ as to the number of finer-grained relations. SDRT defines relations as distinct just in case they make a difference to the content of thediscourse (but not distinguish relations based on, e.g., speaker intentions).
Sciences, published by Greimas and Landowski in 1979. The
generalized extension is based on a typology of discourses that has been illustrated by specific analyses published in the 1980s (BASTIDE, 1981; BASTIDE; FABBRI, 1985; LANDOWSKI, 1986; BORDRON, 1987). One may consider that the research project led by Greimas and Landowski is thus located at the farthest point of development and initial application of the model and it is therefore a test for the narrative hypothesis. In doing so, the semiotic approach took the risk of being confronted with other models of analysis, such as they were elaborated in theoretical frameworks resulting from rhetoric (renewed in the 1950s by Chaim Perelman and his school), pragmatics (cf. PARRET 1983; 1987), sociology of knowledge (from the founding work of Berger & Luckmann, 1966), or as they relate to other theoretical currents in the language sciences (particularly, in France, the Althusserian discourse analysis). For thediscourse in social sciences, these models offer two advantages over that of semiotics: on the one hand, it seems that the theoretical postulates on which they are worked out are more directly in accord with this type of discourse; on the other hand, they can count on a solid tradition of studies to ensure the sustainability of the results. Nevertheless, the model of semiotic analysis is original and it has also an advantage: it is general. I will put forward the benefits of this generality.
Intra- versus inter- sentential connectives
These two categories are grouped under a single notion (“discourse connective”) only in thediscourse community. In syntax or in formal semantics, these two categories are totally distinct and never studied together.
Annotation After identifying the possible inferences for a premise, we pro- ceed to a systematic annotation of automatically extracted discourses which contain the premise. For gathering a corpus of discourses containing a specific premise, we developped a tool that identifies the presence of discourse relations by detecting discourse connectives marking them. The extraction is done on the French journalistic corpus Est Républicain and the corpus Europarl, in which syntactic dependencies were annotated beforehand by the Bonsai parser (Can- dito et al., 2009), using Lexconn, a lexicon of French discourse connectives (Roze et al., 2010) containing 330 connectives collected with their syntactic cat- egory and thediscourse relation(s) they express. For extracting occurrences of a premise R x (α, β)∧R y (β, γ), the tool detects the following contexts in the corpus:
I’ve argued that there is a unified theory of implicatures. Implicatures, understood as defeasible implications, arise from several sources: semantics, discourse structure or prosody together with the logical form of what is said. They employ axioms in a non-monotonic logic, the Glue Logic of SDRT, which works on logical forms rather than semantic contents in order to preserve tractability and exploit structure at the level of the sentence and thediscourse. But there are distinctions between D implicatures and S implicatures; the latter are to a large extent parasitic on the first. On my approach S implicatures are triggered by the requirements of thediscourse context; they are calculated relative to a set of alternatives either provided lexically or by thediscourse context, in large part to render consistent or to strengthen discourse relations that GL has already computed. The theory makes several new predictions: S inferences can be ‘‘cancelled’’ even if they’re consistent with the purely semantic content given information in thediscourse context; S inferences may also be uncancellable even in the face of inconsistency, when they are mandated by discourse structure; embedded S-inferences (both negative and positive) require a more elaborate discourse setting to be triggered and so should be harder to get without the appropriate discourse context. This line of thinking also suggests a line of empirical research: given the right discourse contexts, embedded implicatures should follow as easily as the unembedded ones, to some extent confirmed by Zondervan (2008) .
discourse relations such that each speech-act label is associated with a ‘discourse constituent’, which is either simple —the logical formula representing a simple clause— or complex —an SDRS representing a discourse segment. Discourse relations are either ‘coordinating’, indicating a continuation of some discourse pattern, e.g., with a ‘Narration’, or ‘subordinating’, indicating a rupture, e.g., through an ‘Elaboration’ or an ‘Explanation’, and thus induce a hierarchical structure. SDRSs are built using the ‘glue logic’ that exploits various pragmatic principles (including Gricean principles) in a non-monotonic reasoning framework to recover thediscourse relations that link the segments in any coherent discourse. In the remainder, we will assume the fundamentals of SDRT are known; for a detailed presentation of SDRT, see Asher and Lascarides (2003) and Busquets et al. (2001) for an introduction.
Political discourse has been considered as the most debatable topic in the field of discourse analysis. Accordingly, political discourse reflects the power and the ideology of politicians. Their aim is to convince people or general opinion about their political ideas and ideologies. Political discourse then refers to thediscourse practices engaged in by all actors – from politicians and organizations to citizens- in a political process. The interaction between political discourse and the audience comes through language. Hence, the politician use different techniques to convince, hook and influence the hearer or the audience. Therefore, the field of discourse analysis studies those techniques used in language and in their speeches. Politicians uses also what linguists call ‘discourse markers’. Discourse markers are considered as a sub-field to discourse analysis. It studies the function of items used to connect ideas in a given text either spoken or written. The present study tackles the impact of Trump’s language on the public opinion. The study examines different discourse markers and the most common ones in his speeches.
To sum up, we draw a major distinction between cohesion markers which a) establish connection links with the foregoing context (connectives and anaphora), and markers which b) establish indexation links with the ongoing text (framing adverbials) 2 . All these devices operate in a concerted way, facilitating access to a coherent interpretation of thediscourse, as hearers/readers progressively become aware of it. Given the importance of piloting the processing of incoming utterances, the beginning of the sentence is clearly a strategic location to indicate in advance how the situations and the participants in these situations are connected with those previously mentioned, and what connects them with the incoming information. In terms of integratedness, if we focus on this initial position, it appears that within this outlying zone there is also a continuum, to the extent that not all constituents are equally integrated, even though all are extra-clausal adverbials. On the very left of the continuum, there are full connectives (conjuncts), such as (for French) mais (‘but’), car (causative ‘since’), and on the very right (less detached than connectives because they carry ideational content) we find spatial and temporal framing adverbials (adjuncts). Between these two
In each case, like in (1), a causal relation holds between the same two events: ‘les cris de Marie’ (‘Marie's yelling’) and ‘le départ de Pierre’ (‘Pierre's leaving’). The aim of this presentation will be to determine whether the causal relation is the same in all cases and specifically whether this relation is a DR.
If no precise definition is given to characterize an elementary discourse unit (EDU), most theories agree on the fact that this unit approximately matches a syntactic clause. According to this criterion, (2) and (3) should not be segmented. So, how can we account for the causal relation involved in these examples? Should we consider that they are causal DRs and segment thediscourse despite of the syntactic criterion violation? Or should we consider that they are not causal discourse relations but just semantic relations between events? According to the first option, ‘à cause de’ (‘because of’) and ‘ont causé’ (‘caused’) would play a discourse marker role, like ‘parce que’ in (1), i.e. they would trigger a causal DR.
Scientiic discourse as argumentation
Thediscourse of scientiic papers is an argumentative discourse whose purpose is to persuade the scientiic community to accept the new knowledge and arguments presented in them and make them part of the ‘scientiic knowledge’ or ‘facts’ upon which there is a consensus within the relevant discipline. An academic career in any ield is dependent on the publication of papers, and these papers must be published in peer- reviewed journals, after having been studied and assessed by members of the same disciplinary community. The researcher’s reputation is built up over time through the publication of his work and by the degree and extent to which the other members of the community cite and use it. Consequently, some evidence of the author’s effort to persuade the readers should be found in every scientiic text of this kind. Persuasion is relevant at two stages: At the irst stage the author needs to convince the editors of the journal to accept the paper for publication, and at the second the members of the disciplinary community have to accept the new arguments and make them part of the accepted knowledge base shared by that community. Because the scientiic article is a written product, the testimony to the author’s persuasive efforts is by deini- tion linguistic and textual in nature. A rhetorical linguistic analysis of the text should take an in-depth look at the linguistic details in the context of the author’s aims. Sociologists, anthropologists and histo- rians of science, such as Latour & Woolgar (1979), Bazerman (1988), Shapin (1984), among others, have provided excellent descriptions of the scientiic text from a social perspective and its role within the disci- plinary discourse community. However, a thorough examination of the linguistic items and of their unique role in scientiic discourse should naturally be the work of linguists and discourse analysts.
In the final chapter, Biber, Connor and Upton discuss the relative merits of top-down and bottom-up approaches to discourse organisation. Contrasting the moves-based analysis of biochemistry articles performed in Chapter 4 with that of the VBDU segmented corpus of biology articles in Chapter 7, they conclude that both approaches to text segmentation produce discourse units that enable linguistic variation to be tracked successfully and can thus provide complementary insights into thediscourse-organising patterns of a genre. The authors end the book by expressing the hope that the studies presented will inspire new research in the field of discourse organisation and suggest some possible future directions, ranging from the investigation of multimodal texts (Kress & Van Leuwen 2001) to the integration of ethnographic and contextual information, through surveys and interviews with informants (cf. Bazerman & Prior 2004; Connor 2000).
4.2 Partial Discourse (PD)
This strategy takes thediscourse graph D as input and proceeds by pruning it in order to select the most important nodes for computing the overall rating. We consider two main types of pruning: (a) one based on the distinction between subordinating and coordinating relations and (b) another one based on top-level constituents. (a) can be done either by a Sub1 pruning that selects from ℵ only EDUs (or CDUs) that are the first argument of a subordinating relation or by a Sub2 pruning where the selected segments are the first argument of a subordinating relation and at the same time do not appear as the second argument of a subordinating relation. The aim here is to deal with a ’cascade’ of subordinations. On the other hand, (b) aims at deleting from ℵ nodes that are right arguments of subordinating relations or nodes that are left arguments of already pruned constituents. Pruning in (b) can be done either by using a Top1 strategy that preserves all the constituents of the CDUs or by using a Top2 strategy that reduces CDUs by recursively applying Top1 to all the elements of the CDU. The resulting set of segments ℵ ′ ⊆ ℵ, obtained after using one of the previous four pruning strategies, can be filtered by using either a subjectivity and / or a topic filter (see Section 4.1).
2 Related Works
Although rhetorical relations seem to be very useful in sentiment analysis, most extant research efforts on both document-level and sentence-level sentiment clas- sification do not use discourse information. Among the few research reports on discourse-based opinion analysis, let us cite the following.  proposed a shallow semantic representation of subjective discourse segments using a feature struc- ture and five types of SDRT-like rhetorical relations.  as well as  have used an RST discourse parser in order to calculate semantic orientation at the document level by weighting the nuclei more heavily.  proposed the notion of opinion frames as a representation of documents at thediscourse level in order to im- prove sentence-based polarity classification and to recognize the overall stance. Two sets of ’home-made’ relations were used: relations between targets and re- lations between opinion expressions.  used the semantic sequential representa- tions to recognize RST-based discourse relations for eliminating intra-sentence polarity ambiguities.  propose a context-based approach to sentiment analysis and show that discursive features improve subjectivity classification.  discuss the application of the Linguistic Discourse Model theory to sentiment analysis in movie reviews. Finally,  examine how two types of RST-like rhetorical relations (conditional and concessive) contribute to the expression of appraisal in movie and book reviews.