**6. References**

76 Semantics – Advances in Theories and Mathematical Models

semantics of the sentence. In crosstalk such as "Ready?" "Not yet.", no verb appears, but predication is easily recognisable, as implicit (in the question) or implied (in the answer): Implicit, specifically as *a part of* the first turn "[Are you] ready?", and implied as *the whole* turn upon which negation operates. The role of negation is in fact that of an operator, the scope of which is the whole preceding sentence structure: [It is] not yet [true that I am ready]", i.e. the preceding sentence deprived of its interrogative mood, that is to say without the suspension of assent typical of oriented questions, and shifted to the second person

During our reconstruction of the basic views on such an evergreen topic in logic and linguistic inquiries as predication, we have argued that some routes need to be modified:

i. Before predicates, theory must put predication as the basic syntagmatic act. This means

ii. Before articulating predicative relations, the sentence unit must be asserted and the reasons investigated, thus avoiding both factual and metalinguistic oversimplification. Bottom-up approaches need to be balanced by top-down approaches, which deserve a certain priority due to the causative role of the speaker and of his/her communicative intention, which gives rise to the actualisation of the speech act and to the processing of its constituents by the addressee. Compositionality is a function of (con)textuality and

iii. 'Dissimilarity', or 'asymmetry' of components (typically nouns and verbs) is the condition of 'fitness' which joins sentence constituents. Without it, we would merely have a co-presence, a juxtaposition, a simple addition. Beyond this, both Aristotelian and Fregean models attest to the feeling of a further (second step) relationship, a reference from the foreground to the background, from the present being (through the copula) to being as such; from single, determined objects of the spoken domain to the universe of discourse (the co-domain instituted as the truth or falsehood which the predicate-argument relationship refers to); from the objects the sentence is about, to the world (actual or possible) it has been assigned to. Moreover, this asymmetry is also active on another layer, that of communicative dynamism (topic-focus articulation, functional sentence perspective). Within the speech, participants in the conversation / communication exchange need to move from what is known to something new; they need to increase their already shared world of reference to new information / action

iv. Higher units, such as texts, may be further requested, but at least questions/requests and answers cannot be mutually isolated. Moreover, a useful insight into a textual (macro)structure can be derived from the identification of the question(s) and request(s)

v. The newest solutions proposed to capture the structure of the predicative link - which keeps queries and answers together- support the idea of a semantic unity displayed through a plurality of roles and their gradual identification or confirmation: this is what concepts such as functions, cases, stemmas, frames and scripts suggest - barring gaps at the beginning – who does what?, when does this happen? etc. – which have to be filled

vi. Unproven or simply intuited theoretical endeavours deserve access to data, as rich and varied as possible, in order to test their validity. In the privileged position made possible by computational linguistic tools and resources, philosophers of language,

which may be considered, albeit implicitly, to be the source of the text itself.

(addressee) to the first one (sender).

not vice versa.

upon it.

as an on-going task.

the adoption of a pragmatic framework.


(1962). *How to Do Things with Words*, Clarendon Press, Oxford


Queries and Predicate – Argument Relationship 79

Mathesius, V. (1926). *New Currents and Tendencies in Linguistic Research*. In: *MNHMA:* 

(1936). *Deset let Pražského linguistického kroužku*, «Slovo a slovesnost» 2, pp. 137–145.

*to its Theory and Practice*, pp. 137–151, Indiana University Press, Bloomington Minsky, M.A. (1974). *A framework for representing knowledge*. MIT-AI Laboratory Memo 306,

Orilia, F. (2000). *Argument Deletion, Thematic Roles, and Leibniz's Logico-grammatical Analysis of* 

Palmer, M. (2009). "*Semlink: Linking PropBank, VerbNet and FrameNet."In Proceedings of the* 

Peirce, Ch. S. (1931-35). *Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce*, ed by Ch. Hartshorne, P. Weiss, voll. 1-6, Harvard University Press – The Belknap Press, Cambridge Mass. Picardi, E. (1994). *La chimica dei concetti. Linguaggio, logica, psicologia 1879-1927*, Il Mulino,

Plato (1952). *Sophist*, with an English Translation by H. N. Fowler, William Heinemann Ltd –

Prior, M., Prior, A. (1955). *Erotetic Logic* «The Philosophical Review» 64 (1), gennaio, pp. 43-

Raynaud, S. (2002). *Equazione e giudizio. Sulla teoria della denotazione degli enunciati dichiarativi* 

(2008). *The Basic Syntagmatic Act is Predication. «*Slovo a Slovesnost», vol. LXVIII (4),

Schank, R.C., Abelson, R. (1977). *Scripts, plans, goals and understanding*, N.J. Erlbaum,

Searle, J. (1969). *Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language*, Cambridge University

(1975). *Indirect Speech Acts*, In: *Syntax and Semantics, 3: Speech Acts*, ed. P. Cole & J.

Searle, J., Vanderveken, D. (1985). *Foundations of Illocutionary Logic*, Cambridge University

Sériot, P., Samain, D. (éd.) (2008). *La structure de la proposition: histoire d'un métalangage*,

Sundén, K. F. (1916). *Essays I-II: I. The Predicational Categories in English. II. A Category of Predicational Change in English*, University Press Edv. Berling, Uppsala

Morgan, Academic Press, New York. Repr. in Searle, J. (1979). *Expression and* 

Cahiers de l'ILSL, n° 25, Centre de Linguistique et des Sciences du Langage de

*dibattito austro-tedesco (1830-1930)*, pp. 117-172, Unicopli, Milano

*Meaning*, pp. 30-57, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Sgall, P. (2006). *Language in its Multifarious Aspects*. The Carolinum Press, Prague

l'Université de Lausanne (Suisse), Lausanne

Tesnière, L. (1953). *Esquisse d'une syntaxe structurale*, Klincksieck, Paris

*in Frege*. In S. Poggi (a cura di), *Le leggi del pensiero tra logica, ontologia e psicologia. Il* 

*Anthology of Prague School Papers* , pp. 45–63, Academia, Prague

*Relations*, «History and Philosophy of Logic», pp. 147-162

Harvard University Press, London -Cambridge Mass.

*Generative Lexicon Conference.* Sept. 2009, Pisa, Italy GenLex-09

Hill, New York

Bologna

pp. 49-66

Hillsdale

Press, Cambridge

Press, Cambridge

59

*Festschrift for Josef Zubatý*, pp. 188–203 Praha; Repr. in J. Vachek (ed.) (1983). *Praguiana: Some Basic and Less Known Aspects of the Prague Linguistic School*. *An* 

Engl. transl. In J. Vachek (ed.), (1966) *The Linguistic School of Prague: An Introduction* 

June; Repr. In Wiston, P. H. (ed.), (1975)*The psychology of computer Vision*, McGraw

 (1992). *"Corpus linguistics" or "Computer-aided armchair linguistics"* in Svartvik J. (ed), *Directions in Corpus Linguistics*, Proceeding of Nobel Symposium 82, Stockholm, 4-8 August 1991, pp. 35-60, Mouton De Gruyter, Berlin,


 (2005). *Definizione e predicazione: Aristotele e Frege a confronto*, Edizioni della Fondazione Nazionale «Vito Fazio-Allmayer»


78 Semantics – Advances in Theories and Mathematical Models

(1992). *"Corpus linguistics" or "Computer-aided armchair linguistics"* in Svartvik J. (ed),

Frege, G. (1952). *Function and Concept.* In Geach, P., Black, M. (eds), *Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege*, pp. 21-41, Basil Blackwell, Oxford Frigerio, A. (2010 a). *L'unità dell'enunciato. Indeterminismo semantico e determinazioni* 

(2010 b). *L'enunciato come sistema. Il principio di composizionalità e i suoi limiti.* In L.

Fumagalli, A. (1995). *Il reale nel linguaggio. Indicalità e realismo nella semiotica di Peirce*, Vita e

Gobber, G. (1999). *Pragmatica delle frasi interrogative. Con applicazioni al Tedesco, al Polacco e al* 

(2011). *Sulla semantica della domanda tra Otto e Novecento: Bolzano, Frege, Meinong*, In:

Grice, P. (1975). *Logic and Conversation*, In: *Syntax and Semantics, 3: Speech Acts*, ed. P. Cole &

Humboldt, W. von (1999). *On Language. On the Diversity of Human Language Construction and* 

Jordania, J. (2006). *Who Asked the First Question? The Origins of Human Choral Singing,* 

Laspia, P. (1997). *L'articolazione linguistica. Origini biologiche di una metafora*, La Nuova Italia,

(2005). *Definizione e predicazione: Aristotele e Frege a confronto*, Edizioni della

Lo Piparo, F. (2005). *Aristotele e il linguaggio. Cosa fa di una lingua una lingua*, Laterza, Roma-

Malchukov, A., Sievierska, A. (2011). *Impersonal Constructions. A Cross-Linguistic Perspective*,

Marmo, C. (2004). *Una semantica del verbo nella grammatica e nella teologia tra XII e XIII secolo*.

In A. Maierù, L. Valente (eds), *Medieval Theories on Assertive and Non-assertive Language. Acts of the 14th European Symposium on Medieval Logic and Semantics*, Rome, June 11-15, 2002, Lessico Intellettuale Europeo, Leo S. Olschki Editore, Firenze

transl. by P. Heath, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

http://www.polyphony.ge/uploads/whoaskthefirst.pdf

John Benjamins Publishing Co., Amsterdam / Philadelphia

Fondazione Nazionale «Vito Fazio-Allmayer»

P. Grice, pp. 22–40, Harvard University Press (1989), Cambridge, MA Hajič, J., Panevová, J. Zdeňka Urešová, Z., Bémová, A., Kolářová, V., Pajas, P. (2003 ). PDT-

*Russo*, Pubblicazioni dell'I.S.U. – Università Cattolica, Milano

August 1991, pp. 35-60, Mouton De Gruyter, Berlin,

*realtà complessa*, pp. 155-173, Il Mulino, Bologna

*pragmatiche*, Mimesis, Milano-Udine

Geach, P. (1972). *Logic Matters*, Basil Blackwell, Oxford

26-34, Le Monnier Università, Firenze

Pensiero, Milano

ISSN 1651-0267

Roma

Bari

*Directions in Corpus Linguistics*, Proceeding of Nobel Symposium 82, Stockholm, 4-8

Urbani Ulivi (a cura di), *Strutture di mondo. Il pensiero sistemico come specchio di una* 

*Januam linguarum reserare. Saggi in onore di Bona Cambiaghi*, a cura di C. Bosisio, pp.

J. Morgan, Academic Press, New York. Repr. in *Studies in the Way of Words*, ed. H.

VALLEX: Creating a Large-coverage Valency Lexicon for Treebank Annotation, In: *Proceedings of The Second Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories*, pp. 57-68, Copyright © Vaxjo University Press, Vaxjo, Sweden, ISBN 91-7636-394-5,

*Its Influence on the Mental Development of the Human Species*, ed. by M. Losonsky,

*Intelligence, Language and Speech*, Logos, Tbilisi; full text online (pdf version):

Mathesius, V. (1926). *New Currents and Tendencies in Linguistic Research*. In: *MNHMA: Festschrift for Josef Zubatý*, pp. 188–203 Praha; Repr. in J. Vachek (ed.) (1983). *Praguiana: Some Basic and Less Known Aspects of the Prague Linguistic School*. *An Anthology of Prague School Papers* , pp. 45–63, Academia, Prague (1936). *Deset let Pražského linguistického kroužku*, «Slovo a slovesnost» 2, pp. 137–145.

Engl. transl. In J. Vachek (ed.), (1966) *The Linguistic School of Prague: An Introduction to its Theory and Practice*, pp. 137–151, Indiana University Press, Bloomington


*Meaning*, pp. 30-57, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge


**4** 

*Pakistan* 

**Semantic Cache Reasoners** 

*Centre for Distributed and Semantic Computing, Faculty of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Mohammad Ali Jinnah University Islamabad,* 

and Muhammad Tanvir Afzal

Muhammad Azeem Abbas, Muhammad Abdul Qadir

Semantic caching (Ren, Q et al., 2003),(Dar et al., 1996) is said to be a technique for storing data and their corresponding semantic descriptions. Concept of semantic cache itself is quite simple but the reasoning required to evaluate any query over a semantic cache can be very complex (Godfrey P. and Gryz J., 1997). The reasoning over stored semantics is a determination process to know how query and cache formulas are related semantically. This reasoning is termed as semantic cache query processing (Ren, Q et al., 2003),(Dar et al., 1996). In this chapter we demonstrate several semantic cache query processing techniques for relational queries, web queries, xml queries, answering queries form materialized views

Mainly there are two types of semantic query processing approaches, structured-semantics and unstructured-semantics. In structured-semantics original problem or query is represented in a structure that has the ability to contain semantics along with its structure. Examples of structured-semantics are ontology, resource description framework (RDF) and extensible markup language (XML) etc. Unstructured-semantics approaches perform reasoning for semantic extraction from structures that do not posses semantics in their representations. Semantic cache query processing is an example of unstructured-semantics reasoning. Since standard query language (SQL) is structured but it do not contains

In this chapter we demonstrate several semantic cache reasoners for unstructuredsemantics. All of these semantic cache reasoning techniques represent query language to a

In general research a semantic cache system can be grouped into two parts i) cache management and ii) query processing. Strategies for data management, replacing, coalescing, and indexing results of previously evaluated queries are mainly the part of semantic cache management. Query processing involves techniques that compute available and unavailable data from a semantic cache by performing some sort of reasoning over

**1. Introduction** 

and logic based subsumption analysis queries.

**2. Semantic cache query processing** 

semantics of data to be answered against a query and query itself.

mediate structured-semantic representation for semantic extraction.

